|
{195} Chapter 4. That the Son is eternal and increate
§ 11. 1. AT his suggestion then ye have maintained and ye think, that "there was once when the Son was not;" this is the first cloke of your views of doctrine which has to be stripped off. Say then what was once when the Son was not, O slanderous and irreligious men [Note A]? If ye say the Father, your blasphemy is but greater; for it is impious to say that He was "once," or to signify Him by the word "once." For He is ever, and is now, and as the Son is, so is He, and is Himself He that is, and Father of the Son. But if ye say that the Son was once, when He Himself was not, the answer is foolish and unmeaning. For how could He both be and not be? In this difficulty, you can but answer, that there was a time, when the Word was not; for your very adverb "once" naturally signifies this. And your other, "The Son was not before his generation," is equivalent to saying, "There was once when He was not," for both the one and the other signify that there is a time before the Word. 2. Whence then this your discovery? Why do ye, as the heathen rage, and imagine vain words against the Lord and {196} against His Christ [Ps. ii. 1.]? for no holy Scripture has used such language of the Saviour, but rather "always" and "eternal" and "co-existent always with the Father." For, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [John i. 1.]. And in the Apocalypse he [Note B] thus speaks; Who is and who was and who is to come [Apoc. i. 4.]. Now who can rob "who is" and "who was" of eternity? This too in confutation of the Jews hath Paul written in his Epistle to the Romans, Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever [Rom. ix. 5.]; while silencing the Greeks, he has said, The visible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal Power and Godhead [Ib. i. 20.]; and what the Power of God is [Note C], he teaches us elsewhere himself, Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God [1 Cor. i. 24.]. Surely in these words he does not designate the Father, as ye often whisper one to another, affirming that the Father is His eternal power. This is not so; for he says not, "God Himself is the power," but "His is the power." Very plain is it to all that "His" is not "He;" yet not something alien but rather proper to Him. § 12. 3. Study too the context and turn to the Lord [2 Cor. iii. 16, 17.]; now the Lord is that Spirit [Note D]; and ye will see that it is the Son who {197} is signified. For after making mention of the creation, he naturally speaks of the Framer's Power as seen in it, which Power, I say, is the Word of God, by whom all things were made. If indeed the creation is sufficient of itself alone, without the Son, to make God known, see that you fall not into the further opinion that without the Son it came to be. But if through the Son it came to be, and in Him all things consist [Col. i. 17.], it must follow that he who contemplates the creation rightly, is contemplating also the Word who framed it, and through Him begins to apprehend the Father [Note 1]. And if, as the Saviour also says, No one knoweth the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son shall reveal Him [Matt. xi. 27.], and if on Philip's asking, Shew us the Father [John xiv. 8. 9.], He said not, "Behold the creation," but, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father, reasonably doth Paul, while accusing the Greeks of contemplating the harmony and order of the creation without reflecting on the Framing Word within it; (for the creatures witness to their own Framer;) and wishing that through the creation they might apprehend the true God, and abandon their worship of it, reasonably hath he said, His Eternal Power and Godhead [Rom. i. 20.], thereby signifying the Son. 4. And where the sacred writers say, "Who exists before the ages," and By whom He made the ages [Heb. i. 2.], they thereby as clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if Esaias says, The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth [Is. xl. 28.]; and Susanna said, O Everlasting God [Hist. Sus. 42.]; and {198} Baruch wrote, I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days, and shortly after, My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One [Bar. iv. 20, 22.]; yet forasmuch as the Apostle, writing to the Hebrews, says, Who being the radiance of His glory and the Expression of His Person [Heb. i. 3.]; and David too in the eighty-ninth Psalm, And the brightness of the Lord be upon us [Ps. xc. 17.], and, In Thy Light shall we see Light [Ib. xxxvi. 9.], who has so little sense as to doubt of the eternity of time Son [Note 2]? for when did man see light without the brightness of its radiance, that he may say of the Son, "There was once, when He was not," or "Before His generation He was not." 5. And the words addressed to the Son in the hundred and forty-fourth Psalm, Thy kingdom is a kingdom of all ages [Ps. cxlv. 13.], forbid any one to imagine any interval at all in which the Word did not exist. For if every interval is measured by ages, and of all the ages [Note 3] the Word is King and Maker, therefore, whereas no interval at all exists prior to Him [Note E], it were madness to say, "There was once when the Everlasting [Note 4] was not," and "From nothing is the Son." 6. And whereas the Lord himself says, I am the Truth [John xiv. 6.], not "I became the Truth;" but always, I am,—I am the Shepherd [Ib. x. 14.],—I am the Light [Ib. viii. 12.],—and again, Call ye me not, Lord and Master? and call ye Me well, for so I am [Ib. xiii. 13.], who, hearing such language from God, and Wisdom, and Word of the Father, speaking of Himself, will any longer hesitate about its truth, and not forthwith believe that in the phrase I am, is signified that the Son is eternal and unoriginate? § 13. 7. It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son's eternity; it is equally plain from what follows that the Arian phrases "He was not," and "before" and "when," are in the same Scriptures predicated of creatures. Moses, for instance, in his account of the generation of our system, says, And every plant of the field, before it was in the {199} earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground [Gen. ii. 5.]. And in Deuteronomy, When the Most High divided to the nations [Deut. xxxii. 8.]. And the Lord said in His own Person [Note 5], If ye loved Me, ye would rejoice because I said, I go unto the Father, for My Father is greater than I. And now I have told you before it come to pass, that when it is come to pass, ye might believe [John xiv. 28, 29.]. And concerning the creation He says by Solomon, Or ever the earth was, when there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, was I brought forth [Prov. viii. 23.]