[ Alogia,Alogos ]

 THIS epithet is used by Athan. against the Arians, as if, by denying the eternity of the Logos (Reason or Word), first, they were denying the Intellectual nature of the Divine Essence; and, secondly, were forfeiting the source and channel of their own rational nature.

 1. As to the first of these, he says, "Imputing to God's nature an absence of His Word, [ alogian ], ... they are most impious." Orat. i. § 14. Again, "Is the God, who is, ever without His rational Word?" Orat. i. § 24, iv. § 4 and 14. Also Sent. P. 16, 23, etc. Serap. ii. 2. Athenag. Leg. 11. Tat. contr. Græc. 5. Hippol. contr. Noet. 10. Nyssen. contr. Eunom. vii. p. 216. Orat. Catech. 1. Naz. Orat. 29. 17 fin. Cyril. Thesaur. xiv. p. 145. (vid. Petav. de Trin. vi. 9.)

 It must not be supposed from these instances that the Fathers meant that our Lord was literally what is called the attribute of reason or wisdom in the Divine Essence, or in other words that He was God merely viewed as God is wise; which would be a kind of Sabellianism. But, whereas their opponents said that He was but called Word and Wisdom after the attribute, they said that such titles marked, not only a typical resemblance to the attribute, but so full a correspondence and (as it were) coincidence in character with it, that whatever relation that attribute had to God, such in kind had the Son; that the attribute was the Son's symbol, and not His mere archetype; that our Lord was eternal and proper to God, because that attribute was so, which was His title, vid. Athan. Ep. Æg. 14; that our Lord was that Essential Reason and Wisdom, not by which the Father is wise, but without which the Father was not wise; not, that is, in the way of a formal cause, but in fact . Or, whereas the Father Himself is Reason and Wisdom, the Son is the necessary issue of that Reason and Wisdom, so that, to say that there was no Word, would imply there was no Divine Reason; just as a radiance supposes a light; or, as Petavius remarks, Trin. vi. 9, as the eternity of the Original involves that of the Image: [ tes hypostaseos hyparchouses, pantos euthus einai dei ton charaktera kai eikona tautes ]. Orat. i. § 20. vid. also § 31. Decr. § 13. Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 737.

 Secondly, he says of the Arians themselves, "Denying the Word of God, Divine Reason have they forfeited." Decr. § 2. And again, "If they impute change to the Word, their own reason is in peril." Orat. i. § 35. Hence Arianism, as denying the Word, is essentially madness. "Has not a man lost his mind who entertains the thought that God is Wordless and Wisdomless?" Orat. ii. § 32. This will help us to understand how it is he calls them [ areiomanitai ]. vid. art. in voc .