Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Introduction to Proverbs viii. 22 continued. Contrast between the Father's operations immediately and naturally in the Son, instrumentally by the creatures; Scripture terms illustrative of this. Explanation of these illustrations; which should be interpreted by the doctrine of the Church; perverse sense put on them by the Arians, refuted. Mystery of Divine Generation. Contrast between God's Word and man's word drawn out at length. Asterius betrayed into holding two Unoriginates; his inconsistency. Baptism how by the Son as well as by the Father. On the Baptism of heretics. Why Arian worse than other heresies.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter
XVIII.—Introduction to Proverbs viii.
22 continued. Contrast between the Father’s
operations immediately and naturally in the Son, instrumentally by the
creatures; Scripture terms illustrative of this. Explanation of these
illustrations; which should be interpreted by the doctrine of the
Church; perverse sense put on them by the Arians, refuted. Mystery of
Divine Generation. Contrast between God’s Word and man’s
word drawn out at length. Asterius betrayed into holding two
Unoriginates; his inconsistency. Baptism how by the Son as well as by
the Father. On the Baptism of heretics. Why Arian worse than other
heresies.
31. But the sentiment of
Truth2396
in this matter must not be hidden, but must
have high utterance. For the Word of God was not made for us, but
rather we for Him, and ‘in Him all things were created2397
.’ Nor for that we were weak, was He
strong and made by the Father alone, that He might frame us by means of
Him as an instrument; perish the thought! it is not so. For though it
had seemed good to God not to make things originate, still had the Word
been no less with God, and the Father in Him. At the same time, things
originate could not without the Word be brought to be; hence they were
made through Him,—and reasonably. For since the Word is the Son
of God by nature proper to His essence, and is from Him, and in Him2398
, as He said Himself, the creatures could not
have come to be, except through Him. For as the light enlightens all
things by its radiance, and without its radiance nothing would be
illuminated, so also the Father, as by a hand2399
| 2399 ὡς διὰ
χειρός. vid.
supr. p. 155, note 6. And so in Orat. iv. 26, a. de
Incarn. contr. Arian. 12. a. κραταιὰ
χεὶρ τοῦ
πατρός. Method.
de Creat. ap. Phot. cod. 235. p. 937. Iren. Hær. iv.
20. n. 1. v. 1 fin. and. 5. n. 2. and 6. n. 1. Clement.
Protrept. p. 93. (ed. Potter.) Tertull. contr. Hermog.
45. Cypr. Testim. ii. 4. Euseb. in Psalm cviii. 27.
Clement. Recogn. viii. 43. Clement. Hom. xvi. 12. Cyril.
Alex. frequently, e.g. in Joan. pp. 876, 7. Thesaur. p.
154. Pseudo-Basil. χεῖρ
δημιουργικὴ, contr. Eunom. v. p. 297. Job. ap. Phot. 222. p.
582. and August. in Joann. 48, 7. though he prefers another use
of the word. | , in the Word
wrought all things, and without Him makes nothing. For instance, God
said, as Moses relates, ‘Let there be light,’ and
‘Let the waters be gathered together,’ and ‘let the
dry land appear,’ and ‘Let Us make man2400
;’ as also Holy David in the Psalm,
‘He spake and they were made; He commanded and they were
created2401
.’ And He spoke2402
| 2402 Vid.
de Decr. 9. contr. Gent. 46. Iren. Hær. iii.
8. n. 3. Origen contr. Cels. ii. 9. Tertull. adv. Prax.
12. fin. Patres Antioch. ap. Routh t. 2. p. 468. Prosper in
Psalm. 148. (149.) Basil. de Sp. S. n. 20. Hilar.
Trin. iv. 16. vid. supr. §22, note. Didym. de Sp.
S. 36. August. de Trin. i. 26. On this mystery vid. Petav.
Trin. vi. 4. | , not that, as in the case of men, some
under-worker might hear, and learning the will of Him who spoke might
go away and do it; for this is what is proper to creatures, but it is
unseemly so to think or speak of the Word. For the Word of God is
Framer and Maker, and He is the Father’s Will2403
| 2403 βουλή. And
so βούλησις presently; and ζῶσα
βουλή, supr.
2. and Orat. iii. 63. fin. and so Cyril Thes. p. 54, who
uses it expressly (as it is always used by implication), in contrast to
the κατὰ
βούλησιν of the Arians, though Athan. uses κατὰ τὸ
βούλημα,
e.g. Orat. iii. 31. where vid. note; αὐτὸς τοῦ
πατρὸς
θέλημα. Nyss.
contr. Eunom. xii. p. 345. The principle to be observed in the
use of such words is this; that we must ever speak of the
Father’s will, command, &c., and the Son’s fulfilment,
assent, &c., as one act. vid. notes on Orat. iii. 11 and 15.
infr. [Cf. p. 87. note 2.] | . Hence it is that divine Scripture says not
that one heard and answered, as to the manner or nature of the things
which He wished made; but God only said, ‘Let it become,’
and he adds, ‘And it became;’ for what He thought good and
counselled, that forthwith the Word began to do and to finish. For when
God commands others, whether the Angels, or converses with Moses, or
commands Abraham, then the hearer answers; and the one says,
‘Whereby shall I know2404
?’ and the
other, ‘Send some one else2405
;’ and
again, ‘If they ask me, what is His Name, what shall I say to
them2406
?’ and the Angel said to Zacharias,
‘Thus saith the Lord2407
;’ and he
asked the Lord, ‘O Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou not have
mercy on Jerusalem?’ and waits to hear good words and
comfortable. For each of these has the Mediator2408
Word, and the Wisdom of God which makes known the will of the Father.
