What the Whole Dispute Comes Down To

If, then, in their view, the use of certain phrases of divine Scripture turns the blasphemy of the Thalia into reverent language, then of course they ought also to deny Christ along with the Jews of today, when they see how they study the Law and the Prophets. Perhaps too, like the Manichaeans, they will deny the Law and the Prophets, because the Manichaeans read some portions of the Gospels. If such confusion and empty talk come from ignorance, Scripture will teach them that the devil, the author of heresies, borrows the language of Scripture because of the foul smell that clings to evil. He uses it as a cloak under which to sow the ground with his own poison too, and to lead the simple astray. This is how he deceived Eve; this is how he shaped the earlier heresies; and this is how he has now persuaded Arius to make a show of speaking against those earlier ones, so that he might bring in his own without being noticed. And yet, after all, the crafty man did not escape. For by being ungodly toward the Word of God he lost everything at once, and showed everyone that he was ignorant of the other heresies too. Having not a particle of truth in his belief, he only pretends to it. For how can he speak the truth about the Father, when he denies the Son, who reveals the truth about him? How can he be orthodox about the Spirit, when he speaks profanely of the Word who supplies the Spirit? Who will trust him about the resurrection, when he denies Christ, who for us is the firstborn from the dead? And how can he avoid error about his coming in the flesh, when he is simply ignorant of the Son’s genuine and true begetting from the Father? For in the same way the Jews of old, denying the Word and saying, “We have no king but Caesar,” were at once stripped of all they had. They lost the light of the lamp, the fragrance of the anointing oil, the knowledge of prophecy, and the truth itself, so that now they understand nothing, but walk as if in darkness. For who ever heard such teaching before? Where, or from whom, did the supporters and paid agents of the heresy get it? Who explained it to them like this when they were at school? Who told them, “Give up worshiping the creation, and then come near and worship a creature and a thing made”? But if they themselves admit that they are hearing it now for the first time, how can they deny that this heresy is foreign, and not from our fathers? And what is not from our fathers, but has come to light in our day, what can it be but what the blessed Paul foretold: “In the last times some will depart from the sound faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons, in the hypocrisy of liars, seared in their own conscience, and turning away from the truth”? [a]

For see, we take divine Scripture, and from it we speak freely of the true faith and set it up as a light on its lampstand, saying: He is the true Son of the Father, natural and genuine, belonging to the Father’s own substance; the one and only Wisdom, and the true and only Word of God. He is not a creature or a thing made, but an offspring belonging to the Father’s own substance. That is why he is true God, of one substance with the true Father. Other beings, to whom he said, “I said, You are gods,” had this grace from the Father only by sharing in the Word, through the Spirit. For he is the expression of the Father’s person, and Light from Light, and Power, and the true image of the Father’s substance. For the Lord also said this: “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” And he always was, and is, and never was not. For since the Father is everlasting, his Word and his Wisdom must be everlasting. On the other hand, what do these people have to show us from the infamous Thalia? First of all, let them read it themselves and imitate the writer’s tone; at least the mockery they will meet from others may teach them how low they have fallen. Then let them go on to explain themselves. For what can they say from it, but that “God was not always a Father, but became one afterwards; the Son was not always, for he did not exist before he was begotten; he is not from the Father, but he, like others, came into existence out of nothing; he does not belong to the Father’s own substance, for he is a creature and a thing made”? And that “Christ is not true God, but he, like others, was made God by sharing; the Son does not have exact knowledge of the Father, nor does the Word see the Father perfectly; he neither exactly understands nor knows the Father. He is not the true and only Word of the Father, but is called Word and Wisdom in name only, and is called Son and Power by grace. He is not unchangeable, as the Father is, but changeable in nature, like the creatures, and he falls short of grasping the perfect knowledge of the Father”? What a wonderful heresy this is! It is not even plausible. It speculates against him who is, that he may not be, and everywhere puts forward blasphemy in place of reverent language. Suppose someone, after looking into both sides, were asked which of the two he would follow in faith, or which of the two spoke fittingly of God. Or rather, let these supporters of ungodliness say themselves what it would be fitting to answer if someone were asked about God, for “the Word was God.” From this one question the whole case on both sides can be settled. What is it fitting to say? That he was, or that he was not? Always, or before his birth? Eternal, or from this point and from that time? True, or by adoption, by sharing, and in idea? To call him one of the things brought into being, or to unite him to the Father? To consider him unlike the Father in substance, or like him and belonging to him? A creature, or the one through whom the creatures were brought into being? That he is the Father’s Word, or that there is another word besides him, by which he was brought into being, and another wisdom; and that he is only named Wisdom and Word, and has become a sharer in this wisdom, and second to it? [f]

Which of the two ways of speaking about God presents our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Son of the Father: this one, which you have vomited up, or the one we have spoken and hold from the Scriptures? If the Savior is not God, nor Word, nor Son, you may say what you like, and so may the pagans and the Jews of today. But if he is the Word of the Father and true Son, and God from God, and “over all, blessed forever,” is it not right to wipe out and blot out those other phrases and that Arian Thalia, as nothing but a pattern of evil, a storehouse of all ungodliness? Whoever falls into it “does not know that giants perish with her, and reaches the depths of Hades.” They know this themselves, and in their craft they hide it. They do not have the courage to speak out, but say something else. For if they speak, condemnation will follow; and if they are suspected, proofs from Scripture will be thrown at them from every side. So in their craft, as children of this world, after filling their so-called lamp with oil from the wild olive, and fearing that it might soon be put out (for it is said, “the light of the wicked will be put out”), they hide it under the basket of their hypocrisy. They make a different profession, and boast of the patronage of friends and the authority of Constantius, so that between their hypocrisy and their professions, those who come to them may be kept from seeing how foul their heresy is. Is it not detestable in this very thing, that it does not dare to speak openly, but is kept hidden by its own friends and nursed as serpents are? For from what sources have they gathered these words? From whom have they received what they dare to say? They cannot name a single man who supplied it. For who is there in the whole human race, Greek or barbarian, who dares to rank among the creatures one whom he confesses all the while to be God, and says that he did not exist until he was made? Or who is there who refuses to believe the God in whom he has put his faith, when he says, “This is my beloved Son,” on the pretext that he is not a Son but a creature? Rather, such madness would rouse everyone’s indignation. Nor does Scripture give them any pretext. For it has often been shown, and it will be shown now, that their teaching is foreign to the divine sayings. So, since all that remains is to say that their madness came from the devil (for he alone sows such opinions), let us go on to resist him. For our real struggle is with him, and they are only his instruments. Then, with the Lord’s help, and the enemy overcome by arguments as he usually is, they may be put to shame when they see that the one who sowed this heresy in them has nothing left to say. And they may learn, though late, that since they are Arians, they are not Christians. [j]