Responsiones ad Tiberium diaconum sociosque suos

To those saying that the Son was with the Father according to the dignity of the divinity, but when he became man and was on earth, he was no longer with him according to the hypostasis. Solution. I understand that some people, who are accustomed to prattle idly and thoughtlessly even about matters so great and necessary, say something like this: that the Only-begotten Son of God was with God the Father according to the dignity of the divinity and essence, when he was on earth and associated with men, as being consubstantial with him; but according to the principle of the hypostasis, he was no longer. For, as they say, the entire filial hypostasis was emptied out of the heavens and even from the paternal bosom. For one should not join hypostasis to hypostasis, not even those existing in one essence. But I, having marveled at the rashness of the ignorance of those who have thought these things, thought it necessary to say this: that the essence of God has been limited by them, and they say that it is comprehensible and bounded, and no longer unlimited or incomprehensible, but already capable of being contained in places and encompassed by intervals, and these things belong to the principles of bodies. Therefore, it is also a body, certainly somewhere and in some form, and not without a body; for such things follow bodies. Then how does the Savior say, "God is Spirit"? For he says that he is Spirit in order to lead the supernatural and ineffable nature away from corporeal imagination.

Would not one rightly say to those who have babbled such things, or even dare to think, "Was Sodom justified by you?" For the wise among the pagans more piously affirm that the divine is incorporeal and formless, without quantity and indivisible, and unshaped, and that it exists everywhere and is absent from nothing. And how did that escape them? For if the Son, being consubstantial with the Father, emptied heaven of his presence when he became man and associated with those on earth, then it follows that the earth was also empty of the Father's hypostasis, because he himself did not become man, nor did he associate with men, but, to speak according to their folly, remained in the heavens. How then did the Savior say, "The Father, remaining in me, himself does the works"? And how does he say through the prophet, "Do I not fill heaven and earth, says the Lord?" And again, "I am a God who draws near, says the Lord, and not a God from afar?" For Christ, who is naturally born from him, fills all things together with the Father, being near to all. And indeed the prophet David says, "Where shall I go from your spirit, and from your face where shall I flee?" For it is not, it is not possible ever to find heavens or earth empty of the ineffable divinity. For, as I said, the divine and consubstantial Trinity fills all things.

We recall that the Savior and Lord of all said to the holy apostles, "It is fitting for you that I depart, for if I do not depart, the Paraclete will not come to you." And since He has departed, fulfilling His own promise, He sent us the Paraclete from heaven, that is, the Spirit. And it is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. Therefore, when the Paraclete descended to earth to sanctify us, was the Spirit not in the heavens? But one might say that, having sanctified us, it ascended again to heaven and is not with us, although it is written, "The Spirit of the Lord has filled the world." But Christ Himself, about to ascend to the Father, said, "Behold, I am with you all the days and until the end of the age." If He is with us, then the heavens are somehow empty of the filial hypostasis, as they say, and He has left the bosom of the Father to dwell more gladly with those on earth. For these are the cold words they utter, as I said. Then who will endure their foolishness? Or who among the more sensible would not shed a copious tear for them, who, ignorant of the sacred and divine scriptures, spew forth whatever comes to mind without examination, and fall away from the correct doctrines of the Church? What did the Son say to Philip when he spoke about the Father? "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?" Therefore, it is impossible for one to ever be without the other; but wherever the Father might be thought to be—and He is everywhere—there the Son is certainly also, and wherever the Son might be, there also is the Father.

For if the Son is the radiance of the Father, and His Word and wisdom and power, how can the Father ever be conceived without Word and wisdom and power? And how could the wisdom of God and His Word and His power ever be conceived without the Father? Or how could His character not always be present in Him? And how could the character exist without the Father of whom it is the character? But they say that one hypostasis should not be joined to another hypostasis, nor those that exist in one substance, and they perhaps bring forward examples from our own experience as proof of their foolish talk. Then why should they not understand that the properties and peculiarities of the divine nature are not regulated by our own, but exist in their own terms and are grasped by faith, and do not admit of overly curious reasoning? For there is one nature of the ineffable divinity in three distinct hypostases, and it is beyond our words and does not follow the customs of created things. And this can be seen from many things. For we are fathers of our own children by way of emanation and division; for what is begotten withdraws into a distinct otherness completely and entirely. But we do not say that the Son was begotten from God the Father in this way; for He shone forth from His substance and was radiated like light, but He did not come to be outside Him, but is both from Him and in Him; and among us fathers are older than their own children, but this is least true in the case of God. For He always coexists with the Father and has His existence co-eternal with His own begetter, so that the Father may always appear as Father. For there was never a time when this was not so.