But when that Word Himself works and creates, then there is no
questioning and answer, for the Father is in Him and the Word in the
Father; but it suffices to will, and the work is done; so that the word
‘He said’ is a token of the will for our sake, and
‘It was so,’ denotes the work which is done through the
Word and the Wisdom, in which Wisdom also is the Will of the Father.
And ‘God said’ is explained in ‘the Word,’ for,
he says, ‘Thou hast made all things in Wisdom;’ and
‘By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made fast;’ and
‘There is one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we
by Him2409
.’
32. It is plain from this that the Arians are not
fighting with us about their heresy; but while they pretend us, their
real fight is against the Godhead Itself. For if the voice were ours
which says, ‘This it My Son2410
,’ small
were our complaint of them; but if it is the Father’s voice, and
the disciples heard it, and the Son too says of Himself, ‘Before
all the mountains He begat me2411
,’ are they
not fighting against God, as the giants2412
| 2412 τοὺς
μυθευομένους
γίγαντας, vid. supr. de Decr. fin. Also ὡς τοὺς
γίγαντας Orat.iii. 42. In Hist.
Arian. 74. he calls Constantius a γίγας. The same
idea is implied in the word θεομάχος so frequently applied to Arianism, as in this
sentence. | in
story, having their tongue, as the Psalmist says, a sharp sword2413
for irreligion? For they neither feared the
voice of the Father, nor reverenced the Saviour’s words, nor
trusted the Saints, one of whom writes, ‘Who being the Brightness
of His glory and the Expression of His subsistence,’ and
‘Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God2414
;’ and another says in the Psalm,
‘With Thee is the well of life, and in Thy Light shall we see
light,’ and ‘Thou madest all things in Wisdom2415
;’ and the Prophets say, ‘And the
Word of the Lord came to me2416
;’ and John,
‘In the beginning was the Word;’ and Luke, ‘As they
delivered them unto us which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and
ministers of the Word2417
;’ and as
David again says, ‘He sent His Word and healed them2418
.’ All these passages proscribe in
every light the Arian heresy, and signify the eternity of the Word, and
that He is not foreign but proper to the Father’s Essence. For
when saw any one light without radiance? or who dares to say that the
expression can be different from the subsistence? or has not a man
himself lost his mind2419
| 2419 Vid.
p. 150, n. 6, also Gent. 40 fin. where what is here, as
commonly, applied to the Arians, is, before the rise of Arianism,
applied to unbelievers. | who even entertains
the thought that God was ever without Reason and without Wisdom? For
such illustrations and such images has Scripture proposed, that,
considering the inability of human nature to comprehend God, we might
be able to form ideas even from these however poorly and dimly, and as
far as is attainable2420
| 2420 Vid.
de Decr. 12, 16, notes i. 26, n. 2, ii. 36, n. 1. de Syn.
41, n. 1. In illud Omnia 3 fin. vid. also 6. Aug.
Confess. xiii. 11. And again, Trin. xv. 39. And S. Basil
contr. Eunom. ii. 17. | . And as the
creation contains abundant matter
for the knowledge of the being of a God and a Providence (‘for by
the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionably the Maker of
them is seen2421
’), and we learn from them
without asking for voices, but hearing the Scriptures we believe, and
surveying the very order and the harmony of all things, we acknowledge
that He is Maker and Lord and God of all, and apprehend His marvellous
Providence and governance over all things; so in like manner about the
Son’s Godhead, what has been above said is sufficient, and it
becomes superfluous, or rather it is very mad to dispute about it, or
to ask in an heretical way, How can the Son be from eternity? or how
can He be from the Father’s Essence, yet not a part? since what
is said to be of another, is a part of him; and what is divided, is not
whole.
33. These are the evil sophistries of the
heterodox; yet, though we have already shewn their shallowness, the
exact sense of these passages themselves and the force of these
illustrations will serve to shew the baseless nature of their loathsome
tenet. For we see that reason is ever, and is from him and proper to
his essence, whose reason it is, and does not admit a before and an
after. So again we see that the radiance from the sun is proper to it,
and the sun’s essence is not divided or impaired; but its essence
is whole and its radiance perfect and whole2422
| 2422 The
Second Person in the Holy Trinity is not a quality of attribute or
relation, but the One Eternal Substance; not a part of the First
Person, but whole or entire God; nor does the generation impair the
Father’s Substance, which is, antecedently to it, whole and
entire God. Thus there are two Persons, in Each Other ineffably, Each
being wholly one and the same Divine Substance, yet not being merely
separate aspects of the Same, Each being God as absolutely as if there
were no other Divine Person but Himself. Such a statement indeed is not
only a contradiction in the terms used, but in our ideas, yet not
therefore a contradiction in fact; unless indeed any one will say that
human words can express in one formula, or human thought embrace in one
idea, the unknown and infinite God. Basil. contr. Eun. i. 10.
