Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen De Principiis/I/Chapter 2

Chapter II.&#8212;On Christ.

1.&#160; In the first place, we must note that the nature of that deity which is in Christ in respect of His being the only-begotten Son of God is one thing, and that human nature which He assumed in these last times for the purposes of the dispensation (of grace) is another.&#160; And therefore we have first to ascertain what the only-begotten Son of God is, seeing He is called by many different names, according to the circumstances and views of individuals.&#160; For He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon:&#160; &#8220;The Lord created me&#8212;the beginning of His ways, and among His works, before He made any other thing; He founded me before the ages.&#160; In the beginning, before He formed the earth, before He brought forth the fountains of waters, before the mountains were made strong, before all the hills, He brought me forth.&#8221; &#160; He is also styled First-born, as the apostle has declared:&#160; &#8220;who is the first-born of every creature.&#8221; &#160; The first-born, however, is not by nature a different person from the Wisdom, but one and the same.&#160; Finally, the Apostle Paul says that &#8220;Christ (is) the power of God and the wisdom of God.&#8221;

2.&#160; Let no one, however, imagine that we mean anything impersonal when we call Him the wisdom of God; or suppose, for example, that we understand Him to be, not a living being endowed with wisdom, but something which makes men wise, giving itself to, and implanting itself in, the minds of those who are made capable of receiving His virtues and intelligence.&#160; If, then, it is once rightly understood that the only-begotten Son of God is His wisdom hypostatically existing, I know not whether our curiosity ought to advance beyond this, or entertain any suspicion that that &#8017;&#960;&#8057;&#963;&#964;&#945;&#963;&#953;&#962; or substantia contains anything of a bodily nature, since everything that is corporeal is distinguished either by form, or colour, or magnitude.&#160; And who in his sound senses ever sought for form, or colour, or size, in wisdom, in respect of its being wisdom?&#160; And who that is capable of entertaining reverential thoughts or feelings regarding God, can suppose or believe that God the Father ever existed, even for a moment of time, without having generated this Wisdom?&#160; For in that case he must say either that God was unable to generate Wisdom before He produced her, so that He afterwards called into being her who formerly did not exist, or that He possessed the power indeed, but&#8212;what cannot be said of God without impiety&#8212;was unwilling to use it; both of which suppositions, it is patent to all, are alike absurd and impious:&#160; for they amount to this, either that God advanced from a condition of inability to one of ability, or that, although possessed of the power, He concealed it, and delayed the generation of Wisdom.&#160; Wherefore we have always held that God is the Father of His only-begotten Son, who was born indeed of Him, and derives from Him what He is, but without any beginning, not only such as may be measured by any divisions of time, but even that which the mind alone can contemplate within itself, or behold, so to speak, with the naked powers of the understanding.&#160; And therefore we must believe that Wisdom was generated before any beginning that can be either comprehended or expressed.&#160; And since all the creative power of the coming creation was included in this very existence of Wisdom (whether of those things which have an original or of those which have a derived existence), having been formed beforehand and arranged by the power of foreknowledge; on account of these very creatures which had been described, as it were, and prefigured in Wisdom herself, does Wisdom say, in the words of Solomon, that she was created the beginning of the ways of God, inasmuch as she contained within herself either the beginnings, or forms, or species of all creation.

3.&#160; Now, in the same way in which we have understood that Wisdom was the beginning of the ways of God, and is said to be created, forming beforehand and containing within herself the species and beginnings of all creatures, must we understand her to be the Word of God, because of her disclosing to all other beings, i.e., to universal creation, the nature of the mysteries and secrets which are contained within the divine wisdom; and on this account she is called the Word, because she is, as it were, the interpreter of the secrets of the mind.&#160; And therefore that language which is found in the Acts of Paul, where it is said that &#8220;here is the Word a living being,&#8221; appears to me to be rightly used.&#160; John, however, with more sublimity and propriety, says in the beginning of his Gospel, when defining God by a special definition to be the Word, &#8220;And God was the Word, and this was in the beginning with God.&#8221;&#160; Let him, then, who assigns a beginning to the Word or Wisdom of God, take care that he be not guilty of impiety against the unbegotten Father Himself, seeing he denies that He had always been a Father, and had generated the Word, and had possessed wisdom in all preceding periods, whether they be called times or ages, or anything else that can be so entitled.