. And, Before Abraham was, I am [John 58.]. And concerning Jeremias He says, Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee [Jer. i. 5.]. And David in the Psalm says, Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever the earth and the world were made, Thou art God from everlasting and world without end [Ps. xc. 2.]. And in Daniel, Susanna cried out with a loud voice and said, O everlasting God, that knowest the secrets, and knowest all things before they be [Hist. Sus. 42.]. Thus it appears that the phrases "once was not," and "before it came to be," and "when," and the like, belong to things generate and creatures, which come out of nothing, but are alien to the Word. But if such terms are used in Scripture of things generate, but, "ever" of the Word, it follows, O ye God's enemies, that the Son did not come out of nothing, nor is in the number of generated things at all, but is the Father's Image and Word eternal, never having not been, but being ever, as the eternal Radiance [Note 6] of a Light which is eternal. Why imagine then times before the Son? or wherefore blaspheme the Word as after times, by whom even the ages were made [Note 7]? for how did time or age at all subsist when the Word, as you say, had not appeared, through whom all things were made and without whom not one thing was made [John i. 3.]? Or why, when you mean time, do you not plainly say, "a time was when the Word was not?" but you drop the word "time" to deceive the simple, why you do not at all conceal your own feeling, nor, even if you did, could you escape discovery. For you still simply mean times, when you say, "There was when He was not," and "He was not before His generation." {200} Chapter 5. Subject continued
§ 14. 1. WHEN these points are thus proved, their profaneness goes further. "If there never was, when the Son was not," say they, "but He is eternal, and co-exists with the Father, call Him no more the Father's Son, but brother." [Note A] O insensate and contentious! For if we said only that He was eternally with the Father, and not His Son, their pretended scruple would have some plausibility; but if, while we say that He is eternal, we also confess Him to be Son from the Father, how can He that is begotten be considered brother of Him who begets? And if our faith is in Father and Son, what brotherhood is there between them? and how can the Word be called brother of Him whose Word He is? This is not an objection of men really ignorant, for they comprehend how the truth lies; but it is a Jewish pretence, and that from those who, in Solomon's words, through desire separate themselves from the truth [Prov. xviii. 1.]. For the Father and the Son were not generated from some pre-existing origin [Note 8], that we may {201} account Them brothers, but the Father is the Origin of the Son and begat Him; and the Father is Father, and not the Son of any; and the Son is Son, and not brother. 2. Further, if He is called the eternal offspring [Note B] of the Father, He is rightly so called. For never was the substance of the Father imperfect [Note 9], that what is proper to it should be added afterwards [Note 10]; nor, as man from man, has the Son been begotten, so as to be later than His Father's existence, but He is God's offspring, and as being proper Son of God, who is ever, He exists eternally. For, whereas it is proper to men to beget in time, from the imperfection of their nature [Note 11], God's offspring is eternal, for His nature is ever perfect [Note C]. If then He is not a Son, but a work made out of nothing, they have but to prove it; and then they are at liberty, as if speculating about a creature, to cry out, {202} "There was once when He was not;" for things which are generate were not, and came to be. But if He is Son, as the Father says, and the Scriptures proclaim, and "Son" is nothing else than what is generated from the Father; and what is generated from the Father is His Word, and Wisdom, and Radiance; what is to be said but that, in maintaining "Once the Son was not," they rob God of his Word, like plunderers, and openly predicate of Him that He was once without His proper Word and Wisdom, and that the Light was once without radiance, and the Fountain was once barren [Note 12] and dry [Note 13]? For though they pretend alarm at the name of time, because of those who reproach them with it, and say, that He was before times, yet whereas they assign certain periods, in which, they imagine He was not, the are most irreligious still, as equally suggesting times, and imputing to God's nature [Note 14] an absence of His rational Word [Note 15]. § 15. 3. But if on the other hand, while they acknowledge with us the name of "Son," from an unwillingness to be publicly and generally condemned, they deny that the Son is the proper offspring of the Father's substance, on the ground that this must imply parts and divisions [Note 16]; what is this but to deny that He is very Son, and only in name to call Him Son at all? And is it not a grievous error, to have material thoughts about what is immaterial, and because of the weakness of their proper nature to deny what is natural and proper to the Father? It does but remain [Note 17], that they should deny Him also, because they understand not how God is [Note 18], and what the Father is, now that, foolish men, they measure by themselves the Offspring of the Father. And persons in such a state of mind as to consider that there cannot be a Son of God, demand our pity; but they must be interrogated and exposed for the chance of bringing them to their senses. 4. If then, as you say, "the Son is from nothing," and "was not before His generation," He, of course, as well as others, must be called Son and God and Wisdom only by participation; for thus all other creatures consist, and by sanctification are glorified. You have to tell us then, of what He is partaker [Note 19]. All other things partake the Spirit, but He, according to you, of what is He partaker? of the Spirit? Nay, rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son, as He Himself {203} says; and it is not reasonable to say that the latter is sanctified by the former. Therefore it is the Father that He partakes; for this only remains to say. But this, which is participated, what is it or whence [Note 20]? If it be something external provided by the Father, He will not now be partaker of the Father, but of what is external to Him; and no longer will He be even second after the Father, since He has before Him this other; nor can He be called Son of the Father, but of that, as partaking which, He has been called Son and God. And if this be extravagant and irreligious, when the Father says, This is My Beloved Son [Matt. iii. 17.], and when the Son says that God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not external, but from the substance of the Father. And as to this again, if it be other than the substance of the Son, an equal extravagance will meet us; there being in that case something between this that is from the Father and the substance of the Son, whatever that be [Note D]. § 16. 