vid. infr. §38, n. 3. | ,
yet without impairing the essence of light, but as a true offspring
from it. We understand in like manner that the Son is begotten not from
without but from the Father, and while the Father remains whole, the
Expression of His Subsistence is ever, and preserves the Father’s
likeness and unvarying Image, so that he who sees Him, sees in Him the
Subsistence too, of which He is the Expression. And from the operation
of the Expression we understand the true Godhead of the Subsistence, as
the Saviour Himself teaches when He says, ‘The Father who
dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works2423
’ which I
do; and ‘I and the Father are one,’ and ‘I in the
Father and the Father in Me2424
.’ Therefore
let this Christ—opposing heresy attempt first to divide2425
| 2425 διελεῖν, vid. §25, note 3. | the examples found in things originate, and
say, ‘Once the sun was without his radiance,’ or,
‘Radiance is not proper to the essence of light,’ or
‘It is indeed proper, but it is a part of light by division; and
then let it divide Reason, and pronounce that it is foreign to mind, or
that once it was not, or that it was not proper to its essence, or that
it is by division a part of mind.’ And so of His Expression and
the Light and the Power, let it do violence to these as in the case of
Reason and Radiance; and instead let it imagine what it will2426
. But if such extravagance be impossible for
them, are they not greatly beside themselves, presumptuously intruding
into what is higher than things originate and their own nature, and
essaying impossibilities2427
| 2427 In
illud. Omn. 6. init. | ?
34. For if in the case of these originate and
irrational things offsprings are found which are not parts of the
essences from which they are, nor subsist with passion, nor impair the
essences of their originals, are they not mad again in seeking and
conjecturing parts and passions in the instance of the immaterial and
true God, and ascribing divisions to Him who is beyond passion and
change, thereby to perplex the ears of the simple2428
| 2428 Cf.
p. 69, notes 7 and 8. | and to pervert them from the Truth? for who
hears of a son but conceives of that which is proper to the
father’s essence? who heard, in his first catechising2429
| 2429 De
Decr. 7, n. 2; De Syn. 3, n. 2; Or. i. 8. | , that God has a Son and has made all things
by His proper Word, but understood it in that sense in which we now
mean it? who on the rise of this odious heresy of the Arians, was not
at once startled at what he heard, as strange2430
| 2430 He
here makes the test of the truth of explicit doctrinal statements to
lie in their not shocking, or their answering to the religious sense of
the Christian. | ,
and a second sowing, besides that Word which had been sown from the
beginning? For what is sown in every soul from the beginning is that
God has a Son, the Word, the Wisdom, the Power, that is, His Image and
Radiance; from which it at once follows that He is always; that He is
from the Father; that He is like; that He is the eternal offspring of
His essence; and there is no idea involved in these of creature or
work. But when the man who is an enemy, while men slept, made a second
sowing2431
| 2431 Vid.
supr. de Decr. 2. n. 6. Tertullian de Carn. Christ. 17.
S. Leo, as Athan. makes ‘seed’ in the parable apply
peculiarly to faith in distinction to obedience. Serm.
69. 5 init. | , of ‘He is a creature,’
and ‘There was once when He was not,’ and ‘How can it
be?’ thenceforth the wicked heresy of Christ’s enemies rose
as tares, and forthwith, as bereft of every right thought, they meddle2432
| 2432 περιεργάζονται. This can scarcely be, as Newman suggests, an error of the
press for περιέρχονται. The Latin translates ‘circumire
cœperunt. | like robbers, and venture to say, ‘How
can the Son always exist with the Father?’ for men come of men
and are sons, after a time; and the father is thirty years old, when
the son begins to be, being begotten; and in short of every son of man,
it is true that he was not before his generation. And again they
whisper, ‘How can the Son be Word, or the Word be God’s
Image? for the word of men is composed of syllables2433
, and only signifies the speaker’s
will, and then is over2434
| 2434 πέπαυται, Orat. iv. 2. | and is
lost.’
35. They then afresh, as if forgetting the proofs
which have been already urged against them, ‘pierce themselves
through2435
’ with these bonds of irreligion,
and thus argue. But the word of truth2436
| 2436 ὁ τῆς
ἀληθείας
λόγος
ἐλέγχει.
This and the like are usual forms of speech with Athan. and others. In
some instances the words ἀλήθεια,
λόγος, &c., are
almost synonymous with the Regula Fidei; vid. παρὰ τὴν
ἀλήθειαν, infr. 36. and Origen de Princ. Præf. 1. and
2. |
confutes them as follows:—if they were disputing concerning any
man, then let them exercise reason in this human way, both concerning
His Word and His Son; but if of God who created man, no longer let them
entertain human thoughts, but others which are above human nature. For
such as he that begets, such of necessity is the offspring; and such as
is the Word’s Father, such must be also His Word. Now man,
begotten in time, in time2437
also himself begets
the child; and whereas from nothing he came to be, therefore his word2438
| 2438 For
this contrast between the Divine Word and the human which is Its
shadow, vid. also Orat. iv. 1. circ. fin. Iren. Hær.
ii. 13. n. 8. Origen. in Joan. i. p. 25. e. Euseb.
Demonstr. v. 5. p. 230. Cyril, Cat. xi. 10. Basil,
Hom. xvi. 3. Nyssen contr. Eunom. xii. p. 350. Orat.
Cat. i. p. 478. Damasc. F. O. i. 6. August. in
Psalm xliv. 5. | also is over and continues not. But God is
not as man, as Scripture has said; but is existing and is ever;
therefore also His Word is existing2439
| 2439 Vid.
