not only knows not the Father exactly, for He fails in comprehension 5, but ‘He knows not even His own essence;—and that ‘the essences of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, are separate in nature, and estranged, and disconnected, and alien’, and without participation of each other7;’ and, in his own words, ‘utterly unlike from each other in essence and glory, unto infinity.’ Thus as to ‘likeness of glory and essence,’ he says that the Word is entirely diverse from both the Father and the Holy Ghost. With such words hath the irreligious spoken; maintaining that the Son is distinct by Himself, and in no respect partaker of the Father, These are portions of Arius’s fables as they occur in that jocose composition.
7. Who is there that hears all this, nay, the tune of the Thalia, but must hate, and justly hate, this Arius jesting on such matters as on a stage ®? who but must regard him, when he pretends to name God and speak of God, but as the serpent counselling the woman? who, on reading what follows in his work, but must discern in his irreligious doctrine that error, into which by his sophistries the serpent in the sequel seduced the woman? who at such blasphemies is not transported? ‘ The heaven,’ as the Prophet says, ‘was astonished, and the earth shuddered 9’ at the transgression of the Law. But the sun, with greater horror, impatient of the bodily contumelies, which the common Lord of all voluntarily endured for us, turned away, and recalling his rays made that day sunless. And shall not all human kind at Arius’s blasphemies be struck speechless, and stop their ears, and shut their eyes, to escape hearing them or seeing their author? Rather, will not the Lord Himself have reason to denounce men so irreligious, nay, so unthankful, in the words which He has already uttered by the prophet Hosea, ‘Woe unto them, for they have fled from Me; destruction upon 5 Vid. de Syn. 15, note 6, KatddAnWus was originally a Stoic word, and even when considered perfect, was, properly speaking, attributable only to an imperfect being. For it is used in contrast to the Platonic doctrine of idea, to express the hold of things obtained by the mind through the senses; it being a Stoical maxim, nihil esse in intellectu quod non fuerit in sensu. In this sense it is also used by the Fathers, to mean real and certain knowledge after inquiry, though it is also ascribed to Almighty God. As to the position of Arius, since we are told in Scripture that none ‘knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him,’ if cardAnus be an exact and complete knowledge of the object of contemplation, to deny that the Son comprehended the Father, was to deny that He was in the Father, i.e. the doctrine of the mepryopyots, de Syn. 15, averuixrot, or to maintain that He was a distinct, and therefore a created, being. On the other hand Scripture asserts that, as the Holy Spirit which is in God, ‘searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God,’ so the Son, as being ‘in the bosom of the Father,’ alone ‘hath declared Him.’ vid. Clement. Stvom. v. 12. And thus Athan. speaking of Mark xiii. 32, ‘If the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son, and the Father knows the day and the hour, it is plain that the Son too, being in the Father, and knowing the things in the Father, Himself also knows the day and,the hour.” Orat. iii. 44.
6 de Decr. 25, note 2. 7 de Syw. 15.
8 Hp. Zncycl. 6; Epiph. Her. 73. 1. 9 Jer. ii. 12.
them, for they have transgressed against Me; though I have redeemed them, yet they have spoken lies against Me™.’ And soon after, ‘They imagine mischief against Me; they turn away to nothing *.’ For to turn away from the Word of God, which is, and to fashion to themselves onc that is not, is to fall to what is nothing. For this was why the Ecumenical * Council, when Arius thus‘spoke, cast him from the Church, and anathematized him, as impatient of such irreligion. And ever since has Arius’s error been reckoned for a heresy more than ordinary, being known as Christ’s foe, and harbinger? of Antichrist. Though then so great a condemnation be itself of special weight to make men flee from that irreligious heresy, as I said above, yet since certain persons called Christian, either in ignorance or pretence, think it, as I then said, little different from the Truth, and call its professors Christians; proceed we to put some questions to them, according to our powers, thereby to expose the unscrupulousness of the heresy. Perhaps, when thus caught, they will be silenced, and flee from it, as from the sight of a serpent.
CHAPTER III.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT.