5. Such thoughts then being evidently extravagant and untrue, we are driven to say that what is from the substance of the Father, and proper to Him, is entirely the Son; for it is all one to say that God is wholly participated, and that He begets; and what does begetting signify but a Son? And thus of the Son Himself, all things partake according to the grace of the Spirit coming from Him [Note 21]; {204} and this shews that the Son Himself partakes of nothing, but what is partaken from the Father, is the Son; for, as partaking of the Son himself, we are said to partake of God; and this is what Peter said, that ye may be partakers [Note 22] in a divine nature [2 Pet. i. 4.]; as says too the Apostle, Know ye not, that ye are a temple of God [1 Cor. iii. 16.]? and, We are the temple of the living God [2 Cor. vi. 16]. And beholding the Son, we see the Father; for the thought [Note 23] and comprehension of the Son, is knowledge concerning the Father, because He is His proper offspring from His substance. And since to be partaken no one of us would ever call affection or division of God's substance, (for it has been shewn and acknowledged that God is participated, and to be participated is the same thing as to beget;) therefore that which is begotten is neither affection nor division of that blessed substance. Hence it is not incredible that God should have a Son, the Offspring of His own substance; nor do we imply affection or division of God's substance, when we speak of "Son" and "Offspring;" but rather, as acknowledging the genuine, and true, and Only-begotten of God, so we believe. 6. If then, as we have stated and are shewing, what is the Offspring of the Father's substance be the Son, we cannot hesitate, rather, we must be certain, that the same [Note 24] is the Wisdom and Word of the Father, in and through whom He creates and makes all things; and His Brightness too, in whom He enlightens all things, and is revealed to whom He will; and His Expression and Image also, in whom He is contemplated and known, wherefore He and His Father are one [John x. 30], and whoso looketh on Him, looketh on the Father; and the Christ, in whom all things are redeemed, and the new creation wrought afresh. And on the other hand, the Son being such Offspring, it is not fitting, rather it is full of peril, to say, that He is a work out of nothing, or that He was not before His generation. For He who thus speaks of that which is proper to the Father's substance, already blasphemes the Father Himself [Note 25]; since he really thinks of Him what he falsely imagines of His offspring. {205} Chapter 6. Subject continued
§ 17. 1. THIS thought is of itself a sufficient refutation of the Arian heresy; however, its heterodoxy will appear also from the following:—If God be Maker and Creator, and create His works through the Son, and we cannot regard things which come to be, except as being through the Word, is it not blasphemous, God being Maker, to say, that His Framing Word and His Wisdom once was not? it is the same as saying, that God is not Maker, if He had not His proper Framing Word which is from Him, but that That by which He frames, accrues to Him from without [Note 26], and is alien from Him, and unlike [Note 27] in substance. 2. Next, let them tell us this, or rather learn from it how irreligious they are in saying, "Once He was not," and, "He was not before His generation;"—for if the Word is not with the Father from everlasting, the Trinity [Note 28] is not everlasting; but a One [Note 29] was first, and afterwards by addition it became a Three [Note 30]; and so as time went on, it seems what we know concerning God grew and took shape [Note 31]. And further, if the Son is not proper offspring of the Father's substance, but of nothing has come to be, then of nothing the Trinity consists, and once there was not a Three, but a One; and a Three once with deficiency, and then complete; deficient, before the Son was generated, complete when He had {206} come to be; and henceforth a thing generated is reckoned with the Creator, and what once was not has divine worship and glory with Him who was ever [Note 32]. Nay, what is more serious still, the Three is discovered to be unlike Itself, consisting of strange and alien natures and substances. And this, in other words, is saying, that the Trinity has a generated consistence. What sort of a worship then is this, which is not even like itself, but is in process of completion as time goes on, and is now not thus, and then again thus? For probably it will receive some fresh accession, and so on without limit, since at first and at starting it took its consistence by way of accessions. And so undoubtedly it may decrease on the contrary, for what is added plainly admits of being subtracted. § 18. 3. But this is not so: perish the thought; the Three is not generated; but there is an eternal and one Godhead in a Three, and there is one Glory of the Holy Three. And ye presume to divide it into different natures; the Father being eternal, yet ye say of the Word which is seated by Him, "Once He was not;" and, whereas the Son is seated by the Father, yet ye think to place Him far from Him. The Three is Creator and Framer, and ye fear not to degrade It to things which are from nothing; ye scruple not to equal servile beings to the nobility of the Three, and to rank the King, the Lord of Sabaoth, with subjects [Note 33]. Cease this confusion of things unassociable, or rather of things which are not with Him who is. Such statements do not glorify and honour the Lord, but the reverse; for he who dishonours the Son, dishonours also the Father. For if theological doctrine is now perfect in a Trinity, and this is the true and only worship of Him, and this is the good and the truth, it must have been always so, unless the good and the truth be something that came after, and theological doctrine is completed by additions. I say, it must have been eternally so; but if not eternally, not so at present either, but at present so, as you suppose it was from the beginning,—I mean, not a Trinity now. But such heretics no Christian would bear; it belongs to Greeks, to introduce a general Trinity, and to level It with things generate; for these do admit of deficiencies and additions; but the faith of Christians acknowledges the blessed Trinity as unalterable and perfect and {207} ever what It was, neither adding to It what is more, or imputing to It any loss, (for both ideas are irreligious,) and therefore it dissociates it from all things generated, and it guards as indivisible and worships the unity of the Godhead Itself; and shuns the Arian blasphemies, and confesses and acknowledges that the Son was ever; for He is eternal, as is the Father, of whom He is the Eternal Word,—to which subject let us now return again. § 19. 