Serap. i. 28, a. | and is
everlastingly with the Father, as radiance of light. And man’s
word is composed of syllables, and neither lives nor operates anything,
but is only significant of the speaker’s intention, and does but
go forth and go by, no more to appear, since it was not at all before
it was spoken; wherefore the word of man neither lives nor operates
anything, nor in short is man. And this happens to it, as I said
before, because man who begets it, has his nature out of nothing. But
God’s Word is not merely pronounced, as one may say, nor a sound
of accents, nor by His Son is meant His command2440
;
but as radiance of light, so is He perfect offspring from perfect2441
| 2441 De
Syn. 24, n. 9; infr. 36. note. | . Hence He is God also, as being God’s
Image; for ‘the Word was God2442
’ says
Scripture. And man’s words avail not for operation; hence man
works not by means of words but of hands, for they have being, and
man’s word subsists not. But the ‘Word of God,’ as
the Apostle says, ‘is living and powerful and sharper than any
two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and
spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the
thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that
is not manifest in His sight; but all things are naked and opened unto
the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.2443
’ He is then Framer of all, ‘and
without Him was made not one thing2444
,’ nor
can anything be made without Him.
36. Nor must we ask why the Word of God is not
such as our word, considering God is not such as we, as has been before
said; nor again is it right to seek how the word is from God, or how He
is God’s radiance, or how God begets, and what is the manner of
His begetting2445
| 2445 Eusebius has some forcible remarks on this subject. As, he says,
we do not know how God can create out of nothing, so we are utterly
ignorant of the Divine Generation. It is written, He who believes, not
he who knows, has eternal life. The sun’s radiance itself is but
an earthly image, and gives us no true idea of that which is above all
images. Eccl. Theol. i. 12. So has S. Greg. Naz. Orat.
29. 8. vid. also Hippol. in Noet. 16. Cyril, Cat. xi. 11.
and 19. and Origen, according to Mosheim, Ante Const. p 619. And
instances in Petav. de Trin. v. 6. §2. and 3. | . For a man must be
beside himself to venture on such points; since a thing ineffable and
proper to God’s nature, and known to Him alone and to the Son,
this he demands to be explained in words. It is all one as if they
sought where God is, and how God is, and of what nature the Father is.
But as to ask such questions is irreligious, and argues an ignorance of
God, so it is not holy to venture such questions concerning the
generation of the Son of God, nor to measure God and His Wisdom by our
own nature and infirmity. Nor is a person at liberty on that account to
swerve in his thoughts from the truth, nor, if any one is perplexed in
such inquiries, ought he to disbelieve what is written. For it is
better in perplexity to be silent and believe, than to disbelieve on
account of the perplexity: for he who is perplexed may in some way
obtain mercy2446
| 2446 Cf.
August. Ep. 43. init. vid. also de Bapt. contr.
Don. iv. 23. | , because, though he has questioned, he
has yet kept quiet; but when a man is led by his perplexity into
forming for himself doctrines which beseem not, and utters what is
unworthy of God, such daring recurs a sentence without mercy. For in
such perplexities divine Scripture is able to afford him some relief,
so as to take rightly what is written, and to dwell upon our word as an
illustration; that as it is proper to us and is from us, and not a work
external to us, so also God’s Word is proper to Him and from Him,
and is not a work; and yet is not like the word of man, or else we must suppose God to be man.
For observe, many and various are men’s words which pass away day
by day; because those that come before others continue not, but vanish.
Now this happens because their authors are men, and have seasons which
pass away, and ideas which are successive; and what strikes them first
and second, that they utter; so that they have many words, and yet
after them all nothing at all remaining; for the speaker ceases, and
his word forthwith is spent. But God’s Word is one and the same,
and, as it is written, ‘The Word of God endureth for ever2447
,’ not changed, not before or after
other, but existing the same always. For it was fitting, whereas God is
One, that His Image should be One also, and His Word One and One His
Wisdom2448
| 2448 Vid.
supr. 35. Orat. iv. 1. also presently, ‘He is
likeness and image of the sole and true God, being Himself also,’
49. μόνος
ἐν μόνῳ,
Orat. iii. 21. ὅλος
ὅλου εἰκών. Serap. i. 16, a. ‘The Offspring of the
Ingenerate,’ says S. Hilary, ‘is One from One, True from
True, Living from Living, Perfect from Perfect, Power of Power, Wisdom
of Wisdom, Glory of Glory.’ de Trin. ii. 8. τέλειος
τέλειον
γεγέννηκεν,
πνεῦμα
πνεῦμα. Epiph.
Hær. p. 495. ‘As Light from Light, and Life from
Life, and Good from Good; so from Eternal Eternal. Nyss. contr.
Eunom. i. p. 164. App. | .
37. Wherefore I am in wonder how, whereas God is
One, these men introduce, after their private notions, many images and
wisdoms and words2449
| 2449 πολλοὶ
λόγοι, vid. de
Decr. 16, n. 4. infr. 39 init. and οὐδ᾽ ἐκ
πολλῶν εἷς, Sent. D. 25. a. also Ep. Æg. 14. c.
Origen in Joan. tom. ii. 3. Euseb. Demonstr. v. 5. p. 229
fin. contr. Marc. p. 4 fin. contr. Sabell. init. August.
in Joan. Tract. i. 8. also vid. Philo’s use of
λόγοι for Angels as commented on by Burton, Bampt. Lect. p.
556. The heathens called Mercury by the name of λόγος.
vid. Benedictine note f. in Justin, Ap. i. 21. | , and say that the
Father’s proper and natural Word is other than the Son, by whom
He even made the Son2450
| 2450 This
was the point in which Arians and [Marcellus] agreed, vid infr.
Orat. iv. init. also §§22, 40, and de Decr. 24, n.
9, also Sent D. 25. Ep. Æg. 14 fin. Epiph.