Therefore, the divine and supramundane offspring is the same in nature as the Father, differing only in the relation of sonship. For the Father is not Father unless that one is Son. Thus, since the highest of all substances fills everything, as I said, because it is beyond creation and mind and reason, let no one babble, "speaking from their own hearts, and not from the mouth of the Lord," as it is written, lest by distorting the truth they draw upon their own souls the punishment fitting those accustomed to do this. Against those who say that when the Only-begotten became man, he left the heavens empty of his divinity. RESPONSE. Some, as I have learned, are peddling sayings full of disbelief and utterly ridiculous, "speaking from their own hearts, and not from the mouth of the Lord," according to what is written. For where the beauty of truth does not shine through, there the father of lies certainly pours out the deadly venom of his inherent perversity. I have learned, therefore, that some, from great and excessive folly, are disposed to say that when the Only-begotten Word of God became man and associated with those on earth in the flesh, he left the heavens empty of his divinity. This is nothing other than

or to say that it is measured by quantity, and has a circumscribed nature, and remains in place like bodies, that is, like the other creatures. But they perhaps failed to understand that the divine is incorporeal, unshaped, indivisible, not measured by quantity, not circumscribed by place, but rather filling all things and being in all things, while being uncontainable by its own nature. For it is written: "Where shall I go from your spirit, and from your face where shall I flee? If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I descend to Hades, you are present; if I take my wings at dawn and settle in the farthest parts of the sea, even there your hand will guide me." Therefore, they ought not to have rashly uttered words from ignorance, but to have considered of what kind, how great, and in what preeminences the divine, immense, and ineffable nature of God is. For when did God the Word cease to be with the Father or to remain in him? For if it were possible for the radiance to fall away and be separated from the light, then it would be reasonable to suppose that the Son could also not be with the Father. And how did they not consider that the sun, being a creature—for it is a creation brought into being by the Word himself—traverses the path assigned to it above, and sends forth light everywhere, and filling all things with the radiance poured out from it, yet still has that radiance within itself? When, then, was the radiance of his glory not in the Father? When was his character separated from his hypostasis?

And if the Father fills all things, the Son does not have this by his own nature—I mean filling all things and being everywhere and being absent from nothing—then he is of a different nature from him. Therefore, those who dare to say these things about him fall into the erroneous opinion of the Arians. For if they truly believed that the Son is both God and from God the Father by nature, why do they not grant him what befits the divine nature? But if they fashion for him the name of God while depriving him of the attributes of divinity, they have failed to understand that they are bringing the Creator down among creatures and ranking the maker and Lord of all things in the class of things that have come to be. Therefore, while he was seen on earth as a man in the flesh, the heavens were nonetheless full of his divinity. For being God, the Word fills all things, as I said. To those who say that the Son was ignorant of the last day. Resolution. They say that others, having heard Christ say, "Concerning that day or hour, no one knows, not even the angels of the heavens, nor the Son, except the Father alone," most senselessly assert that the Word, who came forth from the substance of God and Father, truly does not know that hour or that day, so that he is ranked with the angels and seems in no way to differ from the things that came to be through him. Then how can a creation and its creator be of equal rank and nature? And how is the intervening not absurd? For he is beyond all things, while the other is among all things.

But if they think that Christ truly was ignorant of something, insofar as he is conceived as God, they are out of their minds, rushing onto rocks, and raising their horn against his glory. For it will be found, if it is as they say, that he is no longer even consubstantial with God the Father. For if the Father knows, but the Son is ignorant, how will he be equal to him, that is, consubstantial? For that which does not know must necessarily be inferior to that which knows. And what is even more absurd than this, the Son has been called the counsel and wisdom of God the Father. For Paul said of him, "Who became wisdom for us from God," and again, "In whom are all the hidden treasures of wisdom and knowledge." And the inspired David also sings to the Father and God in heaven, "In your counsel you led me," calling his counsel the Son who sprang from him. Then how is it not ridiculous to think that his wisdom and his counsel are ignorant of something in the Father? And how does the one who alone knows the Father not know the day of the consummation? Which is greater in knowledge, to know what the Father is, or the last day? And it is written again that "the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God." Since, then, the Spirit that knows the depths of God and all things in him is also the Spirit of the Son himself, how does he not know the things in his own Father? Therefore, since many notions drive their ignorant and counterfeit argument into absurdity, it is necessary to come to the economy and to say that the Only-Begotten Son of God the Word bore with his humanity all its attributes, except sin alone.

