Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Chapter III. To the objection of the Arians, that two Gods are introduced by a unity of substance, the answer is that a plurality of Gods is more likely to be inferred from diversity of substance. Further, their charge recoils upon themselves. Manifold diversity is the reason why two men cannot be said to be one man, though all men are called individually man, where a unity of nature is referred to. There is one nature alone in them, but there is wholly a unity in the Divine Persons. Therefore the Son is not to be severed from the Father, especially as they dare not deny that worship is due to Him.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter III.
To the objection of the Arians, that two Gods are
introduced by a unity of substance, the answer is that a plurality of
Gods is more likely to be inferred from diversity of substance.
Further, their charge recoils upon themselves. Manifold diversity
is the reason why two men cannot be said to be one man, though all men
are called individually man, where a unity of nature is referred
to. There is one nature alone in them, but there is wholly a
unity in the Divine Persons. Therefore the Son is not to be
severed from the Father, especially as they dare not deny that worship
is due to Him.
39. But the Arians
maintain the following: If you say that, as the Father is the
only true God, so also is the Son, and confess that the Father and the
Son are both of one substance, you introduce not one God, but
two. For they who are of one substance seem not to be one God but
two Gods. Just as two men or two sheep or more are spoken of, but
a man and a sheep are not spoken of as two men or two sheep, but as one
man and one sheep.
40. This is what the Arians say; and by this
cunning argument they attempt to catch the more simple-minded.
However if we read the divine Scriptures we shall find that plurality
occurs rather amongst those things which are of a diverse and different
substance, that is, ἑτερούσια.
We have this set forth in the books of Solomon, in that passage in
which he said: “There are three things impossible to
understand, yea, a fourth which I know not, the track of an eagle in
the air, the way of a serpent upon a rock, the path of a ship in the
sea, and the way of a man in his youth.”2564
An eagle and a ship and a serpent
are not of one family and nature, but of a distinguishable and
different substance, and yet they are three. On the testimony of
Scripture, therefore, they learn that their arguments are against
themselves.
41. Therefore, in saying that the substance of the
Father and of the Son is diverse and their Godhead distinguishable,
they themselves assert there are two Gods.
But we, when we confess the Father and the Son,
in declaring them still to be of one Godhead, say that there are not
two Gods, but one God. And this we establish by the word of the
Lord. For where there are several, there is a difference either
of nature or of will and work. Lastly, that they may be refuted
on their own witness, two men are mentioned: But though they are
of one nature by right of birth, yet in time and thought and work and
place, they are apart; and so one man cannot be spoken of under the
signification and number of two; for there is no unity where there is
diversity. But God is said to be one, and the glory and
completeness of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is thus
expressed.
42. Such, indeed, is the truth of unity
that, when the nature alone of human birth or of human flesh is
indicated, one man is the term used for the many, as it is
written: “The Lord is my helper, I will not fear what man
can do unto me;”2565
that is, not the
one person of a man, but the one flesh, the one frailty of human
birth. It added also: “It is better to trust in the
Lord than to trust in man.”2566
Here,
too, it did not denote one particular man, but a universal
condition. Then, immediately after it added, speaking of
many: “It is better to put confidence in the Lord than to
put confidence in princes.”2567
Where man is spoken of, as we have already said, there the common unity
of the nature, which exists between all is indicated; but where the
princes are mentioned, there is a certain distinction between their
different powers.
43. Amongst men, or in men, there exists a unity
in some one thing, either in love, or desire, or flesh, or devotion, or
faith. But a universal unity, that embraces within itself all
things agreeably to the divine glory, is the property of the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit alone.
44. Wherefore the Lord also, in pointing out
the diversity that exists among men, who have nothing in common that
can tend towards the unity of an indivisible substance, says:
“In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is
true.”2568
But
though He had said, “The testimony of two men is true,”
when He came to the testimony of Himself and His Father, He said
not: “Our testimony is true, for it is the testimony of two
Gods;” but: “I am One that bear witness of Myself,
and the Father that sent Me beareth witness of Me.”2569
Earlier He also says:
“If I judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I and
the Father that sent Me.”2570
Thus,
both in one place and the other, He indicated both the Father and the
Son, but neither implied the plurality, nor severed the unity of their
divine Substance.
45. It is plain, then, that whatsoever is of one
substance cannot be severed, even though it be not single, but
one. By singleness I mean that which the Greeks call μονοτής.
Singleness has to do with a person; unity with a nature. That
those things which are of a different substance are wont to be called,
not one alone, but many, though already proved on the testimony of the
prophet, the Apostle himself has stated in so many words, saying:
“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or
in earth.”2571
Dost thou
see, then, that those who are of different substances, and not of the
verity of one nature, are called “gods”? But the
Father and the Son, being of one substance, are not two Gods, but
“One God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus
Christ, through Whom are all things.”2572
“One God,” he says,
“and one Lord Jesus;” and above: “One God, not
two Gods;” and then: “One Lord, not two
Lords.”2573
46. Plurality, therefore, is excluded, but the
unity is not destroyed. But as, on the one hand, when we read of
the Lord Jesus, we do not dissociate the Father, as I have already
said, from the prerogative of ruling, because He has that in common
with the Son; so, on the other hand, when we read of the only true God,
the Father, we cannot sever the Son from the prerogative of the only
true God, for He has that in common with the Father.
47. Let them say what they feel or what they
think, when we read: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,
and Him only shalt thou serve.”2574
Do they think Christ should not be
worshipped, and that He ought not to be served? But if that woman
of Canaan who worshipped Him,2575
merited to gain
what she asked for, and the Apostle Paul, who confessed himself to be
the servant of Christ in the very outset of his letters, merited to be
an Apostle “not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus
Christ;”2576
let them say
what they think should follow. Would they prefer to join with
Arius in a league of treachery, and so show, by denying Christ to be
the only true God, that
they
consider He should neither be worshipped nor served? Or would
they sooner go in company with Paul, who in serving and worshipping
Christ did not disown in word and heart the only true God, Whom he
acknowledged with dutiful service?E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
