Panarion (Against Heresies) 1 part 60/82

For indeed concerning this he prophesied, saying in the Hebrew tongue, 'Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani.'

This the Lord fulfilled in due sequence upon the cross, speaking the things prophesied concerning him: 'Eli, Eli,' in the Hebrew word, as it had been written beforehand; and no longer in Hebrew, but completing the paired phrase in the Syriac tongue, he said 'lema sabachthani,' so that he might use the beginning as it had been written concerning him, but might turn the remainder of the saying, according to the narrative, into another language.

And he did this for a good purpose, so as to confess that the saying had been spoken concerning him by the prophet, by saying 'Eli, Eli,' while the remainder was no longer in the Hebrew word but in Syriac, so that he might bring down the pride of those who boast in the Hebrew tongue, and might also make other languages worthy to fulfill the sayings concerning him.

For he was now about to spread the knowledge of himself over all the nations, and not upon the Hebrews only, as this whole sequence in the twenty-first psalm indicates, declaring, from the person of his enfleshed presence, all his human-like sufferings.

And he himself, having come, fulfilled it, since all things in the whole psalm are consistent with this account of the enfleshed presence of Christ, the narrative being most perfectly fulfilled, as it says: 'And they divided my garments among themselves, and they pierced my hands and my feet; and they looked and stared at me.'

And whatever other things of this kind are said, which cannot possibly be fulfilled in the divinity, but in the flesh, the divinity arranging all things in impassibility and in truth.

But again they leap up, like mad dogs seized by some rabid frenzy, who through their madness fail to recognize their own master and attack him first; and again they say, whenever they hear from us what is true — as the Lord says in the Gospel concerning his disciples, 'Those whom you have given me, Father, I have kept them in the world,' and again, 'Make them that they may be in me, as I and you are one' — they say, 'Do you see what is said by him, that "I am in the Father and the Father in me and the two of us are one"? This is not spoken concerning equality, but concerning concord.' For how could the disciples be in him according to equality, but only according to concord? And immediately the truth of God altogether refutes them, since neither could the disciples fulfil this, nor could this be said concerning them, unless the Word had come and shared in their flesh, and joined them to himself unto adoption as sons.

For this reason, too, throughout the Song of Songs he calls his holy church 'my near one,' addressing her with his holy, rousing and exhorting voice, saying, 'Arise, come, my near one, my fair one, my dove.'

And do you see how he calls her 'near'? But the church could not be called 'near' to Christ, unless he had come from above and drawn near to her, through the flesh of like passions which he took, so that, having gathered those who became obedient near to himself, he might call the humanity that had drawn near to him the holy and spotless bride.

And for this reason here the Word, our only-begotten Lord, asks the Father concerning the disciples, that they may be in himself, so that, the disciples having been sanctified by the good pleasure of the Father, he might join the kinship that came to be with him through the flesh into a unity of good pleasure and adoption, so that they might have, in the Firstborn of the Father, their registration among the firstborn in heaven.

...the faith and the knowledge of his truth, lest any of his servants fall into some suspicion and thereby such a one fall away from hope — he says, 'that they may be one, as I and you are one, so also may these be one.'

For I and you are one, because he is God from God and consubstantial in divinity.

And 'we are one' does not signify a single person.

For he did not say, 'I am one,' but 'I and you.'

And he says 'we are one' in order to refute Sabellius and his school, who supposes the Son and the Father to be a mere blending, and likewise the Father in relation to the Holy Spirit.

For this reason he says, 'we are one,' and did not say, 'I am one.'

For there are two perfect persons, Father and Son, yet one on account of equality, on account of the one divinity and one power and one likeness.

In divinity, then, Father and Son are one; in the incarnation, the Son and the disciples are one, those who, through the worthiness of their calling as disciples, are brought, unto the inexpressible measure of his love for mankind, into one unity of adoption as sons, through the good pleasure of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

And thus, once again, the error of those who vainly think ill concerning their own Master has been refuted.

Having now passed over this saying as well, I will examine the ones that follow.

But the sophists spring forward, inventing for themselves certain sayings, being occupied with syllogisms and reasonings of vain-mindedness — men attempting to syllogize about God — just as the prophet also rebukes them, saying, 'Shall anyone trip up God by the heel, that you trip me up by the heel?' For what again do these noble fellows say? As we set out above and explained the other saying which they extend to us as a question — 'Did he beget the Son willing, or not willing?' — we showed concerning God that nothing whatsoever is a matter of futurity for him, but all things are at once perfect in him, and he does not first will before he acts, nor does he act without deliberation, and yet he does not deliberate in order to prepare something, nor does his preparation stand in need of deliberation.

