Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| The substantiality of the Word proved from Scripture. If the One Origin be substantial, Its Word is substantial. Unless the Word and Son be a second Origin, or a work, or an attribute (and so God be compounded), or at the same time Father, or involve a second nature in God, He is from the Father's Essence and distinct from Him. Illustration of John x. 30, drawn from Deut. iv. 4.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Discourse IV.
————————————
§§1–5. The substantiality of
the Word proved from Scripture. If the One Origin be substantial, Its
Word is substantial. Unless the Word and Son be a second Origin, or a
work, or an attribute (and so God be compounded), or at the same time
Father, or involve a second nature in God, He is from the
Father’s Essence and distinct from Him. Illustration of John x. 30, drawn from Deut. iv. 4.
1. The Word is God from
God; for ‘the Word was God3275
,’ and
again, ‘Of whom are the Fathers, and of whom Christ, who is God
over all, blessed for ever. Amen3276
.’ And
since Christ is God from God, and God’s Word, Wisdom, Son, and
Power, therefore but One God is declared in the divine Scriptures. For
the Word, being Son of the One God, is referred to Him of whom also He
is; so that Father and Son are two, yet the Monad of the Godhead is
indivisible and inseparable. And thus too we preserve One Beginning of
Godhead and not two Beginnings, whence there is strictly a Monarchy.
And of this very Beginning the Word is by nature Son, not as if another
beginning, subsisting by Himself, nor having come into being externally
to that Beginning, lest from that diversity a Dyarchy and Polyarchy
should ensue; but of the one Beginning He is own Son, own Wisdom, own
Word, existing from It. For, according to John, ‘in’ that
‘Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,’ for
the Beginning was God; and since He is from It, therefore also
‘the Word was God.’ And as there is one Beginning and
therefore one God, so one is that Essence and Subsistence which indeed
and truly and really is, and which said ‘I am that I am3277
,’ and not two, that there be not two
Beginnings; and from the One, a Son in nature and truth, is Its own
Word, Its Wisdom, Its Power, and inseparable from It. And as there is
not another essence, lest there be two Beginnings, so the Word which is
from that One Essence has no dissolution, nor is a sound significative,
but is an essential Word and essential Wisdom, which is the true Son.
For were He not essential, God will be speaking into the air3278
, and having a body, in nothing differently
from men; but since He is not man, neither is His Word according to the
infirmity of man3279
. For as the
Beginning is one Essence, so Its Word is one, essential, and
subsisting, and Its Wisdom. For as He is God from God, and Wisdom from
the Wise, and Word from the Rational, and Son from Father, so is He
from Subsistence Subsistent, and from Essence Essential and
Substantive, and Being from Being.
2. Since were He not essential Wisdom and
substantive Word, and Son existing, but simply Wisdom and Word and Son
in the Father, then the Father Himself would have a nature compounded
of Wisdom and Word. But if so, the forementioned absurdities would
follow; and He will be His own Father, and the Son begetting and
begotten by Himself; or Word, Wisdom, Son, is a name only, and He does
not subsist who owns, or rather who is, these titles. If then He does
not subsist, the names are idle and empty, unless we say that God is
Very Wisdom3280
| 3280 Or. ii. 19, n. 3, and below, §4. | and Very Word. But if so, He is His
own Father and Son; Father, when Wise, Son, when Wisdom; but these
things are not in God as a certain quality; away with the
dishonourable3281
thought; for it
will issue in this, that God is compounded of essence and quality3282
. For whereas all quality is in essence, it
will clearly follow that the Divine Monad, indivisible as it is, must
be compound, being severed into essence and accident3283
| 3283 Cf.
Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p. 121. His opinion was misstated
supr., p. 164 sq. note 9. | . We must ask then these headstrong men; The
Son was proclaimed as God’s Wisdom and Word; how then is He such?
if as a quality, the absurdity has been shewn; but if God is that Very
Wisdom, then it is the absurdity of Sabellius; therefore He is so, as
an Offspring in a proper sense from the Father Himself, according to the illustration of
light. For as there is light from fire, so from God is there a Word,
and Wisdom from the Wise, and from the Father a Son. For in this way
the Monad remains undivided and entire, and Its Son, Word not
unessential, nor not subsisting, but essential truly. For were it not
so, all that is said would be said notionally3284
and verbally3285
. But if we must avoid that absurdity,
then is a true Word essential. For as there is a Father truly, so
Wisdom truly. In this respect then they are two; not because, as
Sabellius said, Father and Son are the same, but because the Father is
Father and the Son Son, and they are one, because He is Son of the
Essence of the Father by nature, existing as His own Word. This the
Lord said, viz. ‘I and the Father are One3286
;’ for neither is the Word separated
from the Father, nor was or is the Father ever Wordless; on this
account He says, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me3287
.’
