Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.)

 Four Discourses Against the Arians.

 Chapter II.—Extracts from the Thalia of Arius. Arius maintains that God became a Father, and the Son was not always the Son out of nothing once He w

 Chapter III.—The Importance of the Subject. The Arians affect Scripture language, but their doctrine new, as well as unscriptural. Statement of the Ca

 Chapter IV.—That the Son is Eternal and Increate. These attributes, being the points in dispute, are first proved by direct texts of Scripture. Concer

 Chapter V.—Subject Continued. Objection, that the Son’s eternity makes Him coordinate with the Father, introduces the subject of His Divine Sonship, a

 Chapter VI.—Subject Continued. Third proof of the Son’s eternity, viz. from other titles indicative of His coessentiality as the Creator One of the

 Chapter VII.—Objections to the Foregoing Proof. Whether, in the generation of the Son, God made One that was already, or One that was not.

 Chapter VIII.—Objections Continued. Whether we may decide the question by the parallel of human sons, which are born later than their parents. No, for

 Chapter IX.—Objections Continued. Whether is the Unoriginate one or two? Inconsistent in Arians to use an unscriptural word necessary to define its m

 Chapter X.—Objections Continued. How the Word has free will, yet without being alterable. He is unalterable because the Image of the Father, proved fr

 Chapter XI.—Texts Explained And First,Phil. II. 9, 10 Various texts which are alleged against the Catholic doctrine: e.g. Phil. ii. 9, 10 . Whether t

 Chapter XII.—Texts Explained Secondly, Psalm xlv. 7, 8. Whether the words ‘therefore,’ ‘anointed,’ &c., imply that the Word has been rewarded. Argued

 Chapter XIII.—Texts Explained Thirdly, Hebrews i. 4. Additional texts brought as objections e.g. Heb. i. 4 vii. 22 . Whether the word ‘better’ impl

 Discourse II.

 Chapter XV.—Texts explained Fifthly,Acts ii. 36. The Regula Fidei must be observed made applies to our Lord’s manhood and to His manifestation and

 Chapter XVI.—Introductory to Proverbs viii. 22, that the Son is not a Creature. Arian formula, a creature but not as one of the creatures but each cr

 Chapter XVII.—Introduction to Proverbs viii. 22continued. Absurdity of supposing a Son or Word created in order to the creation of other creatures as

 Chapter XVIII.—Introduction to Proverbs viii. 22continued. Contrast between the Father’s operations immediately and naturally in the Son, instrumental

 Chapter XIX.—Texts explained Sixthly,Proverbs viii. 22. Proverbs are of a figurative nature, and must be interpreted as such. We must interpret them,

 Chapter XX.—Texts Explained Sixthly, Proverbs viii. 22 Continued. Our Lord is said to be created ‘for the works,’ i.e. with a particular purpose, whi

 Chapter XXI.—Texts Explained Sixthly, Proverbs viii. 22, Continued. Our Lord not said in Scripture to be ‘created,’ or the works to be ‘begotten.’ ‘I

 Chapter XXII.—Texts Explained Sixthly, the Context of Proverbs viii. 22 Vz. 22–30 It is right to interpret this passage by the Regula Fidei. ‘Founded

 Discourse III.

 Chapter XXIV.—Texts Explained Eighthly,John xvii. 3. and the Like. Our Lord’s divinity cannot interfere with His Father’s prerogatives, as the One Go

 Chapter XXV.—Texts Explained Ninthly, John x. 30 xvii. 11, &c. Arian explanation, that the Son is one with the Father in will and judgment but so a

 Chapter XXVI.—Introductory to Texts from the Gospels on the Incarnation. Enumeration of texts still to be explained. Arians compared to the Jews. We m

 Chapter XXVII.—Texts Explained Tenthly, Matthew xi. 27 John iii. 35, &c. These texts intended to preclude the Sabellian notion of the Son they fall

 Chapter XXVIII.—Texts Explained Eleventhly, Mark xiii. 32 and Luke ii. 52 Arian explanation of the former text is against the Regula Fidei and again

 Chapter XXIX.—Texts Explained Twelfthly, Matthew xxvi. 39 John xii. 27, &c. Arian inferences are against the Regula Fidei, as before. He wept and th

 Chapter XXX.—Objections continued, as in Chapters vii.—x. Whether the Son is begotten of the Father’s will? This virtually the same as whether once He

 Discourse IV.