The Arians affect Scripture language, but their doctrine new, as well as unscriptural, Statement of the Catholic doctrine, that the Son is proper to the Father’s substance, and eternal. Restatement of Arianism in contrast, that He is a creature with a beginning: the controversy comes to this issue, whether one whom we are to believe in as God, can be so in name only, and is merely a creature. What pretence then for being indifferent in the controversy? The Arians rely on state patronage, and dare not avow their tenets.
8. If then the use of certain phrases of divine Scripture changes, in their opinion, the blasphemy of the Thalia into reverent language, of course they ought also to deny Christ with the present Jews, when they see how they study the Law and the Prophets; perhaps too they will deny the Law? and the Prophets like Manichees?, because the latter read some portions of the Gospels. If such bewilderment and empty speaking be from ignorance, Scripture will teach them, that the devil, the author of heresies, because of the ill savour which attaches to ~ _ 3 And so Vigilius of the heresies about the Incarnation, Etiamsi in erroris eorum destructionem nulli conderentur libri, hoc ipsum solum, quod heretici sunt pronunciati, orthodoxorum securitati sufficeret. contr. Eutych. i. p. 494. I de Sy. 33.
2 Faustus, in August. contr. Faust. ii. 1. admits the Gospels (vid. Beausobre Manich. t. i. p. 291, &c.), but denies that they were written by the reputed authors. ibid. xxxii. 2. but nescio quibus Semi-judzis. ibid. xxxiii. 3. Accordingly they thought themselves at liberty to reject or correct parts of them. They rejected many of the facts, e.g. our Lord’s nativity, circumcision baptism, temptation, &c. ibid. xxxii. 6.: a bribe to Arianize; contr. Const. 10, FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS evil, borrows Scripture language, as a cloak wherewith to sow the ground with his own poison also, and to seduce the simple. Thus he deceived Eve; thus he framed former heresies; thus he persuaded Arius at this time to make a show of speaking against those former ones, that he might introduce his own without observation. And yet, after all, the man of craft did not escape. For being irreligious towards the Word of God, he lost his all at once **, and betrayed to all men his ignorance of other heresies too3; and having not a particle of truth in his belief, does but pretend to it. For how can he speak truth concerning the Father, who denies the Son, that reveals concerning Him? or how can he be orthodox concerning the Spirit, while he speaks profanely of the Word that supplies the Spirit? and who will trust him concerning the Resurrection, denying, as he does, Christ for us the first-begotten from the dead? and how shall he not err in respect to His incarnate presence, who is simply ignorant of the Son’s genuine and true generation from the Father? For thus, the former Jews also, denying the Word, and saying, ‘We have no king but Ceesar4,’ were forthwith stripped of all they had, and forfeited the light of the Lamp, the odour of ointment, knowledge of prophecy, and the Truth itself; till now they understand nothing, but are walking as in darkness. For who was ever yet a hearer of such a doctrines? or whence or from whom did the abettors and hirelings® of the heresy gain it? who thus expounded to them when they were at school7? who told them, ‘ Abandon the worship of the creation, and then draw near and worship a creature and a work®?’ But if they themselves own that they have heard it now for the first time, how can they deny that this heresy is foreign, and not from our fathers9? But wha is not from our fathers, but has come to light in this day, how can it be but that of which the blessed Paul *° has foretold, that ‘in the latter times some shall depart from the sound faith, 28 de Decr. 1, note 6.
3 [A note on the intimate mutual connexion of all heresies is omitted here.]
4 Joh. xix. 15. 5 de Decr. 7, note 2.
6 dwpoddéKor, and so KépSos THs Pidoypyuarias, infr. §53. He ientions mpooraglas diAwy, § ro. And so S. Hilary speaks of the semptions from taxes which Constantius granted the Clergy as And again, of resisting Constantius as hostem blandientem, qui non dorsa ceedit, sed ventrem palpat, non proscribit ad vitam, sed ditat in mortem, non caput gladio desecat, sed animum auro occidit. ibid. 5. vid. Coustant. 7% doc. Liberius says the same, Theod A. &. ii. 13. And S. Gregory Naz. speaks of diAoxpvcous paddov 7 hidoxpictous: Ovat. 21. 21. On the other hand, #f. 4g. 22, Athan. contrasts the Arians with the Meletians, as not influenced by secular views. [Prolegg. ch. ii. $3 (2) c. (2).]
