Col 1:15

“Stand fast, brethren, in the faith of Jesus Christ, and in His love, in His passion, and in His resurrection. Do ye all come together in common, and individually, through grace, in one faith of God the Father, and of Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son, and "the first-born of every creature," but of the seed of David according to the flesh, being under the guidance of the Comforter, in obedience to the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote which prevents us from dying, but a cleansing remedy driving away evil, [which causes] that we should live in God through Jesus Christ.”

“I Glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who by Him has given you such wisdom. For I have observed that ye are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if ye were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded, in very truth, with respect to our Lord Jesus Christ, that He was the Son of God, "the first-born of every creature," God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and was of the seed of David according to the flesh, by the Virgin Mary; was baptized by John, that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him; that He lived a life of holiness without sin, and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh. From whom we also derive our being, from His divinely-blessed passion, that He might set up a standard for the ages, through His resurrection, to all His holy and faithful [followers], whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of His Church.”

“For God the Father none ever saw, and lived. And accordingly it is agreed that the Son of God Himself spake to Moses, and said to the people, "Behold, I send mine angel before thy"-that is, the people's-"face, to guard thee on the march, and to introduce thee into the land which I have prepared thee: attend to him, and be not disobedient to him; for he hath not escaped thy notice, since my name is upon him.”

“If Christ is not "the first-begotten before every creature," as that "Word of God by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made; " if "all things were" not "in Him created, whether in heaven or on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers; "if "all things were" not "created by Him and for Him" (for these truths Marcion ought not to allow concerning Him), then the apostle could not have so positively laid it down, that "He is before all.”

“It is well for us that in another passage (the apostle) calls Christ "the image of the invisible God." For will it not follow with equal force from that passage, that Christ is not truly God, because the apostle places Him in the image of God, if, (as Marcion contends, ) He is not truly man because of His having taken on Him the form or image of a man? For in both cases the true substance will have to be excluded, if image (or "fashion") and likeness and form shall be claimed for a phantom.”

“Thus does He make Him equal to Him: for by proceeding from Himself He became His first-begotten Son, because begotten before all things; and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar to Himself, from the womb of His own heart-even as the Father Himself testifies: "My heart," says He, "hath emitted my most excellent Word.”

“For since of the doctrine, which lately has been set on foot at Ptolemais, a city of Pentapolis, implores and full of blasphemy against Almighty God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; full of unbelief and perfidy towards His only begotten Son and the first-born of every creature, the Word made man, and which takes away the perception of the Holy Spirit,-on either side both letters were brought to me, and brethren had come to discuss it, setting forth more plainly as much as by God's gift I was able,-I wrote certain letters, copies of which I have sent to thee.”

“But, as it is, neither did the Lord leave us in doubt: "He who hath seen Me, hath seen the Father also;" nor was the Apostle silent as to His nature, "Who is the image of the invisible God." For the Lord had said, "If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not," teaching them to see the Father in Himself in that He did the works of the Father; that through perceiving the power of His nature they might understand the nature of that power which they perceived. Wherefore the Apostle proclaiming that this is the image of God, says, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in Him were all things made in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through Him and in Him, and He is before all, and for Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the Church, Who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence. For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in Him should all the fulness dwell, and through Him all things should be reconciled to Him." So through the power of these works He is the image of God. For assuredly the Creator of things invisible is not compelled by any necessity inherent in His nature to be the visible image of the invisible God. And lest He should be regarded as the likeness of the form and not of the nature, He is styled the likeness of the invisible God in order that we may understand by His exercise of the powers (not the invisible attributes) of the Divine nature, that that nature is in Him.”