4. If God be, and be called, the Fountain of wisdom and life,—as He says by Jeremiah, They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters [Jer. ii. 13.]; and again, A glorious high throne from the beginning, is the place of our sanctuary; O Lord, the Hope of Israel, all that forsake Thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart front Me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the Lord, the Fountain of living waters [Ib. xvii. 12, 13.]; and in the book of Baruch it is written, Thou hast forsaken the Fountain of wisdom [Bar. iii. 12.],—this implies that life and wisdom are not foreign to the Substance of the Fountain, but are proper to It, nor were at any time without existence [Note 34], but were always. Now the Son is all this, who says, I am the Life [John xiv. 6.], and, I Wisdom dwell with prudence [Prov. iii. 12.]. Is it not then irreligious to say, "Once the Son was not?" for it is all one with saying, "Once the Fountain was dry, destitute of Life and Wisdom." But a fountain it would then cease to be; for what begetteth not from itself, is not a fountain [Note 35]. What a load of extravagance! for God promises that those who do His will shall be as a fountain which the water fails not, saying by Isaiah the prophet, And the Lord shall satisfy thy soul in drought, and make thy bones fat; and thou shall be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not [Isa. lxviii. 11.]. And yet these, whereas God is called and is a Fountain of wisdom, dare to insult Him as barren [Note 36] and void of His proper Wisdom. But their doctrine is false; truth witnessing that God is the eternal Fountain of His proper Wisdom; and, if the Fountain be eternal, the Wisdom also must needs be eternal. For in It were all things made, as David says in the Psalm, In Wisdom hast Thou made them all [Ps. civ. 24.]; and Solomon says, The Lord by Wisdom hath formed the earth, by understanding hath He established the heavens [Prov. iii. 19.]. 5. And this Wisdom is the Word, and by Him, as John says, {208} all things were made, and without Him was made not one thing [John i. 3.] [Note A]. And this Word is Christ; for there is One God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we for Him; and One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him [1 Cor. viii. 6.]. And if all things are through Him, He Himself is not to be reckoned with that "all." For he who dares [Note 37] to call Him, through whom are all things, one of that "all," surely will have like speculations concerning God, from whom are all. But if he shrinks from this as extravagant, and excludes God from that all, it is but consistent that he should also exclude from that all the Only-Begotten Son, as being proper to the Father's substance. And, if He be not one of the all [Note 38], it is sin to say concerning Him, "He was not," and "He was not before His generation." Such words may be used of the creatures; but as to the Son, He is such as the Father is, of whose substance He is proper Offspring, Word, and Wisdom [Note 39]. For this is proper to the Son, as regards the Father, and this shews that the Father is proper to the Son that we may neither say that God was ever without His Rational Word [Note B], nor that the Son was non-existing [Note 40]. For wherefore a {209} Son, if not from Him? or wherefore Word and Wisdom, if not ever proper to Him? § 20. When then was God without Him who is proper to Him? or how can a man consider that which is proper, as foreign and alien [Note 41] in substance ? for other things according to the nature of things generate, are without likeness in substance with the Maker; but are external to Him, made by the Word at His grace and will, and thus admit of ceasing to be, if it so pleases Him who made them [Note C]; for such is the nature of things generate [Note 42]. But as to what is proper to the Father's substance, (for this we have already found to be the Son,) what daring is it and irreligion to say that "This comes from nothing," and that "It was not before generation," but was adventitious [Note 43], and can at some time cease to be again? 6. Let a person only dwell upon this thought, and he will discern how the perfection and the plenitude of the Father's substance is impaired by this heresy; however, he will see its extravagance still more clearly, if he considers that the Son is the Image and Radiance of the Father, and Expression, and Truth. For if, when Light exists, there be withal its Image, viz. Radiance, and a Subsistence existing, there be of it the entire Expression, and a Father existing, there be His Truth, viz. the Son [Note 44]; let them consider what depths of irreligion they fall into, who make time the measure of the Image and Countenance of the Godhead. For if the Son was not before His generation, Truth was not always in God, which it were a sin to say; for, since the Father was, there was ever in Him the Truth, which is the Son, who says, I am the Truth [John xiv. 6.]. And the Subsistence existing, of course there was forthwith its Expression and Image; for God's Image is not delineated from without [Note D], but God Himself hath {210} begotten it; in which seeing Himself, He has delight, as the Son Himself says, I was His delight [Prov. viii. 30.]. When then did the Father not see Himself in His own Image? or when had He not delight, that a man should dare to say, "the Image is out of nothing," and "The Father had not delight before the Image was generated?" and how should the Maker and Creator see Himself in a created and generated substance? for such as is the Father, such must be the Image. § 21. Proceed we then to consider the attributes of the Father, and we shall come to know whether this Image is really His. The Father is eternal, immortal, powerful, light, King, Sovereign, God, Lord, Creator, and Maker. These attributes must be in the Image, to make it true that he that hath seen the Son hath seen the Father [John xiv. 9.]