Genesis 6:2

They who make this concession ought to reflect on the nature of the word itself, what is the meaning of “woman” from the very first records of the sacred writings. Here they find it to be the name of the sex , not a class of the sex : if, that is, God gave to Eve, when she had not yet known a man, the surname “woman” and “female”, (“female,” whereby the sex generally; “woman,” hereby a class of the sex, is marked). So, since at that time the as yet unwedded Eve was called by the word “woman,” that word has been made common even to a virgin. Nor is it wonderful that the apostle, guided, of course, by the same Spirit by whom, as all the divine Scripture, so that book Genesis, was drawn up, has used the selfsame word in writing “women,” which, by the example of Eve unwedded, is applicable too to a “virgin.” In fact, all the other passages are in consonance herewith. …

If “the man is head of the woman ,” of course (he is) of the virgin too, from whom comes the woman who has married; unless the virgin is a third generic class, some monstrosity with a head of its own. If “it is shameful for a woman to be shaven or shorn,” of course it is so for a virgin . (Hence let the world, the rival of God, see to it, if it asserts that close-cut hair is graceful to a virgin in like manner as that flowing hair is to a boy.) To her, then, to whom it is equally un becoming to be shaven or shorn, it is equally becoming to be covered. If “the woman is the glory of the man,” how much more the virgin , who is a glory withal to herself! If “the woman is of the man,” and “for the sake of the man,” that rib of Adam was first a virgin . …

They abstain also from living things. If, indeed, the reason of their abstinence were other than it is, it ought not to be too curiously investigated. But if they do so for this reason, that the divine virtue is more or less absent or present to them, this their meaning is ridiculous. For if plants be more material, how is it in accordance with reason to use that which is inferior for food and sustenance? or, if there be more of the divine virtue in them, how are things of this sort useful as food, when the soul’s faculty of nourishing and making increase is more corporeal? Now in that they abstain from marriage and the rites of Venus, fearing lest by the succession of the race the divine virtue should dwell more in matter, I wonder how in thinking so they allow of themselves? For if neither the providence of God suffices, both by generations and by those things which are always and in t …

8. And His proper and peculiar, natural and excellent Sonship, St. Paul has declared, who thus speaks of God: “Who spared not His own Son, but for us,” who were not His natural sons, “delivered Him up.” For to distinguish Him from those who are not properly sons, He said that He was His own Son. And in the Gospel we read: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Moreover, in the Psalms the Saviour says: “The Lord hath said unto Me, Thou art my Son.” Where, showing that He is the true and genuine Son, He signifies that there are no other genuine sons besides Himself. …

We will examine, if you please, whence idolatry took its rise. A certain wise man ( Wisd. xiv. 16 .) tells us, that a certain rich man afflicted with untimely mourning for his son, and having no consolation for his sorrow, consoled his passion in this way: having made a lifeless image of the dead, and constantly gazing at it, he seemed through the image to have his departed one still; whilst certain flatterers, “whose God was their belly” ( Philip. iii. 19 .), treating the image with reverence in order to do him honor, carried on the custom into idolatry. So then it took its rise from weakness of soul, from a senseless custom, from extravagance. But not so covetousness: from weakness of soul indeed it is, only that it is from a worse weakness. It is not that any one has lost a son, nor that he is seeking for consolation in sorrow, nor that he is drawn on by flatterers. …

Wouldst thou that I bring before you those [that live] in luxury? Let us ascend from the last to the first. The rich man who is burning in the furnace; the Jews who live for the belly, “whose god is their belly” ( Phil. iii. 19 ), who were ever seeking ease in the wilderness, were destroyed; as also those in Sodom, on account of their gluttony; and those in the time of Noah, was it not because they chose this soft and dissolute life? For “they luxuriated,” it says, “in fullness of bread.” ( Ezek. xvi. 49 .) It speaks of those in Sodom. But if “fullness of bread” wrought so great evil, what should we say of other delicacies? Esau, was not he in ease? And what of those who being of “the sons of God” ( Gen. vi. …

“And do not these words, I begot thee ‘from the womb before the morning,’ plainly show the natural sonship of the paternal birth of One whose lot it is, not from diligence of conduct, or exercise in moral progress, but by individuality of nature? Hence it ensues that the filiation of the only-begotten Son of the Father is incapable of fall; while the adoption of reasonable beings who are not His sons by nature, but merely on account of fitness of character, and by the bounty of God, may fall away, as it is written in the word, ‘ The sons of God saw the daughters of men, and took them as wives, ’ and so forth. And God, speaking by Isaiah, said, ‘ I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against Me .’

But to men who meditate on God’s law day and night, it is indeed needless to write all the proofs of this kind; the above are sufficient to persuade even the most obstinate opponents not to divide the divine titles. One point, however, I cannot endure to omit. He is alleged to have said that there are many Christs but one Son. Into this error I suppose he fell through ignorance. For if he had read the divine Scripture, he would have known that the title of the Son has also been bestowed by our bountiful Lord on many. …

22. For if, while He is not Son, we are sons, God is our Father and not His. How then does He appropriate the name instead, saying, ‘My Father,’ and ‘I from the Father?’ for if He be common Father of all, He is not His Father only, nor did He alone come out from the Father. But he says, that He is sometimes called our Father also, because He has Himself become partaker in our flesh. For on this account the Word has become flesh, that, since the Word is Son, therefore, because of the Son dwelling in us, He may be called our Father also; for ‘He sent forth,’ says Scripture, ‘the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.’ Therefore the Son in us, calling upon His own Father, causes Him to be named our Father also. Surely in whose hearts the Son is not, of them neither can God be called Father. …