“Not then because He was from the Father was He called `First-born,' but because in Him the creation came to be; and as before the creation He was the Son, through whom was the creation, so also before He was called the First-born of the whole creation, not the less was the Word Himself with God and the Word was God. But this also not understanding, these irreligious men go about saying, `If He is First-born of all creation, it is plain that He too is one of the creation.' Senseless men! if He is simply `First-born of the whole creation,' then He is other than the whole creation; for he says not, `He is First-born above the rest of the creatures,' lest He be reckoned to be as one of the creatures, but it is written, `of the whole creation,' that He may appear other than the creation. Reuben, for instance, is not said to be first-born of all the children of Jacob, but of Jacob himself and his brethren; lest he should be thought to be some other beside the children of Jacob. Nay, even concerning the Lord Himself the Apostle says not, `that He may become First-born of all,' lest He be thought to bear a body other than ours, but `among many brethren,' because of the likeness of the flesh. If then the Word also were one of the creatures, Scripture would have said of Him also that He was First-born of other creatures; but in fact, the saints saying that He is `First-born of the whole creation,' the Son of God is plainly shewn to be other than the whole creation and not a creature. For if He is a creature, He will be First-born of Himself. How then is it possible, O Arians, for Him to be before and after Himself? next, if He is a creature, and the whole creation through Him came to be, and in Him consists, how can He both create the creation and be one of the things which consist in Him? Since then such a notion is in itself unseemly, it is proved against them by the truth, that He is called `First-born among many brethren' because of the relationship of the flesh, and `First-born from the dead,' because the resurrection of the dead is from Him and after Him; and `First-born of the whole creation,' because of the Father's love to man, which brought it to pass that in His Word not only `all things consist,' but the creation itself, of which the Apostle speaks, `waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God, shall be delivered' one time `from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.' Of this creation thus delivered, the Lord will be First-born, both of it and of all those who are made children, that by His being called first, those that come after Him may abide, as depending on the Word as a beginning.”

“But though He is Word, He is not, as we said, after the likeness of human words, composed of syllables; but He is the unchanging Image of His own Father. For men, composed of parts and made out of nothing, have their discourse composite and divisible. But God possesses true existence and is not composite, wherefore His Word also has true Existence and is not composite, but is the one and only-begotten God, Who proceeds in His goodness from the Father as from a good Fountain, and orders all things and holds them together. But the reason why the Word, the Word of God, has united Himself with created things is truly wonderful, and teaches us that the present order of things is none otherwise than is fitting. For the nature of created things, inasmuch as it is brought into being out of nothing, is of a fleeting sort, and weak and mortal, if composed of itself only. But the God of all is good and exceeding noble by nature,—and therefore is kind. For one that is good can grudge nothing: for which reason he does not grudge even existence, but desires all to exist, as objects for His loving-kindness. Seeing then all created nature, as far as its own laws were concerned, to be fleeting and subject to dissolution, lest it should come to this and lest the Universe should be broken up again into nothingness, for this cause He made all things by His own eternal Word, and gave substantive existence to Creation, and moreover did not leave it to be tossed in a tempest in the course of its own nature, lest it should run the risk of once more dropping out of existence; but, because He is good He guides and settles the whole Creation by His own Word, Who is Himself also God, that by the governance and providence and ordering action of the Word, Creation may have light, and be enabled to abide alway securely. For it partakes of the Word Who derives true existence from the Father, and is helped by Him so as to exist, lest that should come to it which would have come but for the maintenance of it by the Word,—namely, dissolution,—"for He is the Image of the invisible God, the first-born of all Creation, for through Him and in Him all things consist, things visible and things invisible, and He is the Head of the Church," as the ministers of truth teach in their holy writings.”

“Listen to the continuation. "In our image." What have you to reply? Is there one image of God and the angels? Father and Son have by absolute necessity the same form, but the form is here understood as becomes the divine, not in bodily shape, but in the proper qualities of Godhead. Hear also, you who belong to the new concision and who, under the appearance of Christianity, strengthen the error of the Jews. To Whom does He say, "in our image," to whom if it is not to Him who is "the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person," "the image of the invisible God"? It is then to His living image, to Him Who has said "I and my Father are one," "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father," that God says "Let us make man in our image." Where is the unlikeness in these Beings who have only one image?”

“And the Image as of one substance with Him, and because He is of the Father, and not the Father of Him. For this is of the Nature of an Image, to be the reproduction of its Archetype, and of that whose name it bears; only that there is more here. For in ordinary language an image is a motionless representation of that which has motion; but in this case it is the living reproduction of the Living One, and is more exactly like than was Seth to Adam, or any son to his father. For such is the nature of simple Existences, that it is not correct to say of them that they are Like in one particular and Unlike in another; but they are a complete resemblance, and should rather be called Identical than Like.”