So that with him the offspring has always been begotten, and did not begin in time, but exists as having always been begotten together with the Father, and never ceases; and here again, repeating the saying a second time, I state again that he begot neither willing nor unwilling, but in a nature that transcends will.

For the Son is the offspring of nature, above will and every conception and every conjecture.

But similar to this saying, as I said, the new Aristotelians invent for us another one.

For they have modeled themselves after his venomous spite, and have forsaken the guilelessness and gentleness of the Holy Spirit, as the Lord says, 'Learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'

But these men, having abandoned gentleness, have rather given themselves over to cleverness, clothing themselves with Aristotle and the other dialecticians of this world, whose fruits also they pursue, knowing no fruit of righteousness, nor having been deemed worthy to possess within themselves the gift of the Spirit — these lovers of strife.

They say to us, then, whenever we say to them that the Son who is was with the Father who is — since indeed the Father said to Moses, 'You shall say to them...'

'The One who is has sent me' — and again the Gospel declares concerning the Son that 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God' — if we say that the One who is was with the One who is, they say to us:

'Was it, then, the existing one that was begotten, or the non-existing one that was begotten? For if he existed, how was he begotten? But if he was begotten, how did he exist?' And this belongs to that same vain-mindedness which occupies itself with disputations, treads upon lofty matters, meddles with things above, and accomplishes nothing good.

From where does this notion of yours come, to think such things? And if they say that reason itself demands such an inquiry, we too say:

'Well then, tell us, you men, are you reasoning about your own affairs, or about the things of God?' Then they say:

'As rational beings, we reason about the things of God from ourselves.'

'Then does God differ in nothing from your own condition, your nature and substance?' 'Yes,' they say.

As for your nature: first, your nature is not able to comprehend the incomprehensible things concerning God.

And second, it is impious that God should be likened to yourselves according to your own substance.

For in our case, that which did not exist is begotten, since we ourselves once were not, but were begotten from our fathers, who themselves also at some time did not exist — and this must be traced from the beginning back to Adam.

But Adam came into being from the earth, not having existed previously; and the earth itself came into being out of things that did not exist, since it was not eternal.

And such as Adam was by nature, such a son did he beget.

But God begot him as one who always existed, not as a brother, but as begotten from himself, like to himself in nature: Lord from Lord, God from God, true God from true God.

And whatever things one thinks concerning the Father, in the same way one must also think concerning the Son.

Whatever one believes concerning the Son, in the same way one must also regard the Father.

For thus it says: whoever does not believe in the Son as he believes in the Father, and does not honor the Son as he honors the Father, the wrath of God shall remain upon him — as the divine Gospel has it.

And thus their syllogistic reasoning has once again collapsed.

For God, being incomprehensible, begot an incomprehensible God before all ages and before times, and there is no interval between Son and Father; but the moment you conceive of the Father, at the same moment you conceive of the Son; the moment you name the Son, at the same moment you point to the Father.

For from the Father the Son is conceived, and from the Son the Father is known.

For whence is there a Son, unless he has a Father? And whence a Father, unless he has begotten the Only-Begotten? For when could the Father fail to be called Father, or the Son fail to be called Son, that some should conceive of a Father without a Son, who later arrived, as it were, at some advancement and begot the Son — so that only after the begetting the Father should be called Father of a Son, as though the Perfect One were advancing in divinity, though he never at all stands in need of perfection?

But again they make excuses, wishing to cast away from themselves this healing medicine and salvific antidote — the firm foundation of the faith of the holy church of God — saying:

'Whence is this term "substance" brought upon us? Why is the Son called consubstantial with the Father? What Scripture spoke of consubstantiality? Which of the apostles spoke of the substance of God?' But they do not know that both 'hypostasis' and 'substance' amount to the same thing in meaning.

For the Lord exists in his own hypostasis, and is 'the radiance of his glory and the exact imprint of his hypostasis.'

Not as some superadded property, but as very Being itself — as Moses says, having told the sons of Israel, 'He who is has sent me.'

'He who is,' then, is Being itself; and Being is the very substance that exists.

And 'consubstantial,' again, does not signify a single one, but from the prefix 'homo-' it signifies two perfect beings.

But they are not different from one another, nor are they alien to their own unity.

And if, for the sake of piety, we have made use of some word not found in Scripture, it is on account of the bond of truth; for without confessing 'consubstantial,' there can by no means be any refutation of the heresies.