Hær. 72. p. 835. b. | and that He who is
really Son is but notionally2451
| 2451 That
is, they allowed Him to be ‘really Son,’ and argued that He
was but ‘notionally Word.’ vid. §19, n. 3. | called Word, as
vine, and way, and door, and tree of life; and that He is called Wisdom
also in name, the proper and true Wisdom of the Father, which coexist
ingenerately2452
| 2452 ἀγεννήτως, vid. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p. 106. d. | with Him, being other than the Son, by
which He even made the Son, and named Him Wisdom as partaking of it.
This they have not confined to words, but Arius composed in his Thalia,
and the Sophist Asterius wrote, what we have stated above, as follows:
‘Blessed Paul said not that he preached Christ, the Power of God
or the Wisdom of God,’ but without the addition of the article,
‘God’s power’ and ‘God’s wisdom2453
,’ thus preaching that the proper Power
of God Himself which is natural to Him, and co-existent in Him
ingenerately, is something besides, generative indeed of Christ, and
creative of the whole world, concerning which he teaches in his Epistle
to the Romans thus,—‘The invisible 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 Godhead2454
.’ For as no one would say that the
Godhead there mentioned was Christ, but the Father Himself, so, as I
think, ‘His eternal Power and Godhead also is not the Only
Begotten Son, but the Father who begat Him2455
.’ And he teaches that there is another
power and wisdom of God, manifested through Christ. And shortly after
the same Asterius says, ‘However His eternal power and wisdom,
which truth argues to be without beginning and ingenerate, the same
must surely be one. For there are many wisdoms which are one by one
created by Him, of whom Christ is the first-born and only-begotten; all
however equally depend on their Possessor. And all the powers are
rightly called His who created and uses them:—as the Prophet says
that the locust, which came to be a divine punishment of human sins,
was called by God Himself not only a power, but a great power; and
blessed David in most of the Psalms invites, not the Angels alone, but
the Powers to praise God.’
38. Now are they not worthy of all hatred for
merely uttering this? for if, as they hold, He is Son, not because He
is begotten of the Father and proper to His Essence, but that He is
called Word only because of things rational2456
| 2456 λογικά,
vid. Ep. Æg. 13 fin. | ,
and Wisdom because of things gifted with wisdom, and Power because of
things gifted with power, surely He must be named a Son because of
those who are made sons: and perhaps because there are things existing,
He has even His existence2457
| 2457 Of
course this line of thought consistently followed, leads to a kind of
Pantheism; for what is the Supreme Being, according to it, but an ideal
standard of perfection, the sum total of all that we see excellent in
the world in the highest degree, a creation of our minds, without real
objective existence? The true view of our Lord’s titles, on the
other hand, is that He is That properly and in perfection, of which in
measure and degree the creatures partake from and in Him. Vid. supr.
de Decr. 17, n. 5. | , in our notions
only2458
| 2458 κατ᾽
ἐπίνοιαν, in idea or notion. This is a phrase of very frequent occurrence,
both in Athan. and other writers. We have found it already just above,
and de Syn. 15. Or. i. 9, also Orat. iv. 2, 3.
de Sent. D. 2, Ep. Æg 12, 13, 14. It denotes our
idea or conception of a thing in contrast to the thing itself. Thus,
the sun is to a savage a bright circle in the sky; a man is a
‘rational animal,’ according to a certain process of
abstraction; a herb may be medicine upon one division, food in another;
virtue may be called a mean; and faith is to one man an argumentative
conclusion, to another a moral peculiarity, good or bad. In like
manner, the Almighty is in reality most simple and uncompounded,
without parts, passions, attributes, or properties; yet we speak of Him
as good or holy, or as angry or pleased, denoting some particular
aspect in which our infirmity views, in which also it can view, what is
infinite and incomprehensible. That is, He is κατ᾽
ἐπίνοιαν holy or merciful, being in reality a Unity which is all
mercifulness and also all holiness, not in the way of qualities but as
one indivisible perfection; which is too great for us to conceive as It
is. | . And then after all what is He? for He is
none of these Himself, if they are but His names2459
: and He has but a semblance of being, and is
decorated with these names from us.
Rather this is some recklessness of the devil, or worse, if they are
not unwilling that they should truly subsist themselves, but think that
God’s Word is but in name. Is not this portentous, to say that
Wisdom coexists with the Father, yet not to say that this is the
Christ, but that there are many created powers and wisdoms, of which
one is the Lord whom they go on to compare to the caterpillar and
locust? and are they not profligate, who, when they hear us say that
the Word coexists with the Father, forthwith murmur out, ‘Are you
not speaking of two Unoriginates?’ yet in speaking themselves of
‘His Unoriginate Wisdom,’ do not see that they have already
incurred themselves the charge which they so rashly urge against us2460
| 2460 The
Anomœan in Max. Dial. i. a. urges against the Catholic
that, if the Son exists in the Father, God is compound. Athan. here
retorts that Asterius speaks of Wisdom as a really existing thing in
the Divine Mind. Vid. next note. | ? Moreover, what folly is there in that
thought of theirs, that the Unoriginate Wisdom coexisting with God is
God Himself! for what coexists does not coexist with itself, but with
some one else, as the Evangelists say of the Lord, that He was together
with His disciples; for He was not together with Himself, but with His
disciples;—unless indeed they would say that God is of a compound
nature, having wisdom a constituent or complement of His Essence,
unoriginate as well as Himself2461
| 2461 On
this subject vid. Orat. iv. n. 2. Nothing is more remarkable
than the confident tone in which Athan. accuses Arians as here, and
[Marcellus] in Orat. iv. 2. of considering the Divine Nature as
compound, as if the Catholics were in no respect open to such a charge.