. If the Son be not all this, but, as the Arians consider, a thing generate, and not eternal, this is not a true Image of the Father, unless indeed they give up shame, and go on to say, that the title of Image, given to the Son, is not a token of a similar substance [Note E], but His name [Note 45] only. But this, on the other hand, O ye Christ's enemies, is not an Image, nor is it an Expression. For what is the likeness of what is out of nothing to Him who brought what was nothing into being? or how can that which is not, be like Him that is, being short of Him in once not being, and in its having its place among things generate? 7. However, such the Arians wishing Him to be, have contrived arguments such as this;—"If the Son is the Father's offspring and image, and is like in all things [Note 46] to the Father, then it necessarily holds that as He is begotten, so He begets, and He too becomes father of a son. And again, he who is begotten from Him, begets in his turn, and so on {211} without limit; for this is to make the Begotten like Him that begat Him." Authors of blasphemy, verily, are these foes of God [Note 47]! who, sooner than confess that the Son is the Father's Image [Note F], conceive material and earthly ideas concerning the Father Himself, ascribing to Him severings [Note 48] and effluences [Note 49] and influences. If then God be as man, let Him be also a parent as man, so that His Son should be father of another, and so in succession one from another, till the series they imagine grows into a multitude of gods [Note 50]. But if God be not as man, as He is not, we must not impute to Him the attributes of man. For brutes and men, after a Creator has begun them, are begotten by succession; and the son, having been begotten of a father who was a son, becomes accordingly in his turn a father to a son, in inheriting from his father that by which he himself has come to be. Hence in such instances there is not, properly speaking, either father or son, nor do the father and the son stay in their respective characters, for the son himself becomes a father, being {212} son of his father, but father of his son. But it is not so in the Godhead; for not as man is God; for the Father is not from father; therefore doth He not beget one who shall beget; nor is the Son from effluence [Note 51] of the Father, nor is He begotten from a father that was begotten; therefore neither is He begotten so as to beget. Thus it belongs to the Godhead alone, that the Father is properly [Note G] father, and the Son properly son, and in Them, and Them only, does it hold [Note 52] that the Father is ever Father and the Son ever Son. § 22. Therefore he who asks why the Son has not a son, must inquire why the Father had not a father. But both suppositions are indecent and irreligious exceedingly. For as the Father is ever Father and never could be Son, so the Son is ever Son and never could be Father. For in this rather is He shewn to be the Father's Expression and Image, remaining what He is and not changing, but thus receiving from the Father to be one and the same. If then the Father change, let the Image change; for so is the Image and Radiance in its relation towards Him who begat It. But if the Father is unalterable, and what He is that He continues, necessarily does the Image also continue what He is, and will not alter. Now He is Son from the Father; therefore He will not become other than is proper to the Father's substance. Idly then have the foolish ones devised this objection also, wishing to separate the Image from the Father, that they might level the Son with things generated. FootnotesA. Athan.
observes that this formula of the Arians is a mere evasion to escape
using the word "time." vid. also Cyril. Thesaur. iv. pp. 19, 20. Else
let them explain,—"There was," what
"when the Son was not?" or what was before the Son? since He Himself was before all times and ages,
which He created (supr. p. 30, note N). Thus, if "when" be a word of
time, He it is who was
"when" He was not, which is absurd.
Did they mean, however, that it was the Father who "was" before the
Son? This was true, if "before" was taken, not to imply time, but
origination or beginning. And in this sense the first verse of S. John's
Gospel may be interpreted "In the Beginning," or Origin, i.e. in the
Father "was the Word." Thus Athan. himself understands that text, Orat.
iv. § 1. vid. also Orat. iii. § 9; Nyssen. contr. Eunom. iii. p.
106; Cyril. Thesaur. 32. p. 312. B.
[tade
legei]. Our
translation of the New Testament renders such phrases similarly,
"he," [dio legei], "wherefore he saith,"
but in the margin, "it." Eph. v. 14. [eireke peri tes
hebdomes houto], "he spake." Heb.
iv. 4. And we may take in explanation "As the Holy Ghost saith,
Today," &c. Heb. iii. 7. Or understand with Athan. [dielenxei
legon ho Paulos]. infra § 57. [hos eipen ho Ioannes].
Orat. iii. § 30. vid. also iv. § 31. On the other hand, "as the
Scripture hath said," John vii. 42: "what saith the Scripture?"
Rom. iv. 3: "that the Scripture saith in vain?" James
iv. 5. And so Athan. [oiden he theia graphe legousa].
infra § 56; [ethos tei theiei graphei ... phesi].
Orat. iv. § 27. [legei he graphe]. de decr. §
22. [phesin he graphe]. de Syn. § 52. C.
Athan. has so interpreted this text supr. p. 149. vid. Justinian's
Comment for its various interpretations. It was either a received
interpretation, or had been adduced at Nicæa, for Asterius had some
years before these Discourses replied to it, vid. supr. p. 101, and
Orat. ii. § 37 [infra p. 332]. D.
S. Athanasius observes, Serap. i. 4-7, that the Holy Ghost is
never in Scripture called simply "Spirit" without the
addition "of God," or "of the Father," or
"from Me," or of the article, or of "Holy," or
"Comforter," or "of truth," or unless He has been
spoken of just before. Accordingly
this text is understood of the third Person in the Holy Trinity by
Origen, contra Cels. vi. 70; Basil de Sp. S. n. 5; Pseudo-Athan.
de comm. ess. 6. On the other
hand, the word [pneuma], "Spirit," is used more or less distinctly for our Lord's Divine
Nature whether in itself or as incarnate, in Rom. i. 4, 1 Cor.
xv. 45, 1 Tim. iii. 16, Hebr. ix. 14, 1 Pet. iii. 18, John vi. 63,
&c. Indeed the early Fathers speak as if the "Holy
Spirit," which came down upon S. Mary might be considered the
Word. E.g. Tertullian against the Valentinians, "If the Spirit of
God did not descend into the womb to partake in flesh from the womb,
why did He descend at all?" de Carn. Chr. 19. vid. also ibid. 5
and 14. contr. Prax. 26. Just. Apol. i. 33 [p. 26 O.T.]. Iren. Hær.
v. 1 [p. 451 O.T.]. Cypr. Idol. Van. 6. (p. 19. Oxf. Tr.) Lactant.
Instit. iv. 12. vid.also Hilar. Trin. ii. 27;. Athan. [logos en toi
pneumati eplatte to soma]. Serap. i. 31. fin. [en toi
logoi en to pneuma]. ibid. iii. 6. And more
distinctly even as late as S. Maximus, [auton, anti sporas
sullabousa ton logon, kekueke] t. 2. p. 309. The earliest
ecclesiastical authorities are S. Ignatius ad Smyrn. init. and S.
