Fragments

The Supremacy of Jesus' Name§1

The Creation of the Flesh§2

2The body was able to attain such antiquity. But let one understand that even if it happens that the human flesh is most especially newer, yet the Word, having deemed it worthy to take this up through a pure virgin, having thus united it to himself, did not only accomplish that the man formed within himself be 'firstborn of all creation' (Col 1:15), but he also intends to be the beginning of all things, not of those on earth only, but also of those in the heavens.

Therefore, this main point of the Proverb (Prov 8:22) is not intended to present the beginning of the divinity of our Savior, as they themselves think, saying 'the Lord created me,' but the second economy according to the flesh; for this reason he mentions creation as a convenient way of referring to the human flesh. Surely the creation differs in its actual matter regarding his being according to man. Therefore he says, 'the Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works'; he says 'created me' clearly through the virgin Mary, through whom God intended to unite the human flesh to his own Word.

Because of this, then, having it thus, it is following to observe with the mind that main point of the Proverb said in this way: 'the Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works' (Prov 8:22). For our Lord God, the Master, having created what was not, has brought it into being; for the flesh, which the Word took up, was not existing, but rather, not existing, 'he created the beginning of his ways.' So then, fittingly, since the ancient things have passed away and new things are going to be, all through the newness of our Savior, our Lord Christ cried out through the prophet saying, 'the Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works' (Prov 8:22).

For this has become to us, those of us who are about to live justly in godliness, a way; the beginning of all the ways following these. And he has appropriately said 'beginning' and 'ways' concerning the Lord our Savior, because even of the other ways, which we have possessed, after the first way, a beginning has become, the traditions made manifest through the holy apostles of the 'from on high,' according to the prophecy, having preached to us this new mystery of 'proclamation.' 'He therefore created me,' he says, 'as the beginning of his ways for his works' (Prov 8:22). And what works does he say? Concerning which the Savior says, 'my Father is working until now, and I am working' (John 5:17), and again he says, 'the work,' 'I have finished what you gave me to do' (John 17:4).

For who could have believed, before the demonstration of the things, that the Word, having been begotten through a virgin, would take up our flesh and bodily demonstrate the whole deity in it? (16) 'Before the age he founded me,' calling this a foundation, refers to the economy predestined according to his flesh. (17) As also the apostle says, 'for no one can lay another foundation except that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ' (1 Corinthians 3:11). And of one age he mentions here, from which he said the things concerning Christ were to be founded, even though many ages have passed, as David said, 'the one existing before the ages' (Psalm 55:19). (17) For since Asterius has said that the Word came into being before the ages, the very words themselves refute him as lying; so as to protest not only the matter, but also the letter. (18) For if Proverbs says, 'before the age he founded me' (Proverbs 8:23), how did he say that he himself had come into being before the ages? For it is one thing to be founded before the age, and another to have come into being before the ages.

Just as the Pantokrator God predestined the church of old, (19) so also the economy according to the flesh of Christ, through whom he predestined to call the race of the God-fearing 'unto adoption of sonship,' having previously founded it in his own thought. (19) Because of this, the apostle clearly pre-announces by the Holy Spirit 'the predestined Son of God,' saying. (20) Surely, if even a mystery most new has appeared at the end of times, such that because of this it was predestined before this age, it is fitting that the prophet said, 'before the age he founded me,' making clear the flesh, because of the communion with the Word, his true Son. (21)

Then he says, 'in the beginning,' 'before making the earth' (Proverbs 8:23). What earth, this one? Meaning our flesh, the earth which becomes again after the disobedience. (21) For 'earth' he says, 'I am,' and 'and into earth I shall depart' (Genesis 3:19). For it was necessary for this to receive healing, having shared in some way with the Holy Word. (22) Then he says, 'before making the abysses' (Proverbs 8:24); here the prophet proverbially says the abysses are the hearts of the saints, those having the gift of the Spirit in their own depth. (23)

What then is this main point, 'before the springs of the waters came forth' (Proverbs 8:24)? He says they are the holy apostles. (23) And this mystery presents to us the scripture of Exodus, pre-announcing long ago the types of the apostles. (24) For twelve...

The Twelve Springs and the Star§3

3Regarding the number of the apostles, twelve springs are remembered. Thus, concerning the fleshly generation, the Lord spoke through the prophet Solomon, saying, 'before the springs of the waters came forth' (Proverbs 8:24). Likewise, the Savior said toward the holy springs, 'having gone, make disciples of all nations' (Matt 28:19). It is evident from everywhere that the holy apostles and springs were tropically named by the prophet. Since we have spoken about those that went before, it follows to fill up the remainder. The remainder concerns the mountains and the hills. For he says, 'before the mountain was established' (Proverbs 8:25), and 'before all the hills, I beget you' (Proverbs 8:25). He calls the apostles and the successors of the apostles mountains and hills, so that the just administration concerning them might be indicated proverbially among other men.

Therefore, it seems to me that it is good to pass through even those things which we have not yet previously passed through. For most of those written by him have become clear to us from those already mentioned to us. 'From the womb,' he says, 'before the Morning Star, I begat you' (Psalm 110:3; LXX 109:3), instead of 'I brought you forth'; for he thought that someone, having stolen the intention, would join in with the opinion of the heresy. Therefore, regarding the most important matter, having removed the syllable 'ex', he wished to indicate his ancient rebirth.