4.&#160; This Son, accordingly, is also the truth and life of all things which exist.&#160; And with reason.&#160; For how could those things which were created live, unless they derived their being from life? or how could those things which are, truly exist, unless they came down from the truth? or how could rational beings exist, unless the Word or reason had previously existed? or how could they be wise, unless there were wisdom?&#160; But since it was to come to pass that some also should fall away from life, and bring death upon themselves by their declension&#8212;for death is nothing else than a departure from life&#8212;and as it was not to follow that those beings which had once been created by God for the enjoyment of life should utterly perish, it was necessary that, before death, there should be in existence such a power as would destroy the coming death, and that there should be a resurrection, the type of which was in our Lord and Saviour, and that this resurrection should have its ground in the wisdom and word and life of God.&#160; And then, in the next place, since some of those who were created were not to be always willing to remain unchangeable and unalterable in the calm and moderate enjoyment of the blessings which they possessed, but, in consequence of the good which was in them being theirs not by nature or essence, but by accident, were to be perverted and changed, and to fall away from their position, therefore was the Word and Wisdom of God made the Way.&#160; And it was so termed because it leads to the Father those who walk along it.

Whatever, therefore, we have predicated of the wisdom of God, will be appropriately applied and understood of the Son of God, in virtue of His being the Life, and the Word, and the Truth and the Resurrection:&#160; for all these titles are derived from His power and operations, and in none of them is there the slightest ground for understanding anything of a corporeal nature which might seem to denote either size, or form, or colour; for those children of men which appear among us, or those descendants of other living beings, correspond to the seed of those by whom they were begotten, or derive from those mothers, in whose wombs they are formed and nourished, whatever that is, which they bring into this life, and carry with them when they are born. &#160; But it is monstrous and unlawful to compare God the Father, in the generation of His only-begotten Son, and in the substance of the same, to any man or other living thing engaged in such an act; for we must of necessity hold that there is something exceptional and worthy of God which does not admit of any comparison at all, not merely in things, but which cannot even be conceived by thought or discovered by perception, so that a human mind should be able to apprehend how the unbegotten God is made the Father of the only-begotten Son.&#160; Because His generation is as eternal and everlasting as the brilliancy which is produced from the sun.&#160; For it is not by receiving the breath of life that He is made a Son, by any outward act, but by His own nature.

5.&#160; Let us now ascertain how those statements which we have advanced are supported by the authority of holy Scripture.&#160; The Apostle Paul says, that the only-begotten Son is the &#8220;image of the invisible God,&#8221; and &#8220;the first-born of every creature.&#8221; &#160; And when writing to the Hebrews, he says of Him that He is &#8220;the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person.&#8221; &#160; Now, we find in the treatise called the Wisdom of Solomon the following description of the wisdom of God:&#160; &#8220;For she is the breath of the power of God, and the purest efflux of the glory of the Almighty.&#8221; &#160; Nothing that is polluted can therefore come upon her.&#160; For she is the splendour of the eternal light, and the stainless mirror of God&#8217;s working, and the image of His goodness.&#160; Now we say, as before, that Wisdom has her existence nowhere else save in Him who is the beginning of all things:&#160; from whom also is derived everything that is wise, because He Himself is the only one who is by nature a Son, and is therefore termed the Only-begotten.