appropriate to the measures of humanity, and ignorance of future events would fittingly belong to it. Therefore, insofar as he is conceived as God, he knows all things that the Father knows; but insofar as the same is also man, he does not reject even appearing to be ignorant, because of what is fitting to humanity. Just as he himself, being the life and power of all things, received bodily nourishment, not dishonoring the measure of the incarnation, and is recorded as having slept and grown weary, so also, knowing all things, he does not blush to attribute to himself the ignorance befitting humanity. For all things of humanity became his, except sin alone. And since the disciples wished to learn things beyond themselves, he usefully feigned not to know insofar as he is man, and says that not even the holy angels in heaven know, so that they might not be grieved as not having been deemed worthy of the mystery. To those who say that the Word specifically works the divine signs, and that his holy flesh has no part in this. RESOLUTION. As for those who say that one ought not to make the flesh common with the divinity of the Only-begotten, nor the divinity with the flesh in the miracles—or also that the God Word raised Lazarus from the tomb by calling, and not the man, and that it was not God who grew weary in the journey, but the assumed man, and that it was he who hungered and thirsted and was crucified and died—we say that they have entirely missed the truth and are ignorant of the mystery of the incarnation.

For we do not say that there are two sons, nor two Christs, but one Christ and Son, who was born from God the Father before every age and time as God the Only-Begotten and his hypostatic Word, and in the last times of the age the same one in the flesh from a woman. Therefore let them not separate as if double-souled, nor introduce to us two sons, but let them confess one and the same, the Word of God having become man, and that all things, both utterances and activities, belong to him. For since the same was both God and man at once, he speaks both in a manner befitting God and in a manner befitting man; and he acts similarly both in human and in divine ways. When, therefore, they confess one Son and Christ and Lord, they will cease from ignorantly dividing and separating into two, as if one were individually and separately to be understood as the Son, the Word from God the Father, and another again individually and separately as the Son, the assumed man, as they say. For we do not speak thus, nor do we believe thus, but that the Word, being God, became flesh, that is, man, not having cast off being God, but having remained what he was unchangeably and unalterably, and having partaken of flesh and blood according to the Scriptures; and the flesh united to him and having become his own

We say that it was ensouled with a rational soul. Against those who say that it was not taken up with the flesh united to it, and also against those who say that the body which was taken up is mingled with the holy Trinity. RESOLUTION. But that it was taken up with the flesh united to it, how could anyone doubt? For he who was raised from the dead, that is, he himself as he is conceived and appeared as man, the Father has seated "on the right of the throne of majesty in the heights," "above every beginning and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named"; and he will come in this way at the appointed times. And the voice of the holy angels will suffice for this, to those who saw him ascending after his revival from the dead, who said openly, "This Jesus who was taken up from you will come in the same manner as you saw him going into heaven." If, then, those who were witnesses of his ascension saw the Word bare of flesh, let some suppose that he will come in that way; but if he fully assured the holy apostles, showing them his tangible body, and was taken up in this way, then he will come again in this way, and the word of the holy spirits concerning him would not be false. But let no one imagine wrongly, nor suppose, that the body united to the Word is mingled with the nature of the holy Trinity. For it is impossible for that ineffable and supernatural substance, which is conceived beyond every mind and reason, to receive any addition, especially one from outside and of a different nature.