8 Vid. de Decry. 1. note. This consideration, as might be expected, is insisted on by the Fathers. vid. Cyril. Dial. iv. p- 511, &c. v. p. 566. Greg. Naz. 4o, 42; Hil. Trin. viii. 28; Ambr:s. de jid. i. n. 69 and 104.
giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, in the hypocrisy of liars; cauterized in their own conscience, and turning from the truth 1?’
g. For, behold, we take divine Scripture, and thence discourse with freedom of the religious Faith, and set it up as a light upon its candlestick, saying:—Very Son of the Father, natural and genuine, proper to His essence, Wisdom Only-begotten, and Very and Only Word of God is He; not a creature or work, but an offspring proper to the Father’s essence. Wherefore He is very God, existing one”? in. essence with the very Father; while other beings, to whom He said, ‘ I said ye are Gods’,’ had this grace from the Father, only by participation? of the Word, through the Spirit. For He is the expression of the Father’s Person, and Light from Light, and Power, and very Image of the Father’s essence. For this too the Lord has said, ‘He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father 3.’ And He ever was and is, and never wasnot. For the Father being everlasting, His Word and His Wisdom must be everlasting+. On the other hand, what have these persons to shew us from the infamous Thalia? Or, first of all, let them read it themselves, and copy the tone of the writer; at least the mockery which they will encounter from others may instruct them how low they have fallen; and then let them proceed to explain themselves. For what can they say from it, but that ‘God was not always a Father, but became so afterwards; the Son was not always, for He was not before His generation; He is not from the Father, but He, as others, has come into subsistence out of nothing; He is not proper to the Father’s essence, for He is a creature and work?’ And ‘Christ is not very God, but He, as others, was made God by participation; the Son has not exact knowledge of the Father, nor does the Word see the Father perfectly; and neither exactly understands nor knows the Father. He is not the very and only Word of the Father, but is in name only called Word 11 This passage is commonly taken by the Fathers to refer to the Oriental sects of the early centuries, who fulfilled one or other of those conditions which it specifies. It is quoted against the Marcionists by Clement. Strom. iii. 6. Of the Carpocratians apparently, Iren. er. i. 25; Epiph. Her. 27. 5- Of the Valentinians, Epiph. Her. 31. 34. Of the Montanists and others, ibid, 48. 8. Of the Saturnilians (according to Huet.) Origen in Matt. xx. 16. Of apostolic heresies, Cyril. Cat. iv. 27. Of Marcionites, Valentinians, and Manichees, Chrysost. de Virg. 5. Of Gnostics and Manichees, Theoa. Her. ii. pref. Of Encratites, ibid. v. fin. Of Eutyches, Zp. Avon. 190 (apud Garner. Dess. v. Theod. p.got). Pseudo-Justin seems to consider it fulfilled in the Catholics of the fifth century, as being Anti-Pelagians. Qwest. 22. vid. Bened. note in loc. Besides Athanasius, no early author occurs to the writer of this, by whom it is referred to the Arians, cf. Depos. Ar.
eoPt ir is is the cay occurrence of the word opoovaios in these three Discourses. 1] 1 Ps, Ixxxii. 6,: 2 de Decr. § 14 fin.; de Sym. § 51. 3 John xiv. o.
4 de Decr. 15, note 6.
and Wisdom, and is called by grace Son and Power. He is not unalterable, as the Father 1s, but alterable in nature, as the creatures, and He comes short of apprehending the perfect knowledge of the Father.’ Wonderful this heresy, not plausible even, but making speculations against Him that is, that He be not, and everywhere putting forward blasphemy for reverent language! Were any one, after inquiring into both sides, to be asked, whether of the two he would follow in faith, or whether of the two spoke fitly of God,— or rather let them say themselves, these abettors of irreligion, what, if a man be asked concerning God (for ‘the Word was God’), it were fit to answers. For from this one question the whole case on both sides may be determined, what is fitting to say,—He was, or He was not; always, or before His birth; eternal, or from this and from then; true, or by adoption, and from participation and in idea®; to call Him one of things originated, or to unite Him to the Father; to consider Him unlike the Father in essence, or like and proper to Him; a creature, or Him through whom the creatures were originated; that He is the Father’s Word, or that there is another word beside Him, and that by this other He was originated, and by another wisdom; and that He is only named Wisdom and Word, and is become a partaker of this wisdom, and second to it?
