Epiphanius’ Refutation of the Arians

52,1 But if they say, “If he was of the Father why did he become flesh?” our reply would be, “What do you say about the angels?” For it is plain to everyone that Arians admit the angels were made by the Son. (2) Indeed, they also blaspheme the Holy Spirit by venturing to say that he was created by the Son, although he is uncreate, proceeding from the Father and receiving of the Son. (3) Hence, if they dare to say this of the Holy Spirit, how much more will they be unable to deny in the case of the angels, who are created beings, that they have received their existence from the Only-begotten?

If, then, the angels he created were created spiritual but are his creation in spite of that, and, as his workmanship, are infinitely far below his essence and yet they have not taken flesh—what do you say about that?

(4) Are they greater than the Son even though created by him? Or the Holy Spirit too? Why didn’t he come to flesh, put on flesh and become man—either the Holy Spirit of God or one of the holy angels? (5) The Son surely did not assume flesh because of an inferiority to the Father. In that case the angels would surely have assumed flesh, or even the Spirit. But since the Son, who is the Father’s wisdom, power and Word, had made all things himself with the Father and the Holy Spirit, he assumed flesh (6) to show that the reason for Adam’s transgression or disobedience was not that Adam was a creature or that God had made sin, but Adam’s own choice, so that [the Son] could carry his righteous judgment through as Isaiah said, “A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he shall carry the judgment through to victory, and in his name shall the gentiles hope”—¹⁹⁷ as David said of him,” “Thou shalt be victorious when thou art judged.”¹⁹⁸

52,7 For he was judged in order to silence his opponents by judging justly; for no one will be able to oppose his righteous judgment. For he wore the body and kept it undefiled. For it was certainly not at the instance of the creator, who is not responsible for Adam’s sin, that that which was in man, that is, in Adam, from the beginning came to the point of becoming sin with the result that Adam sinned. The creator allowed Adam freedom of choice and each person is responsible for his own sin. (8) And thus, < although he was > not responsible [for sin], the divine Word, the creator, who with his Father and the Holy Spirit created man, the immortal and undefiled Word, became man of his own good pleasure, by some ineffable mystery of wisdom. And in his extreme loving kindness, under no compulsion but of his own free will, he assumed all his creature’s characteristics for his creature’s sake to “condemn sin in the flesh,”¹⁹⁹ annul the curse on the cross, utterly destroy destruction in the grave, and by descending to hades with soul and Godhead make void the covenant with hades and break “the sting of death.”²⁰⁰ (9) But the ungrateful turn good things completely to bad and no longer thank the kind, perfect, good Son of a good Father for the things for which < one should > thank him. Instead they show ingratitude by attributing frailties to his Godhead, things they are not able to prove, since the truth is evident to everyone.

53,1 And now that these have been expounded I shall go on in turn to other arguments in succession. For they quote the text in the Gospel, “The Father who sent me is greater than I,”²⁰¹ with a bad interpretation. In the first place it says, “The Father who sent me,” not, “the Father who created me.” (2) For all the sacred scriptures show his true sonship to the Father. They say, “The Father begot me,”²⁰² “I came forth from the Father and am come,”²⁰³ “I am in the Father and the Father in me,”²⁰⁴ and, “the Father who sent me.”²⁰⁵ And nowhere have they said, “the Father who created me,” or, “the Father who made me.”

53,3 And why do they keep heaping up things that are not so? “The Father who sent me is greater than I”—what could be more proper? More cogent? More necessary? More fitting? Who but his true Son, the One begotten of him, is the proper person to glorify the Father? (4) For the Father glorifies the Son and the Son glorifies the Father. And the Son glorifies the Father both to be an example²⁰⁶ to us, and < for the sake > of his glorification of the Father as one union and glory [with himself], teaching us that his honor is the Father’s honor, as he has said, “He that honoreth not the Son as he honoreth the Father, the wrath of God abideth upon him.”²⁰⁷

