|
{24} Chapter 4. Proof of the Catholic sense of the word Son
§. 15. 1. THIS then is quite enough to expose the infamy of the Arian heresy; for, as the Lord has granted, out of their own words is irreligion brought home to them [Note B]. But come now and let us on our part act on the offensive, and call on them for an answer; for now is fair time, when their own ground has failed them, to question them on ours; perhaps it may abash the perverse, and disclose to them whence they have fallen. We have learned from divine Scripture, that the Son of God, as was said above, is the very Word and Wisdom of the Father. For the Apostle says, Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God [1 Cor. i. 24.]; and John after saying, And the Word was made flesh [John i. 14.], at once adds, And we have seen His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth; so that, the Word being the Only-begotten Son, in this Word and in Wisdom heaven and earth and all that is therein were made. And of this Wisdom that God is Fountain we have learned from [Note 1] Baruch, by Israel's being charged with having forsaken the Fountain of Wisdom. If then they deny Scripture, they are at once aliens to their name, and {25} may fitly be called of all men atheists [Note 2], and Christ's enemies, for they have brought upon themselves these names. But if they agree with us that the sayings of Scripture are divinely inspired, let them dare to say openly what they think in secret, that God was once wordless and wisdomless [Note C]; and let them in their madness [Note 3] say, "There was once when He was not," and, "before His generation, Christ was not;" [Note D] and again let them declare that the Fountain begat not Wisdom from Itself, but acquired It from without, till they have the daring to say, "The Son came of nothing;" whence it will follow that there no longer a Fountain, but a sort of pool, as if receiving water from without, and usurping the name of Fountain [Note E]. §. 16. 2. How full of irreligion this is, I consider none can doubt who has ever so little understanding. But since they whisper something about Word and Wisdom, being only names of the Son [Note F], we must ask them, If these are only names of the {26} Son, He must be something else beside them. And if He is higher than the names, it is not lawful from the lesser to denote the higher; but if He be less than the names, yet He surely must have in Him the principle of this more honourable appellation; and this implies His advance, which is an irreligion equal to any thing that has gone before. For He who is in the Father, and in whom also the Father is, who says, I and the Father are one [John x. 30.], whom He that hath seen, hath seen the Father, to say that He has been improved [Note 4] by any thing external, is the extreme of madness. 3. However, when they are beaten hence, and like the Eusebians are in these great straits, then they have this remaining plea, which Arias too in ballads, and in his own Thalia [Note 5], fabled, as a new difficulty: "Many words speaketh God; which then of these are we to call Son and Word, Only-begotten of the Father?" [Note G] Insensate, and any thing but {27} Christians! [Note H] for first, on using such language about God, they conceive of Him almost as a man, speaking and reversing His first words by His second, just as if one Word from God were not sufficient for the framing of all things at the Father's will, and for His providential care of all. For His speaking many words would argue a feebleness in them all, each needing the service of the other. But that God should have one Word, which is the true doctrine, both shews the power of God, and the perfection of the Word that is from Him, and the religious understanding of them who thus believe. §. 17. 4. O that they would consent to confess the truth from this their own statement! for if they once grant that God produces words, they plainly know Him to be a Father; and acknowledging this, let them consider that, while they are loth to ascribe one Word to God, they are imagining that He is Father of many; and while they are loth to say that there is no Word of God at all, yet they do not confess that He is the Son of God,—which is ignorance of the truth, and inexperience in divine Scripture. For if God is altogether Father of the Word, wherefore is not He a Son that is begotten? And again, Son of God who should be, but His Word? For there are not many words, or each would be imperfect, but one is the Word, that He only may be perfect, and because, God being one, His image too must be one, which is the Son. For the Son of God, as may be learnt from the divine oracles themselves, is Himself the Word of God, and the Wisdom, and the Image, and the Hand, and the Power; for God's offspring is one, and of the generation from the Father these titles are tokens [Note I]. For if you say the {28} Son, you have declared what is from the Father by nature; and if you imagine the Word, you are thinking again of what is from Him, and what is inseparable; and, speaking of Wisdom, again you mean just as much, what is not from without, but from Him and in Him; and if you name the Power and the Hand, again you speak of what is proper to substance; and, speaking of the Image, you signify the Son; for what else is like God but the offspring from Him? Doubtless the things, which came to be through the Word, these are founded in Wisdom; and what are laid in Wisdom, these are all made by the Hand, and came to be through the Son. And we have proof of this, not from external sources, but from the Scriptures; for God Himself says by Esaias the Prophet; My hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand hath spanned the heavens [Is. xlviii. 13.]. And again, And I have covered them in the shadow of My Hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth [Is. li. 16.]. And David being taught this, and knowing that the Lord's hand was nothing else than Wisdom, says in the Psalm, In wisdom hast Thou made them all; the earth is full of Thy riches [Ps. civ. 24.]. Solomon also received the same from God, and said, The Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth [Prov. iii. 19.]; and John, knowing that the Word was the Hand and the Wisdom, thus preached, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God: all things were made by Him, and without Him was not any thing made [John i. 1.]. And the Apostle, understanding that the Hand and the Wisdom and the Word was nothing else than the Son, says, God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom He hath appointed Heir of all things, by whom also He made the ages [Heb. i. 1. 2.]. And again, There is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him [1 Cor. viii. 6.]. And knowing also that the Word, the Wisdom, the Son was the Image Himself of the Father, He says in the Epistle to the Colossians, Giving thanks to God and the Father, which {29} hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son; in whom we have redemption [Note 6], even the remission of sins; who is the Image of the Invisible God, the First-born of every creature; for by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by Him and for Him; and He is before all things, and in Him all things consist [Col. i. 12-17.]. For as all things are created by the Word, so, because He is the Image, are they also created in Him [Note K]. And thus any one who directs His thoughts to the Lord, will avoid stumbling upon the stone of offence, but rather will go forward to that brightness which is reflected from the light of truth; for this is really the doctrine of truth, though these contentious men burst with spite [Note L], neither religious towards God, nor abashed at their confutation. {30} Chapter 5. Defence of the Council's phrases, "from the Substance," and "one in Substance"