“If these passages, then, have been rightly understood, neither will the signification of the "creation," of which He is first-born, be unknown to us. For we recognize a twofold creation of our nature, the first that whereby we were made, the second that whereby we were made anew. But there would have been no need of the second creation had we not made the first unavailing by our disobedience. Accordingly, when the first creation had waxed old and vanished away, it was needful that there should be a new creation in Christ, (as the Apostle says, who asserts that we should no longer see in the second creation any trace of that which has waxed old, saying, "Having put off the old man with his deeds and his lusts, put on the new man which is created according to God," and "If any man be in Christ," he says, "he is a new creature: the old things are passed away, behold all things are become new:") — for the maker of human nature at the first and afterwards is one and the same. Then He took dust from the earth and formed man: again, He took dust from the Virgin, and did not merely form man, but formed man about Himself: then, He created; afterwards, He was created: then, the Word made flesh; afterwards, the Word became flesh, that He might change our flesh to spirit, by being made partaker with us in flesh and blood. Of this new creation therefore in Christ, which He Himself began, He was called the first-born, being the first-fruits of all, both of those begotten into life, and of those quickened by resurrection of the dead, "that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living," and might sanctify the whole lump by means of its first-fruits in Himself.”

“Be like the image on the coin, unchangeable, keeping the same habits every day. When you see the coin, see the image; when you see the law, see Christ, the image of God, in the law. And because he himself is the image of the invisible and incorruptible God, let him shine for you as in the mirror of the law. Confess him in the law that you may acknowledge him in the gospel.”

“Paul, discoursing as we showed of the dignity of the Son, says these words: "Who is the Image of the invisible God." Whose image then wilt thou have Him be? God's? Then he is exactly like the one to whom you assign Him. For if as a man's image, say so, and I will have done with you as a madman. But if as God and God's Son, God's image, he shows the exact likeness. Wherefore hath no Angel anywhere been called either "image" or "son," but man both? Wherefore? Because in the former case indeed the exaltedness of their nature might presently have thrust the many into this impiety; but in the other case the mean and low nature is a pledge of security against this, and will not allow any, even should they desire it, to suspect anything of the kind, nor to bring down the Word so low. For this cause, where the meanness is great, the Scripture boldly asserts the honor, but where the nature is higher, it forbears. "The Image of the Invisible" is itself also invisible, and invisible in like manner, for otherwise it would not be an image. For an image, so far as it is an image, even amongst us, ought to be exactly similar, as, for example, in respect of the features and the likeness. But here indeed amongst us, this is by no means possible; for human art fails in many respects, or rather fails in all, if you examine with accuracy. But where God is, there is no error, no failure. But if a creature: how is He the Image of the Creator? For neither is a horse the image of a man. If "the Image" mean not exact likeness to the Invisible, what hinders the Angels also from being His Image? for they too are invisible; but not to one another: but the soul is invisible: but because it is invisible, it is simply on that account an image, and not in such sort as he and angels are images. "The Firstborn of all creation." "What then," saith one, "Lo, He is a creature." Whence? tell me. "Because he said Firstborn." However, he said not "first created," but "firstborn." Then it is reasonable that he should be called many things. For he must also be called a brother "in all things." And we must take from Him His being Creator; and insist that neither in dignity nor in any other thing is He superior to us? And who that hath understanding would say this? For the word "firstborn" is not expressive of dignity and honor, nor of anything else, but of time only. What does "the firstborn" signify? That he is created, is the answer. Well. If then this be so, it has also kindred expressions. But otherwise the firstborn is of the same essence with those of whom he is firstborn. Therefore he will be the firstborn son of all things-for it said "of every creature"; therefore of stones also, and of me, is God the Word firstborn. But again, of what, tell me, are the words "firstborn from the dead" declaratory? Not that He first rose; for he said not simply, "of the dead," but "firstborn from the dead," nor yet, "that He died first," but that He rose the firstborn from the dead. So that they declare nothing else than this, that He is the Firstfruits of the Resurrection.”

“For, according to the form of God, He is the beginning, that also speaketh unto us, in which "beginning" God created the heaven and the earth; but according to the form of a servant, "He is a bridegroom coming out of His chamber." According to the form of God, "He is the first-born of every creature, and He is before all things and by Him all things consist;" according to the form of a servant, "He is the head of the body, the Church." According to the form of God, "He is the Lord of glory."”

“In parents and children there would be found an image and an equality and a likeness if the age difference were lacking. For the child's likeness has been derived from the parent, so that the likeness may rightly be called an image…. In God, however, the conditions of time do not obtain, for God cannot be thought of as having begotten in time the Son through whom he has created the times. Hence it follows that not only is [the Son] his image, because he is from [God], and the likeness, because the image, but also the equality is so great that there is not even a temporal distinction standing in the way between them.”