53,5 But in what way do Arians think that he is “greater?” In bulk? Time? Height? Age? Worth? Which of these is in God, for us to conceive of? Time does not apply to the Godhead, so that < the > Son who is begotten of the Father but not in time, might be considered inferior. Nor does the Godhead allow for advancement, or the Son might achieve the Father’s greatness by advancing to it. (6) For if the Son of God is called the Son of God as the result of advancement, then he [once] had many equals and advanced by being called higher in rank, but was [once] lower than someone who outranked him. (7) But the scripture says, “Who shall be likened unto the Lord among the sons of God?”²⁰⁸ since all things are termed sons colloquially, but he alone is Son by nature, not grace—for “He hath found out every path of understanding, and none shall be declared his equal.”²⁰⁹

But what do Arians say? “The Father surpasses the Son in elevation.” (8) Where is the Godhead located? Or is it bounded by space so that “bigger” might be shown by circumference? < Forget it*>, “God is spirit!”²¹⁰ And their heretical invention is a complete failure. Let us pass this by too, beloved, and go on to the rest of their arguments.

54,1 For they say that the sender is not like the sent, but that sender and sent differ in power because the one sends, while the other is sent. And if the meaning of the truth were what they say, the whole subject of our knowledge could not be traced to one unity of truth, power and Godhead. (2) For if two were meeting or two were sending, the Son would no longer be a son, but a brother—who had another brother, no longer a father.²¹¹ But if they were related by identity or adoption, or if one were to send himself, or if the two sent together or arrived together, they would show that there are two Godheads and not one unity. (3) But here there is a Sender and a Sent, showing that there is one Source²¹² of all good things, the Father; but next after the Source comes One who—to correspond with his name of Son and Word, and not with any other—is one Source springing from a Source, the Son come forth, ever with the Father but begotten < without beginning and not in time as the scripture says* >, “For with thee is the source of life.”²¹³ (4) And to show the same of the Holy Spirit < it adds >, “In thy light shall we see light,” showing that the Father is light, the Son is the Father’s light, and the Holy Spirit is light and a Source springing from a Source, [that is], from the Father and the Only-begotten—the Holy Spirit. “For out of his belly shall flow rivers of water springing up unto eternal life; but,” says the Gospel, “he said this of the Holy Spirit.”²¹⁴

54,5 And again, to teach his disciples his co-essentiality with the Father, he says, “If any man open to me, I and my Father will come in and make our abode with him.”²¹⁵ And [here] he no longer said, “I shall be sent by my Father,” but, “I and my Father will < make our abode > with him,” with the Son knocking and the Father entering with him, so that it is everlasting, and neither is the Father separated from the Son nor the Son separated from his Father. (6) And so he says in another passage, “I am the way, and by me shall they go in unto the Father.”²¹⁶ And lest it be thought that < he > is less than the Father because they go in to the Father by him, he says, “No man can come unto me unless my heavenly Father draw him.”²¹⁷ (7) Thus the Father brings him to the Son and the Son brings him to the Father, but brings him in the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is forever eternal, one unity of Godhead, three Perfects, one Godhead. And the Arians’ argument has failed.

55,1 But again, they say, “Why did Christ tell his disciples, ‘I go unto my Father and your Father, and unto my God and your God’?²¹⁸ If he acknowledges him as his God, how can he be his equal or legitimately begotten of him as Son?”—showing that they are entirely ignorant of God, and in no way “illumined by the light of the Gospel.”²¹⁹

55,2 Always, and in every generation, one who has examined and investigated will know the meaning of the truth of the perfect knowledge of our Savior and of his equality with the Father. But these people itch from being wrapped up in Jewish thinking, and are annoyed with the Son of God just as the Jews said, “For no evil deed do we stone thee, but that thou, being a man, callest thyself Son of God, making thyself equal with God.”²²⁰ (3) They are annoyed too because they have gotten into the same state as the Jews²²¹ and Pharisees, and will not call the Son equal to the Sire who begot him.