6.&#160; Let us now see how we are to understand the expression &#8220;invisible image,&#8221; that we may in this way perceive how God is rightly called the Father of His Son; and let us, in the first place, draw our conclusions from what are customarily called images among men.&#160; That is sometimes called an image which is painted or sculptured on some material substance, such as wood or stone; and sometimes a child is called the image of his parent, when the features of the child in no respect belie their resemblance to the father.&#160; I think, therefore, that that man who was formed after the image and likeness of God may be fittingly compared to the first illustration.&#160; Respecting him, however, we shall see more precisely, God willing, when we come to expound the passage in Genesis.&#160; But the image of the Son of God, of whom we are now speaking, may be compared to the second of the above examples, even in respect of this, that He is the invisible image of the invisible God, in the same manner as we say, according to the sacred history, that the image of Adam is his son Seth.&#160; The words are, &#8220;And Adam begat Seth in his own likeness, and after his own image.&#8221; &#160; Now this image contains the unity of nature and substance belonging to Father and Son.&#160; For if the Son do, in like manner, all those things which the Father doth, then, in virtue of the Son doing all things like the Father, is the image of the Father formed in the Son, who is born of Him, like an act of His will proceeding from the mind.&#160; And I am therefore of opinion that the will of the Father ought alone to be sufficient for the existence of that which He wishes to exist.&#160; For in the exercise of His will He employs no other way than that which is made known by the counsel of His will.&#160; And thus also the existence of the Son is generated by Him.&#160; For this point must above all others be maintained by those who allow nothing to be unbegotten, i.e., unborn, save God the Father only.&#160; And we must be careful not to fall into the absurdities of those who picture to themselves certain emanations, so as to divide the divine nature into parts, and who divide God the Father as far as they can, since even to entertain the remotest suspicion of such a thing regarding an incorporeal being is not only the height of impiety, but a mark of the greatest folly, it being most remote from any intelligent conception that there should be any physical division of any incorporeal nature.&#160; Rather, therefore, as an act of the will proceeds from the understanding, and neither cuts off any part nor is separated or divided from it, so after some such fashion is the Father to be supposed as having begotten the Son, His own image; namely, so that, as He is Himself invisible by nature, He also begat an image that was invisible.&#160; For the Son is the Word, and therefore we are not to understand that anything in Him is cognisable by the senses.&#160; He is wisdom, and in wisdom there can be no suspicion of anything corporeal.&#160; He is the true light, which enlightens every man that cometh into this world; but He has nothing in common with the light of this sun.&#160; Our Saviour, therefore, is the image of the invisible God, inasmuch as compared with the Father Himself He is the truth:&#160; and as compared with us, to whom He reveals the Father, He is the image by which we come to the knowledge of the Father, whom no one knows save the Son, and he to whom the Son is pleased to reveal Him.&#160; And the method of revealing Him is through the understanding.&#160; For He by whom the Son Himself is understood, understands, as a consequence, the Father also, according to His own words:&#160; &#8220;He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father also.&#8221;

7.&#160; But since we quoted the language of Paul regarding Christ, where He says of Him that He is &#8220;the brightness of the glory of God, and the express figure of His person,&#8221; let us see what idea we are to form of this.&#160; According to John, &#8220;God is light.&#8221;&#160; The only-begotten Son, therefore, is the glory of this light, proceeding inseparably from (God) Himself, as brightness does from light, and illuminating the whole of creation.&#160; For, agreeably to what we have already explained as to the manner in which He is the Way, and conducts to the Father; and in which He is the Word, interpreting the secrets of wisdom, and the mysteries of knowledge, making them known to the rational creation; and is also the Truth, and the Life, and the Resurrection,&#8212;in the same way ought we to understand also the meaning of His being the brightness:&#160; for it is by its splendour that we understand and feel what light itself is.&#160; And this splendour, presenting itself gently and softly to the frail and weak eyes of mortals, and gradually training, as it were, and accustoming them to bear the brightness of the light, when it has put away from them every hindrance and obstruction to vision, according to the Lord&#8217;s own precept, &#8220;Cast forth the beam out of thine eye,&#8221; renders them capable of enduring the splendour of the light, being made in this respect also a sort of mediator between men and the light.