§. 18. 1. NOW the Eusebians were at the former period examined at great length, and convicted themselves, as I said before; on this they subscribed; and after this change of mind they kept in quiet and retirement [Note M]; but since the present party, in the fresh arrogance of irreligion, and in dizziness about the truth, are full set upon accusing the Council, let them tell us what are the sort of Scriptures from which they have learned, or who is the Saint [Note 7] by which they have been taught, that they have heaped together the phrases, "out of nothing," [Note 8] and "He was not before his generation," and "once He was not," and "alterable," and "pre-existence," and "at the will;" which are their fables in mockery of the Lord. For the blessed Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews says, By faith we understand that the ages were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear [Heb. xi. 3.]. But nothing is common to the Word with the ages [Note N]; for He it {31} is who is in existence before the ages, by whom also the ages came to be. And in the Shepherd [Note 9] it is written, (since they allege this book also, though it is not of the Canon [Note O],) "First of all believe, that God is one, who created all things, and arranged them, and brought all things from nothing into being;" but this again does not relate to the Son, for it speaks concerning all things which came to be through Him, from whom He is distinct; for it is not possible to reckon the Framer of all with the things made by Him, unless a man is so beside himself as to say that the architect also is the same as the buildings which he rears. 2. Why then, when they have invented on their part unscriptural phrases, for the purposes of irreligion, do they accuse those who are religious in their use of them [Note P]? For irreligiousness is utterly forbidden, though it be attempted {32} to disguise it with artful expressions and plausible sophisms; but religiousness is confessed by all to be lawful, even though presented in strange phrases [Note 10], provided only they are used with a religious view, and a wish to make them the expression of religious thoughts. Now the aforesaid grovelling phrases of Christ's enemies, have been shewn in these remarks to be both formerly and now replete with irreligion; whereas the definition of the Council against them, if accurately examined, will be found to be altogether a representation of the truth, and especially if diligent attention be paid to the occasion which gave rise to these expressions, which was reasonable, and was as follows:— §. 19. 3. The Council [Note 11] wishing to negative the irreligious phrases of the Arians, and to use instead the acknowledged words of the Scriptures, that the Son is not from nothing but from God, and is Word and Wisdom, nor creature or work, but the proper offspring from the Father, the party of Eusebius, out of their inveterate heterodoxy, understood the phrase from God as belonging to us, as if in respect to it the Word of God differed nothing from us, and that because it is written, There is one God, from whom all things [1 Cor. viii. 6.]; and again, Old things are passed away, behold, all things are new, and all things are from God [2 Cor. v. 17.]. But the Fathers, perceiving their craft and the cunning of their irreligion, were forced to express more distinctly the sense of the words from God. Accordingly, they wrote "from the substance of God," [Note Q] in order that from God {33} might not be considered common and equal in the Son and in things generate, but that all others might be acknowledged as creatures, and the Word alone as from the Father. For though all things be said to be from God, yet this is not in the sense in which the Son is from Him; for as to the creatures, "of God" is said of them on this account, in that they exist not at random or spontaneously, nor come to be by chance [Note 12], according to those philosophers who refer them to the combination of atoms, and to elements of similar structure,—nor as certain heretics speak of a distinct Framer,—nor as others again say that the constitution of all things is from certain Angels;—but in that, whereas God is, it was by Him that all things were brought into being, not being before, through His Word, but as to the Word, since He is not a creature, He alone is both called and is from the Father; and it is significant of this sense to say that the Son is "from the substance of the Father," for to no creature does this attach. In truth, when Paul says that all things are from God [1 Cor. viii. 6.], he immediately adds, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things, by way of shewing all men, that the Son is other than all these things which came to be from God, (for the things which came to be from God, came to be through His Son;) and that he had used his foregoing words with reference to the world as framed by God [Note R], and {34} not as if all things were from the Father as the Son is. For neither are other things as the Son, nor is the Word one among others, for He is Lord and Framer of all; and on this account did the Holy Council declare expressly that He was of the substance [Note S] of the Father, that we might believe the Word to be other than the nature of things generate, being alone truly from God; and that no subterfuge should be left open to the irreligious. This then was the reason why the Council wrote "of the substance." §. 20. 4. Again, when the Bishops said that the Word must be described as the True Power and Image of the Father, like to the Father in all things and unvarying [Note 13], and as unalterable, and as always, and as in Him without division; (for never was the Word not, but He was always, existing everlastingly with the Father, as the radiance of light,) the party of Eusebius endured indeed, as not daring to contradict, being put to shame by the arguments which were urged against them; but withal they were caught whispering to each other and winking with their eyes, that "like," and "always," and "power," and "in Him," were, as before, common to us and the Son, and that it was no difficultly to agree to these. As to "like," they said that it is written of us, Man is the image and glory of God [1 Cor. xi. 7.]; "always," that it was written, For we which live are alway [2 Cor. iv. 11.]; "in Him," In Him we live and move and have our being [Acts xvii. 28.]; "unalterable," that it is written, Nothing shall separate us from the love of Christ [Rom viii. 35. who shall separate.]; as to "power," that the caterpillar and the locust are called power, and great power [Joel ii. 25.], and that it is often said of the people, for instance, All the power of the Lord came out of the land of Egypt [Ex. xii. 41.]; and others are heavenly powers, for Scripture says, The Lord {35} of powers is with us, the God of Jacob is our refuge [Ps. xlvi. 8.]