Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Objections to the Foregoing Proof. Whether, in the generation of the Son, God made One that was already, or One that was not.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter VII.—Objections to the
Foregoing Proof. Whether, in the generation of the Son, God
made One that was already, or One that was not.
22 (continued). Ranking Him among these, according to the teaching of
Eusebius, and accounting Him such as the things which come into being
through Him, Arius and his fellows revolted from the truth, and used,
when they commenced this heresy, to go about with dishonest phrases
which they had got together; nay, up to this time some of them1968
| 1968 This
miserable procedure, of making sacred and mysterious subjects a matter
of popular talk and debate, which is a sure mark of heresy, had
received a great stimulus about this time by the rise of the
Anomœans. Eusebius’s testimony to the profaneness which
attended Arianism upon its rise will be given de Syn. 2, note 1.
The Thalia is another instance of it. S. Alexander speaks of the
interference, even judicial, in its behalf against himself, of
disobedient women, δι᾽
ἐντυχίας
γυναικαρίων
ἀτακτων ἃ
ἠπάτησαν, and of the busy and indecent gadding about of the
younger, ἐκ τοῦ
περιτροχάζειν
πᾶσαν ἀγυιὰν
ἀσέμνως.
ap. Theod. H. E. i. 3. p. 730, also p. 747; also of the
men’s buffoon conversation, p. 731. Socrates says that ‘in
the Imperial Court, the officers of the bedchamber held disputes with
the women, and in the city in every house there was a war of
dialectics.’ Hist. ii. 2. This mania raged especially in
Constantinople, and S. Gregory Naz. speaks of ‘Jezebels in as
thick a crop as hemlock in a field.’ Orat. 35. 3, cf.
de Syn. 13, n. 4. He speaks of the heretics as ‘aiming at
one thing only, how to make good or refute points of argument,’
making ‘every market-place resound with their words, and spoiling
every entertainment with their trifling and offensive talk.’
Orat. 27. 2. The most remarkable testimony of the kind though
not concerning Constantinople, is given by S. Gregory Nyssen, and often
quoted, ‘Men of yesterday and the day before, mere mechanics,
off-hand dogmatists in theology, servants too and slaves that have been
flogged, runaways from servile work, are solemn with us and
philosophical about things incomprehensible.…With such the whole
city is full; its smaller gates, forums, squares, thoroughfares; the
clothes-venders, the money-lenders, the victuallers. Ask about pence,
and he will discuss the Generate and Ingenerate; inquire the price of
bread, he answers, Greater is the Father, and the Son is subject; say
that a bath would suit you, and he defines that the Son is out of
nothing.’ t. 2. p. 898. | , when they fall in with boys in the market-place, question them,
not out of divine Scripture, but thus, as if bursting with ‘the
abundance of their heart1969
;’—‘He who is, did He make
him who was not, from that which was [not], or him who was? therefore
did He make the Son, whereas He was, or whereas He was not1970
| 1970 This
objection is found in Alex. Ep. Encycl. 2. ὁ ὢν
θεὸς τὸν μὴ
ὄντα ἐκ τοῦ
μὴ ὄντος.
Again, ὄντα
γεγέννηκε ἢ
οὐκ ὄντα.
Greg. Orat. 29. 9. who answers it. Pseudo-Basil. contr.
Eunom. iv. p. 281. 2. Basil calls the question πολυθρύλλητον, contr. Eunom. ii. 14. It will be seen to be but
the Arian formula of ‘He was not before His generation,’ in
another shape; being but this, that the very fact of His being begotten
or a Son, implies a beginning, that is, a time when He was not: it
being by the very force of the words absurd to say that ‘God
begat Him that was,’ or to deny that ‘God begat Him
that was not.’ For the symbol, οὐκ ἦν πρὶν
γεννήθῃ,
vid. Excursus B. at the end of this Discourse. | ?’ And again, ‘Is the Unoriginate
one or two?’ and ‘Has He free will, and yet does not alter
at His own choice, as being of an alterable nature? for He is not as a
stone to remain by Himself unmoveable.’ Next they turn to silly
women, and address them in turn in this womanish language; ‘Hadst
thou a son before bearing? now, as thou hadst not, so neither was the
Son of God before His generation.’ In such language do the
disgraceful men sport and revel, and liken God to men, pretending to be
Christians, but changing God’s glory ‘into an image made
like to corruptible man1971
.’
23. Words so senseless and dull deserved no
answer at all; however, lest their heresy appear to have any
foundation, it may be right, though we go out of the way for it, to
refute them even here, especially on account of the silly women who are
so readily deceived by them. When they thus speak, they should have
inquired of an architect, whether he can build without materials; and
if he cannot, whether it follows that God could not make the universe
without materials1972
| 1972 De
Decr. § 11, esp. note 6. | . Or they should
have asked every man, whether he can be without place; and if he
cannot, whether it follows that God is in place, that so they may be
brought to shame even by their audience. Or why is it that, on hearing
that God has a Son, they deny Him by the parallel of themselves;
whereas, if they hear that He creates and makes, no longer do they
object their human ideas? they ought in creation also to entertain the
same, and to supply God with materials, and so deny Him to be Creator,
till they end in grovelling with Manichees. But if the bare idea of God
transcends such thoughts, and, on very first hearing, a man believes
and knows that He is in being, not as we are, and yet in being as God,
and creates not as man creates, but yet creates as God, it is plain
that He begets also not as men beget, but begets as God. For God does
not make man His pattern; but rather we men, for that God is properly,
and alone truly1973
, Father of His Son,
are also called fathers of our own children; for of Him ‘is every
fatherhood in heaven and earth named1974
.’ And
their positions, while unscrutinized, have a shew of sense; but if any
one scrutinize them by reason, they will be found to incur much
derision and mockery.