How then do those who are 'full of guile and fraudulence' (Acts 13:10), to speak apostolically, transfer the word to his first, as they think, creation, even though David clearly spoke this concerning his fleshly generation? For since darkness existed previously through the ignorance of godliness, he appropriately names the Morning Star after the day that is about to shine ('I am,' he says, 'the day' Ps 110:3). Therefore, because the Morning Star, who makes the day manifest, was so named by the prophet David, it is no longer right to seek who this Morning Star is, whoever he may be; for he was the star that appeared most recently, both bringing and declaring the day to the magi.

It is therefore evident that the phrase 'I begot you before the morning star' (Psalm 110:3; LXX 109:3), spoken by the Pantokrator regarding the Word being born with human flesh through the Virgin, clearly signifies this of the Gospel: first, that our Lord was produced through the Virgin, and later, that the star which indicates the day appeared. For where else from the divine utterances can we find written that one is unbegotten and one is begotten in this way, as they themselves believed him to have been begotten; neither have prophets, evangelists, or apostles said this?

Therefore, the holy apostle and disciple of the Lord, John, remembering his simplicity, became a true witness of the Word, saying, 'In the beginning was the Word' [John 1:1], 'and the Word was with God, and the Word was God' [John 1:1]. Not mentioning any beginning of the Word there, but using three alternating testimonies, he established that the Word was in the beginning. I will remind you of what he himself wrote, presenting it to those written badly by Eusebius, so that you may know it clearly stands apart from the former promise. For he wrote to them in these words: the main point of the epistle is to bring forward the will of the Father regarding the generation of the Son, and not to let the birth of God appear as a passion. This is what the wisest of the fathers declared in their local compositions, guarding against the impiety of the heretics, who, setting forth dogmas, falsely judged the Godhead's childbearing to be something physical and passional.

Thus, Asterius, wishing to sympathize with Eusebius who wrote badly, by mentioning the nature of the Father and the nature of the unbegotten, has himself become his own accuser. For it was much better for the depth of Eusebius's meaning, as he himself wrote, to be left unexamined lying in brevity, than to use such a theory to bring the craftiness of the letter into the light. To say that he was begotten before the ages seems to follow; for an offspring comes from the one preceding it as a father. But regarding the other matter, he has not responded to it healthily or piously. For to not say that the one proceeding from him is the Word, and that this is the true manner of the generation, but merely a son, seems to provide some to those hearing a human perspective.

Paulinus did not write these things reminding of evangelical teaching, but confessing that some move thus from themselves, and some have this manner from the readings of the aforementioned men. Then finally, as if bringing a crown to the proof, he himself subscripted from the original words in his letter,

Critique of Origen's Trinitarianism§4

4Rather, it is possible to convince others by the evangelists and the apostles. And these are the spoken words: having repeated the formula concerning Father and Son and Holy Spirit, a few of those left from that time are to be set forth; concerning the Father, as being undivided and without division, he becomes Father of the Son, not putting him forth, as some suppose. For if the Son of the Father is a thing put forth and a generation from him, like the generations of living creatures, it is necessary for the one putting forth and the one being put forth to be a body.

Origen wrote these things, not desiring to learn the simplicity of the word from the holy prophets and apostles, but daring to narrate a second hypothesis of the word, having given it to himself. For that Origen writes such things using his own dogmas is evident from which he also many times overturns his own teachings. In another passage where he speaks concerning God, it is necessary to remind the reader.

And he writes thus: For God the Father did not begin to be a father being hindered, as men who become fathers are, by the fact of not being able to be fathers yet. For if God is always perfect, and there is in him the power to be himself Father, and to be a good Father of such a Son, why is it necessary for him to cast himself down and to make himself secure, and, so to speak, as it is possible to be Father, does he not become Father? The same thing, however, must be said concerning the Holy Spirit.

How then, after Origen had written even this, did the blessed Paulinus, according to him, consider it not dangerous to conceal this, but to use it for the construction of what seemed right to him against the opponents, whose argument I would not say even Origen could be able to refute? And Paulinus, being persuaded by these spoken words and by this man's father, is not hesitant to say and to write the same things, sometimes calling Christ a second god and this one having become a more human god, sometimes defining him to be a creature. For he held that Christ is a creature, even towards us, when pursuing the heretics at Ancyra.

And because of this, he does not call himself the Son of God, but everywhere he calls himself the Son of Man, so that through such a confession he might prepare the man to become a son of God through the fellowship with him, and after the end of the work, again, as the Word, he might be united with God, fulfilling that which was foretold by the apostle: 'then he himself will be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, so that God may be all in all' (1 Cor 15:28). For it will be like what it was before.

For the Word 'was in the beginning' (John 1:1) was nothing other than the Word. But the man having been united to the Word, who was not previously, has become a man as John teaches us, saying, 'and the Word became flesh' (John 1:14). Therefore, it seems he mentions only the Word, whether the divine Scripture mentions the name of Jesus or Christ, appearing to name the Word of God who is after the flesh of the human. And if anyone promises to be able to show the name of Christ or Jesus solely upon the Word before the new covenant, he will find this said prophetically, as is also clear from this: 'the kings of the earth and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ' (Acts 4:26).