to. Which of the two theologies sets forth our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Son of the Father, this which you vomited forth, or that which we have spoken and maintain from the Scriptures? If the Saviour be not God, nor Word, nor Son, you shall have leave to say what you will, and so shall the Gentiles, and the present Jews. But if He be Word of the Father and true Son, and God from God, and ‘over all blessed for ever 7,’ is it not becoming to obliterate and blot out those other phrases and that Arian Thalia, as but a pattern of evil, a store of all irreligion, into which, whoso falls, ‘knoweth not that giants perish with her, and reacheth the depths of Hades*?’ This they know themselves, and in their craft they conceal it, not having the courage to speak out, but uttering something else9. For if they speak, a condemnation will follow; and if they be suspected, proofs from Scripture will be cast’? at them from every side. Wherefore, in their craft, as children of this world, after feeding their 5 That is, ‘Let them tell us, is it right to predicate this or to redicate that of God (of one who is God), for such is the Word, iz. that He was from eternity or was created,’ &c., &c.
6 xar’ émivoray, vid. Orat. li. § 38.
P v so-called lamp from the wild olive, and fearing lest it should soon be quenched (for it is said, ‘the light of the wicked shall be put out *,”) they hide it under the bushel? of their hypocrisy, and make a different profession, and boast of patronage of friends and authority of Constantius, that what with their hypocrisy and their professions, those who come to them may be kept from seeing how foul their heresy is. Is it not detestable even in this, that it dares not speak out, but is kept hid by its own friends, and fostered as serpents are? for from what sources have they got together these words? or from whom have they received what they venture to say3? Not any one man can they specify who has supplied it. For who is there in all mankind, Greek or Barbarian, who ventures to rank among creatures One whom he confesses the while to be God, and says, that He was not till He was made? or who is there, who to the God in whom he has put faith, refuses to give credit, when He says, ‘ This is My beloved Son 4,’ on the pretence that He is not a Son, but a creature? rather, such madness would rouse an universal indignation. Nor does Scripture afford them any pretext; for it has been often shewn, and it shall be shewn now, that their doctrine is alien to the divine oracles. Therefore, since all that remains is to say that from the devil came their mania (for of such opinions he alone is sower 5), proceed we to resist him;— for with him is our real conflict, and they are but instruments;—that, the Lord aiding us, and the enemy, as he is wont, being overcome with arguments, they may be put to shame, when they see him without resource who sowed this heresy in them, and may learn, though late, that, as being Arians, they are not Christians.
CHAPTER IV. Tuar THE Son 1s EreRNAL AND INCREATE.
These attributes, being the points in dispute, are first proved by direct texts of Scripture. Concerning the ‘eternal power’ of God in Rom, i. 20, which is shewn to mean the Son. Remarks on the Arian formula, ‘Once the Son was not,’ its supporters not daring to speak of ‘a time when the Son was not.’ 11. AT his suggestion then ye have maintained and ye think, that ‘there was once when the Son was not;’ this is the first cloke of your views of doctrine which has to be stripped off. Say then what was once when the Son was not, O slanderous and irreligious mén*P? If ye say the Father, your blasphemy 4 Matt. ili. 17. 5 de Decr. 2, note 6.