. Indeed Asterius, by title the sophist, had said the like in writing, having taken it from them, and before Him Arius [Note 14] having taken it also, as has been said. But the Bishops, discerning in this too their simulation, and whereas it is written, Deceit is in the heart of the irreligious that imagine evil [Prov. xii. 20.], were again compelled on their part to concentrate the sense of the Scriptures, and to re-say and re-write what they had said before, more distinctly still, namely, that the Son is "one in substance" [Note T] with the Father; by way of signifying, that the Son was from the Father, and not merely like, but is the same in likeness [Note U], and of shewing that the Son's likeness and unalterableness was different from such copy of the same as is ascribed to us, which we acquire from virtue on the ground of observance of the commandments. 5. For bodies which are like each other, may be separated and become at distances from each other, as are human sons relatively to their parents, (as it is written concerning Adam and Seth, who was begotten of him, that he was like him after his own pattern [Note 15];) but since the generation of the Son {36} from the Father is not according to the nature of men, and not only like, but also inseparable from the substance of the Father, and He and the Father are one, as He has said Himself, and the Word is ever in the Father and the Father in the Word, as the radiance stands towards the light, (for this the phrase itself indicates,) therefore the Council, as understanding this, suitably wrote "one in substance," that they might both defeat the perverseness of the heretics, and shew that the Word was other than generated things. For, after thus writing, they at once added, "But they who say that the Son of God is from nothing, or created, or alterable, or a work, or from other substance, these the Holy Catholic Church anathematizes." [Note 16] And in saving this, they shewed clearly that "of the substance," and "one in substance," do negative [Note 17] those syllables of irreligion, such as "created," and "work," and "generated," and "alterable," and "He was not before His generation." And he who holds these, contradicts the Council; but he who does not hold with Arius, must needs hold and comprehend the decisions of the Council, suitably regarding them to signify the relation of the radiance to the light, and from thence gaining the illustration of the truth. §. 21. 6. Therefore if they, as the others, make an excuse that the terms are strange, let them consider the sense in which the Council so wrote, and anathematize what the Council anathematized; and then if they can, let them find fault with the expressions. But I well know that, if they hold the sense of the Council, they will fully accept the terms in which it is conveyed; whereas if it be the sense [Note 18] which they wish to complain of, all must see that it is idle in them to discuss the wording, when they are but seeking handles for irreligion. 7. This then was the reason of these expressions; but if they still complain that such are not scriptural, that very complaint is a reason why they should be cast out, as talking idly and disordered in mind; and next why they should blame themselves in this matter, for they set the example, beginning their war against God with words not in Scripture. However, if a person is interested in the question, let him know, that, even if the expressions are not in so many words in the Scriptures, yet, as was said before, they {37} contain the sense of the Scriptures, and expressing it, they convey it to those who have their hearing unimpaired for religious doctrine. Now this circumstance it is for thee to consider, and for those ill-instructed men to learn. It has been shewn above, and must be believed as true, that the Word is from the Father, and the only Offspring [Note X] proper to Him and natural. For whence may one conceive the Son to be, who is the Wisdom and the Word, in whom all things came to be, but from God Himself? However, the Scriptures also teach us this, since the Father says by David, My heart was bursting of a good Word [Ps. lxv. 1.], and, From the womb before the morning star I begat Thee [Ib. cx. 3.]; and the Son signifies to the Jews about Himself, If God were your Father, ye would love Me; for I proceeded forth from the Father [John viii. 42.]. And again; Not that any one has seen the Father, save He which is from God, He hath seen the Father [John vi. 46.]. And moreover, I and My Father are one [John x. 30.], and, I in the Father and the Father in Me [John xiv. 10.], is equivalent with saying, "I am from the Father, and inseparable from him." And John, in saying, The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him [John i. 18.], spoke of what he had learned from the Saviour. Besides, what else does in the bosom intimate, but the Son's genuine generation from the Father? §. 22. 8. If then any man conceives as if God were compound, so as to have accidents in His substance [Note Y], or any external {38} envelopement [Note Z], and to be encompassed, or as if there is aught about Him which completes the substance, so that when we say "God," or name "Father," we do not signify the invisible and incomprehensible substance, but something about it, then let them complain of the Council's stating that the Son was from the substance of God; but let them reflect, that in thus considering they commit two blasphemies; for they make God material, and they falsely say that the Lord is not Son of the very Father, but of what is about Him [Note 19]. But if God be simple, as He is, it follows that in saying "God" and naming "Father," we name nothing as if about Him, but signify His substance itself. For though to comprehend what the substance of God is be impossible, yet if we only understand that God is, and if Scripture indicates Him by means of these titles, we, with the intention of indicating Him and none else, call Him God and Father and Lord. When then He says, I am that I am, and I am the Lord God [Ex. iii. 14. 15.], or when Scripture says, God, we understand nothing else by it but the intimation of His incomprehensible substance Itself, and that He Is, who is spoken of [Note A]. Therefore {39} let no one be startled on hearing that the Son of God is from the substance of the Father; rather let him accept the explanation of the Fathers, who in more explicit but equivalent language have for from God written "of the substance." For they considered it the same thing to say that the Word was of God and "of the substance of God," since the word "God," as I have already said, signifies nothing but the substance of Him Who Is. If then the Word is not in such sense from God, as to be Son, genuine and natural, from the Father, but only as creatures because they are framed, and as all things are from God, then neither is He from the substance of the Father, nor is the Son again Son according to substance, but in consequence of virtue, as we who are called sons by grace. But if He only is from God, as a genuine Son, as He is, then let the Son, as is reasonable, be called from the substance of God. §. 23. 9. Again, the illustration of the Light and the Radiance has this meaning. For the Saints have not said that the Word was related to God as fire kindled from the heat of the sun, which is commonly put out again, for this is an external work and a creature of its author, but they all preach of him as Radiance [Note B], thereby to signify His being from the substance, proper and [Note 20] indivisible, and his oneness with the Father. This also will secure His true [Note 21] unalterableness and immutability; for how can these be His, unless He be {40} proper Offspring of the Father's substance? for this too must be taken to confirm His [Note 22] identity with His own Father. 