So it is evident from every side that it is not fitting to fit any name other than that which the most holy disciple and apostle of the Lord, John, said at the beginning of the Gospel, due to the simplicity of the Word. Since Christ and Jesus are preached after the ascension of the flesh, and as life and the way and the day and the resurrection and the door and the bread (John 14:6), if anything else were named by the divine Scriptures, it does not befit us to ignore the first name, that he was the Word. For this reason also the most holy evangelist and disciple of the Lord, being very awake in the spirit, remembering the beginning from above and nothing newer, said, 'In the beginning was the Word' (John 1:1), and 'the Word was with God, and the Word was God' (John 1:1), in order that he might show that if there is a new and newer name, it is from the new economy of Him according to the flesh.

For Sabellius himself, having slipped from the right faith, knew neither God accurately nor His holy Word. For he who did not know the Word ignored also the Father. For he says, 'no one knows the Father except the Son' (Matthew 11:27), that is, the Word; for the Word provides the knowledge of the Father through himself. In this way also toward those who claim to know God like the Jews, while rejecting His Word, through whom...

The Logos before and after Incarnation§5

5God is known only through the Son; He said, "No one knows the Father except the Son, and whomever the Son shall reveal to Him" (Matthew 11:27). For since it was impossible to know God in any other way, He teaches men to know Him through His own Word, so that even he the critic fails to know accurately the Father and the Word of the latter. Therefore, let one learn that the Word of God has come—not a word named improperly, as they claim, but a Word existing truly.

It is not a word named improperly, even if those teaching falsely tear the truth apart by lying, but a Word existing principally and truly. [...] Among those teaching them, as if ashamed to remember the Word, which in this way all divine Scriptures proclaim. For David says about Him, "By the word of the Lord the heavens were established" (Psalm 33:6), and again, "He sent out His word and healed them" (Psalm 107:20). And Solomon says, "Evil men will seek me, and will not find me. For they hated wisdom, and did not choose the word of the Lord" (Proverbs 1:28). And Isaiah says, "For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem" (Isaiah 2:3). And again Jeremiah says, "The wise have been defiled, and they have been foolish, and they have fallen, because they rejected the word of the Lord" (Jeremiah 8:9). And the prophet Hosea says, "They have hated Him in the gates while rebuking, and they have loathed a holy word" (Amos 5:10). And Micah similarly, remembering the Word, says, "Out of Zion shall go forth law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem" (Micah 4:2).

Indeed, before the descent and being born of a virgin, there was only the Word. For what else was there before the one who descended "in the last days" (Hebrews 1:2), and having been born of a virgin, took upon himself flesh? There was nothing else but the Word.

It is quite so, then, that before the descent this was the case, as we have often said: the Word. But after the descent and the assumption of flesh, it has encountered various objections, since "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14).

For what other mystery was hidden than that concerning the Word? It was thus hidden 'in God'; this mystery was prior, so that no one of the former people was to know clearly the things concerning the Word, but we now enjoy the wealth of 'the glory' and the hidden mystery.

The holy apostle John, both disciple and student of the Lord, clearly and explicitly teaches at the beginning of the Gospel, as something previously unknown among men, naming it the Word of the Pantokrator, thus saying, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God' (John 1:1). He employs more than one witness to signify the eternity of the Word. In saying 'In the beginning was the Word', he shows by power that the Word is in the Father (for God is the beginning of all things 'from whom all things are') cf. Rom 11:36; and in 'and the Word was with God', he shows the Word to be with God in activity ('for all things were made through him, and without him not one thing was made' [John 1:3]); and in 'the Word was God', he says not to divide the divinity, since the Word is in Him and He is in the Word; for he says, 'the Father is in me, and I in the Father' (John 14:10).

Thus you hear the harmony of the Holy Spirit, testifying to the eternity of the Word through many and diverse persons. Because of this, he begins from the eternity of the Word, saying 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God' (John 1:1). Using three successive witnesses, he intends to demonstrate the eternity of the Word.

What then was this thing that descended before the incarnation? He says certainly: a spirit. For if he wished to say anything other than this, the angel who spoke to the virgin would not permit him, saying 'the Holy Spirit will come upon you' (Luke 1:35). But if he says it is a spirit, let him hear the Savior saying 'Spirit is God' (John 4:24). Yet it seems that the Father is in the Word, even if it does not seem so to Asterius and to those who think the same as him. For this seems to the prophetic prophet Isaiah,

The Divine Logos and Creation§6

6Regarding the one saying through the Holy Spirit, 'and they shall worship you, and in you they shall pray; for in you is God, and there is no other besides you. For you are God' (Isaiah 45:14), you see how he uproots the skillful cunning of those teaching falsely. Likewise, there the prophet discourses about the Word having taken our flesh. A spirit of shadow could never have become a creative spirit. And because he is God himself, the Savior said, 'Spirit, God' (John 4:24). And because God is light, he himself teaches us, saying, 'I am the light' (John 8:12).

For who else, whether of the holy angels or of righteous men, was reliable enough to loose the penalty set for him from the face of God, if not the Word himself, who is both co-existing and co-forming, toward whom the Father said, 'Let us make man in our image and likeness' (Gen 1:26), with no other god existing who would be able to co-form with him? 'I am,' he says, 'the first God, and I after these things, and besides me no other god exists.' Nor was there any younger god, nor was any other god being 'after these things' able to work together with God.