3. And again, Christ is the Word of God. Did He
then subsist by Himself, and subsisting, has He become joined to the
Father, or did God make Him or call Him His Word? If the former, I mean
if He subsisted by Himself and is God, then there are two Beginnings;
and moreover, as is plain, He is not the Father’s own, as being
not of the Father, but of Himself. But if on the contrary He be made
externally, then is He a creature. It remains then to say that He is
from God Himself; but if so, that which is from another is one thing,
and that from which it is, is a second; according to this then there
are two. But if they be not two, but the names belong to the same,
cause and effect will be the same, and begotten and begetting, which
has been shewn absurd in the instance of Sabellius. But if He be from
Him, yet not another, He will be both begetting and not begetting;
begetting because He produces from Himself, and not begetting, because
it is nothing other than Himself. But if so, the same is called Father
and Son notionally. But if it be unseemly so to say, Father and Son
must be two; and they are one, because the Son is not from without, but
begotten of God. But if any one shrinks from saying
‘Offspring,’ and only says that the Word exists with God,
let such a one fear lest, shrinking from what is said in Scripture, he
fall into absurdity, making God a being of double nature. For not
granting that the Word is from the Monad, but simply as if He were
joined to the Father, he introduces a twofold essence, and neither of
them Father of the other. And the same of Power. And we may see this
more clearly, if we consider it with reference to the Father; for there
is One Father, and not two, but from that One the Son. As then there
are not two Fathers, but One, so not two Beginnings, but One, and from
that One the Son essential.
4. But the Arians we must ask contrariwise: (for
the Sabellianisers must be confuted from the notion of a Son, and the
Arians from that of a Father:) let us say then—Is God wise and
not word-less: or on the contrary, is He wisdom-less and word-less3288
? if the latter, there is an absurdity at
once; if the former, we must ask, how is He wise and not word-less?
does He possess the Word and the Wisdom from without, or from Himself?
If from without, there must be one who first gave to Him, and before He
received He was wisdom-less and word-less. But if from Himself, it is
plain that the Word is not from nothing, nor once was not; for He was
ever; since He of whom He is the Image, exists ever. But if they say
that He is indeed wise and not word-less, but that He has in Himself
His own wisdom and own word, and that, not Christ, but that by which He
made Christ, we must answer that, if Christ in that word was brought to
be, plainly so were all things; and it must be He of whom John says,
‘All things were made by Him,’ and the Psalmist, ‘In
Wisdom hast Thou made them all3289
.’ And Christ
will be found to speak untruly, ‘I in the Father,’ there
being another in the Father. And ‘the Word became flesh3290
’ is not true according to them. For if
He in whom ‘all things came to be,’ Himself became flesh,
but Christ is not in the Father, as Word ‘by whom all things came
to be,’ then Christ has not become flesh, but perhaps Christ was
named Word. But if so, first, there will be another besides the name,
next, all things were not by Him brought to be, but in that other, in
whom Christ also was made. But if they say that Wisdom is in the Father
as a quality or that He is Very Wisdom3291
,
the absurdities will follow already mentioned. For He will be
compound3292
, and will prove His own Son and
Father3293
. Moreover, we must confute and silence
them on the ground, that the Word which is in God cannot be a creature
nor out of nothing; but if once a Word be in God, then He must be
Christ who says, ‘I am in the Father and the Father in Me3294
,’ who also is therefore the
Only-begotten, since no other was begotten from Him. This is One Son,
who is Word, Wisdom, Power; for God is not compounded of these, but is generative3295
of
them. For as He frames the creatures by the Word, so according to the
nature of His own Essence has He the Word as an Offspring, through whom
He frames and creates and dispenses all things. For by the Word and the
Wisdom all things have come to be, and all things together remain
according to His ordinance3296
. And the same
concerning the word ‘Son;’ if God be without Son3297
, then is He without Work; for the Son is His
Offspring through whom He works3298
| 3298 Or. ii. 41; iii. 11, n. 4. | ; but if not,
the same questions and the same absurdities will follow their
audacity.
5. From Deuteronomy; ‘But ye that did
attach yourselves unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you
this day3299
.’ From this we may see the
difference, and know that the Son of God is not a creature. For the Son
says, ‘I and the Father are One,’ and, ‘I in the
Father, and the Father in Me;’ but things originate, when they
make advance, are attached unto the Lord. The Word then is in the
Father as being His own; but things originate, being external, are
attached, as being by nature foreign, and attached by free choice. For
a son which is by nature, is one3300
with him who
begat him; but he who is from without, and is made a son, will be
attached to the family. Therefore he immediately adds, ‘What
nation is there so great who hath God drawing nigh unto them3301
?’ and elsewhere, ‘I a God
drawing nigh3302
;’ for to things originate He
draws nigh, as being strange to Him, but to the Son, as being His own,
He does not draw nigh, but He is in Him. And the Son is not attached to
the Father, but co-exists with Him; whence also Moses says again in the
same Deuteronomy, ‘Ye shall obey His voice, and apply yourselves
unto Him3303
;’ but what is applied, is
applied from without.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
