72. But if the Word were a work, then certainly He as others had been made in Wisdom; nor would Scripture distinguish Him from the works, nor while it named them works, preach Him as Word and own Wisdom of God. But, as it is, distinguishing Him from the works, He shews that Wisdom is Framer of the works, and not a work. This distinction Paul also observes, writing to the Hebrews, The Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, reaching even to the dividing of soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, neither is there any creature hidden before Him, but all things are naked and open unto the eyes of Him with whom is our account [2707] .' For behold he calls things originate creature;' but the Son he recognises as the Word of God, as if He were other than the creatures. And again saying, All things are naked and open to the eyes of Him with whom is our account,' he signifies that He is other than all of them. For hence it is that He judges, but each of all things originate is bound to give account to Him. And so also, when the whole creation is groaning together with us in order to be set free from the bondage of corruption, the Son is thereby shewn to be other than the creatures. For if He were creature, He too would be one of those who groan, and would need one who should bring adoption and deliverance to Himself as well as others. But if the whole creation groans together, for the sake of freedom from the bondage of corruption, whereas the Son is not of those that groan nor of those who need freedom, but He it is who gives sonship and freedom to all, saying to the Jews of His time [2708] , The servant remains not in the house for ever, but the Son remaineth for ever; if then the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed [2709] ;' it is clearer than the light from these considerations also, that the Word of God is not a creature but true Son, and by nature genuine, of the Father. Concerning then The Lord hath created me a beginning of the ways,' this is sufficient, as I think, though in few words, to afford matter to the learned to frame more ample refutations of the Arian heresy.
[2581] Gen. i. 1.
[2582] Ps. cxix. 73.
[2583] Ps. ii. 7.
[2584] Ps. xlv. 1.
[2585] John i. 1.
[2586] Matt. xix. 4.
[2587] Ps. cii. 25.
[2588] Ps. lxxiv. 2.
[2589] Gen. ii. 3.
[2590] Supr. i. 29, n. 10.
[2591] arche, vid. Orat. iv. 1.
[2592] In this passage was from the beginning' is made equivalent with was not before generation,' and both are contrasted with without beginning' or eternal;' vid. the bearing of this on Bishop Bull's explanation of the Nicene Anathema, supr. Exc. B, where this passage is quoted.
[2593] theologon, vid. §71, note.
[2594] The technical sense of eusebeia, asebeia, pietas, impietas, for orthodoxy, heterodoxy,' has been noticed supr. p. 150, and derived from 1 Tim. iii. 16. The word is contrasted ch. iv. 8. with the (perhaps Gnostic) profane and old-wives fables,' and with bodily exercise.'
[2595] Deut. xxxii. 6. LXX.
[2596] Ibid. 18.
[2597] Gen. i. 26.
[2598] Deut. xxxii. 6.
[2599] Ibid. 17.
[2600] John i. 12, 13.
[2601] paratereseos, §12, note.
[2602] De Decr. 31 fin.
[2603] Mal. ii. 10.
[2604] ton en hemin hui& 231;n. vid. also supr. 10. circ. fin. 56. init. and ton en autois oikounta logon. 61. init. Also Orat. i. 50 fin. iii. 23-25. and de Decr. 31 fin. Or. i. 48, note 7, §56, n. 5. infr. notes on 79.
[2605] Gal. iv. 6.
[2606] Gen. i. 26.
[2607] §45, note 2.
[2608] Ch. 20.
[2609] pp. 367, 374.
[2610] §48.
[2611] §6, note 49.
[2612] Col. i. 18.
[2613] Rom. viii. 29. Bishop Bull's hypothesis about the sense of prototokos tes ktiseos has been commented on supr. p. 347. As far as Athan.'s discussion proceeds in this section, it only relates to prototokos of men (i.e. from the dead), and is equivalent to the beginning of ways.'
[2614] Marcellus seems to have argued against Asterius from the same texts (Euseb. in Marc. p. 12), that, since Christ is called first-born from the dead,' though others had been recalled to life before Him, therefore He is called first-born of creation,' not in point of time, but of dignity. vid. Montacut. Not. p. 11. Yet Athan. argues contrariwise. Orat. iv. 29.