“They then who "are born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God," must offer to the Father the unanimity of peace-loving sons, and all the members of adoption must meet in the First-begotten of the new creation, Who came to do not His own Will but His that sent Him; inasmuch as the Father in His gracious favour has adopted as His heirs not those that are discordant nor those that are unlike Him, but those that are in feeling and affection one. They that are re-modelled after one pattern must have a spirit like the model. The birthday of the Lord is the birthday of peace: for thus says the Apostle, "He is our peace, who made both one;" since whether we be Jew or Gentile, "through Him we have access in one Spirit to the Father."”

“He who is first begotten is called first-born, whether he is only-begotten or the first of a number of brothers. If then the Son of God was called first-born, but was not called Only-begotten, we could imagine that He was the first-born of creatures, as being a creature. But since He is called both first-born and Only-begotten, both senses must be preserved in His case. We say that He is first-born of all creation since both He Himself is of God and creation is of God, but as He Himself is born alone and timelessly of the essence of God the Father, He may with reason be called Only-begotten Son, first-born and not first-created. For the creation was not brought into being out of the essence of the Father, but by His will out of nothing. And He is called First-born among many brethren, for although being Only-begotten, He was also born of a mother. Since, indeed, He participated just as we ourselves do in blood and flesh and became man, while we too through Him became sons of God, being adopted through the baptism, He Who is by nature Son of God became first-born amongst us who were made by adoption and grace sons of God, and stand to Him in the relation of brothers.”

“The Apostle sets forth here the glory of nature and the greatness of the dignity of the Only-Begotten. "Who," he says, "is the image of God"; consequently, exactly alike, differing in nothing. There is no measure for the greatness of Him, so that, having measured, you could say how much He falls short in comparison with the Father. If He were an image as a man, then you would have something to say in this regard, because the image of a man never reaches the Prototype. But since He is an image as God and the Son of God, that is, the image of the invisible God, perfectly alike, evidently an invisible image. For among us, when human art, which often errs, makes a representation, it does not have full likeness; but where God is, there is no error, no deviation — therefore there is also full likeness. But if the Son did not have full likeness to the invisible God, then what prevents the angels also from being the image of God? For they too are invisible. Yet angels are never called the image of God. And note the precision of Holy Scripture: it calls man the image of God and a son, but never an angel; because in that case those hearing of the loftiness of angelic nature could easily fall into impiety, thinking that an angel has equal dignity with God. But as for man, his insignificance and lowliness guards us from thinking anything of the sort. So then, consider: the Only-Begotten, being both — image and invisible — by being "image" differs from the angels, who, although invisible, are not images; and by being "invisible" differs from men, who, although they themselves are called the image of God, are not invisible. Thus He alone is the perfect "image" of God, free from all dissimilarity. And if the Arians still object that an image is not consubstantial with the prototype, let them listen to Scripture, which says that Seth is the image of Adam. Is he then not consubstantial with Adam? Thus, although artificial images are not identical in essence, natural ones have entirely the same essence. Having said that He is the image of the invisible God, he adds this as well. Here is a great stumbling block for the Arians. Since, they say, He is called "born before all creation," He is therefore the first of creatures. But the apostle did not say "first-created," but "firstborn." Either you will give Him brothers, and He will be the firstborn in relation to me, a frog, a stone, and other such worthless things, and will share one essence with all of this? For the Firstborn, of course, shares one essence with those in relation to whom He is called the Firstborn. But this blasphemy falls upon your own head. For it is ungodly to think this way about the incomparable glory of the Creator. Moreover, the word "firstborn" is used in Scripture not at all in contrast to subsequent children, but absolutely, and means simply — firstborn. So also from the Theotokos Mary He was born as firstborn according to the flesh, though He had no brothers after Him at all; for He is the Only-begotten even by birth from Her. In the same way, by birth from the Father He is the Firstborn not in contrast to other creatures, but absolutely; for He is the Only-begotten by His heavenly birth as well. So then, what should now be said in refutation of the question at hand and in exposure of the opinion of the Colossians? Lest they think that He is younger than the angels, since the ancients were led to God through them, and now it is said that He leads to God, he wants to show that the Son exists before all creation. In what way? Through birth. Therefore, He exists even before the angels, and moreover in such a way that He Himself also created them. So if the angels also served in the Old Testament, this is His arrangement. And note the wisdom of the apostle: lest you, having heard that He is before all creation, consider Him without a beginning, he instructs you that He has a Father and is born from Him. And since both He and all things are from God, this very fact shows that it is one thing that the One came forth as a Son from the Father, and another that the others, as creatures, were created by this very Son. Therefore he adds.”

“The second mode of generation is by means of expression: as in the case of the species coming out of the object, the imprint out of the seal, the speech out of the speaker, or the concept or thought out of the mind. And in these, there is deficiency. In the first, the reality of the object is lacking, for the species in the eye or in the soul is not the reality of the thing. In the second, simplicity is lacking, for the image or figure does not consist in a point or in something simple, but has parts. In the third, permanence is lacking, for speech passes away and does not remain. In the fourth, substance is lacking, for the concept of the mind is neither a substance nor a hypostasis. Take away such defects, and suppose an expression like the species deriving from the object but having reality, like the imprint produced by the seal but having simplicity, like the word coming forth from the speaker but having permanence, like the concept proceeding from the mind but having substance: and then you have the first part of the mirror. The Psalm refers to the first manner of expression: "My heart overflows with a goodly theme." And there follows: "Fairer in beauty are you than the sons of men." Wisdom refers to the second: "For she is the refulgence of eternal light, the spotless mirror of the power of God, the image of His goodness." And the Apostle: "He is the image of the invisible God." Job refers to the third: "God speaketh once, and repeateth not the selfsame thing the second time." Understand this as meaning "in the Son," in the sense that He always is, and will never cease to be nor even be changed. In the fourth manner of expression, suppose substantiality, for the concept of the eternal mind is a hypostasis, and this mental concept is most noble and perfect. Hence, in Proverbs: "When there were no depths I was brought forth." And so He is sometimes called the Word, the Species, the Image, the Word remaining forever, the Concept—not as existing within a mind, but as being substantial: a hypostasis. And in this way we have the other part of the mirror.”

“For since the apprehended species is a likeness generated in the medium and then impressed upon the organ itself, and through that impression leads to its principle, namely to the object to be known; it manifestly suggests that that eternal light generates from itself a likeness or splendor coequal, consubstantial, and coeternal; and that he who is the image of the invisible God and the splendor of glory and the figure of his substance, who is everywhere through his primary generation, just as an object generates its likeness throughout the entire medium, is united through the grace of union, as a species to a bodily organ, to an individual of rational nature, so that through that union he might lead us back to the Father as to the fontal principle and object. If therefore all knowable things have to generate a species of themselves, they manifestly proclaim that in them as in mirrors can be seen the eternal generation of the Word, the Image, and the Son, eternally emanating from God the Father.”

“In this consideration, moreover, lies the perfection of the mind's illumination, when, as on the sixth day, it sees man made in the image of God. For if an image is an expressive likeness, when our mind contemplates in Christ the Son of God, who is the image of the invisible God by nature, our humanity so wonderfully exalted, so ineffably united, seeing at once in one the first and the last, the highest and the lowest, the circumference and the center, the Alpha and the Omega, the caused and the cause, the Creator and the creature, the book, that is, written within and without: it has now arrived at a certain perfect reality, so that with God it may reach the perfection of its illuminations in the sixth stage, as on the sixth day; nor does anything further remain except the day of rest, in which through the ecstasy of the mind the keenness of the human mind may rest from every work which it had accomplished.”