Nor are they; though in avoiding it, they are led to enunciate the most
profound and ineffable mystery. Vid. supr. §33, n. 1. The
Father is the One Simple Entire Divine Being, and so is the Son; They
do in no sense share divinity between Them; Each is ὅλος Θεός. This is not ditheism or tritheism, for they are the same God;
nor is it Sabellianism, for They are eternally distinct and substantive
Persons; but it is a depth and height beyond our intellect, how what is
Two in so full a sense can also in so full a sense be One, or how the
Divine Nature does not come under number. vid. notes on Orat.
iii. 27 and 36. Thus, ‘being uncompounded in nature,’ says
Athan. ‘He is Father of One Only Son.’ de Decr. 11.
In truth the distinction into Persons, as Petavius remarks,
‘avails especially towards the unity and simplicity of
God.’ vid. de Deo, ii. 4, 8. | , which moreover
they pretend to be the framer of the world, that so they may deprive
the Son of the framing of it. For there is nothing they would not
maintain, sooner than hold the truth concerning the Lord.
39. For where at all have they found in divine
Scripture, or from whom have they heard, that there is another Word and
another Wisdom besides this Son, that they should frame to themselves
such a doctrine? True, indeed, it is written, ‘Are not My words
like fire, and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces2462
?’ and in the Proverbs, ‘I will
make known My words unto you2463
;’ but these
are precepts and commands, which God has spoken to the saints through
His proper and only true Word, concerning which the Psalmist said,
‘I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I may keep
Thy words2464
.’ Such words accordingly the
Saviour signifies to be distinct from Himself, when He says in His own
person, ‘The words which I have spoken unto you2465
.’ For certainly such words are not
offsprings or sons, nor are there so many words that frame the world,
nor so many images of the One God, nor so many who have become men for
us, nor as if from many such there were one who has become flesh, as
John says; but as being the only Word of God was He preached by John,
‘The Word was made flesh,’ and ‘all things were made
by Him2466
.’ Wherefore of Him alone, our
Lord Jesus Christ, and of His oneness with the Father, are written and
set forth the testimonies, both of the Father signifying that the Son
is One, and of the saints, aware of this and saying that the Word is
One, and that He is Only-Begotten. And His works also are set forth;
for all things, visible and invisible, have been brought to be through
Him, and ‘without Him was made not one thing2467
| 2467 Cf.
Orat. i. 19, note 5. | .’ But concerning another or any one
else they have not a thought, nor frame to themselves words or wisdoms,
of which neither name nor deed are signified by Scripture, but are
named by these only. For it is their invention and Christ-opposing
surmise, and they make the most2468
| 2468 καταχρῶνται, vid. supr. p. 154, note 3. | of the name of
the Word and the Wisdom; and framing to themselves others, they deny
the true Word of God, and the real and only Wisdom of the Father, and
thereby, miserable men, rival the Manichees. For they too, when they
behold the works of God, deny Him the only and true God, and frame to
themselves another, whom they can shew neither by work, nor in any
testimony drawn from the divine oracles.
40. Therefore, if neither in the divine oracles
is found another wisdom besides this Son, nor from the fathers2469
have we heard of any such, yet they have
confessed and written of the Wisdom coexisting with the Father
unoriginately, proper to Him, and the Framer of the world, this must be
the Son who even according to them is eternally coexistent with the
Father. For He is Framer of all, as it is written, ‘In Wisdom
hast Thou made them all2470
.’ Nay,
Asterius himself, as if forgetting what he wrote before, afterwards, in
Caiaphas’s2471
fashion,
involuntarily, when urging the Greeks, instead of naming many wisdoms,
or the caterpillar, confesses but one, in these words;—‘God
the Word is one, but many are the things rational; and one is the essence and
nature of Wisdom, but many are the things wise and beautiful.’
And soon afterwards he says again:—‘Who are they whom they
honour with the title of God’s children? for they will not say
that they too are words, nor maintain that there are many wisdoms. For
it is not possible, whereas the Word is one, and Wisdom has been set
forth as one, to dispense to the multitude of children the Essence of
the Word, and to bestow on them the appellation of Wisdom.’ It is
not then at all wonderful, that the Arians should battle with the
truth, when they have collisions with their own principles and conflict
with each other, at one time saying that there are many wisdoms, at
another maintaining one; at one time classing wisdom with the
caterpillar, at another saying that it coexists with the Father and is
proper to Him; now that the Father alone is unoriginate, and then again
that His Wisdom and His Power are unoriginate also. And they battle
with us for saying that the Word of God is ever, yet forget their own
doctrines, and say themselves that Wisdom coexists with God
unoriginately2472
| 2472 Asterius held, 1. that there was an Attribute called Wisdom; 2.
that the Son was created by and called after that Attribute; or 1. that
Wisdom was ingenerate and eternal, 2. that there were created wisdoms,
words, powers many, of which the Son was one. | . So dizzied2473
| 2473 σκοτοδινιῶσι, Orat. iii. 42. init. | are they in all these matters, denying the
true Wisdom, and inventing one which is not, as the Manichees who make
to themselves another God, after denying Him that is.