For it is in itself complete, and admits of no diminution, because it is always unchangeable and immutable, nor, as I said, would it require any addition. Therefore those who, out of great ignorance, say that the body has entered into the nature of the holy Trinity by mixture or consubstantiation, talk idly. For we are not so disposed, but hold a correct opinion concerning our Savior Christ, who is the Savior of us all. For we say that the Only-begotten Son of God, the Word, became incarnate, not by changing his own nature into flesh, but by taking it from the holy Virgin, and that he will come with it, yet in the glory of the Father with the holy angels. How the phrase "The Word became flesh" is to be understood. RESOLUTION. Since, as I learn, some pretend to ask what the phrase "The Word became flesh" might be or in what manner it is understood, we necessarily say again this: It is customary for the divinely inspired Scripture sometimes to name a human being from the flesh alone. For instance, in the prophets God promised to pour out his own spirit upon all flesh, and again it is said that "all flesh will see the salvation of God." And we certainly do not say that the divine spirit is poured out only upon the flesh, nor that only the flesh has beheld the salvation through Christ; but the spirit was poured out upon humans, and they themselves have beheld the salvation. Therefore, when the evangelist says "And the Word became flesh," he does not teach that the Word of God was changed into flesh; for he is unchangeable, as from an unchangeable Father.

But because he made a spiritually ensouled flesh his own, he paradoxically came forth as a man from the holy virgin, since he was not a man who was first deified, but rather being God by nature, he appeared as man. To those who inquire whether Christ, when he came in the flesh, added anything to human nature, and how man is in the image of God. Resolution. That the Only-begotten Son of God, the Word, when he came as man, became the provider of every good to human nature—who would dare to deny this? Or who will refuse and say that his mission into this world was of no benefit to us? For man was made in the image of him in the beginning, and nature was suitably disposed for the reception of every good and for the achievement of virtue. For he created us "for good works," as the all-wise Paul writes. But sin obliterated the beauty of the godlike image, and Satan filled the bright face of humanity with filth. But the renewer appeared, who reshapes the injured into its original form and again molds us into his own image, so that the characters of his divine nature may shine in us through sanctification, righteousness, and virtuous living. For he himself is the door and the way through which we are able to enter into every best thing and to make straight paths; so that in us who are in Christ the beauty of the best image is manifested, we who have acted virtuously through our deeds.

In the first-formed man there was every aptitude, bearing a capacity for the attainment of virtue, but not at all the actual exercise of it. Therefore Christ himself said concerning us, that is, his own sheep: "I came so that they might have life, and have an abundance." For what was given to human nature in Adam at the beginning, that is, sanctification, has been granted; but the abundance, I think, he says, is that they be seen as venerable in actuality, and be resplendent through their own achievements. That the Word, being God, works the divine signs through his own flesh. RESOLUTION. We say that the Only-begotten Word of God became man, not in order to lose his being God, nor that he be understood as a bare Word, but rather by having become incarnate and having made his own the body from the holy and God-bearing virgin. Therefore, whoever names Christ signifies neither a bare Word nor a common man, nor one like ourselves; but, as I said, the Word from God the Father having become incarnate and anointed for his mission. For it is not a man who was deified, as some say, by being united with the Word, but the Word himself, having taken flesh and become man, has remained God even so. When, then, he works the divine signs, do not separate the Word from God from his holy flesh part by part and ascribe to him alone the power over what is accomplished; but rather piously understand that the Only-begotten Word of God, having become man, often acted through his own flesh, as having it as his own, not by confusion or mixture. And just as in the case of a human craftsman, for instance a carpenter or a smith, one can understand that the soul does the works together with its own body.

And no one would say that these are works of the soul alone, even if it moves the body to action, but of the composite whole. So understand also in the case of Christ. For before the incarnation, while still naked and by himself, the Logos performed the works befitting God; but having become man, he acted also through his own flesh, as I said. Thus he touched the blind, and also raised the widow's son, again stretching out his hand and touching the bier. Thus he spat and, making clay, anointed the eyes of the man blind from birth. And if he also lived spiritually, consider again that, in raising us up to a spiritual way of life, he himself began the matter in a human manner, so that he might become a path and a beginning for human nature to be able to live no longer carnally and pleasure-lovingly, but rather holily and spiritually. For he has become for us the beginning of every good, and for this reason he appeared as man, so that, having freed our nature from the weakness in Adam, he might show forth the spiritual life as in himself and first.