10. Our explanation then having so religious an aspect, Christ's enemies should not be startled at the "One in substance" either, since this term also admits of being soundly expounded and defended. Indeed, if we say that the Word is from the substance of God, (for after what has been said this must be a phrase admitted by them,) what does this mean but the truth and eternity of the substance from which He is begotten? for it is not different in kind, lest it be combined with the substance of God, as something foreign and unlike it. Nor is He like only outwardly, lest He seem in some respect or wholly to be other in substance, as brass shines like gold and silver like tin. For these are foreign and of other nature, and are separated off from each other in nature and qualities, nor is brass proper to gold, nor is the pigeon born from the dove [Note 23]; but though they are considered like, yet they differ in substance. If then it be thus with the Son, let Him be a creature as we are, and not One in substance; but if the Son is Word, Wisdom, Image of the Father, Radiance, He must in all reason be One in substance. For unless [Note 24] it be proved that He is not from God, but an instrument [Note 25] different in nature and different in substance, surely the Council was sound in its doctrine and apposite in its decree [Note C]. §. 24. 11. Further, let every corporeal thought be banished on this subject; and transcending every imagination of sense, let us, with the pure understanding and with mind alone, apprehend the Son's genuine [Note 26] relation towards the Father, and the Word's proper [Note 27] relation towards God, and the unvarying [Note 28] likeness of the radiance towards the light: for as the words "Offspring" and "Son" bear, and are meant to bear, no human sense, but one suitable to God, in like manner when we hear the phrase "one in substance," let us not fall upon human senses, and imagine partitions and divisions of the Godhead, but as having our thoughts directed to things {41} immaterial, let us preserve undivided the oneness of nature and the identity of light; for this is proper to the Son as regards the Father, and in this is shewn that God is truly Father of the Word. Here again, the illustration of light and its radiance is in point [Note D]. Who will presume to say that the radiance is unlike and foreign from the sun? rather who, thus considering the radiance relatively to the sun, and the identity of the light, would not say with confidence, "Truly the light and the radiance are one, and the one is manifested in the other, and the radiance is in the sun, so that whoso sees this, sees that also?" but such a oneness and natural possession [Note 29], what should it be named by those who believe and see aright, but Offspring one in substance? and God's Offspring what should we fittingly and suitably consider, but the Word, and Wisdom, and Power? which it were a sin to say was foreign from the Father, or a crime even to imagine as other than with Him everlastingly. 12. For by this Offspring the Father made all things, and extended His Providence unto all things, by Him He exercises His love to man, and thus He and the Father are one, as has been said; unless indeed these perverse men make a fresh attempt, and say that the substance of the Word is not the same as the Light which is in Him from the Father, as if the Light in the Son were one with the Father, but He Himself foreign in substance as being a creature. Yet this is simply the belief of Caiaphas and Samosatene, which the Church cast out, but they now are disguising; and by this they fell from the truth, and were declared to be heretics. For if He partakes in fulness the light from the Father, why is He not rather that which others partake [Note 30], that there be no medium introduced between Himself and the Father? Otherwise, it is no longer clear that all things were generated by the Son, but by Him, of whom He too partakes [Note E]. And if {42} this is the Word, the Wisdom of the Father, in whom the Father is revealed and known, and frames the world, and without whom the Father doth nothing, evidently He it is who is from the Father: for all things generated partake of Him, as partaking of the Holy Ghost. And being such, He cannot be from nothing, nor a creature at all, but rather the proper Offspring from the Father as the radiance from light. FootnotesB. The
main argument of the Arians was that our Lord was a Son, and therefore
was not eternal, but of a substance which had a beginning. With this
Arius started in his dispute with Alexander. "Arius, a man not without
dialectic skill, thinking that the Bishop was introducing the doctrine
of Sabellius the Libyan, out of contention fell off into the opinion
diametrically opposite, … and he says, 'If
the Father begot the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning
of existence; and from this it is plain that once the Son was not; and
it follows of necessity that He had His subsistence out of nothing."
Socr. i. 5. Accordingly Athanasius says, "Having argued with them as
to the meaning of their own selected term, 'Son,' let us go on to
others, which on the very face make for us, such as Word, Wisdom,
&c." C.
[alogos, asophos]. vid. infra, §. 26. This is a frequent
argument in the controversy, viz. that to deprive the Father of His
Son or substantial Word, [logos], is as great a sacrilege as to
deny His Reason, [logos], from which the Son receives His name.
Thus Orat. i. §. 14. fin. [infra p. 202] Athan. says, "imputing to
God's nature an absence of His Word, ([alogian] or
irrationality,) they are most irreligious." vid. §. 19. fin. 24.
Elsewhere, he says, "Is a man not mad himself, who even entertains the
thought that God is word-less and wisdom-less? for such illustrations
and such images Scripture hath proposed, that, considering the
inability of human nature to comprehend concerning God, we might even
from these, however poorly and dimly, discern as far as is attainable."
Orat. ii. 32. [infra pp. 325, 326] vid. also iii. 63. iv. 14. Serap.
ii. 2. D.
These were among the original positions of the Arians; the former is
mentioned by Socrates, vid. note B. the latter is one of those
specified in the Nicene Anathema. E.
And so [pege xera]. Serap. ii. 2. Orat. i.
§. 14. fin. also ii. §. 2. [infra pp. 283, 284] where Athanasius
speaks as if those who deny that Almighty God is Father, cannot really
believe in Him as a Creator. "If He be not a Son, let Him be called a
work, and let God be called, not Father, but Framer only and Creator,
and not of a generative nature. But if the divine substance be not
fruitful, ([karpogonos],) but barren, as they say, as a light
which enlightens not, and a dry fountain, are they not ashamed to
maintain that He possesses the creative energy?" vid. also [pege
theotetos]. Pseudo-Dion. Div. Nom. c. 2. [pege
ex peges], of the Son. Epiphan. Ancor. 19. And
Cyril, "If thou take from God His being Father, thou wilt deny the
generative power ([karpogonon]) of the divine nature, so that
It no longer is perfect. This then is a token of its
perfection, and the Son who went forth from Him apart from time, is a
pledge ([sphragis]) to the Father that He is perfect." Thesaur.
p. 37. F.