41. But let the other heresies and the Manichees
also know that the Father of the Christ is One, and is Lord and Maker
of the creation through His proper Word. And let the Ario-maniacs know
in particular, that the Word of God is One, being the only Son proper
and genuine from His Essence, and having with His Father the oneness of
Godhead indivisible, as we said many times, being taught it by the
Saviour Himself. Since, were it not so, wherefore through Him does the
Father create, and in Him reveal Himself to whom He will, and
illuminate them? or why too in the baptismal consecration is the Son
named together with the Father? For if they say that the Father is not
all-sufficient, then their answer is irreligious2474
| 2474 He
says that it is contrary to all our notions of religion that Almighty
God cannot create, enlighten, address, and unite Himself to His
creatures immediately. This seems to be implied in saying that the Son
was created for creation, illumination, &c.; whereas in the
Catholic view the Son is but that Divine Person who in the Economy of
grace is creator, enlightener, &c. God is represented all-perfect
but acting according to a certain divine order. This is explained just
below. Here the remark is in point about the right and wrong sense of
the words ‘commanding,’ ‘obeying,’ &c.
supr. §31, note 7. | , but if He be, for this it is right to say,
what is the need of the Son for framing the worlds, or for the holy
laver? For what fellowship is there between creature and Creator? or
why is a thing made classed with the Maker in the consecration of all
of us? or why, as you hold, is faith in one Creator and in one creature
delivered to us? for if it was that we might be joined to the Godhead,
what need of the creature? but if that we might be united to the Son a
creature, superfluous, according to you, is this naming of the Son in
Baptism, for God who made Him a Son is able to make us sons also.
Besides, if the Son be a creature, the nature of rational creatures
being one, no help will come to creatures from a creature2475
, since all2476
| 2476 Supr. p. 162, note 3. |
need grace from God. We said a few words just now on the fitness that
all things should be made by Him; but since the course of the
discussion has led us also to mention holy Baptism, it is necessary to
state, as I think and believe, that the Son is named with the Father,
not as if the Father were not all-sufficient, not without meaning, and
by accident; but, since He is God’s Word and own Wisdom, and
being His Radiance, is ever with the Father, therefore it is
impossible, if the Father bestows grace, that He should not give it in
the Son, for the Son is in the Father as the radiance in the light.
For, not as if in need, but as a Father in His own Wisdom hath God
founded the earth, and made all things in the Word which is from Him,
and in the Son confirms the Holy Laver. For where the Father is, there
is the Son, and where the light, there the radiance; and as what the
Father worketh, He worketh through the Son2477
| 2477 Vid.
notes on Orat. iii. 1–15. e.g. and 11 and 15. | ,
and the Lord Himself says, ‘What I see the Father do, that do I
also;’ so also when baptism is given, whom the Father baptizes,
him the Son baptizes; and whom the Son baptizes, he is consecrated in
the Holy Ghost2478
| 2478 Orat. iii. 15. note. | . And again as when
the sun shines, one might say that the radiance illuminates, for the
light is one and indivisible, nor can be detached, so where the Father
is or is named, there plainly is the Son also; and is the Father named
in Baptism? then must the Son be named with Him2479
| 2479 Vid.
supr. 33, note 1. and notes on iii. 3–6. ‘When the
Father is mentioned, His Word is with Him, and the Spirit who is in the
Son. And if the Son be named, in the Son is the Father, and the Spirit
is not external to the Word.’ ad Serap. i. 14. and vid.
Hil. Trin. vii. 31. Passages like these are distinct from such
as the one quoted from Athan. supr. p. 76, note 3, where it is
said that in ‘Father’ is implied ‘Son,’ i.e.
argumentatively as a correlative. vid. Sent. D. 17. de
Decr. 19, n. 6. The latter accordingly Eusebius does not scruple to
admit in Sabell. i. ap. Sirm. t. i. p. 8, a. ‘Pater
statim, ut dictus fuit pater, requirit ista vox filium,
&c.;’ for here no περιχώρησις
is implied, which is the doctrine of the text,
and is not the doctrine of an Arian who considered the Son an
instrument. Yet Petavius observes as to the very word
περιχ. that one of its first senses in ecclesiastical writers was
this which Arians would not disclaim; its use to express the Catholic
doctrine here spoken of was later. vid. de Trin. iv.
16. | .
42.
Therefore, when He made His promise to the saints, He thus spoke;
‘I and the Father will come, and make Our abode in him;’
and again, ‘that, as I and Thou are One, so they may be one in
Us.’ And the grace given is one, given from the Father in the
Son, as Paul writes in every Epistle, ‘Grace unto you, and peace
from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ2480
.’ For the light must be with the ray,
and the radiance must be contemplated together with its own light.
Whence the Jews, as denying the Son as well as they, have not the
Father either; for, as having left the ‘Fountain of Wisdom2481
,’ as Baruch reproaches them, they put
from them the Wisdom springing from it, our Lord Jesus Christ (for
‘Christ,’ says the Apostle, is ‘God’s power and
God’s wisdom2482
),’ when they
said, ‘We have no king but Cæsar2483
.’ The Jews then have the penal award
of their denial; for their city as well as their reasoning came to
nought. And these too hazard the fulness of the mystery, I mean
Baptism; for if the consecration is given to us into the Name of Father
and Son, and they do not confess a true Father, because they deny what
is from Him and like His Essence, and deny also the true Son, and name
another of their own framing as created out of nothing, is not the rite
administered by them altogether empty and unprofitable, making a show,
but in reality being no help towards religion? For the Arians do not
baptize into Father and Son, but into Creator and creature, and into
Maker and work2484
| 2484 De
Decr. 31; Or. i. 34. | . And as a creature
is other than the Son, so the Baptism, which is supposed to be given by
them, is other than the truth, though they pretend to name the Name of
the Father and the Son, because of the words of Scripture, For not he
who simply says, ‘O Lord,’ gives Baptism; but he who with
the Name has also the right faith2485
| 2485 The
prima facie sense of this passage is certainly unfavourable to
the validity of heretical baptism; vid. Coust. Pont. Rom. Ep. p.