But if anyone uses a small and human example like ours to examine the divine action as if through an icon: just as a skilled man who is a statue-maker, desiring to fashion a man, first observes his forms and characters within himself, then conceives what breadth and length is becoming, and examines the proportion of the whole in each individual part, having prepared the appropriate material of bronze, and having modeled the coming man after his own intellect and seeing him mentally, consciously cooperating with the Logos—by which he reasons and by which he is accustomed to do all things (for nothing beautiful comes into being without the Logos)—beginning this sensible work, he exhorts himself as if to another, saying, 'Come, let us make, come, let us fashion a man';

Thus the Lord of all, God, making the ensouled man from the earth, exhorts no one else but his own Logos, saying, 'Let us make man' (Gen 1:26), not in the same way as the others; for the whole creation came into being by the Logos. For God did not need any other preparation, such as matter or some other human thing, but this preparation which is in his own intellect.

Since it was impossible to conceive of God apart from the Word and the wisdom approaching the Word regarding the construction of the heavens, he rightly said, 'Whenever he was preparing the heavens, I was with him' (Proverbs 8:27). For before the world existed, the Word was in the Father. When the Almighty God set to make all things in the heavens and upon the earth, the genesis of the world required an active energy. And because of this, with no other existing besides God (for all is confessed to have come from him), the Word, having come forth, became the maker of the world, he who previously was inwardly preparing it, just as the prophet Solomon teaches us, saying, 'Whenever he was preparing the heavens, I was with him' (Proverbs 8:27) and 'As he was establishing springs under the heavens, whenever he was making the strong foundations of the earth, I was with him, fittingly joined to him; I was the one in whom he delighted' (Proverbs 8:27). For the Father rightly rejoiced in making all things through the Word with wisdom and power.

Just as all things that happened came from the Father through the Word, so also the things said by the Father are signified through the Word. For this reason also the most holy Moses names the Word an angel there, because he appeared through no other, but so that he might announce to Moses those things which he knew would be effective for the sons of Israel; and he knew they would be effective for believing that there is one God. Therefore also to him he said, 'I am the Being' (Exodus 3:14), in order that he might teach that no other besides himself is God. This is easy, I think, for those thinking well to know from a small and humble example among us. For it is not possible for anyone to separate the word of a man in power and substance; for the word is one and the same to a man, and is not separated from anything else, except by the energy of the act alone.

Here the Father says 'I am the Being' (Exodus 3:14) to Moses, but he says it clearly through the Word. For all that the Father says, he seems to be saying everywhere through the Word. And this is clear also from ourselves, in whatever small things we compare to the great and divine; for we also do all that we wish to say and do through our own word, according to our ability.

What then, does Asterios suppose the one saying 'I am the Being' (Exodus 3:14) to be, the Son or the Father? For two substances, setting aside the one which the Word of God took flesh into, the human one, and [...]

The Distinction of Hypostases§7

7By imagining him thus, he calls the Father and the Son to be such, thereby separating the Son of God from the Father, just as anyone would separate a son of a man from his father according to nature. If he is said to have spoken these things to Moses while separating the Father from himself as the Son, he will not confess the Son to be God. For how can he allow the one saying 'I am the Being' (Exodus 3:14) not to agree that the Being says he is in opposition to non-being? But if he would posit the Son as being separated, he would be said to say 'I am the Being' regarding the Father as well. Either of these is impious.

Therefore, I shall begin to oppose each of those who have written incorrectly, starting from the epistle written by him. He wrote to believe in the Father as God the Almighty, and in his Son the only-begotten God, the Lord our Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit; and he says that he has learned this way of godliness from the divine writings. And I, when he says this, accept the things said very much, for this is the common way of godliness for all of us, to believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; but when, not having considered the divine, he says the Father is Father and the Son is Son more humanly to us through some technical theory, one can no longer praise such a theory as harmless. For through such a theory, the heresy currently conceived by them comes to increase, which I think is easy to demonstrate clearly from his own words. For he said that one must believe the Father to be truly Father and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit likewise.

For it is impossible for three hypostases to be one unity, unless the Trinity first has its beginning from a unity. For the holy Paul said that those things are being recapitulated into a unity, which differ from God in nothing regarding unity; for the Word and the Spirit alone differ from God in unity.

If, therefore, the Word seems to have come forth from the Father and come to us, and the Holy Spirit, as Asterius also confessed, proceeds from the Father, the Savior immediately says concerning the Spirit that 'he will not speak of himself, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are coming' (John 16:13).

"He shall take from mine and he will announce to you" (John 16:14), the monad does not appear here clearly and manifestly, but in a secret word, expanding into a trinity yet by no means undergoing division. For if the Word proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit also is confessed to proceed from the Father, and immediately regarding the Spirit the Savior says, "He shall take from mine and he will announce to you" (John 16:14), is it not then evident that a mystery is being hidden to be revealed? For how, if the monad being undivided were not expanding into a trinity, could it contain him regarding the Spirit to say at times that he proceeds from the Father, and at times to say, "He shall take from mine and he will announce to you" (John 16:14), and immediately after having breathed upon the disciples, "Receive Holy Spirit" (John 20:22) having said?