For just as the serpent hates the smell of asphalt and the breath of the deer and the fragrance of the burnt jet-stone and the smoke of storax, so also Arius and Sabellius hate the word of the confession in truth of the consubstantial; but to them too we shall say:

Even if the term were not found in the divine Scriptures — but it is, and it is clearly present in the Law and among the apostles and the prophets —

'for by two or three witnesses every word shall be established'; yet even so it would have been permissible for us, for the sake of piety, to use a useful term in order to safeguard the holy faith.

But what do you say? Tell us, you people!

What do you say concerning the Father? Is the Father uncreated? Certainly, yes.

For who is so foolish as to doubt this? What madman would suppose that God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is not uncreated? For indeed you yourselves also confess this: that he is unbegotten and uncreated and unoriginate.

For, according to what is written, he has no father before him, nor a fixed number of years, nor a beginning of days.

If then he has neither beginning of time nor end, it has been agreed that he is uncreated, and this is beyond doubt;

yet nowhere is this written concerning him.

We are compelled to think and to say these things piously concerning him, even though it is not written.

So too we are compelled to speak of the 'homoousion,' even though it were not written, in our own tongue and with a certain constraint of language — even though speaking about God may seem to be beyond us and beyond our nature.

But nevertheless, may the Lord himself pardon us; for we wish not to be pleading on behalf of his divinity, since our discourse is in no way needed by it —

but it is necessary to speak piously and to think piously, lest we perish.

So then, answer us, you disciples of Arius:

We all together say that the Father is unbegotten and uncreated, and clearly this is a marvelous term;

Where then is this written? Show us the passage.

For neither the Law has said it, nor the prophets, nor the gospel, nor the apostles.

If then we piously speak a term that is not written, and it is acceptable when spoken for the glory of God, who could bring a charge against us, even if indeed the 'homoousion' were not written?

since we have found a word by which we shall be able to confess with certainty the ground of our salvation? But indeed there are testimonies, together with pious reasoning — both those already set forth and many others besides.

But I will pass over this term as well, and I will unravel, with reference to God, the other sayings and contrivances of theirs, spoken as a lure against the simple.

For these same men say again — along with all the sayings from the apostle and the gospels which they corrupt according to their own mind, maliciously misconstruing them — bringing forward this one too from the apostle, as it is said in the Epistle to the Corinthians, in the chapter concerning the resurrection of the dead, where it says in sequence: 'then comes the end, when he delivers up the kingdom to God the Father, when he abolishes all rule and all authority and power.'

'For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.'

'The last enemy to be abolished is death.'

'But when it says that all things have been subjected to him, it is clear that this is except for him who subjected all things to him.'

'And when all things have been subjected to him, then the Son himself also will be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all.'

They seize, then, upon this saying, and, in keeping with their habitual hostility toward the Only-Begotten, seek to overturn his ineffable and glorious divinity — as I have often said, being carried away by folly — and they say:

'Do you see that it says, "then comes the end, when he delivers up the kingdom to God the Father, when he abolishes all rule and all authority and power"?'

'For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.'

'Now the words "must," and "until," and "when he delivers up the kingdom," are a determination of time.' And blaspheming, they say: 'These are indicative of the cessation and termination of the one reigning — "until he delivers up the kingdom to God the Father."'

But from the outset they do not know the sense of the truth: that because the Only-Begotten partook of flesh and blood, the human sufferings concerning him and concerning his incarnate coming are sung and spoken of as things receptive of glory — yet not apart from his ever-perfect and glorious divinity, which needs nothing in order to receive glory, but possesses glory of itself and perfection of itself.

as he himself gives account concerning the two aspects, saying, concerning the recent one: 'Glorify me, Father, with the glory which I had with you before the world existed.'

And the Father, in declaring the glory of the two relations — concerning the first, according to the Spirit, that 'I have glorified,' in order to show its timeless nature; and concerning the recent one, on account of the incarnate coming, that 'I will glorify again' —

so that here too the clarity might be demonstrated concerning what the apostle also said, setting forth the truth about him in a twofold manner — including the phrase 'until he delivers up the kingdom to God the Father,' on account of the incarnate coming, which had a beginning in time.

For the divinity of the Only-Begotten was always with the Father — that is, the only-begotten God the Word, who proceeded from the Father without beginning and without time.

Otherwise, how will what was spoken by the angel be fulfilled: 'The Spirit of the Lord will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you'? Since he was also saying to her, 'You shall bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus' — in order to show that the God-Word had come down from above and had been made flesh in the womb of that same virgin and had truly become man, and in order that he might not sever the incarnate perfection from the divine perfection — he added, saying to her, 'Therefore also the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.'