55,4 For observe the accuracy of the scriptures! The sacred scripture never used this expression before the incarnation. The Father says “Let us make man”²²² to the Son, calling the Son his fellow creator and showing that he is his own Son and equal. (5) And the Son never said, “my God and your God,” < before the incarnation, but* >, “And Adam heard the voice of God walking in the garden,²²³ and < “God said to Noah >, Make to thyself an ark of acacia wood,”²²⁴ and, “The Lord rained from the Lord,”²²⁵ and “The Lord said unto Moses, I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob”;²²⁶ and David says, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand.”²²⁷ And the Lord never said, “my God and your God.”

55,6 But when he had taken our body, “appeared on earth and consorted with men,”²²⁸ and become one of us, then he said “my God and your God, and my Father and your Father” to his disciples, whom it was his duty to be like in all respects except sin: “my Father” by nature in the Godhead, and “your Father” by grace because of me, in the adoption. “My God” because I have taken your flesh, and “your God” by nature and in truth. (7) And thus everything is crystal clear, and nothing in the sacred scripture is contradictory or has any taint of death, as the Arians pretend in concocting their wicked arguments. But again, I think this has been sufficiently explained, and shall next go on to the rest.

56,1 For again, they say that the Holy Spirit is the creature of a creature because of, “By the Son all things were made,”²²⁹ as the scripture says stupidly seizing on certain lines, not reading the text as it is worded but, with wrong suppositions and apart from the text misinterpreting, in terms of their wrong supposition, something that has been correctly said. (2) For the divine Gospel did not say this of the Holy Spirit. It said of all created things that anything which is created was made through the Word and by the Word. If you read further, the line, “All things were made through him, and without him was not one thing made,” includes the words, “that was made,” to make it clear that all [created] things were made by him, and not a single thing without him.

56,3 Then again it says, “In him was life.”²³⁰ For here too the sequence of St. John’s [expressions] must be made complete as he goes on with his confessions that non-existent things < have been made >²³¹ in existent ones. For “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”²³² (4) Since [he says] “was,” and “was,” and “In him was life,”²³³ and “that was the true light,”²³⁴ and “He was in the world”²³⁵ and all < the rest* >, the blessed John, by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, is making it plain with this “was” that “All that was made, was made through him.”²³⁶ But the Maker of all the things that were made is prior to them all.

56,5 However, the scripture says that all things were made through him but did not say what the things that were made were. For there was never any supposition of wickedness, so that no one could suppose things that were not true and blaspheme God’s changeless and unalterable Holy Spirit. (6) It is on their account that the Lord says, “If any man say a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him. But if any man say aught against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven him, neither here nor in the world to come.”²³⁷ For the whole of their argument is ridiculous.

56,7 One might, however, answer them in terms of their blasphemous supposition and say, “You hotshot sophists and word-twisters who want to count God’s Holy Spirit as a creature on account of, ‘All things were made through him,’ because of ‘all things,’ although the Holy Spirit is never counted in with ‘all things!’ (8) You should suppose, then, in terms of your blasphemous supposition—if, indeed, there is anyone else who is worse than you—that the Father too was made through the Son.” For the line which says that all things were made through him is comprehensive. (9) But if it is blasphemous to think any such thing of the Father, and foolish, the like applies to those who suspect it of the Holy Spirit, who belongs with the Father and the Son.

56,10 For if he were a thing that is made he would not be reckoned in with the uncreated Father and the uncreated Son. But because he is uncreated he is so reckoned; the scripture said, “Go baptize in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”²³⁸ And how can the Spirit be created when it is testified of him that “He proceeded from the Father”²³⁹ and “received of me,”²⁴⁰ and through him man’s full salvation, and everything required for the human nature, was made complete. (11) For scripture says of the Lord, “God anointed him with the Holy Spirit.”²⁴¹ But the Father would not have anointed Christ’s human nature, which had been united in one Godhead with the divine Word, with a creature. However, since the Trinity is one, three Perfects, one Godhead, this needed to be done for the Son in the dispensation of the incarnation, so that the Trinity, completely glorified in all things, would be observed to be < one >. I have cited no [mere] one or two texts against all the sects in my discussions of the Spirit, to prove that he is the Spirit of God, glorified with the Father and the Son, uncreated, changeless and perfect. And, in its turn, the argument against themselves that the trouble-makers < have invented > about him has proved a failure.