Arius said, as the Eunomians after him, that the Son was not really,
but only called, Word and Wisdom, which were simply attributes of God,
and the prototypes of the Son. vid. Socr. i. 6. p. 11. Theod. Hist. i.
3. p. 731. Athan. asks, Is the Son then more than wisdom? if on the
other hand He be less, still He must be so called because of some gift
or quality in Him, analogous to wisdom, or of the nature of wisdom,
and admitting of improvement and growth. But this was the notorious
doctrine of Christ's [prokope] or advancement. "I am in
wonder," he says, Orat. ii. §. 37. [infra pp. 331, 332] "how, whereas
God is one, these men introduce after their private notions, many
images, and wisdoms, and words, and say that the Father's proper and
natural Word is other than the Son, by whom He even made the Son, and
that the real Son is but notionally called Word, as vine, and way, and
door, and tree of life; and Wisdom also only in name,—the proper and
true Wisdom of the Father, which co-exists with Him without generation
being other than the Son, by which He even made the Son, and named Him
Wisdom as partaking of it." He goes on to observe in §. 38. [ib. 333]
that to be consistent they should explain away not only word, wisdom,
&c. but the title of being as applied to Him; "and then
what is He? for He is none of these Himself, if they are but His
names, and He has but a semblance of being, and is decorated with
these names by us." G.
As the Arians took the title Son in that part of its earthly sense in
which it did not apply to our Lord, so they misinterpreted the title
Word also; which denoted the Son's immateriality and indivisible
presence in the Father, but did not express His perfection. vid. Orat.
ii. §. 34-36. which precedes the passage quoted in the last note. "As
our word is proper to us and from us, and not a work external to us,
so also the Word of God is proper to Him and from Him, and is not
made, yet not as the word of man, else one must consider God as
man. Men have many words, and after those many, not any one of them
all; for the speaker has ceased, and thereupon his word fails. But God's
Word is one and the same, and as it is written, 'remaineth for ever,'
not changed, not first one and then another, but existing the same
always. For it behoved that God being one, one should be His Image,
one His Word, one His Wisdom." §. 36. [infra p. 331] vid. contr.
Gent. 41. ad Ep. Æg. 16. Epiph. Hær. 65. 3. Nyss. in Eun. xii. p.
349. Origen, (in a passage, however, of questionable doctrine,) says, "As
there are gods many, but to us one God the Father, and many lords, but
to us one Lord Jesus Christ, so then are many words, but we pray that
in us may exist the Word that was in the beginning, with God, and God."
in Joan. tom. ii. 3. "Many things, it is acknowledged, does the Father
speak to the Son," say the Semiarians at Ancyra, "but the words which
God speaks to the Son, are not sons. They are not substances of God,
but vocal energies; but the Son, though a Word, is not such, but,
being a Son, is a substance." Epiph. Hær. 73. 12. The Semiarians are
speaking against Sabellianism, which took the same ground here as
Arianism; so did the heresy of Samosatene, who according to Epiphanius,
considered our Lord, the internal Word, or thought. Hær. 65. The term
word in this inferior sense is often in Greek [rhema].
Epiph. supr. and Cyril. de Incarn. Unig. init. t. v. i. p. 679. H.
"If they understood and acknowledged the characteristic idea ([charaktera])
of Christianity, they would not have said that the Lord of glory was a
creature." ad Serap. ii. 7. In Orat. i. §. 2. he says, Arians are not
Christians because they are Arians, for Christians are called,
not from Arius, but from Christ, who is their only Master. vid. also
de Syn. §. 38. init. Sent. D. fin. Ad Afros. 4. Their cruelty and
cooperation with the heathen populace was another reason. Greg. Naz.
Orat. 25. 12. I.
All the titles of the Son of God are consistent with each other, and
variously represent one and the same Person. "Son" and "Word," denote
His derivation; "Word" and "Image," His Similitude; "Word" and "Wisdom,"
His immateriality; "Wisdom" and "Hand", His co-existence. "If He is
not Son, neither is He Image." Orat. ii. §. 2. [infra p. 283] "How is
there Word and Wisdom, unless there be a proper offspring of His
substance?" ii. §. 22. [infra p. 311] vid. also Orat. i. §. 20, 21.
and at great length Orat. iv. §. 20. &c. vid. also Naz. Orat. 30.
n. 20. Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 18. Hilar. de Trin. vii. 11. August. in
Joann. xlviii. 6. [pp. 640, 641 O.T.] and in Psalm 44, (45,) 5. [vol.
2 pp. 232, 233 O.T.] K.
vid. a beautiful passage, contr. Gent. 42. &c. Again, of men, "He
made them after His own image, imparting to them of the power of His
proper Word, that, having as it were certain shadows of the Word,
and becoming rational, [logikoi], they might be enabled to
continue in blessedness." Incarn. 3. vid. also Orat. ii. 78. [infra p.
391] where he speaks of Wisdom as being infused into the world on its
creation, that it might possess "a type and semblance of Its Image." L.
[diarrhagosin], and so Serap. ii. fin. [diarrhegnuontai].
de Syn. 34. [diarrhegnuosin heautous]. Orat. ii.
§. 23. [sparattetosan heautous]. Orat. ii. §. 64. [trizeto
tous odontas]. Sent. D. 16. M.
After the Nicene Council, the Eusebians did not dare avow their heresy
in Constantine's lifetime, but merely attempted the banishment of
Athanasius, and the restoration of Arius. Their first Council was A.D.
341, four years after Constantine's death. N.
By [aion], age, seems to be meant duration, or the
measure of duration, before or independent of the existence of motion,
which is the measure of time. As motion, and therefore time, are
creatures, so are the ages. Considered as the measure of duration, an
age has a sort of positive existence, though not an [ousia] or
substance, and means the same as "world," or an existing system of
things viewed apart from time and motion. vid. Theodor. in Hebr. i. 2.
Our Lord then is the Maker of the ages thus considered, as the Apostle
also tells us, Hebr. xi. 3. and God is the King of the ages, 1 Tim. i.
17. or is before all ages, as being eternal, or [proaionios].
However, sometimes the word is synonymous with eternity; "as time is
to things which are under time, so ages to things which are
everlasting." Damasc. Fid. Orth. ii. 1. and "ages of ages" stands for
eternity; and then the "ages" or measures of duration, may be supposed
to stand for the [ideai] or ideas in the Divine Mind, which
seems to have been a Platonic or Gnostic notion. Hence Synesius, Hymn
iii. addresses the Almighty as [aionotoke], parent of
the ages. Hence sometimes God Himself is called the Age, Clem. Alex.
Hymn. Pæd. iii. fin. or, the Age of ages, Pseudo-Dion. de Div. Nom.
5. p. 580. or again, [aionios]. Theodoret sums up what
has been said thus: "Age is not any subsisting substance, but is an
interval indicative of time, now infinite, when God is spoken of, now
commensurate with creation, now with human life." Hær. v. 6. If then,
as Athan. says in the text, the Word is Maker of the ages, He is
independent of duration altogether; He does not come to be in time,
but is above and beyond it, or eternal. Elsewhere he says, "The words
addressed to the Son in the 144th Psalm, 'Thy kingdom is a kingdom of
all ages,' 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 the Word is King and Maker, therefore, whereas no
interval at all exists prior to Him, it were madness to say, 'There
was once when the Everlasting ([aionios]) was not.'"
Orat. i. 12. [infra p. 198] And so Alexander; "Is it not unreasonable
that He who made times, and ages, and seasons, to all of which belongs
'was not,' should be said not to be? for, if so, that interval in
which they say the Son was not yet begotten by the Father, precedes
that Wisdom of God which framed all things." Theod. Hist. i. 3.
p. 736. vid. also Basil. de Sp. S. n. 14. Hilar. de Trin. xii. 34. O.
And so in Ep. Fest. Fin. he enumerates it with Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus,
Esther, Judith, Tobit, and others, "not canonized but appointed by the
Fathers to be read by late converts and persons under teaching."
[Festal Epistles, 39 p. 139 O.T.] He calls it elsewhere a most
profitable book. Incarn. 3. P.
Athan. here retorts the charge brought against the Council, as it was
obvious to do, which gave occasion for this Treatise. If the Council
went beyond Scripture in the use of the word "substance," (which
however can hardly be granted,) who made this necessary, but they who
had already introduced the phrases, "the Son was out of nothing,"
&c. &c.? "Of the substance," and "one in substance," were
directly intended to contradict and supplant the Arian unscriptural
innovations, as he says below, §. 20. fin. 21. init. vid. also ad
Afros. 6. de Synod. §. 36, 37. He observes in like manner that the
Arian [agenetos], though allowable as used by religious
men, de Syn. §. 40. was unscriptural, i. Orat. i. §. 30, 34. Also
Epiph. Hær. 76. p. 941. Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 5. Hilar. contr.
Const. 16. Ambros. Incarn. 80. Q.
Hence it stands in the Creed, "from the Father, that is, from
the substance of the Father." vid. Eusebius's Letter, infra.
According to the received doctrine of the Church all rational beings,
and in one sense all beings whatever, are "from God," over and above
the fact of their creation; and of this truth the Eusebians made use
to deny our Lord's proper divinity. Athan. lays down elsewhere that
nothing remains in consistence and life, except from a participation
of the Word, which is to be considered a gift from Him, additional to
that of creation, and separable in idea from it. vid. above, note K.
Thus he says that the all-powerful and all-perfect, Holy Word of the
Father, pervading all things, and developing every where His power,
and illuminating all things visible and invisible, gathers them within
Himself and knits them in one, leaving nothing destitute of His power,
but quickening and preserving all things and through all, and each by
itself, and the whole altogether." contr. Gent. 42. Again, "God not
only made us of nothing, but also vouchsafed to us a life
according to God, and by the grace of the Word. But men,
turning from things eternal to the things of corruption at the devil's
counsel, have brought on themselves the corruption of death, who were,
as I said, by nature corrupted, but by the grace of the
participation of the Word, had escaped their natural state, had
they remained good." Incarn. 5. Man thus considered is, in his first
estate, a son of God and born of God, or, to use the term which occurs
so frequently in the Arian controversy, in the number, not only of the
creatures, but of things generate, [geneta]. This
was the sense in which the Arians said that our Lord was Son of God;
whereas, as Athan. says, "things generate, being works, cannot
be called generate, except so far as, after their making, they
partake of the begotten Son, and are therefore said to have
been generated also; not at all in their own nature, but
because of their participation of the Son in the Spirit." Orat. i. 56.
[infra p. 261] The question then was, as to the distinction of
the Son's divine generation over that of holy men; and the Catholics
answered that He was [ex ousias], from the substance of God;
not by participation of grace, not by resemblance, not in a limited
sense, but really and simply, and therefore by an internal, divine
act. vid. below, §. 22. and infr. §. 31. note K. R.
When characteristic attributes and prerogatives are ascribed to God,
or to the Father, this is done only to the exclusion of creatures, or
of false gods, not to the exclusion of His Son who is implied in the
mention of Himself. Thus when God is called only wise, or the Father
the only God, or God is said to be ingenerate, [agenetos],
this is not in contrast to the Son, but to all things which are
distinct from God. vid. Athan. Orat. iii. 8. Naz. Orat. 30, 13. Cyril.
