15. Proof of the Catholic Sense of the Word Son .Power, Word or Reason, and Wisdom, the names of the Son, imply eternity; as well as the Father’s title of Fountain. The Arians reply, that these do not formally belong to the essence of the Son, but are names given Him; that God has many words, powers, &c. Why there is but one Son and Word, &c. All the titles of the Son coincide in Him.
This then is quite enough to expose the infamy of the Arian heresy; for, as the Lord has granted, out of their own words is irreligion brought home to them 1. But come now and let us on our part act on the offensive, and call on them for an answer; for now is fair time, when their own ground has failed them, to question them on ours; perhaps it may abash the perverse, and disclose to them whence they have fallen. We have learned from divine Scripture, that the Son of God, as was said above, is the very Word and Wisdom of the Father. For the Apostle says, ‘Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God 2;’ and John after saying, ‘And the Word was made flesh,’ at once adds, ‘And we saw His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth 3,’ so that, the Word being the Only-begotten Son, in this Word and in Wisdom heaven and earth and all that is therein were made. And of this Wisdom that God is Fountain we have learned from 4 Baruch, by Israel’s being charged with having forsaken the Fountain of Wisdom. If then they deny Scripture, they are at once aliens to their name, and may fitly be called of all men atheists 5, and Christ’s enemies, for they have brought upon themselves these names. But if they agree with us that the sayings of Scripture are divinely inspired, let them dare to say openly what they think in secret that God was once wordless and wisdomless 6; and P. 160 let them in their madness 7 say, ‘There was once when He was not,’ and, ‘before His generation, Christ was not 8;’ and again let them declare that the Fountain begat not Wisdom from itself, but acquired it from without, till they have the daring to say, ‘The Son came of nothing;’ whence it will follow that there is no longer a Fountain, but a sort of pool, as if receiving water from without, and usurping the name of Fountain 9.
-
The main argument of the Arians was that our lord was a Son, andthereforewas not eternal, but of a substance which had a beginning. [Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) a.] Accordingly Athanasius says, ‘Having argued with them as to the meaning of their own selected term “Son,” let us go on to others, which on the very face make for us, such as Word, Wisdom, &c.’ ↩
-
1 Cor. i. 24 . ↩
-
John i. 14 . ↩
-
Vid. supr. §12. ↩
-
Vid. supr. §1. note 2, bis. ↩
-
ἄλογος, ἄσοφος . Vid. infr., §26. This is a frequent argument in the controversy, viz. that to deprive the Father of His Son or substantial Word ( λόγος ), is as great a sacrilege as to deny His Reason, λόγος , from which the Son receives His name. ThusOrat.i. §14. fin. Athan. says, ‘imputing to God’s nature an absence of His Word ( ἀλογίαν or irrationality), they are most irreligious.’ Vid. §19. fin. 24. Elsewhere, he says, ‘Is a man not mad himself, who even entertains the thought that God is word-less and wisdom-less? for such illustrations and such images Scripture hath proposed, that, considering the inability of human nature to comprehend concerning God, we might even from these, however poorly and dimly, discern as far as is attainable.’Orat.ii. 32. vid. also iii. 63. iv. 12.Serap.ii. 2. ↩
-
Vid. above, §1, note 6. ↩
-
These were among the original positions of the Arians; for the former, see above, note 1; the latter is one of those specified in the Nicene Anathema. ↩
-
And so πηγὴ ξηρά .Serap.ii. 2.Orat.i. §14 fin. also ii. §2, where Athanasius speaks as if those who deny that Almighty God is Father, cannot really believe in Him as a Creator. If the divine substance be not fruitful ( καρπογόνος ), but barren, as they say, as a light which enlightens not, and a dry fountain, are they not ashamed to maintain that He possesses the creative energy?’ Vid. also πηγὴ θεότητος , Pseudo-Dion.Div. Nom.c. 2. πηγὴ ἐκ πηγῆς , of the Son, Epiphan.Ancor.19. And Cyril, ‘If thou take from God His being Father, thou wilt deny the generative power ( καρπογόνον ) of the divine nature so that It no longer isperfect.This then is a token of its perfection, and the Son who went forth from Him apart from time, is a pledge ( σφραγίς ) to the Father that He is perfect.’Thesaur.p. 37. ↩