[2615] §10. n. 7; Orat. iii. 31. note.
[2616] John xiv. 6; x. 9.
[2617] Rev. i. 5.
[2618] Here again, though speaking of the first-born of creation,' Athan. simply views the phrase as equivalent to first-born of the new creation or "brother" of many;' and so infr. first-born because of the brotherhood He has made with many.'
[2619] Bp. Bull considers sunkatabasis as equivalent to a figurative gennesis, an idea which (vid. supr. p. 346 sq.) seems quite foreign from Athan.'s meaning. In Bull's sense of the word, Athan. could not have said that the senses of Only-begotten and First-born were contrary to each other, Or. i. 28. Sunkatabenai occurs supr. 51 fin. of the Incarnation. What is meant by it will be found infr. 78-81. viz. that our Lord came to implant in the creatures a type and semblance of His Image;' which is just what is here maintained against Bull. The whole passage referred to is a comment on the word sunkatabasis, and begins and ends with an introduction of that word. Vid. also c. Gent. 47.
[2620] Vid. Rom. viii. 29.
[2621] This passage has been urged against Bull supr. Exc. B. All the words (says Athan.) which are proper to the Son, and describe Him fitly, are expressive of what is internal' to the Divine Nature, as Begotten, Word, Wisdom, Glory, Hand, &c., but (as he adds presently) the first-born,' like beginning of ways,' is relative to creation; and therefore cannot denote our Lord's essence or Divine subsistence, but something temporal, an office, character, or the like.
[2622] John i. 14.
[2623] 1 John iv. 9.
[2624] Ps. cxix. 89.
[2625] 1 Cor. i. 24.
[2626] Matt. iii. 17; xvi. 16.
[2627] This passage is imitated by Theodoret. in Coloss. i. 15, but the passages from the Fathers referable to these Orations are too many to enumerate.
[2628] This passage is imitated by Theodoret. in Coloss. i. 15, but the passages from the Fathers referable to these Orations are too many to enumerate.
[2629] We now come to a third and wider sense of prototokos, as found (not in Rom. viii. 29, and Col. i. 18, but) in Col. i. 15, where by creation' Athan. understands all things visible and invisible.' As then for the works' was just now taken to argue that created' was used in a relative and restricted sense, the same is shewn as regards first-born' by the words for in Him all things were created.'
[2630] i. 52.
[2631] apolelumenos; supr. i. 56, note 6, and §§53, 56, and so apolutos Theophylact to express the same distinction in loc. Coloss.
[2632] John i. 18.
[2633] Col. i. 16.
[2634] It would be perhaps better to translate first-born to the creature,' to give Athan.'s idea; tes ktiseos not being a partitive genitive, or prototokos a superlative (though he presently so considers it), but a simple appellative and tes kt. a common genitive of relation, as the king of a country,' the owner of a house.' First-born of creation' is like author, type, life of creation.' Hence S. Paul goes on at once to say, for in Him all things were made,' not simply by and for,' as at the end of the verse; or as Athan. says here, because in Him the creation came to be.' On the distinction of dia and en, referring respectively to the first and second creations, vid. In illud Omn. 2. (Supr. p. 88.)
[2635] To understand this passage, the Greek idiom must be kept in view. Cf. Milton's imitation the fairest of her daughters Eve.' Vid. as regards the very word protos, John i. 15; and supr. §30, note 3, also pleisten e emprosthen 3 Maccab. 7, 21. Accordingly as in the comparative to obviate this exclusion, we put in the word other' (ante alios immanior omnes), so too in the Greek superlative, Socrates is wisest of "other" heathen.' Athanasius then says in this passage, that first-born of creatures' implies that our Lord was not a creature; whereas it is not said of Him first-born of brethren,' lest He should he excluded from men, but first-born "among" brethren,' where among' is equivalent to other.'
[2636] Gen. xlix. 3, LXX. Vid. also contr. Gent. 41 sq. where the text Col. i. 15 is quoted.
[2637] Rom. viii. 29.
[2638] Col. i. 15.
[2639] Ib. i. 17.