227. Voss. de Bapt. Disp. 19 and 20. Forbes Instruct.
Theol. x. 2, 3, and 12. Hooker’s Eccl. Pol. v. 62.
§5–11. On Arian Baptism in particular vid. Jablonski’s
Diss. Opusc. t. iv. p. 113. [And, in violent contrast to Athan.,
Siricius (bishop of Rome) letter to Himerius, a.d. 385. (Coust. 623.)] | . On this
account therefore our Saviour also did not simply command to baptize,
but first says, ‘Teach;’ then thus: ‘Baptize into the
Name of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost;’ that the right faith
might follow upon learning, and together with faith might come the
consecration of Baptism.
43. There are many other heresies too, which use
the words only, but not in a right sense, as I have said, nor with
sound faith2486
| 2486 τὴν π.
ὑγιαινούσαν. Dep. Ar. 5, note 6. | , and in consequence the water which
they administer is unprofitable, as deficient in piety, so that he who
is sprinkled2487
| 2487 ῥαντιζόμενον, Bingh. Antiqu. xi. 11. §5. | by them is rather polluted2488
| 2488 Cf.
Cyprian, Ep. 76 fin. (ed. Ben.) and Ep. 71 cir. init.
Optatus ad Parmen. i. 12. | by irreligion than redeemed. So Gentiles
also, though the name of God is on their lips, incur the charge of
Atheism2489
| 2489 ἀθεότητος. vid. supr. de Decr. 1, note 1, Or. i. 4,
note 1. ‘Atheist’ or rather ‘godless’ was the
title given by pagans to those who denied, and by the Fathers to those
who professed, polytheism. Thus Julian says that Christians preferred
‘atheism to godliness.’ vid. Suicer Thes. in
voc. | , because they know not the real and
very God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. So Manichees and
Phrygians2490
, and the disciples of the Samosatene,
though using the Names, nevertheless are heretics, and the Arians
follow in the same course, though they read the words of Scripture, and
use the Names, yet they too mock those who receive the rite from them,
being more irreligious than the other heresies, and advancing beyond
them, and making them seem innocent by their own recklessness of
speech. For these other heresies lie against the truth in some certain
respect, either erring concerning the Lord’s Body, as if He did
not take flesh of Mary, or as if He has not died at all, nor become
man, but only appeared, and was not truly, and seemed to have a body
when He had not, and seemed to have the shape of man, as visions in a
dream; but the Arians are without disguise irreligious against the
Father Himself. For hearing from the Scriptures that His Godhead is
represented in the Son as in an image, they blaspheme, saying, that it
is a creature, and everywhere concerning that Image, they carry about2491
| 2491 περιφέρουσι, §34. n. 5. | with them the phrase, ‘He was
not,’ as mud in a wallet2492
| 2492 Instead of provisions. | , and spit it forth
as serpents2493
| 2493 Cf.
Ep. Æg. 19. Hist. Ar. 66. and so Arians are dogs
(with allusion to 2 Pet. ii. 22.), de Decr. 4.
Hist. Ar. 29. lions, Hist. Ar. 11. wolves, Ap. c.
Arian. 49. hares, de Fug. 10. chameleons, de Decr.
init. hydras, Orat. iii. 58 fin. eels, Ep. Æg. 7
fin. cuttlefish, Orat. iii. 59. gnats, de Decr. 14 init.
Orat. iii. 59. init. beetles, Orat. iii. fin. leeches,
Hist. Ar. 65 init. de Fug. 4. [swine, Or. ii. 1.]
In many of these instances the allusion is to Scripture. On names given
to heretics in general, vid. the Alphabetum bestialitatis hereticæ
ex Patrum Symbolis, in the Calvinismus bestiarum religio attributed to
Raynaudus and printed in the Apopompæus of his works. Vid. on the
principle of such applications infr. Orat. iii. 18. | their venom. Then, whereas their
doctrine is nauseous to all men, forthwith, as a support against its
fall, they prop up the heresy with human2494
patronage, that the simple, at the sight or even by the fear may
overlook the mischief of their perversity. Right indeed is it to pity
their dupes; well is it to weep over them, for that they sacrifice
their own interest for that immediate phantasy which pleasures furnish,
and forfeit their future hope. In thinking to be baptized into the name
of one who exists not, they will receive nothing; and ranking
themselves with a creature, from the creation they will have no help,
and believing in one unlike2495
and foreign to the
Father in essence, to the Father
they will not be joined, not having His own Son by nature, who is from
Him, who is in the Father, and in whom the Father is, as He Himself has
said; but being led astray by them, the wretched men henceforth remain
destitute and stripped of the Godhead. For this phantasy of earthly
goods will not follow them upon their death; nor when they see the Lord
whom they have denied, sitting on His Father’s throne, and
judging quick and dead, will they be able to call to their help any one
of those who have now deceived them; for they shall see them also at
the judgment-seat, repenting for their deeds of sin and
irreligion.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