Since, then, these statements are set in contrast to one another — that 'he must reign until' what follows comes to pass, and that 'he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever' (and Scripture did not say 'for the age' only, but 'for the ages'), and again, that 'when he delivers up the kingdom to God the Father' is set over against 'and of his kingdom there will be no end' — and since both these statements about the Lord and Christ were made by wholly trustworthy persons, the one by the angel Gabriel, who is holy, the other by the holy apostle, who was borne by the Spirit — what then would those ignorant of vital matters have to say? Could Scripture, then, be at variance with itself, though it is ever wholly truthful? Far be it!

But, as we said from the beginning, on account of the assumptive nature of the incarnation, all these things possess a reasonable consistency.

For if he delivers up the kingdom in time, then would he not now even be reigning —

— but if he is not yet reigning, how is it that he is found to be continually worshiped by the angels and archangels, both before the incarnate coming and in the incarnate coming, as Scripture says concerning him: 'And when he brings the firstborn into the world,' it says, 'let all the angels of God worship him'; and again, 'he sat down at the right hand of the Father'; and again, 'to him every knee will bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth'?

Therefore, he who is worshiped by all is always reigning.

What then shall we say — since the Son has always been reigning, from of old, and now, and hereafter, seeing that he has not yet delivered the kingdom to the Father — is the Father then excluded from reigning? Far be it!

For he reigns together with the Father, and the Father reigns together with the Son and the Holy Spirit.

But what do they say? That when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father he himself ceases from reigning? Far be it!

Otherwise, how would 'and of his kingdom there shall be no end' be fulfilled? Rather, this is said to show that nothing in the Son has been or is being accomplished that is rebellious and separate from union with the Father, and from the one will of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

For here too we see, concerning him, that it is said of the Son that 'when he delivers up the kingdom to God the Father, when he abolishes all rule and authority and power' — as though the Son himself were delivering up the kingdom and abolishing all rule, and so forth — and that 'he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet' — as though the Son himself were accomplishing all things, exercising full authority and power, and delivering to the Father, together with the kingdom, those who have been made subject.

Then it further passes over to another person again, namely the Father, who subjects all things to the Son, and it says, 'He put all things in subjection under his feet.'

'The last enemy to be abolished is death.'

No longer, then, from the person of the Father alone, nor from the person of the Son alone, but in the very midst of the persons of the Father and the Son, it says: 'The last enemy to be abolished is death.'

'But when it says that all things have been subjected to him,' and so forth.

I should like, then, to ask these same men: from whose person is the word 'it says' spoken?

For the depth of the mysteries of God judges, in a spiritual manner, those who are fleshly;

for the fleshly man does not receive the things of the Spirit;

for here, as to 'when it says that all things have been subjected to him' — if it is the Father speaking with reference to the Son, the matter is deficient;

for it is rather the Son who yields all things to the Father;

but if 'when it says that all things have been subjected to him' is spoken from the person of the Son, the thought is deficient, because it reckons certain things as still pending in God, whether in the Father or in the Son.

But who is it that says, 'all things have been subjected'? For it did not say, 'when they say' —

for if this 'when they say' were spoken of the Son, it could be fulfilled as referring either to the angels or to those who have been made subject.

But since above he had indicated the Son subjecting all things to the Father and delivering up the kingdom, and the Father subjecting all things to the Son, there remained, for these word-hunters, only the person of the Holy Spirit;

for this reason, without ambiguity, after the person of the Son and the person of the Father, he likewise intimated the person of the Holy Spirit, who always declares and teaches the things of the Father and the Son, so that he might not leave incomplete the perfect knowledge concerning the Trinity, and concerning the incarnate coming that receives glory.

'The last enemy to be abolished is death.'

And that which has been abolished is bound in fetters, no longer working what it once worked, nor even any longer existing;

What then do those who do not know how to understand the Scriptures have to say about this? Must we then suppose concerning the Son that he will cease from reigning, if indeed the word had that sense? But we would then be committing impiety, and we would be so bold as to number him among those who have been made subject — especially as one who has ceased operating what he formerly operated.

For none of those who truly believe in Christ and hope in him will think it fitting to speak or to hear anything unbecoming to his glory, as these men vainly suppose.

But divine Scripture teaches all this, saying, 'when it says that all things have been subjected to him,' clearly this is except for him who subjected all things to him.

'And when all things have been subjected to him, then the Son himself also will be subjected to him who subjected all things to him' — so that what was signified from the beginning by the angel, being here joined together through a similarity of wording, might declare the whole expression of the power of the Word both consistently and clearly, just as the angel had also said something similar, having first signified the Son from above, and then, with the addition concerning the incarnate coming, indicating the union — saying, 'therefore also that which is born of you,' with the added 'also,' 'will be called holy, the Son of God.'