For how, if he proceeds from the Father, does he promise to receive this ministry from the Son? For it is necessary either that, being divided into two, as Asterius said, there be persons, or that the Spirit proceeding from the Father must not be in need of the ministry from the Son (for everything proceeding from the Father must be perfect, by no means being dependent on the help of another), or, if he receives from the Son and by his power ministers the grace, he no longer proceeds from the Father. If, however, the Gospel said that having breathed upon the disciples, "Receive Holy Spirit" (John 20:22), he had said, it is evident that the Spirit came forth from the Word. How then, if the Spirit proceeded from the Word, does it again proceed from the Father?

Therefore, he has not spoken correctly nor appropriately, having said that there are three hypostases, not once, but a second time. We know the economy according to the flesh to differ for the man, but we have believed the incorcorporeality according to the spirit to be united to the Father. For if the examination of the Spirit were the only one, it would seem fitting that the Word be one and the same with God; but if the addition according to the flesh upon the Savior were being examined, it seems that the divinity is being expanded by energy alone, so that it would seem fitting that the monad truly is undivided.

For Asterius had decided that there are one and the same, according to this, only the Father and the Son, in accordance with which they agree in all things. For so he said: and because of the precise account in all words and works...

The Harmony of the Son and Father§8

8Regarding the harmony of 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30). If, therefore, He himself says these things: 'I went forth from the Father and I have come,' and again, 'and the Word, which you hear, is not mine, but belongs to Him who sent me the Father,' and 'all things that the Father has are mine' (John 16:15), it is clear that He was rightly saying even that: 'the Father is in me and I in the Father' (John 10:38), so that the Word, saying this, might be in God, and the Father might be in the Word, because the Word is the power of the Father. For a trustworthy witness has declared Him to be 'the power of God and the wisdom of God.'

The Savior does not say 'I and the Father are one' because of a precise harmony in all words and works, as Asterius said, but because it is impossible to divide the Word of God or God Himself from the Word. Since Asterius thinks the Savior said this because of a harmony in everything, and desires to learn the truth without paying attention to the second economy, it is necessary to remind him how, at times, one sees what appears to be a discord. For such is what the spoken words teach us.

For what kind of harmony is there in the time of the passion when He says this, 'Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me' (Luke 22:42), but then adds that, 'yet not as I will, but as You' (Luke 22:42)? For there was no harmony at first in saying, 'let this cup pass from me'; nor does it seem that there is any agreement in what is being added, for He says, 'not my will, but Yours, Father, let it be done.' You hear how the letter declares a discord, according to appearances, of the one willing and of the one not willing. For the Father clearly willed that which willed happened through the things from which it was clear; but the Son's not willing is made clear through the things by which He renounces it. And again He says, 'I do not seek my own will, but the will of Him who sent me the Father' (John 5:30). How, then, does he say that the Savior said, 'I and the Father are one' because of a harmony in everything?

How can the Son have harmony toward the Father, or the Father toward the Son, when the Son says, 'all things that the Father has are mine' (John 16:15)? For, contrary to the Son encroaching upon the Father, he says, 'all things that the Father has are mine.' For this reason, passing over the fact that all things the Father has are common, he said, 'all things that the Father has are mine.'

Even if it was not proper for the one in agreement to speak in this way, rather: all that the Father has is common. For if the Acts of the Apostles, praising the agreement of those approaching with faith like the ones mentioned, said, "all things were common to them" (Acts 4:32), and one ought to consider all things to be common for men capable of agreeing, how much more ought the Father and the Son to partake in communion, being divided into two hypostases?

But now, in saying, "all that the Father has is mine" (John 16:15), the Son seems to be grasping at the Father's; and in stating that not even his own word is master, but rather the Father of this word (for he says, "the word which you hear is not mine but of Him who sent me, the Father" [John 8:28]), it shows the Father being deprived of his own things of the Son. Furthermore, according to the opinion of Asterius, the two sides seem not to have spoken in accordance. For the one in agreement ought not to justly snatch away what belongs to the other, for this is grasping, but ought to consider what belongs to each to be common.

So when we look down toward the flesh in a human way, we will not find the Savior having said, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), just as Asterius has written. For it was not because of the precise agreement in all words and works, as he himself has written, that the Savior said, "I and the Father are one." For if it were this, he certainly would have said: "I and the Father agree with one another in all things." But now he said, "I and the Father are one."

So if there were any disagreement in those things, and since the Lord must speak the truth, it is fitting to know the Savior precisely, that whenever he says, "I and the Father are one," he says this not looking down toward the man whom he took upon himself, but toward the Word proceeding from the Father. For if any disagreement were thought to exist, this ought to be referred to the weakness of the flesh, which the Word did not have previously when he was taken. But if unity were being spoken of, this seems to differ from the Word. Therefore, not only did he say, "I and the Father are one" appropriately, but also that: "For such a long time I have been with you, Philip, and you say: show me the Father" (John 14:9), it is clear that he said this for those capable of seeing the intelligible things not with these eyes, but with the intellectual ones. For both the Father and his Word exist invisible to the eyes of the flesh. Therefore, not because of the agreement in all things...

The Unity of Christ's Divinity§9

9He spoke to Philip. For he himself confesses, saying, "The Father is in me, and I am in the Father" (John 14:10). That he has not spoken this merely or aimlessly is evident also from another apostolic saying: "one" is he who said, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5), and "one God" he said, "and Father, who is over all and through all and in all" (Ephesians 4:6). You see that the concord does not fail even there, but the same thing has suffered even there. For having said "one Lord," he again said "one God," so that whenever he mentions the one Lord, he includes the Father, and whenever he speaks concerning the Father, he testifies that the Word is not outside Him.