Hermas (even though his date were A.D. 150,) who also says plainly, Filius autem Spiritus Sanctus
est. Past. iii. 5. n. 5. The same use of "Spirit" for the
Word or Godhead of the Word, is also found in Tatian. adv. Græc. 7.
Athenag. Leg. 10. Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 10. Iren. Hær. iv. 36 Tertull.
Apol. 23 [p. 60 O.T.]. Lact. Inst. iv. 6, 8. Hilar. Trin. ix. 3 and
14. Eustath. apud Theod. Eran. iii. p. 235. Athan. de Incarn. 22 (if
it be Athan.'s), contr. Apol. i. 8. Apollinar. ap. Theod. Eran. i. p.
71, and the Apollinarists passim. Greg. Naz. Ep. 101. ad Cledon. p.
85. Ambros. Incarn. 63. Severian. ap. Theod. Eran. ii. p. 167. Vid.
Grot. ad Marc. ii. 8; Bull. Def. F. N. i. 2. § 5. Coustant. Præf. in
Hilar. 57, &c. Montfaucon in Athan. Serap. iv. 19. [see also
Tertullian, de Orat. init. and note H in Oxford Tr. Pp. 322. sqq.] E.
Vid. p. 30, note N. The subject is treated of at length in
Greg. Nyss. contr. Eunom. i. t. 2. Append. p. 93-101. vid. also Ambros.
de Fid. i. 8-11. As time measures the material creation, so
"ages" were considered to measure the immaterial, as the
duration of Angels. This had been a philosophical distinction. Timæus
says, [eikon esti chronos toi agennatoi chronoi,
hon aiona potagoreuomes]. vid. also Philon. Quod Deus Immut.
6. Euseb. Laud. C. 1. prope fin., p. 501. Naz. Or. 38, 8. A.
That this was an objection urged by Eunomius, has already been
mentioned from S. Cyril, supr. p. 151, note Z. It is implied also in
the Apology of the former, § 24. and in Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 28.
Aetius was in Alexandria with George of Cappadocia, A.D.
356-8. and Athan. wrote these Discourses in the latter year, as the de
Syn. at the end of the next. It is probable then that he is alluding
to the Anomœan arguments as he heard them reported. vid. de Syn. l.
c. where he says, "they say, as
you have written," §51.
[Anomoios kat' ousian] is
mentioned infr. § 17. As the Arians here object that the First
and Second Persons of the Holy Trinity are [adelphoi], so did
they say the same in the course of the controversy of the Second and
Third. vid. Athan. Serap. i. 15. iv. 2. B.
In other words, by the Divine [gennesis]
is not meant an act but an eternal and unchangeable fact, in the
Divine Essence. Arius, not admitting this, objected at the outset of
the controversy to the phrase "always Father, always Son," Theod. Hist.
i. 4. p. 749. and Eunomius argues that, "if the Son is co-eternal with
the Father, the Father was never such in act, [energos], but was [argos]." Cyril. Thesaur. v. p. 41. S. Cyril answers that works, [erga],
are made [exothen] from
without; but that our Lord, as S. Athanasius here says, is neither a "work" nor
"from without." And hence he says elsewhere that, while men are
fathers first in posse then in act, God is [dunamei
te kai energeiai pater].
Dial. 2. p. 458. (vid. supr. p. 65. note M.) Victorinus in like
manner, says, that God is potentiâ et actione Deus sed in æternâ;
Adv. Ar. i. p. 202. and he quotes S. Alexander, speaking apparently in
answer to Arius, of a semper generans generatio. And Arius scoffs at [aeigennes] and [agennetogenes].
Theod. Hist. i. 4. p. 749. And Origen had said, [ho
soter aei gennatai].
ap. Routh. Reliq. t. 4. p. 304. and S. Dionysius calls Him the
Radiance, [anarchou kai aeigenes].
Athan. S. D. 15. S. Augustine too says, Semper gignit Pater, et semper
nascitur Filius. Ep. 238. n. 24. Petav. de Trin. ii. 5. n. 7. quotes
the following passage from Theodorus Abucara, "Since the Son's
generation does but signify His having His existence from the Father,
which He has ever, therefore He is ever begotten. For it became Him,
who is properly ([kurios]) the Son,
ever to be deriving His existence from the Father, and not as we who
derive its commencement only. In us generation is a way to existence;
in the Son of God it denotes the existence itself; in Him it has not
existence for its end, but it is itself an end, [telos],
and is perfect, [teleion]." Opusc. 26. C.
vid. foregoing note. A similar passage is found in Cyril. Thesaur. v.
p. 42, Dial. ii. fin. This was retorting the objection; the Arians
said, "How can God be ever perfect, who added to Himself a Son?" Athan.
answers, "how can the Son not be eternal, since God is ever perfect?"
vid. Greg. Nyssen. contr. Eunom. Append. p. 142. Cyril. Thesaur. x. p.
78. As to the Son's perfection, Aetius objects ap. Epiph. Hær.76. pp.
925, 6, that growth and consequent accession from without were
essentially involved in the idea of Sonship; whereas S. Greg. Naz.
speaks of the Son as not [atele
proteron, eita teleion, hosper nomos tes hemeteras
geneseos]. Orat.
20. 9 fin. In like manner, S. Basil argues against Eunomius, that the
Son is [teleios], because He is the
Image, not as if copied, which is a gradual work, but as a [character], or impression of a seal, or as the knowledge communicated from master
to scholar, which comes to the latter and exists in him perfect,
without being lost to the former. contr. Eunom. ii. 16 fin. D.
