The Eternal Sonship Distinct from Creation

Or again, in the distinction the Son bears toward creation, he declares: the Son is indeed the Son, but the created things are slaves. The Son, as Son, sits at the Father’s right hand; but the created things, as slaves, stand ready, are dispatched, and render service.

Given that these things are written in this way, the Son is not to be understood as begotten from them, O Arians; on the contrary, he is truly another—indeed, one of the created order in origin, yet properly belonging to the Father, dwelling in the Father’s bosom.

Moreover, the very wording here—‘Having become’—does not intend to mark the Son as unbegotten, as you mistakenly suppose. For if he had merely said ‘Having become’ and then fallen silent, that might have given you a pretext.

But since he had already affirmed the title ‘Son’ and demonstrated throughout this passage that the Son is essentially distinct from the created things, he did not leave the term ‘Having become’ isolated or insignificant; rather, he bound it to the greater reality.

For he regarded the word as indifferent in weight. Knowing full well that when one speaks of ‘Having become’ in reference to a genuine Son, the meaning is equivalent to ‘having been begotten’—and thus affirms the Son’s superiority—he declares it accordingly.

For the created thing, in its very nature, does not differ whether one says it ‘has come to be’ or ‘has been made.’

But the created things, as they are mere creations, cannot properly be called begotten—unless, that is, they have somehow received a share in the begotten Son, and thus, by participation, are spoken of as begotten themselves.

And this, too, the divine Scripture acknowledges: when speaking of the created things, it declares, ‘All things came to be through him,’ and ‘All things were made in wisdom.’

Indeed, when we look at sons born according to nature—like Job’s seven sons and three daughters, or Abraham, who was a hundred years old when Isaac was born to him—we see a clear distinction. Those born in the course of nature are one kind of thing, but the substance of the Father alone is the proper offspring of the Son. Therefore, the Arians’ pretext concerning the one who became is refuted. Even if, ashamed of this, they try again to speak comparatively, claiming that the things said are spoken only in comparison and that therefore the things compared must be of the same kind, they would still be ashamed beforehand, just like those who follow Valentinus and Carpocrates. For one of them says the angels are consubstantial with Christ, while the other says the angels of the world are creators. And perhaps these Arians, having learned from them, now compare the Word of God to the angels. Yet they would be ashamed to imagine such things, especially when the hymn-singer asks, 'Who shall be likened to the Lord among the sons of God?' and 'Who is like you among the gods, O Lord?' Still, if they were to learn, they would find that among consubstantial beings, likeness is commonly affirmed in comparison, but not among those of different kinds. For no one would compare God to man, or man to the irrational beasts, or wood to stone, because of the utter dissimilarity of their natures. Rather, God is an incomparable thing in Himself, while man is compared to man, wood to wood, and stone to stone. And concerning these things, no one would say 'the stronger,' but only 'the more' or 'the greater.' Thus Joseph was more handsome than his brothers, and Rachel than Leah; and one star is not stronger than another.

Therefore, the Son’s relation to the Father cannot be understood by comparing Him to creatures, even the highest, for such comparison assumes a likeness of nature that does not exist. The Arians err by treating the eternal Son as if He were merely the greatest among creatures, like the most handsome man.