Chapter XIX.

Arius is charged with the first of the above-mentioned errors, and refuted by the testimony of St. John. The miserable death of the Heresiarch is described, and the rest of his blasphemous errors are one by one examined and disproved.

123. Arius, then, says: “There was a time when the Son of God existed not,” but Scripture saith: “He was,” not that “He was not.” Furthermore, St. John has written: “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.”217    S. John i. 1–3. Observe how often the verb “was” appears, whereas “was not” is nowhere found. Whom, then, are we to believe?—St. John, who lay on Christ’s bosom, or Arius, wallowing amid the outgush of his very bowels?—so wallowing that we might understand how Arius in his teaching showed himself like unto Judas, being visited with like punishment.

124. For Arius’ bowels also gushed out—decency forbids to say where—and so he burst asunder in the midst, falling headlong, and besmirching those foul lips wherewith he had denied Christ. He was rent, even as the Apostle Peter said of Judas, because he “bought a field with the price of evil-doing, and falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”218    Acts i. 18. Arius seems to have been carried off by a terrible attack of cholera or some kindred malady. See Newman, Arians of the Fourth Century, Ch. 3. § 2, and Robertson, History of the Christian Church, vol. 1. pp. 301–2, ed. 1875. It was no chance manner of death, seeing that like wickedness was visited with like punishment, to the end that those who denied and betrayed the same Lord might likewise undergo the same torment.

125. Let us pass on to further points. Arius says: “Before He was born, the Son of God was not,” but the Scripture saith that all things are maintained in existence by the Son’s office. How, then, could He, Who existed not, bestow existence upon others? Again, when the blasphemer uses the words “when” and “before,” he certainly uses words which are marks of time. How, then, do the Arians deny that time was ere the Son was, and yet will have things created in time to exist before the Son, seeing that the very words, “when,” “before,” and “did not exist once,” announce the idea of time?

126. Arius says that the Son of God came into being out of nought. How, then, is He Son of God—how was He begotten from the womb of the Father—how do we read of Him as the Word spoken of the heart’s abundance, save to the end that we should believe that He came forth, as it is written, from the Father’s inmost, unapproachable sanctuary? Now a son is so called either by means of adoption or by nature, as we are called sons by means of adoption.219    (1) “the word spoken,” etc.—Ps. xlv. 1. Eructavit cor meum verbum bonum.—Vulg. ἐξρεύξατο ἡ καρδία μου λόγον ἀγαθόν.—LXX. (2) “sons by adoption.”—Gal. iv. 4, 5. Christ is the Son of God by virtue of His real and abiding nature. How, then, can He, Who out of nothing fashioned all things, be Himself created out of nothing?

127. He who knows not whence the Son is hath not the Son. The Jews therefore had not the Son, for they knew not whence He was. Wherefore the Lord said to them: “Ye know not whence I came;”220    S. John viii. 14. and again: “Ye neither have found out Who I am, nor know My Father,” for he who denies that the Son is of the Father knows not the Father, of Whom the Son is; and again, he knows not the Son, because he knows not the Father.

128. Arius says: “[The Son is] of another Substance.” But what other substance is exalted to equality with the Son of God, so that simply in virtue thereof He is Son of God? Or what right have the Arians for censuring us because we speak, in Greek, of the οὐσία, or in Latin, of the Substantia of God, when they themselves, in saying that the Son of God is of another “Substance,” assert a divine Substantia.

129. Howbeit, should they desire to dispute the use of the words “divine Substance” or “divine Nature,” they shall easily be refuted, for Holy Writ oft-times hath spoken of οὐσία in Greek, or Substantiain Latin, and St. Peter, as we read, would have us become partakers in the divine Nature. But if they will have it that the Son is of another “Substance,” they with their own lips confute themselves, in that they both acknowledge the term “Substance,” whereof they are so afraid, and rank the Son on a level with the creatures above which they feign to exalt Him.

130. Arius calls the Son of God a creature, but “not as the rest of the creatures.” Yet what created being is not different from another? Man is not as angel, earth is not as heaven, the sun is not as water, nor light as darkness. Arius’ preference, therefore, is empty—he hath but disguised with a sorry dye his deceitful blasphemies, in order to take the foolish.

131. Arius declares that the Son of God may change and swerve. How, then, is He God if He is changeable, seeing that He Himself hath said: “I am, I am, and I change not”?221    St. Ambrose’ version differs in expression from the Vulg.—Ego enim Dominus et non mutor (Mal. iii. 6)—but not in substance, for Ego sum Dominus and “I am the Lord” both mean “I am He who is”—(ὁ ὢν)—which is very well represented by Ego sum, Ego sum—“I am, I am.”—Cf. Ex. iii. 14.