Thesaur. p. 142. "The words 'one' and 'only' ascribed to God in
Scripture," says S. Basil, "are not used in contrast to the Son or the
Holy Spirit, but with reference to those who are not God, and falsely
called so." Ep. 8. n. 3. On the other hand, when the Father is
mentioned, the other Divine Persons are implied in Him, "The Blessed
and Holy Trinity," says S. Athan., "is indivisible and one in itself;
and when the Father is mentioned, His Word is added, and the Spirit in
the Son; and if the Son is named, in the Son is the Father, and the
Spirit is not external to the Word." ad Serap. i. 14. S.
Vid. also ad Afros. 4. Again, "'I am,' [to on], is really
proper to God and is a whole, bounded or mutilated neither by aught
before Him, nor after Him, for He neither was, nor shall be." Naz.
Orat. 30. 18. fin. Also Cyril Dial. i. p. 392. Damasc. Fid. Orth. i.
9. and the Semiarians at Ancyra, Epiph. Hær. 73. 12. init. By the "essence,"
however, or "substance" of God, the Council did not mean any thing
distinct from God, vid. note A infr. but God Himself viewed in His
self-existing nature, (vid. Tert. in Hermog. 3.), nay, it expressly
meant to negative the contrary notion of the Arians, that our Lord was
from something distinct from God, and in consequence of created
substance. Moreover the term expresses the idea of God positively,
in contradistinction to negative epithets, such as infinite, immense,
eternal, &c. Damasc. Fid. Orthod. i. 4. and as little implies any
thing distinct from God as those epithets do. T.
vid. ad Afros. 5. 6. ad Serap. ii. 5. S. Ambrose tells us, that a
Letter written by Eusebius of Nicomedia, in which he said, "If we call
Him true Son of the Father and uncreate, then are we granting that He
is one in substance, [homoousion]," determined the Council on
the adoption of the term. de Fid. iii. n. 125. He had disclaimed "of
the substance," in his Letter to Paulinus. Theod. Hist. i. 4. Arius,
however, had disclaimed [homoousion] already. Epiph. Hær. 69.
7. It was a word of old usage in the Church, as Eusebius of Cæsarea
confesses in his Letter, infr. Tertullian in Prax. 13. fin. has the
translation "unius substantiæ," (vid. Lucifer de non Parc. p. 218.)
as he has "de substantia Patris," in Prax. 4. and Origen perhaps used
the word, vid. Pamph. Apol. 5. and Theognostus and the two Dionysius's,
infra, §. 25. 26. And before them Clement had spoken of the [henosis
tes monadikes ousias], "the union of the single
substance," vid. Le Quien in Damasc. Fid. Orth. i. 8. Novatian too has
"per substantiæ communionem," de Trinit. 31. U.
The Eusebians allowed that our Lord was like and the image of the
Father, but in the sense in which a picture is like the original,
differing from it in substance and in fact. In this sense they even
allowed the strong word [aparallaktos] unvarying image,
vid. beginning of §. 20. [supra p. 34] which had been used by the
Catholics, (vid. Alexander, ap. Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 740.) as by the
Semiarians afterwards, who even added the words [kat' ousian],
or "according to substance." Even this strong phrase, however, [kat'
ousian aparallaktos eikon], or [aparallaktos
homoios], did not appear to the Council an adequate safeguard of
the doctrine. Athan. notices de Syn. that "like" applies to qualities
rather than to substance, §. 53. Also Basil. Ep. 8. n. 3. "while in
itself," says the same Father, "it is frequently used of faint
similitudes, and falling very far short of the original." Ep. 9. n. 3.
Accordingly, the Council determined on the word [homoousion] as
implying, as the text expresses it, "the same in likeness," [tauton
tei homoiosei], that the likeness might not be
analogical. vid. the passage about gold and brass, p. 40. below.
Cyril. in Joan. 1. iii. c. v. p. 302. [p. 351 O.T.] X.
[gennema], offspring; this word is of very frequent
occurrence in Athan. He speaks of it, Orat. iv. 3. [infra pp. 516,
517] as virtually Scriptural. "If any one declines to say 'offspring,'
and only says that the Word exists with God, let such a one fear lest,
declining an expression of Scripture ([to legomenon]) he
fall into extravagance, &c." Yet Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 6-8.
explicitly disavows the word, as an unscriptural invention of Eunomius.
"That the Father begat we are taught in many places: that the Son is
an offspring we never heard up to this day, for Scripture says, 'unto
us a child is born, unto us a son is given.'" c. 7. He
goes on to say that "it is fearful to give Him names of our own to
whom God has given a name which is above every name;" and observes
that offspring is not the word which even a human father would apply
to his son, as for instance we read," Child, ([teknon],) go
into the vineyard," and "Who art thou, my son?" moreover that fruits
of the earth are called offspring, ("I will not drink of the of the
offspring of this vine,") rarely animated things, except indeed in
such instances as, "O generation (offspring) of vipers." Nyssen
defends his brother, contr. Eunom. Orat. iii. p. 105. In the Arian
formula "an offspring, but not as one of the offsprings," it is
synonymous with "work" or "creature." On the other hand Epiphanius
uses it, e.g. Hær. 76. n. 8. and Naz. Orat. 29. n. 2. Eusebius,
Demonstr. Ev. iv. 2. Pseudo-Basil. adv. Eunom. iv. p. 280. fin. Y.
[sumbebekos]. And so elsewhere, when resisting the Arian
and Sabellian notion that the wisdom of God is only a quality in the
Divine nature, "In that case God will be compounded of substance and
quality; for every quality is in the substance. And at this rate,
whereas the Divine Unity ([monas]) is indivisible, it will be
considered compound, being separated into substance and accident."