[2640] Rom. viii. 19, 21. Thus there are two senses in which our Lord is first-born to the creation;' viz. in its first origin, and in its restoration after man's fall; as he says more clearly in the next section.
[2641] De Decr. 19, n. 3.
[2642] i. 48, n. 7.
[2643] §20.
[2644] He does not here say with Asterius that God could not create man immediately, for the Word is God, but that He did not create him without at the same time infusing a grace or presence from Himself into his created nature to enable it to endure His external plastic hand; in other words, that he was created in Him, not as something external to Him (in spite of the dia supr.63, n. 1. vid. supr. de Decr. 19. 3. and Gent. 47. where the sunkatabasis is spoken of.
[2645] As God created Him, in that He created human nature in Him, so is He first-born, in that human nature is adopted in Him. Leo Serm. 63. 3.
[2646] Heb. i. 6.
[2647] Thus he considers that first-born' is mainly a title, connected with the Incarnation, and also connected with our Lord's office at the creation (vid. parallel of Priesthood, §8, n. 4). In each economy it has the same meaning; it belongs to Him as the type, idea, or rule on which the creature was made or new-made, and the life by which it is sustained. Both economies are mentioned Incarn. 13, 14. Orat. i. 51. iii. 20. infr. 76. init. He came ten tou archetupou plasin anastesasthai heauto contr.Apoll. ii. 5. And so again, he idea hoper logon eirekasi. Clem. Strom. v. 3. idean ideon kai archen lekteon ton prototokon pases ktiseos Origen. contr. Cels. vi. 64. fin. Whatever God was about to make in the creature, was already in the Word, nor would be in the things, were it not in the Word.' August. in Psalm xliv. 5. He elsewhere calls the Son, ars quædam omnipotentis atque sapientis Dei, plena omnium rationum viventium incommutabilium.' de Trin. vi. 11. And so Athan. infr. iii. 9. fin. Eusebius, in commenting on the very passage which Athan. is discussing (Prov. viii. 22), presents a remarkable contrast to these passages, as making the Son, not the idea, but the external minister of the Father's idea. de Eccl. Theol. pp. 164, 5. vid. supr. §31, n. 7.
[2648] 1 Cor. xv. 20.
[2649] Col. i. 18.
[2650] Ps. cxix. 1; Matt. v. 8.
[2651] Gen. iii. 19.
[2652] §31, n. 8.
[2653] Vid. Or. i. §48, 7, i. 51, 5, supr. 56, 5. Irenæus, Hær. iii. 19, n. 1. Cyril. in Joan. lib. ix. cir. fin. This is the doctrine of S. Athanasius and S. Cyril, one may say, passim.
[2654] Heb. x. 20.
[2655] 2 Cor. v. 17.
[2656] §45, n. 2.
[2657] Athanasius here says that our Lord's body was subject to death; and so Incarn. 20, e. also 8, b. 18. init. Orat. iii. 56. And so ton anthropon sathrothenta. Orat. iv. 33. And so S. Leo in his Tome lays down that in the Incarnation, suscepta est ab æternitate mortalitas. Ep. 28. 3. And S. Austin, Utique vulnerabile atque mortale corpus habuit [Christus] contr. Faust. xiv. 2. A Eutychian sect denied this doctrine (the Aphthartodocetæ), and held that our Lord's manhood was naturally indeed corrupt, but became from its union with the Word incorrupt from the moment of conception; and in consequence it held that our Lord did not suffer and die, except by miracle. vid. Leont. c. Nest. ii. (Canis. t. i. pp. 563, 4, 8.) vid. supr. i. 43 and 44, notes; also infr. 76, note. And further, note on iii. 57.
[2658] Ps. cii. 18.
[2659] Ib. xxii. 32.
[2660] Gen. ii. 17.
[2661] John xiv. 3; Eph. ii. 10.
[2662] Ps. cxxxviii. 8.
[2663] Cf. Orat. iv. 11.
[2664] anth' hemon ten opheilen apodidous, and so the Lord's death lutron panton. Incarn. V.D. 25. lutron katharsion. Naz. Orat. 30, 20. fin. also supr. 9, 13, 14, 47, 55, 67. In Illud. Omn. 2 fin.