If you wish to hear something else of the same prophecy confirming one God for us, he says, "I am God first, and I am the one who is to come" (Isaiah 41:4). For the "I" is indicative of a single person, for the two sayings signify one person to us. For having said "I," the "am" follows, so that through these two parts of the word, both the pronoun and the verb, the unity of the divinity is testified. If other testimony were required, I would immediately provide you with the same prophet saying, "I am first, and I am after these things, and besides me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6).

If Asterius, having supposed the Son of the Father to be divided, assumes him to be a son of a man, being stumbled by the human flesh which He took for our sakes, let him show us this saying; for the said saying is of one person even there. Who then is he who says, "There is no God besides me"? Let him hear also another prophecy saying, "There is no just one and savior besides me" (Isaiah 45:21).

If it is thought that there are two gods, it is necessary for him to confess that the other is not just, nor a savior. But if he is not just nor a savior, how can he still be God? For he appears to be the one who is just and a savior.

And again he says, 'Before me no other came, and with me no other shall be; I am God, and no savior shall be besides me.' If one wishes to hear another prophetic word, perhaps regarding him and those similarly disputing about divinity as he spoke, let him hear Isaiah saying, 'Repent, you wanderers, turn to the heart, and remember the former things from eternity, for I am God and there is none besides me' (Isaiah 46:9). He did not say, 'I am God,' so that he might clearly demonstrate a single God existing through the addition of the article.

And what of the prophet Hosea? Does he not himself testify to the same things, saying, 'I brought you up out of Egypt' and 'you shall know no god besides me, and no savior is besides me' (Hosea 13:4)? And again Malachi says, 'Did not one God create you?' and 'Is not one Father of all you?' (Malachi 2:10). But Asterios will say that David said nothing about this, even though being older than the other prophets according to Moses, and because of this he is in doubt, whether it is proper to suppose two gods existing as divided substances or not.

I think, however, that in order not to say this, it would follow for him to show him the same things with the aforementioned holy ones saying: 'Listen,' he says, 'my people, and I will speak to you; Israel, and I testify to you. If you listen to me, there shall not be among you a near god, nor shall you worship a foreign god. For I am the Lord your God.' In demonstrating himself and saying, 'I am,' is it not clear that he is saying there is only one God, that is, himself?

What then? If we do not consider the unity to be indivisible by power through the Spirit, shall we not sin, clearly being taught by the word, 'You shall worship the Lord your God and to him alone you shall serve'? The same is also proclaimed through the Gospel according to Mark; for a certain scribe having come to him and inquiring what is the first of the commandments, he answered him thus, having said, 'First of all: Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your...'

The Unity of God in Scripture§10

10...of your soul and with all your strength. This is the first; and the second is like unto this: you shall love your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:30-31). Greater than these no other commandment exists. And the scribe said to him: 'Well, Teacher, in truth you have spoken, that one is the God and there is none other besides him' (Mark 12:32-33). But the scribe, seeming to have learned piety through the law, appears to be praising the explicit word of the Savior: 'Hear, O Israel' (Deuteronomy 6:4), saying, 'the Lord our God is one,' and believing that he has spoken well by an oath; for he says, 'in truth you have spoken that one is the God and there is no other besides him.'

But those who follow the new covenant, desiring to know mysteries, these also wish to reconstruct a god, wanting to separate him by substance and power from the Father. For the divine Scripture knows to call the unity Lord and God; it has already become clear from the things previously mentioned, through which the God said to Moses, his own servant: 'And God spoke again to Moses: Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel: The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you' (Exodus 3:6).

You see how, by demonstrating one thing here, he addresses the same person as Lord and God. And immediately likewise the Scripture says, 'And the Lord spoke all these words, saying: I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. There shall not be to you other gods besides me' (Exodus 20:2-3); you hear how through the pronoun it is made apparent that there is only one God. And again a little later he says, 'I am the Lord your God,' saying that he himself is Lord and God.

And what else do we learn through other Scripture? 'And you shall know this day,' he says, 'and your mind shall not be diverted, that the Lord your God, this is God in the heaven above and upon the earth below, and there is none besides him' (Deuteronomy 4:39). And again in the same Deuteronomy he says, 'Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind' (Deuteronomy 6:4-5). And again in the same: 'Behold, behold that I am, and there is no God besides me; I will kill and I will make live; I will strike and I will heal' (Deuteronomy 32:39).

How then, pretending to follow the holy Scriptures simply and boldly, Asterius did not recognize this part of the saying: "The Lord your God, this is God in the heaven above and upon the earth below, and there is none other besides him" (Deuteronomy 4:39), and that "He is one" and "there is no other besides him"?

How then will the holy prophet Jeremiah not clearly expose him as teaching a different doctrine? For he, prophesying to us according to the Savior, thus said: "This is our God; another shall not be reckoned against him. He found every way of knowledge, and he gave Jacob to his child and Israel to the one beloved by him. After these things he appeared upon the earth, and he associated himself with men" (Baruch 3:35-37).

So that even if someone says, by first constructing a first god and a second, as Narcissus has written with those words (for even he who says, "Let us make man in our image and after our likeness" Genesis 1:26, does not agree), that both he himself and his father are two, we have heard this in part from the testimony of the Lord and of the holy Scriptures. If, therefore, Narcissus intends to divide the Word of the Father through this, let him know that the prophet who wrote, speaking as if of God, "Let us make man in our image and after our likeness," himself wrote, "And God made the man" (Genesis 1:27).