Here is taught us the strict unity of the Divine Substance. When it is
said that the First Person of the Holy Trinity communicates divinity
to the Second, it is meant that that one Essence which is the Father,
also is the Son. Hence the force of the word [homoousion],
which was in consequence accused of Sabellianism, but was
distinguished from it by the particle [homou], "together," which implied a difference as well as unity;—whereas [tautoousion] or [sunousion]
implied, with the Sabellians, an identity or a confusion. The Arians,
on the other hand, as in the instance of Eusebius, &c. supr. p.
63, note G; p. 116, note H; considered the Father and the Son two [ousiai].
The Catholic doctrine is that, though the Divine Substance is both the
Father Ingenerate and also the Only-begotten Son, it is not itself [agennetos]
or [gennete];
which was the objection urged against the Catholics by Aetius, Epiph.
Hær. 76. 10. Thus Athan. says, de Decr. § 30. "He has given the
authority of all things to the Son, and, having given it, is once
more, [palin], the Lord of all
things through the Word." supr. p. 55. Again, "the Father having given
all things to the Son, has all things once
again [palin] … for the Son's
Godhead is the Godhead of the Father." Orat. iii. § 36 fin. [infra
pp. 452, 453]. Hence [he
ek tou patros eis ton huion theotes arrheustos kai
adiairetos tunchanei].
Expos. F. 2. vid. supr. p. 145, note R. "Vera et æterna substantia,
in se tota permanens, totam se coæternæ veritati nativitatis
indulsit." Fulgent. Resp. 7. And S. Hilary, Filius in Patre est et in
Filio Pater, non per transfusionem, refusionemque mutuam, sed per
viventis naturæ perfectam nativitatem." Trin. vii. 31. A.
The words "that was made" which end this verse were
omitted by the ancient citers of it, as Irenæus, Clement, Origen,
Eusebius, Tertullian, nay, Augustine; but because it was abused by the
Eunomians, Macedonians, &c., as if derogatory to the divinity of
the Holy Spirit, it was quoted in full, as by Epiphanius (Ancor. 75),
who goes so far as to speak severely of the ancient mode of citation.
vid. Fabric. and Routh, ad Hippol. contr. Noet. 12. [The
Codex Alex. and some other uncial MSS. Punctuate so as to join these
words to the following verse: so does S. Cyril Alex.] B.
[alogon]. vid. supr. p. 25, note C, where other instances are given from Athan.
and Dionysius of Rome; also p. 2, note E. vid. also Orat. iv. 2. 4.
Sent. D. 23. Origen, supr. p. 48. Athenag. Leg. 10. Tat. contr.
Græc. 5. Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 10. Hipp. contr. Noet. 10. Nyssen.
contr. Eunom. vii. p. 215. vid. pp. 230, 240. Orat. Catech. 1. Naz.
Orat. 29. 17 fin. Cyril. Thesaur. xiv. p. 145. (vid. Petav. de Trin.
vi. 9.) It must not be supposed from these instances that the Fathers
meant that our Lord was literally what is called the attribute
of reason or wisdom in the Divine Essence, or in other words that He
was God merely viewed as He is wise; which would be a kind of
Sabellianism. But, whereas their opponents said that He was but called
Word and Wisdom after the attribute (vid. supr. p. 95, note C,)
they said that such titles marked, not only a typical resemblance to
the attribute, but so full a correspondence and (as it were)
coincidence in nature with it, that whatever relation that
attribute had to God, such in kind had the Son;—that the attribute
was His symbol, and not His mere archetype;—that our Lord was
eternal and proper to God, because that attribute was, which was His
title, vid. Athan. Ep. Æg. 14 [Hist. tracts pp. 142, 143 O.T.], that
our Lord was that Essential Reason and Wisdom, not by which the
Father is wise, but without which the Father was not
wise;—not, that is, in the way of a formal cause, but in fact.
Or, whereas the Father Himself is Reason and Wisdom, the Son is the
necessary result of that Reason and Wisdom, so that, to say that there
was no Word, would imply there was no Divine Reason; just as a
radiance implies a light; or, as Petavius remarks, l. c. quoting the
words which follow shortly after in the text, the eternity of the
Original implies the eternity of the Image: [tes hypostaseos
hyparchouses, pantos euthus einai dei ton charaktera
kai ten eikona tautes], § 20. vid. also infr. §
31. de Decr. § 13. p. 21. § 20, 23. pp. 35, 40. Theod. Hist. i. 3,
p. 737. C.
This was but the opposite aspect of the tenet of our Lord's
consubstantiality or eternal generation. For if He came into being at
the will of God, by the same will He might cease to be; but if His
existence is unconditional and necessary, as God's attributes might
be, then as He had no beginning, so can He have no end; for He is in,
and one with, the Father, who has neither beginning nor end. On the
question of the "will of God" as it affects the doctrine, vid. Orat.
iii. § 59, &c. D.
Athan. argues from the very name Image for our Lord's eternity.
An Image, to be really such, must be an expression from the Original,
not an external and detached imitation. vid.
supr. note B. infr. § 26. p. 217. Hence S. Basil, "He is
an Image not made with the hand, or a work of art, but a living
Image," &c. supr. p. 106, note D. vid. also contr. Eunom. ii. 16, 17. Epiph.
Hær. 76, 3. Hilar. Trin. vii. 41 fin. Origen observes that man, on
the contrary, is an example of an external or improper image of God.