 6. But in answer to the weak and human notion of the Arians, their supposing that the Lord is in want, when He says, ‘Is given unto Me,’ and ‘I receiv

 8. Eusebius and his fellows, that is, the Ario-maniacs, ascribing a beginning of being to the Son, yet pretend not to wish Him to have a beginning of

 9. ‘I and the Father are One .’ You say that the two things are one, or that the one has two names, or again that the one is divided into two. Now if

 11. They fall into the same folly with the Arians for Arians also say that He was created for us, that He might create us, as if God waited till our

 13. This perhaps he borrowed from the Stoics, who maintain that their God contracts and again expands with the creation, and then rests without end. F

 15. Such absurdities will be the consequence of saying that the Monad is dilated into a Triad. But since those who say so venture to separate Word and

 25. Arius then raves in saying that the Son is from nothing, and that once He was not, while Sabellius also raves in saying that the Father is Son, an

 26. But that the Son has no beginning of being, but before He was made man was ever with the Father, John makes clear in his first Epistle, writing th

§§11, 12. Marcellus and his disciples, like Arians, say that the Word was, not indeed created, but issued, to create us, as if the Divine silence were a state of inaction, and when God spake by the Word, He acted; or that there was a going forth and return of the Word; a doctrine which implies change and imperfection in Father and Son.

11. They fall into the same folly with the Arians; for Arians also say that He was created for us, that He might create us, as if God waited till our creation for His issue, as the one party say, or His creation, as the other. Arians then are more bountiful to us than to the Son; for they say, not we for His sake, but He for ours, came to be; that is, if He was therefore created, and subsisted, that God through Him might create us. And these, as irreligious or more so, give to God less than to us. For we oftentimes, even when silent, yet are active in thinking, so as to form the results of our thoughts into images; but God they would have inactive when silent, and when He speaks then to exert strength; if, that is, when silent He could not make, and when speaking He began to create. For it is just to ask them, whether the Word, when He was in God, was perfect, so as to be able to make. If on the one hand He was imperfect, when in God, but by being begotten became perfect1499    De Syn. 24, n. 9; Or. i. 14, n. 7., we are the cause of His perfection, that is, if He has been begotten for us; for on our behalf He has received the power of making. But if He was perfect in God, so as to be able to make, His generation is superfluous; for He, even when in the Father, could frame the world; so that either He has not been begotten, or He was begotten, not for us, but because He is ever from the Father. For His generation evidences, not that we were created, but that He is from God; for He was even before our creation.

12. And the same presumption will be proved against them concerning the Father; for if, when silent, He could not make, of necessity He has gained power by begetting, that is, by speaking. And whence has He gained it? and wherefore? If, when He had the Word within Him, He could make, He begets needlessly, being able to make even in silence. Next, if the Word was in God before He was begotten, then being begotten He is without and external to Him. But if so, how says He now, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me1500    John xiv. 10.?’ but if He is now in the Father, then always was He in the Father, as He is now, and needless is it to say, ‘For us was He begotten, and He reverts after we are formed, that He may be as He was.’ For He was not anything which He is not now, nor is He what He was not; but He is as He ever was, and in the same state and in the same respects; otherwise He will seem to be imperfect and alterable. For if, what He was, that He shall be afterwards, as if now He were not so, it is plain, He is not now what He was and shall be. I mean, if He was before in God, and afterwards shall be again, it follows that now the Word is not in God. But the Lord refutes such persons when He says, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me;’ for so is He now as He ever was. But if so He now is, as He was ever, it follows, not that at one time He was begotten and not at another, nor that once there was silence with God, and then He spake, but there is ever a Father1501    i. 21, n. 1., and a Son who is His Word, not in name1502    ii. 19, n. 3. alone a Word, nor the Word in notion only a Son, but existing coessential1503    ὁμοούσιος, 9, n. 2. with the Father, not begotten for us, for we are brought into being for Him. For, if He were begotten for us, and in His begetting we were created, and in His generation the creature consists, and then He returns that He may be what He was before, first, He that was begotten will be again not begotten. For if His progression be generation, His return will be the close1504    παῦλα. cf. ii. 34, 35. of that generation, for when He has come to be in God, God will be silent again. But if He shall be silent, there will be what there was when He was silent, stillness and not creation, for the creation will cease to be. For, as on the Word’s outgoing, the creation came to be, and existed, so on the Word’s retiring, the creation will not exist. What use then for it to come into being, if it is to cease? or why did God speak, that then He should be silent? and why did He issue One whom He recalls? and why did He beget One whose generation He willed to cease? Again it is uncertain what He shall be. For either He will ever be silent, or He will again beget, and will devise a different creation (for He will not make the same, else that which was made would have remained, but another); and in due course He will bring that also to a close, and will devise another, and so on without end1505    εἰς ἄπειρον, ii. 68..