57,1 But again, let’s devote our attention to their other arguments. For they say in turn, though they do not have a sound understanding of the text, that the Savior himself said, “Why callest thou me good? There is one good, God,”²⁴² and thereby separated himself from the essence and subsistence of the Father.

But this whole thing is foolish. (2) If they do not think that the One who has done so much for us is good, who else is < good? But what > could be worse than this, that the One who gave his life for the sheep; who went willingly to the passion although he was the impassible God; who secured the forgiveness of sins for us; who worked cures in all Israel; who, of his own goodness, brought such a numerous people, in goodness, to the Father—that the Promoter of goodness and Lord of peace, the Father’s good word begotten on high of the good Father, the Giver of food to all flesh, the Author of all goodness for men and all his creatures, is not considered good by the Arians!

57,3 And since they have managed to forget it, they do not know that he threw the questioner’s word back at him in order to humble the overweening insolence in him. A scribal type was boasting that he had exactly fulfilled the requirements of the Law. And to parade his own righteousness and goodness he said, “Good Master, what [more could] I do to inherit eternal life?” (4) And since he thought of himself as < endowed > with such great righteousness, the Lord, wishing to ascribe all goodness to God so that no fleshly being would indulge in vanity, said, “Why callest thou me good? None is good save God.” By saying such a thing when he was what he was and as great as he was, he intended to humble the arrogance of the speaker with his supposed righteousness, and expose what was in his heart, for with his lips he called him a good teacher, but he did not abide by his good teaching.

57,5 And that he is good he teaches us himself by saying, “Many good works have I done among you; for which of them do ye stone me?”²⁴³ To whom is this not clear and plain as day, particularly as many of his creatures are, and are called good, as the sacred scripture says? (6) See here, the sacred text tells of many good things. It says, “Saul, the son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, was a good man, and from the shoulders and upward higher than all the people.”²⁴⁴

And “Samuel” was “good with the Lord and men”²⁴⁵ And “The last word was better than the beginning.”²⁴⁶ And, “Open thy good treasure, the heavenly.”²⁴⁷ (7) But since these are creatures, and are shown by himself and his creatures to be good, how can it not be indisputably good to confess that the author of their being is good? But < not > to prolong the discussion of this—I have spoken extensively of it everywhere—I shall once again go on to the next, and give the explanation of each expression.

58,1 But these people who will try anything cite some other texts to sow the suspicion that there are defects in their Redeemer—if, indeed, they have been redeemed. For when the mother of the sons of Zebedee approached Jesus and begged that the one son should sit on his right and the other on his left when he came in his kingdom, he told them, “Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I shall drink of? And they said, Yea. We are able. And he said to them, Ye shall drink of my cup, but to sit on my right hand or on my left is not mine to give, but is for them for whom it is prepared of my Father.”²⁴⁸ (2) “Do you see,” they say, “how he has no authority independent of the Father’s, who has the authority to give it to anyone he chooses?”

And who in his right mind would think such a thing? If the Son does not have authority, who does? “For,” he says, “the Father giveth life to the dead, and thus he hath granted the Son to give life to whom he will”;²⁴⁹ and, “All things have been delivered unto me of my Father.”²⁵⁰ (3) Who could have any further doubt? But his sacred, wise saying is meant to show that nothing is awarded from respect of persons, but in accord with merit. For to grant is the Lord’s prerogative, but he grants to each according to his deserts. Each who has done something right receives < from the Lord > in accordance with his labor; and not mere giving is his sole prerogative, but giving to one who has made himself worthy.