For having encountered the letter of Narcissus, the leader of the Neronians, which he wrote to one Christian and to Euphronius and Eusebius, as the Holy Bishop had asked him whether he says the same as Eusebius of the two substances of Palestine, I knew from what was written that he believes there are three substances, while answering. For having dared to divide the Word of God and to name another god the Word, and having divided the substance and the power of the Father, it is easy to learn clearly from the very words written by them into what blasphemy he has fallen. For he wrote with those words thus: the image and that of which the image is are not conceived as one and the same, but rather two substances and two things and two powers, as are so many distinctions. But the Apostle writes such things concerning the faith of the Galatians; yet Eusebius, transferring the apostolic meaning, through which the Apostle, on account of the aforementioned reason, said, "My children, whom I again labor with until Christ is formed in you" (Galatians 4:19), fastened down the Galatians as not having the correct view concerning the glory of God. For he truly labored with a certain sharpness...

The Error of Asterius regarding Eusebius§11

The Icon of the Invisible God§12

The Divinity of Christ vs Eusebius§13

The Kingship of Christ through the Incarnation§14

14It was destined that a virgin should give birth and that the human flesh should be taken up, so that through it, having overcome the devil who previously dominated man, He would not only make him incorruptible and immortal, but also a co-regent in the heavens with God. Indeed, having come down and having taken flesh through the virgin, He was established as king over the church, clearly so that through the Word, the man who had previously fallen from the kingship of the heavens might be able to attain kingship.

Therefore, God, desiring that this man—who previously fell from lordship due to disobedience—become Lord and God, worked out this economy. The most holy prophet David says prophetically, 'The Lord has reigned, let the earth rejoice' (Psalm 97:1; LXX 96:1). For which reason, as if having received the beginning of kingship from a certain time of our Lord Christ, the prophecy says, 'But I have been made king by him' (Ps 2:6).

For this reason also, having become and reigning in human flesh, having established through the Word the man who was previously deceived as king, He 'will abolish all principality' (1 Corinthians 15:24) of the devil 'and power and authority.' For it is said, 'it is necessary for him to reign' 'until he has placed the enemies under his feet' (1 Cor 15:25). This is the end of the kingship of our Lord Christ, says the holy apostle, to subject all things to his feet (1 Cor 15:28).

There, the apostle reveals a greatest mystery to us: that there would be an end, claiming it of Christ's kingship; but an end then, when he subjects all things under his feet. We have said in the discourses proceeding before us that our Lord Christ has had the beginning of kingship, using proofs from the divine writings. One says, 'But I have been made king by him upon Zion, his holy mountain' (Ps 2:6); another, 'The Lord has reigned, let the peoples be moved to wrath' (Psalm 99:1); and again, 'The Lord has reigned, let the earth rejoice' (Psalm 97:1; LXX 96:1). And it is possible to show with abundance myriads of words for testimony, that the man has received the beginning of kingship through the Word.

If, then, the kingdom began not more than four hundred years ago, it is nothing paradoxical, if the apostle says that he will deliver the kingdom which occurred so recently, meaning that he is a king whom God established, as the Scripture says. It seems that he is separated from the Father by energy alone because of the outward show of the flesh, until such time as the one approaching the judgment reveals the appointed time, so that the remaining part may follow, consequently, the pattern of those who pierced him, after having seen the one who was pierced, as the prophecy says. For all are destined to be made subject to Christ in the time of the end, as the apostle said, just as 'he himself shall be subjected to him who subjected all things to him.'

What then do we learn concerning the human flesh, which the Word took not all years ago, but four hundred? Will the Word have this flesh also in the coming ages, or only until the time of the judgment? For what the prophet said must be confirmed in deed. For he says, 'they shall look on him whom they pierced'; and they pierced, clearly, the flesh. For the Word did not take flesh so as to benefit our own self, but so that the flesh might attain immortality through communion with the Word, which is evident even from the Savior's own decision. Regarding the flesh, while possessing it and conversing with the disciples, he says thus: 'Does this scandalize you? If, then, you see the Son of Man departing from where he was previously; the Spirit gives life, the flesh profits nothing.'

If he confesses that the flesh profits him nothing, how can he allow the one existing from the earth, which profits nothing, to remain in the coming ages as being useful to the Word? For this is why it seems to me that even the Almighty God, the Lord, says to him, 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.' He seems to be separated by energy alone because of the human flesh, and as if defining a specific time for him of the seated position at the right hand, he says to him, 'until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.'

This prophecy of David is made clearer to us by the holy apostle, who thus said: 'for he must reign until he makes his enemies a footstool of his feet.' Thus, both his human administration and his kingdom seem to have a limit. For he wills nothing other than what was said by the apostle: 'until he makes his enemies a footstool of his feet.'

The Economy of the Word and Restoration§15

15So indeed, when the enemies have no longer a footstool under their feet in this part of the kingdom, he becomes king over all in general; for he co-reigns with 'God and Father', of whom the Word was and is. For the Word himself by himself has not taken the beginning of the kingdom, but the man deceived by the devil through the power of the Word has become king, so that having become king he might conquer the devil who previously deceived.