Orat. iv. 2. [infra p. 515] vid, also Orat. i. 36. This is the common
doctrine of the Fathers. Athenagoras, however, speaks of God's
goodness as an accident, "as colour to the body," "as flame is ruddy
and the sky blue," Legat. 24. This, however, is but a verbal
difference, for shortly before he speaks of His being, [to ontos
on], and His unity of nature, [to monophues], as in the
number of [episumbebekota autoi]. Eusebius uses
the word [sumbebekos] in the same way, Demonstr. Evang.
iv. 3. And hence St. Cyril, in controversy with the Arians, is led by
the course of their objections to observe, "There are cogent reasons
for considering these things as accidents [sumbebekota]
in God, though they be not." Thesaur. p. 263. vid, the following note. Z.
[peribole], and so de Synod. §. 34. which is very much
the same passage. Some Fathers, however, seem to say the reverse. E.g.
Nazianzen says that "neither the immateriality of God nor
ingenerateness, present to us His substance." Orat. 28. 9. And St.
Augustine, arguing on the word ingenitus, says, that "not every thing
which is said to be in God is said according to substance." de Trin.v.
6. And hence, while Athan. in the text denies that there are qualities
or the like belonging to Him, [peri auton], it is still common
in the Fathers to speak of qualities, as in the passage of S. Gregory
just cited, in which the words [peri theon] occur. There is no
difficulty in reconciling these statements, though it would require
more words than could be given to it here. Petavius has treated the
subject fully in his work de Deo i. 7-11. and especially ii. 3. When
the Fathers say that there is no difference between the divine 'proprietates'
and essence, they speak of the fact, considering the Almighty as He
is; when they affirm a difference, they speak of Him as contemplated
by us, who are unable to grasp the idea of Him as one and simple, but
view His Divine Nature as if in projection, (if such a word may
be used,) and thus divided into substance and quality as man may be
divided into genus and difference. A.
In like manner de Synod. §. 34. Also Basil, "The substance is not any
one of things which do not attach, but is the very being of God."
contr. Eunom. i. 10 fin. "The nature of God is no other than Himself,
for He is simple and uncompounded." Cyril Thesaur. p. 59. "When we say
the power of the Father, we say nothing else than the substance of the
Father." August. de Trin. vii. 6. And so Numenius in Eusebius, "Let no
one deride, if I say that the name of the Immaterial is substance and
being." Præp. Evang. xi. 10. B.
Athan.'s ordinary illustration is, as here, not from "fire," but from "radiance,"
[apaugasma], after St. Paul and the Author of the Book of
Wisdom, meaning by radiance the light which a light diffuses by means
of the atmosphere. On the other hand Arius in his letter to Alexander,
Epiph. Hær. 69. 7. speaks against the doctrine of Hieracas that the
Son was from the Father as a light from a light or as a lamp divided
into two, which after all was Arian doctrine. Athanasius refers to
fire, Orat. iv. §. 2 and 10. but still to fire and its radiance.
However, we find the illustration of fire from fire, Justin. Tryph.
61. [p. 149 O.T.] Tatian contr. Græc. 5. At this early day the
illustration of radiance might have a Sabellian bearing, as that of
fire in Athan.'s had an Arian. Hence Justin protests against those who
considered the Son as "like the sun's light in the heaven," which "when
it sets, goes away with it," whereas it is as "fire kindled from fire."
Tryph. 128. [p. 229, 230 O.T.] Athenagoras, however, like Athanasius,
says "as light from fire," using also the word [aporrhoia],
effluence: vid. also Orig. Periarch. i. 2. n. 4. Tertull. Ap. 21. [p.
47. O.T.] Theognostus infr. §. 25. C.
As "of the substance" declared that our Lord was uncreate, so "one
in substance" declared that He was equal with the Father; no
term derived from "likeness," even "like in substance" answering for
this purpose, for such phrases might all be understood of resemblance
or representation. vid. note T. D.
Athan. has just used the illustration of radiance in reference to "of
the substance:" and now he says that it equally illustrates "one in
substance;" the light diffused from the sun being at once
contemporaneous and homogeneous with its original. E.
The point in which perhaps all the ancient heresies concerning our
Lord's divine nature agreed, was in considering His different titles
to be those of different beings or subjects, or not really and
properly to belong to one and the same person; so that the Word was
not the Son, or the Radiance not the Word, or our Lord was the Son,
but only improperly the Word, not the true Word, Wisdom, or Radiance.
Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, and Arius, agreed in considering that the
Son was a creature, and that He was called, made after, or inhabited
by the impersonal attribute called the Word or Wisdom. When the Word
or Wisdom was held to be personal, it became the doctrine of Nestorius. Margin Notes1. vid.
supr. §. 12. 2.
vid. supr. p. 3. note F. 3.
vid. above, i. 2. 4.
[beltiousthai]. 5.
vid. Syn. §. 15. 6.
through His blood, rec. t. 7.
v. sup. p. 12. note Y. 8.
[ex ouk onton]. 9.
Herm. 2, 1. vid. ad Afr. 5. 10.
vid. p. 17. note M. 11.
vid. ad Afr. 5. 12.
vid. de Syn. §. 35. 13.
[aparallakton]. 14.
vid. supr. p. 13. ref. 2. 15.
Gen. v. 3. 16.
vid. Euseb.'s Letter, infr. 17.
vid. p. 31. not. P. 18.
vid. p. 17. note M. 19.
[peri auton]. 20.
[adiaireton]. 21.
[to atrepton kai analloioton]. 22.
[tautoteta]. 23.
vid. de Syn. §. 41. Hyp. Mel. et Euseb. 24.
[ei] i.e. [ei me] 25.
[organon]. 26.
[gnesion]. 27.
[idioteta]. 28.
[aparallakton]. 29.
[idioteta]. 30.
vid. p. 15. note E. Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman |