Was the Son Made to Make Us?

And here it would be well to ask them this question too, to refute their heresy still more clearly. If all things are creatures, and all are brought into existence from nothing, and the Son himself, according to you, is a creature and a work, and once did not exist, why has God made “all things through him” alone, “and without him not one thing was made”? Or why is it that when “all things” are spoken of, no one thinks the Son is counted among them, but only originated things; whereas when Scripture speaks of the Word, it does not take him as one of the “all,” but places him with the Father, as the one in whom the Father works out and brings about providence and salvation for “all”? And yet surely all things could have come into being at the same command at which he was brought into being by God alone. For God is not wearied by giving commands, nor is his strength too small for making all things, so that he should create the only Son by himself alone and then need the Son’s service and help for framing the rest. For he puts off nothing that he wills to be done. He only willed, and all things came into being, and no one “has resisted his will.” Why then were not all things brought into being by God alone, at the same command at which the Son came into being? Or let them tell us why all things came into being through him, who was himself only an originated being. How void of reason! Yet this is what they say of him: “God, wishing to create originated nature, saw that it could not endure the Father’s untempered hand, or being created by him; so he makes and creates first, and alone, one only, and calls him Son and Word, so that through him as an intermediary all things might then be brought into being.” They have not only said this; they have dared to put it in writing: Eusebius, Arius, and Asterius, the one who sacrificed. [a]

Is this not full proof of the impiety with which they have drugged themselves, in their great madness, until they are not ashamed to be drunk against the truth? For if they give the toil of making all things as the reason why God made the Son only, the whole creation will cry out against them for saying things unworthy of God. So will Isaiah, who has said in Scripture, “The everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, does not faint or grow weary; there is no searching out his understanding.” And if God made the Son alone because he did not stoop to make the rest, but handed them over to the Son as an assistant, this, on the other hand, is unworthy of God, for there is no pride in him. Indeed, the Lord rebukes the thought when he says, “Are not two sparrows sold for an assarion?” and “Not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father who is in heaven.” And again: “Do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat, or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they do not sow or reap or gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much better than they? Which of you by being anxious can add a foot and a half to his height? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they do not toil or spin, and yet I tell you that even Solomon in all his glory was not dressed like one of these. So if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?” If, then, it is not unworthy of God to exercise his providence even down to things so small, a hair of the head, a sparrow, and the grass of the field, then neither was it unworthy of him to make them. For the things that are the objects of his providence are the very things of which he is the Maker through his own Word. Indeed, a worse absurdity awaits the men who talk this way. For they draw a distinction between the creatures and the framing of them, and count the framing the work of the Father and the creatures the work of the Son. Yet either all things must be brought into being by the Father with the Son, or, if everything originated comes into being through the Son, we must not call him one of the originated things. [e]

Next, their folly may be exposed like this. If the Word too is of originated nature, how could he alone of all endure to be made by the unoriginate and untempered substance of God, as you say, when this nature is too feeble to be God’s own handiwork? For it follows either that, if he could endure it, all could endure it; or that, if it could be endured by none, it could not be endured by the Word either, since you say he is one of the originated things. And again, if a mediator was needed because originated nature could not endure to be God’s own handiwork, it must follow that, since the Word is originated and a creature, an intermediary is needed in his making too. For he too belongs to that originated nature which cannot endure to be made by God, but needs an intermediary. But if some being is found to be an intermediary for him, then again a fresh mediator is needed for that second one. And so, tracing it back and following it out, we will invent a vast crowd of mediators piling up. In that case it will be impossible for the creation to exist, since it will always be lacking a mediator, and that intermediary cannot come into being without another mediator; for all of them will be of that originated nature which cannot endure to be made by God alone, as you say. How great is the folly that forces them to hold that what has already come into being cannot come into being! Or perhaps they imagine that things have not even come into being yet, since they are still looking for their mediator. For on their so impious and futile notion, what exists would have no existence, for lack of the intermediary. [g]

But again they argue this: “Look, through Moses too he led the people out of Egypt, and through him he gave the Law, and yet Moses was a man. So it is possible for like to be brought into being by like.” They ought to cover their faces when they say this, to hide their great shame. For Moses was not sent to frame the world, or to call into being things that did not exist, or to fashion men like himself, but only to be the servant of words to the people and to King Pharaoh. And that is a very different thing. For serving belongs to originated things, as to servants; but framing and creating belong to God alone, and to his own Word and his Wisdom. That is why, in the matter of framing, we will find no one but God’s Word; for “all things are made in Wisdom,” and “without the Word not one thing was made.” But as for services, there is not just one, but many, out of their whole number, whomever the Lord wishes to send. For there are many archangels, many thrones, and authorities, and dominions, thousands of thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand, standing before him, serving and ready to be sent. And there are many prophets, and twelve apostles, and Paul. And Moses himself was not alone; Aaron was with him, and next seventy others were filled with the Holy Spirit. And Moses was succeeded by Joshua the son of Nun, and he by the judges, and they not by one king but by a number of kings. If, then, the Son were a creature and one of the originated things, there would have to be many such sons, so that God might have many such servants, just as there is a multitude of those others. But if this is nowhere to be seen, and while the creatures are many, the Word is one, anyone will gather from this that the Son differs from all, and is not on a level with the creatures, but is the Father’s own. So there are not many Words, but one only Word of the one Father, and one Image of the one God. “But look,” they say, “there is only one sun, and one earth.” Let them maintain, senseless as they are, that there is one water and one fire, and then they may be told that everything that is brought into being is one in its own substance, but that for the ministry and service committed to it, it is not adequate or sufficient on its own. For God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of heaven, to give light on the earth and to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years.” And then he says, “And God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. And God set them in the expanse of heaven to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night.” [h]

See, there are many lights, and not the sun only, nor the moon only. Each is one in substance, and yet the service of all is one and shared. What each lacks is supplied by the others, and the work of giving light is done by all. So the sun has authority to shine through the day and no more, and the moon through the night; and the stars, together with them, bring about the seasons and years and serve as signs, each according to the need that calls for it. In the same way the earth is not for everything, but for its fruits only, and to be ground to tread on for the living things that live on it. And the expanse is to divide between waters and waters, and to be a place to set the stars in. So too fire and water, with other things, have been brought into being to be the parts that make up bodies. In short, no one thing stands alone; all the things that are made, as if they were members of one another, make up, as it were, one body, namely the world. If, then, this is how they think of the Son, let everyone throw stones at them, for they consider the Word to be a part of this universe, and a part that is not enough without the rest for the service committed to him. But if this is plainly impious, let them acknowledge that the Word is not among the originated things, but is the one and only Word, the Father’s own, and their Framer. “But,” they say, “though he is a creature and one of the originated things, yet he learned to frame things, as from a master and craftsman, and so served God, who taught him.” For this is what the Sophist Asterius has dared to write, made bold by having learned to deny the Lord, without noticing the absurdity that follows. For if framing is a thing that can be taught, let them beware of saying that God himself is a Framer not by nature but by acquired skill, so that he might lose the power. Besides, if the Wisdom of God came to frame things by being taught, how is he still Wisdom, when he needs to learn? And what was he before he learned? For it was not Wisdom, if it needed teaching. It was surely only some empty thing, and not Wisdom in its very substance. It would have had the name of Wisdom from its progress, and would be Wisdom only as long as it could keep what it had learned. For what has come not by nature but by learning can at some time be unlearned. But to speak like this of the Word of God is not the part of Christians, but of Greeks.

For if the power to frame things comes to anyone by teaching, these senseless men are ascribing jealousy and weakness to God. Jealousy, because he has not taught many how to frame things, so that around him there might be many framers, as there are many archangels and angels. Weakness, because he could not make things by himself, but needed a fellow worker or an under-worker; and this although it has already been shown that created nature can be made by God alone, since they consider the Son to be of such a nature and to have been made in this way. But God lacks nothing. Far from it! For he has said himself, “I am full.” Nor did the Word become the Framer of all by being taught. Being the Image and Wisdom of the Father, he does the things of the Father. Nor has the Father made the Son for the making of created things. For see, though the Son exists, the Father is still seen to work, as the Lord himself says, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” If, however, as you say, the Son came into being for the purpose of making the things after him, and yet the Father is seen to work even after the Son, then in this light too you must hold that making such a Son was unnecessary. Besides, why, when he wished to create us, does he look for a mediator at all, as if his will were not enough to bring into being whatever seemed good to him? Yet the Scriptures say, “He has done whatever he pleased,” and “Who has resisted his will?” And if his will alone is enough for framing all things, you make the office of a mediator unnecessary; for your example of Moses, and of the sun and the moon, has been shown not to hold. And here again is an argument to silence you. You say that God, wishing to create originated nature and deliberating about it, plans and creates the Son, so that through him he may frame us. If so, consider how great an impiety you have dared to utter. [l]

First, the Son appears to have been brought into being for us, rather than we for him. For we were not created for him; he was made for us. So he owes thanks to us, not we to him, as the woman does to the man. “For the man,” says Scripture, “was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” So, as “the man is the image and glory of God, and the woman the glory of the man,” so we are made God’s image and for his glory, but the Son is our image, and exists for our glory. And we were brought into being so that we might exist; but God’s Word was made, as you must hold, not so that he might exist, but as an instrument for our need. So it is not we who come from him; he is constituted from our need. Are not men who even think such thoughts more than senseless? For if the Word was made for us, he does not come before us with God. For God did not take counsel about us while having him within himself; it was while having us in himself that he took counsel, as they say, about his own Word. But if so, perhaps the Father had no will for the Son at all. For he did not create him because he had a will for him; because he had a will for us, he formed him for our sake, for he planned him after planning us. So, according to these impious men, from now on the Son, who was made as an instrument, is unnecessary, now that those for whom he was created have been made. But if the Son alone was made by God alone, because he could endure it, while we, because we could not, were made by the Word, why does God not first take counsel about the Word, who could endure his making, instead of taking counsel about us? Or why does he not make more of him who was strong than of us who were weak? Or why, if he makes him first, does he not take counsel about him first? Or why, if he takes counsel about us first, does he not make us first, since his will is enough to bring all things into being? But he creates him first, yet takes counsel about us first. He wills us before the mediator; and when he wills to create us and takes counsel about us, he calls us creatures, but the one he frames for us he calls Son and his own Heir. Yet we, for whose sake he made him, ought rather to be called sons; or else surely he who is his Son is rather the object of his earlier thoughts and of his will, since it is for him that he makes all of us. Such is the sickness, such the vomit of the heretics. [m]