For this reason also the Acts of the Apostles concerning this man, whom the Word of God took and having taken sits at the right hand of the Father, teach in this way, saying, 'whom it is necessary to receive into heaven until the times of restoration' (Acts 3:21). And these, as if defining a certain boundary and a deadline in which it is fitting the economy according to man to be joined to the Word, say so. For what else does 'until the times of restoration' mean, except to signify to us an age to come, in which it is necessary for all things to attain the perfection of restoration?

If therefore in the time of the restoration of all things even the creation itself will be changed from slavery into freedom, as Paul said (for he says, 'because even the creation itself will be freed from the slavery of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God' Romans 8:21), how could it still be possible for the Word to possess the form of a slave, which the Word took, as a form being a slave? Therefore, clearly and emphatically, in a brief time of both the past and the coming ages, the economy of the Word according to the flesh has happened for us, and Paul the lawgiver has declared that this shall have as both a beginning and an end, having said in this way, 'then the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God and Father' (1 Corinthians 15:24), referring to having grasped the human body and showing it to those seeing, 'does this scandalize you?'. He said, 'if therefore you see the Son of Man ascending, where was the former one? The spirit gives life, the flesh profits nothing' (John 6:63).

So indeed, not for himself, but for us the Word took human flesh. And if, having taken it, it appears through us, and all things concerning us will attain an end by his providence and energy at the time of judgment, there will no longer be a need even for this part of the kingdom.

But if anyone says that because of this the human flesh is worthy of the Word, because through the resurrection He fashioned it immortal, let him know that not everything that is immortal is worthy of God. For God is greater even than immortality itself, being able by His own will to make non-existent things immortal. It is clear that not all that is immortal is worthy of union with God, and it does not differ from this in the case of the beginning, the authorities, and the immortal angels. If anyone should inquire about this flesh, which has become immortal in the Word, what shall we say to him? We consider it not safe to dogmatize about those things of which we have not learned accurately from the divine Scriptures. For how is it possible for those to do this who overturn the doctrines of others? But to those who wish to learn the accurate word from us, we shall say, being persuaded by the holy Apostle, that we know it is proper for us to see the hidden mysteries in this way, just as he himself said: 'For now we see in a mirror, in a riddle; then face to face. Now we know in part; then I shall know just as I also am known' (1 Cor 13:12).

So do not inquire of me about things of which I have not learned clearly from the divine Scripture. Therefore, indeed, I will not be able to speak clearly even about that divine flesh which partook of the divine Word. But now I believe the divine Scriptures: that there is one God, and this one God's Word proceeded from the Father, so that 'all things might be through Him' (John 1:3), and after the time of judgment, and the correction of all things, and the destruction of every opposing energy, 'then He himself shall submit to Him who subjected all things to Him' (1 Cor 15:28), 'to God and Father,' so that the Word might be in God, just as He also was before the world existed. For nothing existed before except God alone, and since all things were to come into being through the Word, the Word proceeded with an active energy, the Word being of the Father.

This is he about whom Paul said, 'the predestined Son of God' (Rom 8:29). For this reason the most holy prophet Solomon said, 'to receive turns of speech,' and again, 'utterances of the wise and riddles.' Therefore, it seems to me that this most wise prophet has spoken the first words of prophecy proverbially. For nothing is incongruous, I think, in the present little of the...

The Proverb of Letters and the Goat§16

Letter to Julius regarding false accusations§17

The Son vs. a different Logos§18

18They say that it is not the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, but a different word of him and a different wisdom and power. Because he was named word and wisdom and power by him, they claim that a different substance standing apart from the Father exists, because they think in this way.

Furthermore, they also claim that the Father pre-existed the Son, through which they venture to argue, and that he is not truly the Son of God; but even if they say 'of God', they say it in the same way as they say 'all things'. Moreover, they even dare to say that there was once a time when he was not, and that he is a creature and a work, distinguishing him from the Father.

Therefore, I believe those saying these things to be strangers to the Catholic Church. But I believe, following the divine Scriptures, that there is one God and his only-begotten Son, the Word, who is always co-existing with the Father and has never possessed a beginning of being, truly existing from God, not having been created, not having been made, but always being, always reigning with 'God and Father', whose 'kingdom', according to the testimony of the apostle, 'will have no end' (Luke 1:33).

This is the Son, this is the power, this is the wisdom. This is the same and true Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, the undivided power of [...]

The Logos and the Creed§19

19Of God, through whom all things that came into being came to be, just as the Gospel testifies saying, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things through him came to be, and without him nothing came into being' (John 1:1-3). This is the Word about whom also Luke the evangelist testifies saying, 'just as we were handed down by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word' (Luke 1:2). Concerning this also David said, 'My heart has searched out a good word' (Psalm 45:1). So also our Lord Jesus Christ teaches us through the Gospel saying, 'I went out from the Father and I have come' (John 16:28).

This one, having descended 'in the last days' (Hebrews 1:2) for our salvation and having been born of the virgin Mary, took upon himself the man.

I believe therefore in God the almighty; and in Christ Jesus his son, the only-begotten, our Lord, born of the Holy Spirit and Mary the virgin, having been crucified under Pontius Pilate and having been buried and on the third day having risen from the dead, having ascended into the heavens and sitting at the right hand of the Father, from where he comes to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, the holy church, the forgiveness of sins, the flesh...

The Indivisibility of the Godhead§20