8.&#160; But since He is called by the apostle not only the brightness of His glory, but also the express figure of His person or subsistence, it does not seem idle to inquire how there can be said to be another figure of that person besides the person of God Himself, whatever be the meaning of person and subsistence.&#160; Consider, then, whether the Son of God, seeing He is His Word and Wisdom, and alone knows the Father, and reveals Him to whom He will (i.e., to those who are capable of receiving His word and wisdom), may not, in regard of this very point of making God to be understood and acknowledged, be called the figure of His person and subsistence; that is, when that Wisdom, which desires to make known to others the means by which God is acknowledged and understood by them, describes Himself first of all, it may by so doing be called the express figure of the person of God.&#160; In order, however, to arrive at a fuller understanding of the manner in which the Saviour is the figure of the person or subsistence of God, let us take an instance, which, although it does not describe the subject of which we are treating either fully or appropriately, may nevertheless be seen to be employed for this purpose only, to show that the Son of God, who was in the form of God, divesting Himself (of His glory), makes it His object, by this very divesting of Himself, to demonstrate to us the fulness of His deity.&#160; For instance, suppose that there were a statue of so enormous a size as to fill the whole world, and which on that account could be seen by no one; and that another statue were formed altogether resembling it in the shape of the limbs, and in the features of the countenance, and in form and material, but without the same immensity of size, so that those who were unable to behold the one of enormous proportions, should, on seeing the latter, acknowledge that they had seen the former, because it preserved all the features of its limbs and countenance, and even the very form and material, so closely, as to be altogether undistinguishable from it; by some such similitude, the Son of God, divesting Himself of His equality with the Father, and showing to us the way to the knowledge of Him, is made the express image of His person:&#160; so that we, who were unable to look upon the glory of that marvellous light when placed in the greatness of His Godhead, may, by His being made to us brightness, obtain the means of beholding the divine light by looking upon the brightness.&#160; This comparison, of course, of statues, as belonging to material things, is employed for no other purpose than to show that the Son of God, though placed in the very insignificant form of a human body, in consequence of the resemblance of His works and power to the Father, showed that there was in Him an immense and invisible greatness, inasmuch as He said to His disciples, &#8220;He who sees Me, sees the Father also;&#8221; and, &#8220;I and the Father are one.&#8221;&#160; And to these belong also the similar expression, &#8220;The Father is in Me, and I in the Father.&#8221;

9.&#160; Let us see now what is the meaning of the expression which is found in the Wisdom of Solomon, where it is said of Wisdom that &#8220;it is a kind of breath of the power of God, and the purest efflux of the glory of the Omnipotent, and the splendour of eternal light, and the spotless mirror of the working or power of God, and the image of His goodness.&#8221; &#160; These, then, are the definitions which he gives of God, pointing out by each one of them certain attributes which belong to the Wisdom of God, calling wisdom the power, and the glory, and the everlasting light, and the working, and the goodness of God.&#160; He does not say, however, that wisdom is the breath of the glory of the Almighty, nor of the everlasting light, nor of the working of the Father, nor of His goodness, for it was not appropriate that breath should be ascribed to any one of these; but, with all propriety, he says that wisdom is the breath of the power of God.&#160; Now, by the power of God is to be understood that by which He is strong; by which He appoints, restrains, and governs all things visible and invisible; which is sufficient for all those things which He rules over in His providence; among all which He is present, as if one individual.&#160; And although the breath of all this mighty and immeasurable power, and the vigour itself produced, so to speak, by its own existence, proceed from the power itself, as the will does from the mind, yet even this will of God is nevertheless made to become the power of God.

Another power accordingly is produced, which exists with properties of its own,&#8212;a kind of breath, as Scripture says, of the primal and unbegotten power of God, deriving from Him its being, and never at any time non-existent.&#160; For if any one were to assert that it did not formerly exist, but came afterwards into existence, let him explain the reason why the Father, who gave it being, did not do so before.&#160; And if he shall grant that there was once a beginning, when that breath proceeded from the power of God, we shall ask him again, why not even before the beginning, which he has allowed; and in this way, ever demanding an earlier date, and going upwards with our interrogations, we shall arrive at this conclusion, that as God was always possessed of power and will, there never was any reason of propriety or otherwise, why He may not have always possessed that blessing which He desired.&#160; By which it is shown that that breath of God&#8217;s power always existed, having no beginning save God Himself.&#160; Nor was it fitting that there should be any other beginning save God Himself, from whom it derives its birth.&#160; And according to the expression of the apostle, that Christ &#8220;is the power of God,&#8221; it ought to be termed not only the breath of the power of God, but power out of power.