Similarly, how is man in the image of God? RESOLUTION. Since they say that others also inquire how man is to be understood as being in the image of God, and then some, quite unintelligently, claim that the image of the body and the visible form itself, and nothing else, is the likeness to God, I thought it necessary to say that they are mistaken and have a mind that is not contemplative of the truth. For the Savior clearly says, "God is Spirit," but they say that the divine nature is corporeal and in a character such as we ourselves are. Is he therefore also a body, and no longer understood as spirit? For forms necessarily accompany bodies. But since God is Spirit, he is surely formless, and beyond every type, shape, and circumscription. We are formed in his image in the first and most proper way, as far as it can be understood, in virtue and sanctification. For the divine is holy, and the source and beginning and origin of all virtue. And that it is more fitting to understand man's being made in the image of God in this way, the all-wise Paul will also teach, saying to the Galatians, "My little children, for whom I again labor in birth, until Christ is formed in you." For he is formed in us through sanctification by the Spirit, through a calling in faith in him; but in those who transgress the faith, the characters do not shine forth soundly. Therefore they need another spiritual labor and intellectual rebirth, so that, with the Holy Spirit shining upon them through sanctification, they may be re-formed into Christ.

It is not improbable, moreover, to say that the likeness to God resides in man according to the principle of rule. For dominion over all things on earth has been granted to him. And this is a second account of the likeness to him. But if it were the case that being formed or made in the image of the Creator lay in the nature and form of the human body, how would it be possible for some to lose it? For we have cast off nothing that belongs to us substantially. Since, however, sanctification and righteousness shape us toward God, we say that those who have no longer lived according to virtue and as in sanctification have cast off that venerable and exceptional beauty. Therefore it is taken up again through sanctification and virtue and a life of piety. But if some, from excessive frivolity, suppose the divine nature to be anthropomorphic, how did the Savior say to the Jews concerning God and Father, "Truly I tell you, you have never heard his voice at any time, nor have you seen his form"? For if he were, as I said, anthropomorphic, how have not only Jews but indeed all men not beheld his form?

That the eucharist must be performed only in the catholic churches. SOLUTION. The gift, that is, the offering which we perform mystically, must be offered only in the holy churches of the orthodox, and nowhere else. Or those who do this are manifestly breaking the law. And this can be seen from the sacred scriptures. For the law commanded that the sheep be sacrificed on the day, that is, the feast of Passover, and it was a type of Christ; but "it shall be eaten in one house," it says, "and you shall not carry its meat outside." Therefore those who do not perform the gift in the one and catholic house of Christ, that is, the Church, carry it outside; and by another law something similar is signified. For it is written again: "And whoever sacrifices a calf or a sheep in the camp, and does not bring it to the doors of the tabernacle, that soul shall be destroyed from its people." Therefore those who sacrifice outside the tabernacle would be none other than the heretics, and destruction hangs over those who dare to do this. We believe, therefore, that the offerings in the churches are both sanctified and blessed and perfected by Christ.

That we can curtail the carnal or natural pleasures, but cannot completely eradicate them. SOLUTION. The all-wise Paul seems to some to say something difficult or obscure, according to the voice of the holy apostles. But that these things are filled with wisdom from above is not to be doubted, for Christ speaks in him. He said then: "For I rejoice in the law of God according to the inner man, but I see another law warring against the law of my mind, and taking me captive to the law of sin," and again: "Wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord." For the movement of the flesh wars against the mind that looks to continence through fear of God, and it opposes and violently counteracts the impulses toward chastity. But those who employ the sobriety befitting those who revere God rebuke the movement of the flesh and blunt the sting of sin by using ascetic practices, labors, and other forms of moderation. So it is not possible to uproot the innate desire of the flesh; but by sobriety, as I said, it is possible not to allow it to grow bold against the mind, especially since the Only-Begotten Son of God, the Word, became man, and no longer permits the law of sin, which rages in our members, to run riot against us.

And this the all-wise Paul will clearly teach, writing: "For the impossibility of the law, in which it was weak through the flesh, God, by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, condemned sin in the flesh, so that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the spirit." We shall therefore overcome the innate impulses, not entirely nor completely; for this is reserved for the most blessed life expected in the coming age. But we can act manfully and rebuke the impulses of the flesh, with God cooperating and supplying us with power from on high. And desire is more vehement in the indolent, and so to speak domineering over their heart; but it is weak and easily rebuked and expelled from the mind in those who have divine fear. For it is written that "the fear of the Lord is pure," that is, purity-making. To those who say: If it were possible for Christ to sin, having borne the likeness of Adam on account of the flesh.