24. For first of all, as to their first question,
which is such as this, how dull and vague it is! they do not explain
who it is they ask about, so as to allow of an answer, but they say
abstractedly, ‘He who is,’ ‘him who is not.’
Who then ‘is,’ and what ‘are not,’ O Arians? or
who ‘is,’ and who ‘is not?’ what are said
‘to be,’ what ‘not to be?’ for He that is, can
make things which are not, and which are, and which were before. For
instance, carpenter, and goldsmith, and potter, each, according to his
own art, works upon materials previously existing, making what vessels
he pleases; and the God of all Himself, having taken the dust of the
earth existing and already brought to be, fashions man; that very
earth, however, whereas it was not once, He has at one time made by His
own Word. If then this is the meaning of their question, the creature
on the one hand plainly was not before its origination, and men, on the
other, work the existing material; and thus their reasoning is
inconsequent, since both ‘what is’ becomes, and ‘what
is not’ becomes, as these instances shew. But if they speak
concerning God and His Word, let them complete their question and then
ask, Was the God, ‘who is,’ ever without Reason? and,
whereas He is Light, was He ray-less? or was He always Father of the
Word? Or again in this manner. Has the Father ‘who is’ made
the Word ‘who is not,’ or has He ever with Him His Word, as
the proper offspring of His substance? This will shew them that they do
but presume and venture on sophisms about God and Him who is from Him.
Who indeed can bear to hear them say that God was ever without Reason?
this is what they fall into a second time, though endeavouring in vain
to escape it and to hide it with their sophisms. Nay, one would fain
not hear them disputing at all, that God was not always Father, but became so afterwards (which is
necessary for their fantasy, that His Word once was not), considering
the number of the proofs already adduced against them; while John
besides says, ‘The Word was1975
,’ and
Paul again writes, ‘Who being the brightness of His glory1976
,’ and, ‘Who is over all, God
blessed for ever. Amen1977
.’
25. They had best have been silent; but since it
is otherwise, it remains to meet their shameless question with a bold
retort1978
| 1978 Vid.
Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 17. | . Perhaps on seeing the counter
absurdities which beset themselves, they may cease to fight against the
truth. After many prayers1979
| 1979 This
cautious and reverent way of speaking is a characteristic of S.
Athanasius, ad Serap. i. 1. vid. ii. init. ad Epict. 13
fin. ad Max. init. contr. Apoll. i. init. ‘I must
ask another question, bolder, yet with a religious intention; be
propitious, O Lord, &c.’ Orat. iii. 63, cf. de
Decr. 12, note 8, 15, note 6, de Syn. 51, note 4. | then that God would
be gracious to us, thus we might ask them in turn; God who is, has He
so become, whereas He was not? or is He also before His coming into
being? whereas He is, did He make Himself, or is He of nothing, and
being nothing before, did He suddenly appear Himself? Unseemly is such
an enquiry, both unseemly and very blasphemous, yet parallel with
theirs; for the answer they make abounds in irreligion. But if it be
blasphemous and utterly irreligious thus to inquire about God, it will
be blasphemous too to make the like inquiries about His Word. However,
by way of exposing a question so senseless and so dull, it is necessary
to answer thus:—whereas God is, He was eternally; since then the
Father is ever, His Radiance ever is, which is His Word. And again, God
who is, hath from Himself His Word who also is; and neither hath the
Word been added, whereas He was not before, nor was the Father once
without Reason. For this assault upon the Son makes the blasphemy
recoil upon the Father; as if He devised for Himself a Wisdom, and
Word, and Son from without1980
| 1980 De
Decr. 25, note 2. | ; for whichever of
these titles you use, you denote the offspring from the Father, as has
been said. So that this their objection does not hold; and naturally;
for denying the Logos they in consequence ask questions which are
illogical. As then if a person saw the sun, and then inquired
concerning its radiance, and said, ‘Did that which is make that
which was, or that which was not,’ he would be held not to reason
sensibly, but to be utterly mazed, because he fancied what is from the
Light to be external to it, and was raising questions, when and where
and whether it were made; in like manner, thus to speculate concerning
the Son and the Father and thus to inquire, is far greater madness, for
it is to conceive of the Word of the Father as external to Him, and to
idly call the natural offspring a work, with the avowal, ‘He was
not before His generation.’ Nay, let them over and above take
this answer to their question;—The Father who was, made the Son
who was, for ‘the Word was made flesh1981
;’ and, whereas He was Son of God, He
made Him in consummation of the ages also Son of Man, unless forsooth,
after the Samosatene, they affirm that He did not even exist at all,
till He became man.
26. This is sufficient from us in answer to their
first question. And now on your part, O Arians, remembering your own
words, tell us whether He who was needed one who was not for the
framing of the universe, or one who was? You said that He made for
Himself His Son out of nothing, as an instrument whereby to make the
universe. Which then is superior, that which needs or that which
supplies the need? or does not each supply the deficiency of the other?
You rather prove the weakness of the Maker, if He had not power of
Himself to make the universe, but provided for Himself an instrument
from without1982
| 1982 ὄργανον,
de Decr. 7, n. 6, de Syn. 27, note 11. This was alleged
by Arius, Socr. i. 6. and by Eusebius, Eccles. Theol. i.
8. supr. Ep. Eus., and by the Anomœans, supr. de
Decr. 7, note 1. | , as carpenter might do or shipwright,
unable to work anything without adze and saw! Can anything be more
irreligious? yet why should one dwell on its heinousness, when enough
has gone before to shew that their doctrine is a mere fantasy?E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