t Athan. observes that this formula of the Arians is a mere evasion to escape using the word ‘time.’ vid. also Cyril. Thesaur. Iv. pp. 19, 20. Else let them explain,—‘ There was,’ what ‘when the Son was not?’ or what was before the Son? since He Himself was before all times and ages, which He created, de Decr, 18, is but greater; for it is impious to say that He was ‘once,’ or to signify Him by the word ‘once.’ For He is ever, and is now, and as the Son is, so is He, and is Himself He that is, and Father of the Son. But if ye say that the Son was once, when He Himself was not, the answer is foolish and unmeaning. For how could He both be and not be? In this difficulty, you can but answer, that there was a time when the Word was not; for your very adverb ‘once’ naturally signifies this. And your other, ‘ The Son was not before His generation,’ is equivalent to saying, ‘ There was once when He was not,’ for both the one and the other signify that there is a time before the Word. Whence then this your discovery? Why do ye, as ‘ the heathen, rage, and imagine vain phrases against the Lord? and against His Christ?’ for no holy Scripture has used such language of the Saviour, but rather ‘always’ and ‘ eternal’ and ‘coexistent always with the Father.’ For, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God 3.’ And in the Apocalypse he thus speaks+; ‘Who is and who was and who is to come.’ Now who can rob ‘who is’ and ‘who was’ of eternity? This too in confutation of the Jews hath Paul written in his Epistle to the Romans, ‘Of whom as concerning the flesh is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever5;’ while silencing the Greeks, he has said, ‘The visible 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 Godhead ©;’ and what the Power of God is, he teaches us elsewhere himself, ‘Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God?.’ Surely in these words he does not designate the Father, as ye often whisper one to another, affirming that the Father is ‘ His eternal power.’ This is not so; for he says not, ‘God Himself is the power,’ but ‘ His is the power.’ Very plain is it to all that ‘His’ is not ‘He;’ yet not something alien but rather proper to Him. Study too the context and ‘turn to the Lord;’ now ‘the Lord is that Spirit®;’ and you will see that it is the Son who is signified.
note 5. Thus, if ‘when’ be a word of time, He it is who was ‘when’ He was xot, which is absurd. Did they mean, however, that it was the Father who ‘was’ before the Son? This was true, if ‘before’ was taken, not to imply time, but origination or beginning. And in this sense the first verse of S. John’s Gospel may be interpreted ‘In the Beginning,’ or Origin, i.e. in the Father ‘was the Word.’ Thus Athan. himself understands that text, Orat. iv. § r. vid. also Ovat. iii. § 9; Nyssen. contr. Exnomn. iii. Pp. 1063 Cyril. Thesaur. 32. p. 312. 2 Ps, ii. 1.
3 John i. x.
4 Rey. i. 4. rade Aéyer. [On Adyer, &c., in citations, see Lightf. on Gal. iii. 16, Winer,JGram. § 58, 9 y, Grimm-Thayer, s.v. II.
7 x Cor. i. 24. Athan, has so interpreted this text supr. de Decr. 15. It _was either a received interpretation, or had been adduced at Nicza, for Asterius had some years before these Discourses replied to it, vid. de Sy#, 18, and Orat. ii. § 37- PISCOURSHE SD en ee ee re ew eS _ 12. For after making mention of the creation, he naturally speaks of the Framer’s Power as seen in it, which Power, I say, is the Word of God, by whom all things have been made. If indeed the creation is sufficient of itself alone, without the Son, to make God known, see that you fall not, from thinking that without the Son it has come to be. But if through the Son it has come to be, and ‘in Him all things consist9,’ it must follow that he who contemplates the creation rightly, is contemplating also the Word who framed it, and through Him begins to apprehend the Father**, And if, as the Saviour also says, “No one knoweth the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son shall reveal Him”,’ and if on Philip’s asking, ‘ Shew us the Father,’ He said not, ‘ Behold the creation,’ but, ‘He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father ”,’ reasonably doth Paul,—while accusing the Greeks of contemplating the