Solution. Utterly senseless are those who, I know not how, have supposed that Christ himself could have committed a fault, because he economically assumed our likeness, took the form of a servant, and lived among men on earth. For if he had ceased to be what he was, if he had changed from being God to being only like us, then let them seek in him the charges of human weakness. But if he bore human nature for this reason—that he might show in himself the nature that had grown weak in Adam to be most powerful and superior to sin—why do they vainly busy themselves with what they cannot find? How have they forgotten his saying: "The ruler of this world comes, and in me he will find nothing"? For the discoverer of sin accuses every flesh; but his perverse meddling was ineffectual in Christ, for nothing at all was found in him. And indeed he said to the Jews: "Which of you convicts me of sin? If I speak the truth, why do you not believe me?" Therefore, just as we were condemned in Adam through disobedience and transgression of the divine commandment, so in Christ we have been justified through his complete faultlessness and his utterly blameless obedience. And the boast of human nature has come to be in this. Thus the curse has been blocked, the mouth of sin has been stopped, and with it the power of death has been abolished, as if withered along with its own root. For if sin has become the cause of all evils for us, then justification in Christ, entering through obedience and being entirely without blame, will be the removal of the consequences.

Thus, even if he did bear Adam, as they say, he was not like him, the earthly one from the earth, but as a heavenly being, incomparably superior to the earthly one. And one may see human nature crowned in him with the praises of sinlessness, since the divinely inspired scripture bears witness to him that "he committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in his mouth." To those who say, "Even angels are in the image of God." Solution. When we interpret the phrase "in the image of God" with reference to man, we did not say that the form of the body is transformed into that of God. For the divine is incorporeal, immaterial, and intangible, and beyond quantity and circumscription, form and shape. But applying the divine image to man, we said that it is in respect of the quality of character or manners, and in respect of the spiritual form, which is manifested through the comeliness of the virtues, that we are said to be made in the likeness of the Creator himself. For the divine is in everything good, and is the very source, root, and origin of every virtue, and good things come to us from there. If, then, we are formed in the image of God according to the form derived from virtues, and this is also present in the holy angels, and incomparably more so than in us, it is not impossible to conceive that every rational creature is formed in the image of God through sanctification, righteousness, and every virtue. For if the divine and supramundane beauty is becoming to us who are on earth, how much more so to the rational powers above, upon whom God rests? For this reason, the divine scriptures also call heaven his throne.

To those who say, "How, being incorporeal, did the demons have intercourse with women?" — RESOLUTION. Since they say that some ask, "How, being incorporeal, did the evil demons have intercourse with women, and they bore them the giants?" it is necessary for us also to speak to this briefly, not extending ourselves to the length of narratives, but presenting the sense of the matter in summary. They say, then, that in the times or ages from above, the races were divided, I mean those descended from Cain and those from Enos, who, because of his great righteousness, was called by those of that time "God"; for "he hoped to invoke," it says, "the name of the Lord his God." But those descended from Enos, being cultivators of righteousness and of all good works, following the customs of their father; while those from Cain were bold and accursed and readily practiced every kind of baseness, for their father was such as well. Now as long as the races were unmixed with each other, the excellence of the best life was preserved among those descended from Enos. But when, it says, the sons of the one called God, that is, of Enos, saw the daughters of Cain, whom Scripture also called the daughters of men, then they corrupted them, and having become inferior to shameful desires, they were changed into their ways. Hence God, being indignant, caused the women taken by them to bear ugly monsters, whom they called giants, because of the hideousness and harshness of their ways and their untamed boldness.

And indeed, the translators who came after the Seventy, four of them, when rendering the passage, did not write that "the sons of God saw the daughters of men"; but one wrote "the sons of the rulers," another "the sons of the dynasts." It is senseless to think that incorporeal demons can perform the actions of bodies and accomplish what is contrary to their own nature. For none of the things that exist can do what is contrary to nature, but each remains as it was made, God having assigned a proper order to each. For He is the creator of all things, and by His own decrees each thing that exists is what it is. One must also know this in addition: some manuscripts have "the angels of God saw the daughters of men," but this is an interpolation inserted from outside; for the true reading is "the sons of God saw the daughters of men.