11 Εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν μὲν ἄνοιαν τοῖς Ἀρειανοῖς πίπτουσιν· κἀ κεῖνοι γάρ φασι δι' ἡμᾶς αὐτὸν ἐκτίσθαι, ἵνα ἡμᾶς κτίσῃ, ὥσπερ τοῦ θεοῦ περιμένοντος τὴν ἡμετέραν κτίσιν, ἵνα ἢ προβάληται κατ' ἐκείνους, ἢ κτίσῃ κατὰ τούτους. Ἀρειανοὶ μὲν οὖν πλέον ἡμῖν ἢ τῷ υἱῷ χαρίζονται· οὐ γὰρ ἡμεῖς δι' ἐκεῖνον, φασίν, ἀλλ' ἐκεῖνος δι' ἡμᾶς γέγονεν, εἴγε διὰ τοῦτο ἐκτίσθη καὶ ὑπέστη, ἵνα ἡμᾶς δι' αὐτοῦ κτίσῃ ὁ θεός. Οὗτοι δὲ ἐξ ἴσου ἢ καὶ μειζόνως ἀσεβοῦντες ἔλαττον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ἡμῖν διδόασιν. Ἡμεῖς γὰρ πολλάκις καὶ σιω πῶντες μέν, ἐνθυμούμενοι δὲ ἐνεργοῦμεν, ὥστε τὰ ἐκ τῆς ἐνθυ μήσεως καὶ εἰδωλοποιεῖσθαι· τὸν δὲ θεὸν σιωπῶντα μὲν ἀνενέρ γητον, λαλοῦντα δὲ ἰσχύειν αὐτὸν βούλονται, εἴγε σιωπῶν μὲν οὐκ ἠδύνατο ποιεῖν, λαλῶν δὲ κτίζειν ἤρξατο. Ἐρέσθαι γὰρ αὐτοὺς δίκαιον, εἰ ὁ λόγος ἐν τῷ θεῷ ὢν τέλειος ἦν, ὥστε καὶ ποιεῖν δύ νασθαι. Εἰ μὲν οὖν ἀτελὴς ἦν ἐν θεῷ ὤν, γεννηθεὶς δὲ τέλειος γέγονεν, ἡμεῖς αἴτιοι τῆς τελειότητος αὐτοῦ, εἴγε δι' ἡμᾶς γεγέν νηται· δι' ἡμᾶς γὰρ καὶ τὸ δύνασθαι ποιεῖν προσείληφεν. Εἰ δὲ τέλειος ἦν ἐν θεῷ, ὥστε καὶ ποιεῖν δύνασθαι, περιττὴ ἡ γέννησις αὐτοῦ· ἠδύνατο γὰρ καὶ ἐν πατρὶ ὢν δημιουργεῖν· ὥστε ἢ οὐ γε γέννηται, ἢ γεγέννηται οὐ δι' ἡμᾶς, ἀλλ' ὅτι ἀεὶ ἐκ τοῦ πατρός ἐστιν. Ἡ γὰρ γέννησις αὐτοῦ οὐ τὴν ἡμῶν κτίσιν δείκνυσιν, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐκ θεοῦ εἶναι· ἦν γὰρ καὶ πρὸ τῆς κτίσεως ἡμῶν. 12 Τὸ αὐτὸ δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ πατρὸς τολμῶντες φανήσονται. Εἰ γὰρ σιωπῶν οὐκ ἠδύνατο ποιεῖν, ἀνάγκη προσειληφέναι αὐτὸν δύναμιν γεννήσαντα, ὅ ἐστι λαλήσαντα. Καὶ πόθεν προσείληφεν; Καὶ διὰ τί; Εἰ δὲ ἠδύνατο ἔχων ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὸν λόγον ποιεῖν, περιτ τῶς γεννᾷ δυνάμενος καὶ σιωπῶν ποιεῖν. Ἔπειτα, εἰ πρὸ τοῦ γεν νηθῆναι ἐν τῷ θεῷ ἦν ὁ λόγος, ἄρα γεννηθεὶς ἐκτὸς καὶ ἔξω τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν. Εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, πῶς νῦν λέγει· «ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί»; Εἰ δὲ νῦν ἐν τῷ πατρί ἐστιν, ἄρα