11.
Chapter IV .— That the Son is Eternal and Increate .These attributes, being the points in dispute, are first proved by direct texts of Scripture. Concerning the ‘eternal power’ of God inRom. 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.’
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 men 1? If ye say the Father, your blasphemy 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 2 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 4; ‘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 ever 5;’ 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 6;’ and what the Power of God is, he teaches us elsewhere himself, ‘Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God 7.’ 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 8;’and you will see that it is the Son who is signified.
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?’ orwhatwas before the Son? since He Himself was before all times and ages, which He created,de Decr.18, note 5. Thus, if ‘when’ be a word of time, He it is whowas‘when’ Hewas not, 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. §1. vid. alsoOrat.iii. §9; Nyssen.contr. Eunom.iii. p. 106; Cyril.Thesaur.32. p. 312. ↩
Ps. ii. 1 . ↩
John i. 1 . ↩
Rev. i. 4 . τάδε λέγει . [On λέγει , &c., in citations, see Lightf. on Gal. iii. 16 , Winer,Gram.§58, 9 γ , Grimm-Thayer,s.v.II. 1. e.] ↩
Rom. ix. 5 . ↩
Ib. i. 20 . ↩
1 Cor. i. 24 . Athan. has so interpreted this text supr.de Decr.15. It was either a received interpretation, or had been adduced at Nicæa, for Asterius had some years before these Discourses replied to it, vid.de Syn.18, andOrat.ii. §37. ↩
2 Cor. iii. 16, 17 . S. Athanasius observes,Serap.i. 4–7, 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; Basilde Sp. S.n. 32; Pseudo-Athan.de comm. ess.6. On the other hand, the word πνεῦμα , ‘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. iii. 18, John vi. 63 , &c. [But cf. also MilliganResurr.238 sq.] 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.Apol.i. 33. Iren.Hær.v. 1. Cypr.Idol Van.6. Lactant.Instit.iv. 12. vid. also Hilar.Trin.ii. 27; Athan. λόγος ἐν τῷ πνεύματι ἔπλαττε τὸ σῶμα .Serap.i. 31 fin. ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ἦν τὸ πνεῦμα ibid. iii. 6. And more distinctly even as late as S. Maximus, αὐτὸν ἀντὶ σπορᾶς συλλαβοῦσα τὸν λόγον, κεκύηκε , t. 2. p. 309. The earliest ecclesiastical authorities are S. Ignatiusad Smyrn.init. and S. Hermas (even though his date were a.d. 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. Græc.7. Athenag.Leg.10. Theoph.ad Autol.ii. 10. Iren.Hær.iv. 36. Tertull.Apol.23. Lact.Inst.iv. 6, 8. Hilar.Trin.ix. 3, and 14. Eustath.apudTheod.Eran.iii. p. 235. Athan.contr. Apoll.i. 8. Apollinar.ap.Theod.Eran.i. p. 71, and the Apollinaristspassim.Greg. Naz.Ep.101.ad Cledon.p. 85. Ambros.Incarn.63. Severian.ap. Theod. Eran.ii. p. 167. Vid. Grot.ad Marc.ii. 8; Bull,Def. F. N.i. 2, §5; Coustant.Præf. in Hilar.57, &c. Montfaucon in Athan.Serap.iv. 19. [see also Tertullian,de Orat.init.] ↩