Periarch. i. 2. § 6. It might have been more direct to argue from the
name of Image to our Lord's consubstantiality rather than eternity, as
e.g. S. Gregory Naz. "He is Image as one in substance, [homoousion],
... for this is the nature of an image, to be a copy of the
archetype." Orat. 30. 20. vid. vid.
also de Decr. § 20, 23. supra, pp. 35, 40. but for whatever reason
Athan. avoids the word [homoousion], in these
Discourses. S. Chrys. on Col. i. 15. [pp. 212, 213 O.T.] E.
[homoias ousias]. And so § 20 init. [homoion kat' ousian],
and [homoios tes ousias], § 26. [homoios kat' ousian],
iii. 26. and [homoios kata ten ousian tou patros]. Ep.
Æg. 17. Also Alex. Ep. Encycl. 2. Considering what he says in the de
Syn. § 38, &c. supr. p. 136, note G, in controversy with the
Semi-arians a year or two later, this use of their formula, in
preference to the [homoousion], (vid. foregoing note,) deserves
our attention. F.
The objection is this, that, if our Lord be the Father's Image, He
ought to resemble Him in being a Father. S. Athanasius answers that
God is not as man; with us a son becomes a father because our
nature is [rheuste], transitory and without stay, ever
shifting and passing on into new forms and relations; but God is
perfect and ever the same, what He is once that He continues to be;
God the Father remains Father, and God the Son remains Son. Moreover
men become fathers by detachment and transmission, and what is
received is handed on in a succession; whereas the Father, by
imparting Himself wholly, begets the Son; and a perfect nativity finds
its termination in itself. The Son has not a Son, because the Father
has not a Father. Thus the Father is the only true Father, and the Son
only true Son; the Father only a Father, the Son only a Son; being
really in Their Persons what human fathers are but by office,
character, accident, and name; vid. supr. p. 18, note O. And since the
Father is unchangeable as Father, in nothing does the Son more fulfil
the idea of a perfect Image than in being unchangeable too. Thus S.
Cyril. also, Thesaur. 10, p. 124. And
this perhaps may illustrate a strong and almost startling implication
of some of the Greek Fathers, that the First Person in the holy
Trinity, considered as Father, is not God. E.g. [ei
de theos ho huios, ouk epei huios; homoios kai ho pater,
ouk epei pater, theos; all' epei ousia toiade, eis esti pater
kai ho huios theos].
Nyssen. t. i. p. 915. vid. Petav. de Deo i. 9. § 13. Should it be
asked, "What is the Father if not God?" it is enough to answer, "the
Father." Men differ from each other as being individuals, but the
characteristic difference between Father and Son is not that they are
individuals, but that they are
Father and Son. In these extreme statements it must be ever borne in
mind that we are contemplating divine things according to our
notions, not in fact: i.e. speaking of the
Almighty Father, as such;
there being no real separation between His Person and His Substance.
It maybe added, that, though theologians differ in their decisions, it
would appear that our Lord is not the Image of the Father's person,
but of the Father's substance; in other words, not of the Father
considered as Father, but considered as God. That is, God the Son is
like and equal to God the Father, because they are both the same God;
vid. p. 149, note X. also next note. G.
[kurios], vid. p. 18, note O. Elsewhere Athan. says, "The Father being one and
only is Father of a Son one and only; and in the instance of Godhead
only have the names Father and Son stay, and are ever; for of men if
any one be called father, yet he has been son of another; and if he be
called son, yet is he called father of another; so that in the case of
men the names father and son do not properly, [kurios],
hold." ad Serap. i. 16. also ibid. iv. 4 fin. and 6. vid. also [kurios],
Greg. Naz. Orat. 29. 5. [alethos],
Orat. 25, 16. [ontos], Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 5. p. 215. Margin Notes1. vid.
contr. Gent. 45-47. 2.
supr. pp. 20, 48. 3.
[aionon]. 4.
[aionios]. 5.
[di'
heautou]. 6.
p. 39, note B. 7.
p. 108, note H. 8.
vid. de Syn. § 51. p. 152. 9.
[ateles]. 10.
[episumbainei],
vid. p. 37, note Y. 11.
infr. § 26 fin. supr. p. 19, note S. 12.
[agonos]. 13.
p. 20, p. 25, note E. 14.
[peri ton theon], p. 38, note Z. 15.
[alogian eisagontes],
p. 208, note B. 16.
de Decr. § 10, 11. pp. 16-19. 17.
[hora] p. 130, note C. 18.
infr. § 23. 19.
de Syn. § 45, 51. p. 148, 151. 20.
p. 15, note E. 21.
de Decr. § 31. p. 57. 22.
[koinonoi]. 23.
[ennoia], vid. de Syn. § 48 fin. 24.
supr. p. 27, note I; p. 41, note E. 25.
p. 3, note F. 26.
p. 43, note B. 27.
[anomoios]. 28.
[trias]. 29.
[monas]. 30.
[trias]. 31.
Orat. iv. § 13. 32.
p. 191, note D. 33.
de Decr. § 31, p. 56. 34.
[anuparkta]. 35.
p. 202, ref. 2. 36.
[agonon]. 37.
vid. Petav. De Trin. ii. 12. § 4. 38.
de Decr. § 30. supr. p. 54. 39.
de Decr. § 17. p. 28. 40.
[anuparkton]. 41.
[allotriousiou], supr. p. 150, ref. 1. 42.
infr. p. 223, note I. 43.
[episumbebeke].
P. 37, note Y. 44.
"the Son" omitted by Montf. 45.
de Decr. § 16, pp. 25, 26. 46.
[homoios kata panta],
p. 115, note E. infr. § 40. p. 237. 47.
[theomachoi], p. 6, note N. 48.
[tomas], p. 63, ref. 2. 49.
[aporrhoias], p. 19, note Q. 50.
p. 18. 51.
[aporrhoias]. 52.
[esteke]. Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman |