270 WORKS OF ST. CHRYSOSTOM. [HOMILY III, he brought in this Necessity, and by means of each he procured the belief of both. What rea son then will he be able to give, who obstinately disbelieves a thing so admirable, and is per suaded by those who talk so idly ? Do not then support thyself with the consolation, that thou wilt meet with forgiveness ; but let us, collecting all our strength, stir ourselves up to virtue, and let us live truly to God, in Christ Jesus our Lord, &c. HOMILY III. COLOSSIANS i. 15-18. " Who is the Image of the invisible God, the Firstborn of all creation : for in Him were all things created, 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 unto Him ; and He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the Church." TO-DAY it is necessary for me to pay the debt, which yesterday 1 1 deferred, in order that I might address it to your minds when in full force. 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 j done with you as a madman. But if as God J and God s Son, God s image, he shows the exact j 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 j presently have thrust themany into this impiety 2 ; I 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 mean ness is great, the Scripture boldly asserts the i honor, but where the nature is higher, it for bears. " 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.3 But here indeed amongst us, this is by no means 1 See Horn. ii. 3 fin. 2 Viz. Arianism. 3 xa-pa-KTnpuiv Kai o/^oiwo-eo)?. The argument is, that invisible- ness being mentioned, the image must have it, as if one should say, " the picture of a venerable man," one would understand a venera ble expression in the features. Compare St. Athanasius against Arianism, Disc, i, c. vi. 20, Tr. and note d. [The argument is fine spun, and not convincing. The image must t>e of the same es sence, or substance in this case; but an image cannot be invisible, otherwise it were not an image. Compare Meyer, and especially Lightfoot.-J. A. B.] possible ; for human art fails in many respects, or rather fails in all, if you examine with accu racy. 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 sim ply on that account an image, and not in such sort as he and angels are images.4 " The Firstborn of all creation." " What then," saith one, " Lo, He is a creature." Whence ? tell me. " Because he said first born. " 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." (Heb. ii. 17.) 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" (Col. i. 18; Rom. viii. 29) 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 4 [The words, " and angels are images " are omitted by the common text, with several MSS., but manifestly to escape an apparent difficulty, because it has been noticed above that angels are never called images. J. A. B.]