For this reason, then, and on account of such things — since it says, 'therefore also that which is born will be called Son of God' — for this reason the Son himself will be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, so that the fleshly element might no longer be fleshly in power, but united with the divinity — the fleshly element being brought into one union — reigning together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, of whose kingdom there will be no end.

And from the time he rose, 'that God may be all in all' took its beginning.

For the fleshly element has been united together, in a spiritual manner, into one with his divinity.

But since he says, 'Do this in remembrance of me,' until the coming of the Son of Man, 'and thus you will see him,' in the manner in which you saw him taken up — then, at last, once all things have been perfected, and nothing further remains to be fulfilled with respect to his divinity, it is then that 'God may be all in all' is to be referred.

This is what is signified, so that there might be no division;

for it is not so, lest it be thought to be polytheism.

For there is one doxology.

For neither now is the Son subjected to the Father as though the Father were tyrannizing him, nor is he subjected as a slave lacking authority — he who is begotten of the Father, of the same nature and the same Godhead; nor is he subjected to the Father then by way of deficiency, nor by inferiority, nor by necessity, nor by expiration of a term, but as a true and only-begotten Son, reigning always together with the Father, leading up all creation into one unity and into one prize of honor, and teaching his Church, that God may be all in all — since the Godhead is one, the lordship one, the doxology of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit one; the Father being fittingly honored by the Son as by a true son, and the Holy Spirit as being no stranger to Father and Son.

These are the very words and contrivances of the enmity toward the Son and the Holy Spirit, spoken by those who blaspheme against the Son of God and the Holy Spirit.

And once again, having detected the things wickedly devised by them, we have overturned them.

Again they gather up certain sayings from the Gospel and say:

'Why can the Son do nothing of himself, unless he sees the Father doing it?' And they do not understand, from the very outset, what is being said — that it is not that the Father acted first and the Son afterward fashioned the same thing by imitation.

For what heaven did the Father make by himself, that the Son, taking the likeness from the pattern of that first heaven, might so fashion another? But none of those who devise this wickedness can show this.

For 'in the beginning God made the heaven and the earth.'

But at once, in the beginning, in the making of the world, he says, 'Let us make man according to our image and likeness'; he did not say, 'Come, I shall make him and show you how you are to work.'

And then God made man; and it is not said that he made him and then showed the Son how man ought to be made.

For the Son was not in ignorance, that only after learning the art he might then produce what comes from it.

But rather, when our Lord came again and put on flesh and became man and dwelt among us, he was speaking to the Jews, who supposed that he was overturning the things of the Father; and wishing to raise up their understanding, so that they would not attend only to his becoming man, he said, 'The Son does nothing unless he sees the Father doing it,' in order to show that the work of the Son is the work of the Father, and that the Father is well pleased with the whole economy of his working.

Thus also, in due sequence, regarding the other sayings, stumbling like wild beasts and being refuted, they will be driven off before the lightning-flash of the Word, that is, of the truth.

'Flash forth lightning and you will scatter them; send out your arrows and you will throw them into confusion.'

For appended to this saying are the things which they gather up in sequence and cite from the Gospel: 'For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all things that he himself does, and greater works than these will he show him, that you may marvel'; and again, 'the Father raises the dead and gives life.'

'So also the Son gives life to whom he will'; and again, 'for the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.'

Now observe, then, Arius, the conclusion of the argument directed against you — to what end the Word has come.

He did not say 'some yes and some no,' but 'that all may honor the Son, as they honor the Father.'

Do not, therefore, dishonor the Son, lest you dishonor the Father.

For if you reckon something inferior concerning the Son, or think of him as deficient, does not your thought thereby ascend also to the Father? For it is the very same audacity on your part to think meanly of the Son and not to honor him as you honor the Father.

For to what end does the Father give this to him — tell me, my good fellow, what does it say? 'That the Son may give life to whom he wills.'

Now the Son had to receive all these things from the Father, yet not so as to be inferior to the Father — chiefly for two reasons:

first, in order to lead up our understanding to the one union of the Godhead — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — and not to bring human reasoning down into divisions and polytheism, but to refer it to one unity;

and second, also with a view to the transformation of glory in his fleshly coming, and to the union of that glory with his Godhead.

'the mind of man is set diligently upon evil things from his youth.'

For this reason one evangelist said 'on the eighth day.'

For there was still a portion of the day remaining when he spoke this word, and he reckoned from that day and hour, the day being already declining, about the ninth or tenth hour;