Subject 5. (Being Subject 3. continued.)§§. 11, 12.
§. 11. {525} 1. THEY [Note A] fall into the same folly with the Arians; for Arians also say that He was created for us, that He might create [Note B] us, as if God waited till our creation for His development [Note C], as the one party say, or His creation, as the other. Arians then are more bountiful to us than to the Son; for, they say, not we for His sake, but He for ours, came to be; that is, if He was therefore created and subsisted, that God through Him might create us [Note D]. And these, as irreligious or more so, give to God less than to us. For we oftentimes, even when silent, yet are active in thinking, so that the offspring of our thoughts form themselves into images; but God [Note E] they would have, when silent to be inactive, and when He speaks then to exert strength; if so it be that, when silent, He could do nothing, and when speaking He began to create. {526} 2. Moreover it is right to ask them, whether the Word, when He was in God, was perfect, so as to be able to make. If on the one hand He was imperfect, when in God, but by being begotten became perfect [Note 1], we are the cause of his perfection, that is, if He has been begotten for us; for on our behalf He has received the power of making. But if He was perfect in God, so as to be able to make, His generation is superfluous; for He, even when in the Father, could frame the world; so that either He has not been begotten, or He was begotten, not for us, but because He ever is from the Father. For His generation evidences, not that we were created, but that He is from God; for He was even before our creation. §. 12. And the same presumption will be proved against them concerning the Father; for if when silent, He could not make, of necessity He has by begetting gained power [Note F], that is, by speaking. And whence has He gained it? and wherefore [Note G]? If, when He had the Word within him, He could make, He begets needlessly, being able to make even in silence. 3. Next, if the Word was in God before He was begotten, then being begotten He is without and external to Him. But if so, how says He now, I in the Father and the Father in Me [John xiv. 10.]? but if He is now in the Father, then always was He in the Father, as He is now, and needless is it to say, For us was He begotten, and He reverts after we are formed, that He may be as He was. For He was not any thing which He is not now, nor is He what He was not; but He is as He ever was, and in the same state and in the same respects; otherwise He will seem to be imperfect and alterable [Note H]. For if, what He was, that He shall be afterwards, as if now He were it not, it is plain, He is not now what He {527} was and shall be. I mean, if He was before in God, and afterwards shall be again, it follows that now the Word is not in God [Note I]. But our Lord refutes such persons when He says, I in the Father and the Father in Me; for so is He now as He ever was. But if so He now is, as He was ever, it follows, not that at one time He was begotten and not at another, nor that once there was silence with God, and then He spake, but there is ever a Father [Note 2], and a Son who is His Word, not in name [Note 3] alone a Word, nor the Word in notion [Note 4] only a Son, but existing consubstantial [Note 5] with the Father, not begotten for us, for we are brought into being for him. 4. For, if He were begotten for us, and in His begetting we were created, and in His generation the creature consists, and then He returns that He may be what He was before, first, He that was begotten will be again not begotten. For if His progression be generation, His return will be the close [Note 6] of that generation [Note K], for when He has become in God, God will be silent again. But if He shall be silent, there will be what there was when He was silent, stillness and not creation, for the creation will come to a close. For, as on the Word's outgoing, the creation came to be, and existed, so on the Word's retiring, the creation will not exist [Note L]. What use then that it should be made, if it will close? or why did God speak, that then He should be silent? and why did He develope whom He recalls? and why did He beget whose generation He willed to close? Again it is uncertain what He shall be. Either He will ever be silent, or He will again beget, and will devise a second creation, (for He will not make the same, else that which was made would have remained,) but another; and in due course He will bring that also to a close, and will devise another, and so on without end [Note 7]. FootnotesA. That is, the school of Marcellus and Photinus. B.
Even Eusebius takes this view. vid. supr. p. 62, note F. vid. also a
clear and eloquent passage in the Eccl. Theol. 1, 8. also 13. to shew
that our Lord was brought into being before all creation, [epi soteria
ton holon]. vid. also iii. pp. 153, 4. Vid. supr. p.