10.&#160; Let us now examine the expression, &#8220;Wisdom is the purest efflux of the glory of the Almighty;&#8221; and let us first consider what the glory of the omnipotent God is, and then we shall also understand what is its efflux.&#160; As no one can be a father without having a son, nor a master without possessing a servant, so even God cannot be called omnipotent unless there exist those over whom He may exercise His power; and therefore, that God may be shown to be almighty, it is necessary that all things should exist.&#160; For if any one would have some ages or portions of time, or whatever else he likes to call them, to have passed away, while those things which were afterwards made did not yet exist, he would undoubtedly show that during those ages or periods God was not omnipotent, but became so afterwards, viz., from the time that He began to have persons over whom to exercise power; and in this way He will appear to have received a certain increase, and to have risen from a lower to a higher condition; since there can be no doubt that it is better for Him to be omnipotent than not to be so.&#160; And now how can it appear otherwise than absurd, that when God possessed none of those things which it was befitting for Him to possess, He should afterwards, by a kind of progress, come into the possession of them?&#160; But if there never was a time when He was not omnipotent, of necessity those things by which He receives that title must also exist; and He must always have had those over whom He exercised power, and which were governed by Him either as king or prince, of which we shall speak more fully in the proper place, when we come to discuss the subject of the creatures.&#160; But even now I think it necessary to drop a word, although cursorily, of warning, since the question before us is, how wisdom is the purest efflux of the glory of the Almighty, lest any one should think that the title of Omnipotent was anterior in God to the birth of Wisdom, through whom He is called Father, seeing that Wisdom, which is the Son of God, is the purest efflux of the glory of the Almighty.&#160; Let him who is inclined to entertain this suspicion hear the undoubted declaration of Scripture pronouncing, &#8220;In wisdom hast Thou made them all,&#8221; and the teaching of the Gospel, that &#8220;by Him were all things made, and without Him nothing was made;&#8221; and let him understand from this that the title of Omnipotent in God cannot be older than that of Father; for it is through the Son that the Father is almighty.&#160; But from the expression &#8220;glory of the Almighty,&#8221; of which glory Wisdom is the efflux, this is to be understood, that Wisdom, through which God is called omnipotent, has a share in the glory of the Almighty.&#160; For through Wisdom, which is Christ, God has power over all things, not only by the authority of a ruler, but also by the voluntary obedience of subjects.&#160; And that you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father, listen to the manner in which John speaks in the Apocalypse:&#160; &#8220;Thus saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.&#8221; &#160; For who else was &#8220;He which is to come&#8221; than Christ?&#160; And as no one ought to be offended, seeing God is the Father, that the Saviour is also God; so also, since the Father is called omnipotent, no one ought to be offended that the Son of God is also called omnipotent.&#160; For in this way will that saying be true which He utters to the Father, &#8220;All Mine are Thine, and Thine are Mine, and I am glorified in them.&#8221; &#160; Now, if all things which are the Father&#8217;s are also Christ&#8217;s, certainly among those things which exist is the omnipotence of the Father; and doubtless the only-begotten Son ought to be omnipotent, that the Son also may have all things which the Father possesses.&#160; &#8220;And I am glorified in them,&#8221; He declares.&#160; For &#8220;at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and every tongue shall confess that the Lord Jesus is in the glory of God the Father.&#8221; &#160; Therefore He is the efflux of the glory of God in this respect, that He is omnipotent&#8212;the pure and limpid Wisdom herself&#8212;glorified as the efflux of omnipotence or of glory. And that it may be more clearly understood what the glory of omnipotence is, we shall add the following.&#160; God the Father is omnipotent, because He has power over all things, i.e., over heaven and earth, sun, moon, and stars, and all things in them.&#160; And He exercises His power over them by means of His Word, because at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, both of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth.&#160; And if every knee is bent to Jesus, then, without doubt, it is Jesus to whom all things are subject, and He it is who exercises power over all things, and through whom all things are subject to the Father; for through wisdom, i.e., by word and reason, not by force and necessity, are all things subject.&#160; And therefore His glory consists in this very thing, that He possesses all things, and this is the purest and most limpid glory of omnipotence, that by reason and wisdom, not by force and necessity, all things are subject.&#160; Now the purest and most limpid glory of wisdom is a convenient expression to distinguish it from that glory which cannot be called pure and sincere.&#160; But every nature which is convertible and changeable, although glorified in the works of righteousness or wisdom, yet by the fact that righteousness or wisdom are accidental qualities, and because that which is accidental may also fall away, its glory cannot be called sincere and pure.&#160; But the Wisdom of God, which is His only-begotten Son, being in all respects incapable of change or alteration, and every good quality in Him being essential, and such as cannot be changed and converted, His glory is therefore declared to be pure and sincere.