“After Paul recalled for us the universal and special benefits of grace, he now commends the Author of this grace, that is, Christ. And he does this, first, in his relation to God; secondly, in relation to all of creation (1:15b), and thirdly, in relation to the Church (v. 18). As to the first, we should note that God is said to be invisible because he exceeds the capacity of vision of any created intellect, so that no created intellect, by its natural knowledge, can attain His essence: "Behold, God is great, and we know him not" (Job 36:26); "He dwells in unapproachable light" (1 Tim 6:16). And therefore, he is seen by the blessed by means of grace, and not by reason of their natural capacity. Dionysius gives the reason for this: all knowledge terminates at something which exists, that is, at some nature that participates in the act of existence; but God is the very act of existence, not participating in the act of existence, but participated in; and thus he is not known. It is of this invisible God that the Son is the image. Let us now see in what way the Son is called the image of God, and why he is said to be invisible. The notion of an image includes three things. First, an image must be a likeness; secondly, it must be derived or drawn from the thing of which it is a likeness; and thirdly, it must be derived with respect to something that pertains to the species or to a sign of the species. For if two things are alike, but neither is derived from the other, then neither one is the image of the other; thus one egg is not said to be the image of another. And so something is called an image because it imitates. Further, if there is a likeness between two things, but not according to species or a sign of the species, we do not speak of an image. Thus, a man has many accidents, such as color, size and so on; but they are not the reason for calling something an image of a man. But if something has the shape or figure of a man, then it can be called an image, because this shape is a sign of the species. Now the Son is like the Father, and the Father is like the Son. But because the Son has this likeness from the Father, and not the Father from the Son, we, properly speaking, say that the Son is the image of the Father, and not conversely: for this likeness is drawn and derived from the Father. Further, this likeness is according to species, because in divine matters the Son is somehow, although faintly, represented by our mental word. We have a mental word when we actually conceive the form of the thing of which we have knowledge; and then we signify this mental word by an external word. And this mental word we have conceived is a certain likeness, in our mind, of the thing, and it is like it in species. And so the Word of God is called the image of God. As to our second question, we should note that the Arians misunderstood the text: for they thought about the image of God as they did of the images they made of their ancestors, so they could see in these images the loved ones no longer with them (just as we make images of the saints to see in these images those whom we cannot see in reality). And so they said that to be invisible was unique to the Father, and that the first visible reality was the Son, who manifested the goodness of the Father. They were saying that the Father was truly invisible, but the Son was visible, and thus their natures would be different. But the Apostle refutes this when he says: "He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Heb 1:3). And thus the Son is not only the image of the invisible God, but he himself is invisible like the Father: He is the image of the invisible God. Then when he says, the first-born of all creation, he commends Christ in relation to creatures. First he does so; and secondly, he amplifies it (v. 16). We should note, about the first point, that the Arians understood this to mean that Christ is called the first-born because he is the first creature. But this is not the meaning, as will be clear. So we have to understand two things: how this image is generated, and in what way it is the first-born of creatures. In regard to the first, we should note that things generate in various ways depending on their nature and manner of existence, for men generate in one way, and plants in another, and so on for other things. But the nature of God is his existence and his act of understanding and so it is necessary that his generating or intellectual conceiving is the generating or conceiving of his nature. (In us, however, our intellectual conceiving is not the conceiving of our nature, because our nature is not the same as our act of understanding). Therefore, since this image is a word and concept of an intellect, it is necessary to say that it is the offspring of the nature, so that the one receiving the nature from the other is generated by necessity. Secondly, we have to understand in what way the Son is called the first-born. God does not know himself and creatures through two different sources; he knows all things in his own essence, as in the first efficient cause. The Son, however, is the intellectual concept or representation of God insofar as he knows himself, and as a consequence, every creature. Therefore, inasmuch as the Son is begotten, he is seen as a word representing every creature, and he is the principle of every creature. For if he were not begotten in that way, the Word of the Father would be the first-born of the Father only, and not of creatures: "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, the first-born before every creature" (Sir 24:5).”

“Do you therefore, who attend to the laws of God, esteem those laws more honourable than the necessities of this life, and pay a greater respect to them, and run together to the Church of the Lord, "which He has purchased with the blood of Christ, the beloved, the first-born of every creature." For this Church is the daughter of the Highest, which has been in travail of you by the word of grace, and has "formed Christ in you," of whom you are made partakers, and thereby become His holy and chosen members, "not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but as being holy and unspotted in the faith, ye are complete in Him, after the image of God that created you."”

“For Thou art eternal knowledge, everlasting sight, unbegotten hearing, untaught wisdom, the first by nature, and the measure of being, and beyond all number; who didst bring all things out of nothing into being by Thy only begotten Son, but didst beget Him before all ages by Thy will, Thy power, and Thy goodness, without any instrument, the only begotten Son, God the Word, the living Wisdom, "the First-born of every creature, the angel of Thy Great Counsel," and Thy High Priest, but the King and Lord of every intellectual and sensible nature, who was before all things, by whom were all things.”

“Adam also was the first who had the honour to be, and to be called, the image of God, but with respect to the Lord Christ, this is in a still higher degree the case, as the Apostle says: Who is the image of the invisible God. Adam again was the first and only one of men who from his side, through God, produced the female without seed, and the Lord Christ according to the flesh was, as a male, produced from the female without seed, thus preserving the equality of privilege and satisfying the debt of nature.”