CAPUT XIX.

Ubi Ario primum e memoratis erroribus attribuit, eumdem refellit Joannis testimonio, ac e re nata tragicam haeresiarchae mortem describit. Mox singillatim reliquas ejusdem blasphemias expendit et confutat.

0556C 123. Arius ergo dicit: Erat quando non erat; sed Scriptura dicit, Erat, non dicit, non erat. Denique Joannes scripsit: In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum: hoc erat in principio apud Deum (Joan. I, 1). Ecce quoties erat et nusquam dixit quod non erat. Cui ergo credimus? Joanni in Christi pectore recumbenti, an Ario inter 0557A effusa se sua viscera volutanti; ut agnosceremus similem Judae proditoris Arii quoque fuisse perfidiam, quem similis poena damnavit?

124. Effusa sunt enim et Arii viscera, pudet dicere ubi, atque ita crepuit medius, prostratus in faciem; ea quibus Christum negaverat, foeda ora pollutus. Crepuit enim, sicut etiam de Juda Petrus apostolus dixit (Act. I, 18), quia possedit agrum de mercede injustitiae, et in faciem prostratus crepuit medius, et effusa sunt omnia viscera ejus. Non est fortuita mors, ubi in sacrilegio pari poenae parilis processit exemplum; ut idem subirent supplicium qui eumdem Dominum negaverunt; et qui eumdem Dominum prodiderunt.

125. Veniamus ad alia. Arius dicit: Antequam nasceretur, 0557B non erat: sed Scriptura dicit omnia esse per Filium. Quomodo ergo aliis dedit esse, qui non erat? Cum autem dicit impius, quando et ante, haec utique duo verba tempus ostendunt. Quomodo ergo negant tempus ante Filium, et volunt prius fuisse quae temporis sunt: cum idipsum, quando et ante et aliquando non fuisse, sit temporis?

469 126. Arius dicit ex nihilo Dei Filium. Quomodo ergo Dei Filius? quomodo paterno generatus ex utero? quomodo eructatum ex corde Verbum legitur, nisi ut ex intimo et inaestimabili Patris intelligatur, ut scriptum est, prodiisse secreto? Filius enim aut per adoptionem, aut per naturam est: per adoptionem nos filii dicimur, ille per veritatem naturae est. Quomodo ergo ex nihilo ille, qui ex nihilo 0557C fecit omnia (Psal. XLIV, 1)?

127. Non habet Filium, qui nescit unde sit. Denique nec Judaei habebant Filium, quia unde esset nesciebant. Et ideo dixit his Dominus: Nescitis unde veni (Joan. VIII, 14); et infra: Neque me nostis, neque Patrem meum scitis (Ibid. 19). Qui enim negat ex Patre Filium, nec Patrem ex quo est Filius, novit: neque Filium novit; quia Patrem nescit (Galat. IV, 5).

128. Arius dicit: Ex alia substantia. Quae igitur alia substantia aequatur Dei Filio, ut ex ipsa Dei Filius sit? Aut quomodo reprehendunt quia nos in Deo aut οὐσίαν Graece, aut Latine substantiam dicimus, cum ex alia dicendo substantia Dei esse Filium, etiam ipsi substantiam Dei esse confirment?

129. Sed si de nomine substantiae aut naturae divinae 0557D voluerint dicere, facile revincentur; quia et οὐσίαν Graece, et Latine substantiam frequenter Scriptura memoravit. Et Petrus vult nos, ut legimus (II Petr. I, 4), divinae consortes fieri naturae. Quod si ex alia substantia Filium dicent, ipsi se revincunt, et verbum substantiae quod metuunt confitendo, et Filium 0558A creaturis quibus praeferre se simulant, conferendo.

130. Arius dicit creaturam Dei Filium, non sicut caeteras creaturas. Quae enim creatura non sicut alia creatura non est? Homo non ut Angelus, terra non ut coelum, sol non ut aqua, lumen non ut tenebrae. Nihil ergo praeferendo donavit, sed ad simplices decipiendos misero colore fraudem suae impietatis obduxit.

131. Arius dicit mutabilem et convertibilem Dei Filium. Quomodo ergo Deus, si mutabilis; cum ipse dixerit: Ego sum, ego sum, et non sum mutatus (Malac. III, 6)?