316, note C. C.
[hina probaletai]; on the Valentinian [probole],
development or issue, vid. supr. p. 97, note H. If the word here
allude to Sabellius and Marcellus, it is used as an arg. ad
invidiam; Valentinus and Sabellius are put together (as Valentinus
and Marcellus, Euseb. Eccl. Theol. ii. 9.) by S. Alexander, [tais
tomais he tais aporrhoiais hosper Sabellioi kai
Balentinoi dokei]. Theodor. Hist. i. 3. p. 743. vid also
Euseb. p. 114, c. For other reasons Valentinus is compared by S. Athan.
to the Arians, supr. pp. 262, 486, 492. D.
vid. Cyril. de Trin. iv. p. 536. vi. p. 616. in Joann. p. 45. Naz.
Orat. 23, 7. 42, 17. E.
Eusebius makes the same remark against Marcellus; [epei, kai gar
anthropois, hoi pleistoi ton demiourgon,
kai siopontes, ta heauton ektelousin erga, kai
malista hoti medeis autois paresti demiourgousi, ti oun
ekolue kai ton theon houto pos ta panta sustesasthai
echonta en autoi ton logon]; Eccl. Theol. p. 167, b. F.
The same general doctrine is opposed, though by different arguments,
in Euseb. Eccl. Eccles. pp. 113, 114. Neander assumes, Church Hist. 3
cent. (vol. 2. p. 277, &c. Rose's transl.) that these sections are
directed against Sabellius. G.
The same class of objections is urged by Eusebius against Marcellus; [en
hopoiai de en katastasei ho theos, me echon en
heautoi ton oikeion logon … ho theos estai heautoi
anomoios]. pp. 113, 114. Athan. urges the same argument against
the Arians, supra Orat. ii. p. 335, c. and S. Basil. contr. Eunom. ii.
p. 664. as Origen at an earlier date, as quoted by Marcellus, Euseb.
contr. M. p. 22. [ei gar aei teleios ho theos, … ti anaballetai].
vid. R. S. C. Observ. p. 20. Lips. 1787.) H.
[treptos]. We have seen, supr. p. 230. that the Arians applied
this word to our Lord; this argument however takes it for granted,
that it cannot be so applied, or is reductio ad absurdum, i.e. ad
Arianismum, and shews, if additional proofs are wanting, that the
Arian is not the heresy here contemplated. I.
And so [ara me on en toi theoi hote tei
sarki sunen]; Euseb. contr. Marc. p. 54, c. vid. also p. 167, a. K.
[paula tes geneseos]. The Catholic doctrine of
the [aigennes] is stated supr. p. 201, note B. vid. also p.
495, r. 2. Didymus however says, [ouk aei gennatai], de Trin.
iii. 3. p. 338. but with the intention of maintaining our Lord's
perfection (supr. p. 201, note E.) and eternity, as Hil. Trin. ii. 20.
Naz. Orat. 20. 9 fin. Basil. de Sp. S. n. 20 fin. It is remarkable
that. Pope Gregory objects to Semper nascitur as implying
imperfection, and prefers Semper natus est. Moral. 29. but this is a
question of words. L.
Marcellus's doctrine suggests a parallel line of thought to Eusebius.
He says that, all immortality depending on the Son, if the Son cease
to be, the Saints will lose Him in whom they live; [ou dicha tou
christou, kleronomo hemeis, panta ta hemon
ek tes autou koinonias], p. 34, b. d. [ouk eti
lalesei tois hagiois ho theos tote, oude chresetai energoi
toi autou logoi]; p. 115,c. Margin Notes1. p. 108, note I. p. 201, note C. 2.
p. 211, note F. 3.
[onomati] p. 307, note D. 4.
[kat' epinoian] p. 333, note U. 5.
[homoousios] p. 534, note H. 6.
[paula], p. 329, r. 2. 7.
[eis apeiron], p. 379, r. 1. Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman |