What then do I say? That this first "was," applied to "the Word," is only indicative of His eternal Being, (for "In the beginning," he saith, "was the Word,") and that the second "was," ("and the Word was with God,") denotes His relative Being. For since to be eternal and without beginning is most peculiar to God, this he puts first; and then, lest any one hearing that He was "in the beginning," should assert, that He was "unbegotten" also, he immediately remedies this by saying, before he declares what He was, that He was "with God." And he has prevented any one from supposing, that this "Word" is simply such a one as is either uttered [49] or conceived, [50] by the addition, as I beforesaid, of the article, as well as by this second expression. For he does not say, was "in God," but was "with God": declaring to us His eternity as to person. [51] Then, as he advances, he has more clearly revealed it, by adding, that this "Word" also "was God."
"But yet created," it may be said. What then hindered him from saying, that "In the beginning God made the Word"? at least Moses speaking of the earth says, not that "in the beginning was the earth," but that "He made it," and then it was. What now hindered John from saying in like manner, that "In the beginning God made the Word"? For if Moses feared lest any one should assert that the earth was uncreated, [52] much more ought John to have feared this respecting the Son, if He was indeed created. The world being visible, by this very circumstance proclaims its Maker, ("the heavens," says the Psalmist, "declare the glory of God"-- Ps. xix. 1 ), but the Son is invisible, and is greatly, infinitely, higher than all creation. If now, in the one instance, where we needed neither argument nor teaching to know that the world is created, [53] yet the prophet sets down this fact clearly and before all others; much more should John have declared the same concerning the Son, if He had really been created. [54]
"Yes," it may be said, "but Peter has asserted this clearly and openly." Where and when? "When speaking to the Jews he said, that God hath made Him both Lord and Christ.'" ( Acts ii. 36.) Why dost thou not add what follows, "That same Jesus whom ye have crucified"? or dost thou not know that of the words, part relate to His unmixed Nature, part to His Incarnation? [55] But if this be not the case, and thou wilt absolutely understand all as referring to the Godhead, then thou wilt make the Godhead capable of suffering; but if not capable of suffering, then not created. For if blood had flowed from that divine and ineffable Nature, and if that Nature, and not the flesh, had been torn and cut by the nails upon the cross, on this supposition your quibbling would have had reason; but if not even the devil himself could utter such a blasphemy, why dost thou feign to be ignorant with ignorance so unpardonable, and such as not the evil spirits themselves could pretend? Besides the expressions "Lord" and "Christ" belong not to His Essence, but to His dignity; for the one refers to His Power, [56] the other to his having been anointed. What then wouldest thou say con cerning the Son of God? for if he were even, as you assert, created, this argument could not have place. For He was not first created and afterwards God chose Him, nor does He hold a kingdom which could be thrown aside, but one which belongs by nature to His Essence; since, when asked if He were a King, He answers, "To this end was I born." ( c. xviii. 37.) But Peter speaks as concerning one chosen, because his argument wholly refers to the Dispensation.
[4.] And why dost thou wonder if Peter says this? for Paul, reasoning with the Athenians, calls Him "Man" only, saying, "By that Man whom He hath ordained, whereof He hath given assurance to all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead." ( Acts xvii. 31.) He speaks nothing concerning "the form of God" ( Philip. ii. 6 ), nor that He was "equal to Him," nor that He was the "brightness of His glory." ( Heb. i. 3.) And with reason. The time for words like these was not yet come; but it would have contented him that they should in the meanwhile admit that He was Man, and that He rose again from the dead. Christ Himself acted in the same manner, from whom Paul having learned, used this reserve. [57] For He did not at once reveal to us His Divinity, but was at first held to be a Prophet and a good man; [58] but afterwards His real nature was shown by His works and words. On this account Peter too at first used this method, (for this was the first sermon that he made to the Jews;) and because they were not yet able clearly to understand anything respecting His Godhead, he dwelt on the arguments relating to His Incarnation; that their ears being exercised in these, might open a way to the rest of his teaching. And if any one will go through all the sermon from the beginning, he will find what I say very observable, for he (Peter) calls Him "Man," and dwells on the accounts of His Passion, His Resurrection, and His generation according to the flesh. Paul too when he says, "Who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh" ( Rom. i. 3 ), only teaches us that the word "made" [59] is taken with a view [60] to His Incarnation, as we allow. But the son of thunder is now speaking to us concerning His Ineffable and Eternal [61] Existence, and therefore he leaves the word "made" and puts "was"; yet if He were created, this point he needs must most especially have determined. For if Paul feared that some foolish persons might suppose that He shall be greater than the Father, and have Him who begat Him made subject to Him, (for this is the reason why the Apostle in sending to the Corinthians writes, "But when He saith, All things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under Him," yet who could possibly imagine that the Father, even in common with all things, will be subject to the Son?) if, I say, he nevertheless feared these foolish imaginations, and says, "He is excepted that did put all things under Him;" much more if the Son of God were indeed created, ought John to have feared lest any one should suppose Him uncreated, and to have taught on this point before any other.
But now, since He was Begotten, with good reason neither John nor any other, whether apostle or prophet, hath asserted that He was created. Neither had it been so would the Only-Begotten Himself have let it pass unmentioned. For He who spoke of Himself so humbly from condescension [62] would certainly not have been silent on this matter. And I think it not unreasonable to suppose, that He would be more likely to have the higher Nature, and say nothing of it, than not having it to pass by this omission, and fail to make known that He had it not. For in the first case there was a good excuse for silence, namely, His desire to teach mankind humility by being silent as to the greatness of His attributes; but in the second case you can find no just excuse for silence. For why should He who declined many of His real attributes have been, if He were created, silent as to His having been made? He who, in order to teach humility, often uttered expressions of lowliness, such as did not properly belong to Him, much more if He had been indeed created, would not have failed to speak of this. Do you not see Him, in order that none may imagine Him not to have been begotten, [63] doing and saying everything to show that He was so, uttering words unworthy both of His dignity and His essence, and descending to the humble character of a Prophet? For the expression, "As I hear, I judge" ( v. 30 ); and that other, "He hath told Me what I should say, and what I should speak" ( xii. 49 ), and the like, belong merely to a prophet. If now, from His desire to remove this suspicion, He did not disdain to utter words thus lowly, much more if He were created would He have said many like words, that none might suppose Him to be uncreated; as, "Think not that I am begotten of the Father; I am created, not begotten, nor do I share His essence." But as it is, He does the very contrary, and utters words which compel men, even against their will and desire, to admit the opposite opinion. As, "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me" ( xiv. 11 ); and, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? he that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father." ( xiv. 9.) And, "That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father." ( v. 23.) "As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will." ( v. 21.) "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." ( v. 17.) "As the Father knoweth Me, even so know I the Father." ( x. 15.) "I and My Father are One." ( x. 30.) And everywhere by putting the "as," and the "so," and the "being with the Father," He declares His undeviating likeness to Him. [64] His power in Himself He manifests by these, as well as by many other words; as when He says, "Peace, be still." ( Mark iv. 39.) "I will, be thou clean." ( Matt. viii. 3.) "Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him." ( Mark ix. 25.) And again, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger." ( Matt. v. 21, 22.) And all the other laws which He gave, and wonders which He worked, are sufficient to show His power, or rather, I should say, a very small part of them is enough to bring over and convince any, except the utterly insensate.
[5.] But vainglory [65] is a thing powerful to blind even to very evident truths the minds of those ensnared by it, and to persuade them to dispute against what is allowed by others; nay, it instigates [66] some who know and are persuaded of the truth to pretended ignorance and opposition. As took place in the case of the Jews, for they did not through ignorance deny the Son of God, but that they might obtain honor from the multitude; "they believed," says the Evangelist, but were afraid, "lest they should be put out of the synagogue." ( xii. 40.) And so they gave up [67] their salvation to others. [68] For it cannot be that he who is so zealous a slave to the glory of this present world can obtain the glory which is from God. Wherefore He rebuked them, saying, "How can ye believe, which receive honor of men, and seek not the honor which cometh from God?" ( v. 44.) This passion is a sort of deep intoxication, and makes him who is subdued by it hard to recover. And having detached the souls of its captives from heavenly things, it nails them to earth, and lets them not look up to the true light, but persuades them ever to wallow in the mire, giving them masters so powerful, that they have the rule over them without needing to use commands. For the man who is sick of this disease, does of his own accord, and without bidding, all that he thinks will be agreeable to his masters. On their account he clothes himself in rich apparel, and beautifies his face, taking these pains not for himself but for others; and he leads about a train of followers through the market-place, that others may admire him, and all that he does he goes through, merely out of obsequiousness to the rest of the world. Can any state of mind be more wretched than this? That others may admire him, he is ever being precipitated [69] to ruin.
Would you learn what a tyrannous sway it exercises? Why surely, the words of Christ are sufficient to show it all. But yet listen to these further remarks. [70] If you will ask any of those men who mingle in state affairs and incur great expenses, why they lavish so much gold, and what their so vast expenditure means; you will hear from them, that it is for nothing else but to gratify the people. If again you ask what the people may be; they will say, that it is a thing full of confusion and turbulent, made up for the most part of folly, tossed blindly to and fro like the waves of the sea, and often composed of varying and adverse opinions. Must not the man who has such a master be more pitiable than any one? And yet strange though it be, it is not so strange that worldly men should be eager about these things; but that those who say that they have started away from the world should be sick of this same disease, or rather of one more grievous still, this is the strangest thing of all. For with the first the loss extends only to money, but in the last case the danger reaches to the soul. For when men alter a right faith for reputation's sake, and dishonor God that they may be in high repute themselves, tell me, what excess of stupidity and madness must there not be in what they do? Other passions, even if they are very hurtful, at least bring some pleasure with them, though it be but for a time and fleeting; those who love money, or wine, or women, have, with their hurt, a pleasure, though a brief one. But those who are taken captives by this passion, live a life continually embittered and stripped of enjoyment, for they do not obtain what they earnestly desire, glory, I mean, from the many. They think they enjoy it, but do not really, because the thing they aim at is not glory at all. And therefore their state of mind is not called glory, [71] but a something void of glory, vaingloriousness, [72] so have all the ancients named it, and with good reason; inasmuch as it is quite empty, and contains nothing bright or glorious within it, but as players' masks seem to be bright and lovely, but are hollow within, (for which cause, though they be more beautiful than natural faces, yet they never draw any to love them,) even so, or rather yet more wretchedly, has the applause of the multitude tricked out for us this passion, dangerous as an antagonist, and cruel as a master. Its countenance alone is bright, but within it is no more like the mask's mere emptiness, but crammed with dishonor, and full of savage tyranny. Whence then, it may be asked, has this passion, so unreasonable, so devoid of pleasure, its birth? Whence else but from a low, mean soul? It cannot be that one who is captivated by love of applause should imagine readily anything great or noble; he needs must be base, mean, dishonorable, little. He who does nothing for virtue's sake, but to please men worthy of no consideration, and who ever makes account of their mistaken and erring opinions, how can he be worth anything? Consider; if any one should ask him, What do you think of the many? he clearly would say, "that they are thoughtless, and not to be regarded." Then if any one again should ask him, "Would you choose to be like them?" I do not suppose he could possibly desire to be like them. Must it not then be excessively ridiculous to seek the good opinion of those whom you never would choose to resemble?