58,4 For I venture to say that giving [as such] is not the Lord’s prerogative although he has the power, but he does not wish [simply] to give. Nor is it the Holy Spirit’s although the Holy Spirit has the power to give, as the scripture says, “To one is given wisdom by the Spirit, to another divers kinds of tongues by the same Spirit, to another the interpretation of tongues, to another power, to another teaching, but it is one Spirit that divideth to every man as he will.”²⁵¹ And it didn’t say, “as he is directed,” but, “as he will.” (5) And “The Son giveth life to whom he will,”²⁵² and “The Father calleth whom he will to the Son.”²⁵³ And again, neither the Father and the Son, nor the Holy Spirit, calls, gives, provides or awards from respect of persons, but as each person renders himself worthy; this is the meaning of, “It is not mine to give, but if you toil it will be prepared for you by my Father.” But < I shall give* > at the End, for “I am the life.”²⁵⁴ And I shall go right on to the others.

59,1 They say, “Why do you say that he is of the Father’s perfect Godhead? See here, the apostle says of him that ‘God hath raised him from the dead.’²⁵⁵ If he needs God’s help to raise him from the dead, then there is one person who raises him by his power; but the other person, the one who is raised by the power of the One who is able to do this, is inferior.”

59,2 And how long must I tire myself out with the silly ideas of the people who give themselves headaches? Who raised Lazarus? Who raised the widow’s son at Nain? Who said, “Qumi talitha, Get up, child,” to the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue? On whose name did the apostles call, and the dead were raised?

I suppose the apostles < said this to show* > that all this had been done at the Father’s good pleasure, by the will of the Son and with the consent of the Holy Spirit, because the apostles were in a dispute with Jews who thought that they were preaching apostasy from the God of the Law, and because they had received²⁵⁶ from the Holy Spirit the knowledge that sects would set Christ in opposition to the will of the Father. (4) But this is not said to show any defect or weakness, or any difference between the divine Word’s essence and the Father’s. There are no differences. See, in the first instance, how the angel describes him when he asks Mary and the others, “Why seek ye the living among the dead?”²⁵⁷ You see, he who was alive had risen in his Godhead and flesh; he was not with the dead. And what does the angel say to them? “He is risen. He is not here.”²⁵⁸ He didn’t say, “God has raised him and is he not here?” but to show the power of the Savior he said that he had risen even living.

59,5 And again, he himself told his disciples before his passion, “Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man shall be delivered to be crucified, and the third day he shall rise again.”²⁵⁹ (6) And he didn’t say, “< God > will raise him.” But he was plainly showing beforehand the control [over resurrection] of his power by saying, “I have power to lay my soul down, and power to take it.”²⁶⁰ (7) But since he had the power, why couldn’t he raise himself? When the apostle wrote, “God raised him from the dead,”²⁶¹ he said it to show that nothing in the economy of salvation has taken place without the Father’s will. For the apostle himself says in another passage, “Even though he died from weakness, he lives by power.”²⁶²

59,8 If I could only pick the brains of these people who know all about the scripture, [and find] which weakness the Only-begotten had—[the Only-begotten] by whom the heaven has been spread out; by whom the sun was lit; (9) by whom the stars shone; by whom all things have been made from nothing. Which weakness does the apostle mean? Isn’t it the weakness the Word assumed when he came in our flesh, putting it on so as to bear our weakness? As the prophet’s oracle about him says, “He took our weaknesses and bare our illnesses.”²⁶³ HE WHO IS LIFE AND THE IMPASSIBLE GOD DIED died because of our weakness in the flesh which we had made weaker [yet], but he lives by power. “For the Word is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword.”²⁶⁴ (10) Thus he died from weakness and lives by the power of his Godhead; but he lives in our flesh in which he accepted the passion. And it was because of this dispensation that the apostle said, “God raised him from the dead,”²⁶⁵ to give token of the Father’s good pleasure.