11.&#160; In the third place, wisdom is called the splendour of eternal light.&#160; The force of this expression we have explained in the preceding pages, when we introduced the similitude of the sun and the splendour of its rays, and showed to the best of our power how this should be understood.&#160; To what we then said we shall add only the following remark.&#160; That is properly termed everlasting or eternal which neither had a beginning of existence, nor can ever cease to be what it is.&#160; And this is the idea conveyed by John when he says that &#8220;God is light.&#8221;&#160; Now His wisdom is the splendour of that light, not only in respect of its being light, but also of being everlasting light, so that His wisdom is eternal and everlasting splendour.&#160; If this be fully understood, it clearly shows that the existence of the Son is derived from the Father but not in time, nor from any other beginning, except, as we have said, from God Himself.

12.&#160; But wisdom is also called the stainless mirror of the &#7952;&#957;&#8051;&#961;&#947;&#949;&#953;&#945; or working of God.&#160; We must first understand, then, what the working of the power of God is.&#160; It is a sort of vigour, so to speak, by which God operates either in creation, or in providence, or in judgment, or in the disposal and arrangement of individual things, each in its season.&#160; For as the image formed in a mirror unerringly reflects all the acts and movements of him who gazes on it, so would Wisdom have herself to be understood when she is called the stainless mirror of the power and working of the Father:&#160; as the Lord Jesus Christ also, who is the Wisdom of God, declares of Himself when He says, &#8220;The works which the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.&#8221; &#160; And again He says, that the Son cannot do anything of Himself, save what He sees the Father do.&#160; As therefore the Son in no respect differs from the Father in the power of His works, and the work of the Son is not a different thing from that of the Father, but one and the same movement, so to speak, is in all things, He therefore named Him a stainless mirror, that by such an expression it might be understood that them is no dissimilarity whatever between the Son and the Father.&#160; How, indeed, can those things which are said by some to be done after the manner in which a disciple resembles or imitates his master, or according to the view that those things are made by the Son in bodily material which were first formed by the Father in their spiritual essence, agree with the declarations of Scripture, seeing in the Gospel the Son is said to do not similar things, but the same things in a similar manner?

13.&#160; It remains that we inquire what is the &#8220;image of His goodness;&#8221; and here, I think, we must understand the same thing which we expressed a little ago, in speaking of the image formed by the mirror.&#160; For He is the primal goodness, doubtless, out of which the Son is born, who, being in all respects the image of the Father, may certainly also be called with propriety the image of His goodness.&#160; For there is no other second goodness existing in the Son, save that which is in the Father.&#160; And therefore also the Saviour Himself rightly says in the Gospel, &#8220;There is none good save one only, God the Father,&#8221; that by such an expression it may be understood that the Son is not of a different goodness, but of that only which exists in the Father, of whom He is rightly termed the image, because He proceeds from no other source but from that primal goodness, lest there might appear to be in the Son a different goodness from that which is in the Father.&#160; Nor is there any dissimilarity or difference of goodness in the Son.&#160; And therefore it is not to be imagined that there is a kind of blasphemy, as it were, in the words, &#8220;There is none good save one only, God the Father,&#8221; as if thereby it may be supposed to be denied that either Christ or the Holy Spirit was good.&#160; But, as we have already said, the primal goodness is to be understood as residing in God the Father, from whom both the Son is born and the Holy Spirit proceeds, retaining within them, without any doubt, the nature of that goodness which is in the source whence they are derived.&#160; And if there be any other things which in Scripture are called good, whether angel, or man, or servant, or treasure, or a good heart, or a good tree, all these are so termed catachrestically, having in them an accidental, not an essential goodness.&#160; But it would require both much time and labour to collect together all the titles of the Son of God, such, e.g., as the true light, or the door, or the righteousness, or the sanctification, or the redemption, and countless others; and to show for what reasons each one of them is so given.&#160; Satisfied, therefore, with what we have already advanced, we go on with our inquiries into those other matters which follow.