harmony and order of the creation without reflecting on the Framing Word within it (for the creatures witness to their own Framer) so as through the creation to apprehend the true God, and abandon their worship of it,—-reasonably hath he said, ‘His Eternal Power and Godhead *3, thereby signifying the Son. And where the sacred writers say, ‘Who exists before the ages,’ and ‘By whom He made Baruch wrote, ‘I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,’ and shortly after, ‘My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One+;’ yet forasmuch as the Apostle, writing to the Hebrews, says, ‘Who being the radiance of His glory and the Expression of His Person 5;’ and David too in the eighty-ninth Psalm, ‘ And the brightness of the Lord be upon us,’ and, ‘ In Thy Light shall we see Light,’ who has so little sense as to doubt of the eternity of the Son 7? for when did man see light without the brightness of its radiance, that he may say of ‘the Son, ‘ There was once, when He was not,’ or ‘ Before His generation He was not.’ And the words addressed to the Son in the hundred and forty-fourth 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 in the ages is measured, and of all the ages the Word is King and Maker, therefore, whereas no interval at all exists prior to Him9, it were madness to say, ‘There was once when the Everlasting was not,’ and ‘From nothing is the Son.’ And whereas the Lord Himself says, ‘I am the Truth °,’ not ‘I became the Truth;’ but always, ‘I am,—I am the Shepherd,—I am the Light,’—and again, ‘ Call ye Me not, Lord and Master? and ye call Me well, for so I am,’ the ages%,’ they thereby as clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, ‘The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth?;’ and Susanna said, ‘O Everlasting God 3;’ and that the Holy Ghost is never in Scripture called simply ‘Spirit’ without the addition ‘ of God’ or ‘of the Father’ or ‘ from Me’ or of the article, or of ‘ Holy,’ or ‘ Comforter,’ or ‘of truth,’ or unless He has been spoken of just before. Accordingly this text is understood of the third Person in the Holy Trinity by Origen, contr. Cels. vi. 70; Basil de SP. S. n. 523 Psendo-Athan. de comm. ess..6. On the other hand, the word zvedpa, ‘Spirit,’ is used more or less distinctly for our Lord’s Divine Nature whether in itself or as incarnate, in Rom. i. 4, 1 Cor. xv. 45, 1 Tim. iii. 16, Hebr, ix. 14, 1 Pet. ili. 18, John vi. 63, &c. [But cf. also Milligan Resurr. 238 sg.) Indeed the early Fathers speak as if the ‘ Holy Spirit,’ which came down upon S. Mary might be considered the Word. E.g. Tertullian against the Valentinians, ‘If the Spirit of God did not descend into the womb “‘to partake in flesh from the womb,” why did He descend at all?’ de'Carn. Chr. 19. vid. also ibid. 5 and 14. contr. Prax. 26, Just. Afol. i. 33. Iren. Her. vy. 1. Cypr. Idol. Van. 6. Lactant. /ustit. tv. 12. vid. also Hilar. Trin. i. 27; Athan. Adyes év Tw mvevpare EmAaTTE TO THA.
Serap. i. 3: fin. €v To Ady jv 7o wvedpa. ibid. iii. 6. And more onomy, distinctly even as iate as S. Maximus, avrov avri omopas auAha-Bovca Tov Adyov, KeKUyxe, t. 2. p. 309. ‘The earliest ecclesiastical’ authorities are S. Ignatius ad Smyrn. init. and S. Hermas (even: though his date were a.p. 150), who also says plainly: Filius autem Spiritus Sanctus est. Sim. v. 5,2, cf. ix. 1. The same use of ‘Spirit’ for the Word or Godhead of the Word, is also found in Tatian. adv. Grec. 7. Athenag. Leg. 10. Theoph. ad Axftol, ii. 10. Tren. Her. iv. 36. Tertull. Afol. 23. Lact. Jmst, iv. 6,8. Hilar. Trin. ix. 3, and 14. Eustath. apud Theod. Eran. iii. p. 235. Athan, contr. Afoll. i. 8. Apollinar.@p. Theod. Zran. i. p.71, and passim. Greg. Naz. Ep. 101. ad Cledon. p. 85. Ambros. Lucarn. 63. Severian. af. Theod. Hran. ii. p. 167. Vid. Grot. ad Mare. ii. 8; Bull, Def. #. NV. i. 2, $5; Coustant. Pref_in Hilar. 57, &c. Montfaucon in Athan. Sera. iv. 19. [see also Tertullian, de Orat. init. ] 9 Colas 176 iz Matt. xi. 27.
3 Hist. Sus. 42.
who, hearing such language from God, and the Wisdom, and Word of the Father, speaking of Himself, will any longer hesitate about the truth, and not forthwith believe that in the phrase ‘I am,’ is signified that the Son is eternal and without beginning?