ἀεὶ ἦν ἐν τῷ πατρί, ὥσπερ καὶ νῦν ἐστιν, καὶ περιττὸν τὸ λέγειν· δι' ἡμᾶς γε γέννηται καὶ μεθ' ἡμᾶς ἀνατρέχει, ἵνα ᾖ ὥσπερ ἦν. Οὐ γὰρ ἦν ὅπερ οὐκ ἔστι νῦν, οὐδέ ἐστιν ὅπερ οὐκ ἦν· ἀλλ' ἔστιν ὥσπερ ἦν ἀεὶ καὶ ὡσαύτως καὶ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ἔχων, ἐπεὶ ἀτελὴς καὶ τρεπτὸς φανήσεται. Εἰ γὰρ ὅπερ ἦν, τοῦτ' ἔσται μετὰ ταῦτα, ὡς νῦν οὐκ ὤν, δῆλον, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι νῦν, ὅπερ ἦν καὶ ἔσται. Λέγω δέ· εἰ ἐν θεῷ ἦν πρότερον καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα πάλιν ἔσται, δῆλον, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι νῦν ἐν τῷ θεῷ ὁ λόγος. Ἀλλ' ἐλέγχει τούτους ὁ κύριος λέγων· «ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί»· οὕτως γάρ ἐστι νῦν, ὥσπερ ἦν ἀεί. Εἰ δὲ οὕτως νῦν ἐστιν, ὥσπερ ἦν ἀεί, δῆλον, ὅτι οὐ ποτὲ μὲν ἐγεννᾶτο, ποτὲ δὲ οὔ· οὐδὲ ποτὲ μὲν ἐν θεῷ ἡσυχία ἦν, ποτὲ δὲ ἐλάλει· ἀλλ' ἔστιν ἀεὶ πατὴρ καὶ υἱὸς ὁ τούτου λόγος, οὐκ ὀνόματι μόνον λόγος, οὐδὲ κατ' ἐπίνοιαν υἱὸς ὁ λόγος, ἀλλ' ὑπάρχων ὁμοούσιος τῷ πατρί, οὐ δι' ἡμᾶς γεννηθείς· ἡμεῖς γὰρ δι' ἐκεῖνον γεγόναμεν. Ἐπεὶ εἰ δι' ἡμᾶς ἐγεννήθη, καὶ ἐν τῷ γεγεννῆσθαι αὐτὸν ἐκτίσθημεν, καὶ τῇ γεννήσει αὐτοῦ συνέστηκεν ἡ κτίσις, ἀνατρέχει δέ, ἵνα ᾖ ὅπερ πρότερον ἦν, πρῶτον μὲν ἔσται πάλιν μὴ γεννώμενος ὁ γεννηθείς. Εἰ γὰρ ἡ πρόοδος αὐτοῦ γέννησίς ἐστιν, ἡ ἀναδρομὴ πάλιν παῦλα τῆς γεννήσεως· γενομένου γὰρ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ θεῷ σιωπήσει πάλιν ὁ θεός. Εἰ δὲ σιωπήσει, ἔσται ὅπερ ἦν σιωπῶντος αὐτοῦ, ἡσυχία καὶ οὐ κτίσις· παύσεται ἄρα ἡ κτίσις. Ὥσπερ γὰρ προελθόντος τοῦ λόγου γέγονεν ἡ κτίσις καὶ ὑπῆρξεν, οὕτως παλινδρομοῦντος τοῦ λόγου οὐχ ὑπάρξει ἡ κτίσις. Τίς οὖν ἡ χρεία τοῦ γενέσθαι, εἰ παύσεται; Ἢ τί καὶ ἐλάλει ὁ θεός, ἵνα μετὰ ταῦτα σιωπήσῃ; Τί δὲ προεβάλλετο, ὃν ἀνακαλεῖται; Τί δὲ καὶ ἐγέννα, οὗ τὴν γέννησιν παύσειν ἤθελεν; Τί δὲ πάλιν ἔσται, ἄδηλον. Ἢ γὰρ σιωπήσει ἀεὶ ἢ πάλιν γεννήσει καὶ ἑτέραν κτίσιν ἐπινοήσει· οὐ γὰρ τὴν αὐτὴν ποιήσει–ἢ γὰρ ἂν διέμεινεν ἡ γενο μένη–, ἀλλ' ἑτέραν· ἀκολούθως δὲ καὶ ταύτην παύσει καὶ ἑτέραν ἐπινοήσει, καὶ τοῦτο εἰς ἄπειρον.