Chapter VIII.

The likeness of the Son to the Father being proved, it is not hard to prove the Son’s eternity, though, indeed, this may be established on the authority of the Prophet Isaiah and St. John the Evangelist, by which authority the heretical leaders are shown to be refuted.

54. It is plain, therefore, that the Son is not unlike the Father, and so we may confess the more readily that He is also eternal, seeing that He Who is like the Eternal must needs be eternal. But if we say that the Father is eternal, and yet deny this of the Son, we say that the Son is unlike the Father, for the temporal differeth from the eternal. The Prophet proclaims Him eternal, and the Apostle proclaims Him eternal; the Testaments, Old and New alike, are full of witness to the Son’s eternity.

55. Let us take them, then, in their order. In the Old Testament—to cite one out of a multitude of testimonies—it is written: “Before Me hath there been no other God, and after Me shall there be none.”115 I will not comment on this place, but ask thee straight: “Who speaks these words,—the Father or the Son?” Whichever of the two thou sayest, thou wilt find thyself convinced, or, if a believer, instructed. Who, then, speaks these words, the Father or the Son? If it is the Son, He says, “Before Me hath there been no other God;” if the Father, He says, “After Me shall there be none.” The One hath none before Him, the Other none that comes after; as the Father is known in the Son, so also is the Son known in the Father, for whensoever you speak of the Father, you speak also by implication of His Son, seeing that none is his own father; and when you name the Son, you do also acknowledge His Father, inasmuch as none can be his own son. And so neither can the Son exist without the Father, nor the Father without the Son.116 The Father, therefore, is eternal, and the Son also eternal.

56. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.”117 “Was,” mark you, “with God.” “Was”—see, we have “was” four times over. Where did the blasphemer find it written that He “was not.” Again, John, in another passage—in his Epistle—speaketh of “That which was in the beginning.”118 The extension of the “was” is infinite. Conceive any length of time you will, yet still the Son “was.”119

57. Now in this short passage our fisherman hath barred the way of all heresy. For that which was “in the beginning” is not comprehended in time, is not preceded by any beginning. Let Arius, therefore, hold his peace.120 Moreover, that which was “with God” is not confounded and mingled with Him, but is distinguished by the perfection unblemished which it hath as the Word abiding with God; and so let Sabellius keep silence.121 And “the Word was God.” This Word, therefore, consisteth not in uttered speech, but in the designation of celestial excellence, so that Photinus’ teaching is refuted. Furthermore, by the fact that in the beginning He was with God is proven the indivisible unity of eternal Godhead in Father and Son, to the shame and confusion of Eunomius.122 Lastly, seeing that all things are said to have been made by Him, He is plainly shown to be author of the Old and of the New Testament alike; so that the Manichæan can find no ground for his assaults.123 Thus hath the good fisherman caught them all in one net, to make them powerless to deceive, albeit unprofitable fish to take.

CAPUT VIII.

Ex probata Filii cum Patre similitudine, eumdem aeternum etiam esse haud aegre demonstrari, quod nihilominus astruitur e prophetia Esaiae, ac Joannis Evangelio; cujus ultimi auctoritate obrui haeresiarchae declarantur.

0540D

54. [Alias cap. V.] Claret igitur non esse dissimilem, et ideo proclivior via est, ut etiam sempiternum esse fateamur, cum similis sempiterni utique sempiternus sit. Si autem Patrem sempiternum dicimus, et hoc idem Filium denegamus, dicimus esse 0541A dissimilem; sempiterno enim temporale dissimile est. Clamat Propheta sempiternum, clamat et Apostolus sempiternum: plenum est vetus Testamentum testimoniis Filii sempiterni, plenum est novum.

55. Ordinem ergo teneamus. Scriptum est in veteri Testamento, ut vel unum de pluribus dicam: Ante me non fuit alius Deus, et post me non erit (Esai. XLIII, 10). Nihil ergo argumentabor, teipsum interrogo. Quis hoc dicit, Pater, an Filius? Utrum dixeris, eo te convinci intelliges: vel si credas, doceri? Quis ergo hoc dicit, Pater, an Filius? Si Filius: Ante me, inquit, non fuit alius Deus: Si Pater: Post me, inquit, non erit. Hic priorem, ille posteriorem non habet: invicem in se et Pater in Filio, et Filius in Patre cognoscitur. Cum enim Patrem 0541B dixeris, ejus etiam Filium designasti; quia nemo ipse sibi pater est: cum Filium nominas, etiam Patrem ejus fateris; quia nemo ipse sibi filius est. Itaque nec Filius sine Patre, nec Pater potest esse sine Filio. Semper igitur Pater, semper et Filius.

56. In principio enim erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum, hoc erat in principio apud Deum (Joan. I, 1). Erat, inquit, apud Deum. Erat, erat, erat, erat: ecce quater erat. Ubi impius invenit quod non erat? Alibi quoque Joannes in epistola sua dicit: Quod erat in principio (I Joan. I, 1); indefinite tenditur, erat: quidquid excogitaveris, erat Filius.

57. Omnes autem haereses hoc capitulo brevi piscator noster exclusit. Quod enim erat in principio, 0541C non includitur tempore, non principio praevenitur. Ergo Arius conticescat. Quod autem erat apud Deum, non permixtione confunditur: sed manentis Verbi apud Patrem solida perfectione distinguitur, ut Sabellius obmutescat. Et Deus erat Verbum. Non ergo in prolatione sermonis hoc Verbum est, sed in illa coelestis designatione virtutis, ut confutetur 455 Photinus. Quod vero erat in principio apud Deum, sempiternae divinitatis in Patre et Filio inseparabilis unitas edocetur ut erubescat Eunomius. Postremo cum omnia per ipsum facta dicantur, ipse conditor novi utique Testamenti et veteris designatur; ut Manichaeus locum tentationis habere non possit. Ita piscator bonus intra unum omnes rete conclusit; ut faceret inhabiles fraudi, quamvis essent inutiles captioni.