13. It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son’s eternity; it is equally plain from what follows that the Arian phrases ‘He was not, and ‘before’ and ‘when,’ are in the same Scriptures predicated of creatures. Moses, for instance, in his account of the generation of our system, says, ‘ And every plant of the field, before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground’ And in Deuter-‘When the Most High divided to the nations.’ And the Lord said in His own Person, ‘If ye loved Me, ye would rejoice 4 Bar. iv. 20, 22. COMPS xcag) sa exexyil.1O. 9 Vid. de Decr. 18, note 5. The subject is treated at length the Apollinarists | in Greg. Nyss. contr. Eunom. 1. t. 2. Append. p. 93—10r1. vid. also Ambros. de Fid. i. 8—11. As time measures the material creation, ‘ages’ were considered to measure the immaterial, as the duration of Angels. This had been a philosophical distinction, Timzus SayS €\KOV ETL XPOVOS TH AYEVYAaTH XpOVH, OV aLMVa TOTAyOpEVOHES. vid. also Philon. Quod Deus Immut. 6. Euseb. Laud. C, 1 prope t Gen. il. 5. 2 Deut. xxxii. 8.
because I said, I go unto the Father, for My Father is greater than I. And now I have told you before it come to pass, that when it is come to pass, ye might believe3,’ And concerning the creation He says by Solomon, ‘Or ever the earth was, when there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, was I brought forth4.’ And, ‘ Before Abraham was, I ams,’ And concerning Jeremiah He says, ‘Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee®’ And David in the Psalm says, ‘Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever the earth and the world were made, Thou art God from everlasting and world without end7.’ And in Daniel, ‘Susanna cried out with a loud voice and said, O everlasting God, that knowest the secrets, and knowest all things before they be®.’ Thus it appears that the phrases ‘once was not,’ and ‘before it came to be,’ and ‘when,’ and the like, belong to things originate and creatures, which come out of nothing, but are alien to the Word. But if such terms are used in Scripture of things originate, but ‘ever’ of the Word, it follows, O ye enemies of God, that the Son did not come out of nothing, nor is in the number of originated things at all, but is the Father’s Image and Word eternal, never having not been, but being ever, as the eternal Radiance? of a Light which is eternal. Why imagine then times before the Son? or wherefore blaspheme the Word as after times, by whom even the ages were made? for how did time or age at all subsist when the Word, as you say, had not appeared, ‘through’ whom ‘all things have been made and without’ whom “not one thing was made?’ Or why, when you mean time, do you not plainly say, ‘a time was when the Word was not?’ But while you drop the word ‘time’ to deceive the simple, you do not at all conceal your own feeling, nor, even if you did, could you escape discovery. For you still simply mean times, when you say, ‘ There was when He was not,’ and ‘ He was not before His generation.’
CHAPTER V.
SuBjEcT CONTINUED.
Objection, that the Son’s eternity makes Him co-ordinate with the Father, introduces the subject of His Divine Sonship, as a second proof of His eternity. The word Son is introduced in a secondary, but is to be understood in real sense. Since ail things partake of the Father in partaking of the Son, He is the whole participation of the Father, that is, He is the Son by nature; for to be wholly participated is to beget.
eee en en eee 5 John viii. 58.
8 Hist. Sus. 42.
14. WHEN these points are thus proved, their profaneness goes further. ‘If there never was, when the Son was not,’ say they, ‘but He is eternal, and coexists with the Father, you call Him no more the Father’s Son, but brother™.’ O insensate and contentious! For if we said only that He was eternally with the Father, and not His Son, their pretended scruple would have some plausibility; but if, while we say that He is eternal, we also confess Him to be Son from the Father, how can He that is begotten be considered brother of Him who begets? And if our faith is in Father and Son, what brotherhood is there between them? and how can the Word be called brother of Him whose Word He is? This is not an objection of men really ignorant, for they comprehend how the truth lies; but it is a Jewish pretence, and that from those who, in Solomon’s words, ‘through desire separate themselves?’ from the truth. For the Father and the Son were not generated from some pre-existing origin 3, that we may account Them brothers, but the Father is the Origin of the Son and begat Him; and the Father is Father, and not born the Son of any; and the Son is Son, and not brother. Further, if He is called the eternal offspring of the Father, He is rightly so called. For never was the essence of the Father imperfect, that what is proper to it should be added afterwards5; nor, as man from man,