One Who Was, or One Who Was Not

Arius and his party ranked the Son among the things that come into being, following the teaching of Eusebius, and counted him the same as the things that come into being through him. So they revolted from the truth. When they began this heresy, they used to go about with dishonest phrases they had collected; and even to this day some of them, when they meet boys in the marketplace, question them, not from divine Scripture, but like men bursting with “the abundance of their heart”: “Did he who is make him who was not, from what was not, or him who was? So did he make the Son when he was, or when he was not?” And again: “Is the Unoriginate one or two?” And: “Does he have free will, and yet not change at his own choice, being of a changeable nature? For he is not like a stone, to stay unmoved by himself.” Next they turn to silly women, and in their turn address them in this womanish language: “Did you have a son before you gave birth? Well, just as you did not, so neither was the Son of God before he was begotten.” With such language these disgraceful men make sport and revel, and liken God to men. They pretend to be Christians, but they change God’s glory “into an image made like corruptible man.” [a]

Words so senseless and dull deserved no answer at all. Still, so that their heresy may not seem to have any foundation, it may be right to refute them even here, though it takes us out of our way, especially for the sake of the silly women who are so easily deceived by them. When they speak like this, they ought to have asked an architect whether he can build without materials; and if he cannot, whether it follows that God could not make the universe without materials. Or they should have asked every man whether he can exist without a place; and if he cannot, whether it follows that God is in a place. So they might be put to shame even by their own hearers. Or why is it that when they hear that God has a Son, they deny him by comparing him with themselves, while if they hear that he creates and makes, they no longer raise their human ideas? They ought to apply the same ideas to creation too, and supply God with materials, and so deny that he is Creator, until they end up groveling with the Manichaeans. But the very idea of God rises above such thoughts. On first hearing, a man believes and knows that God exists, not as we exist, and yet exists as God, and that he creates, not as man creates, and yet creates as God. Then it is plain that he also begets, not as men beget, but begets as God. For God does not take man as his pattern. Rather, because God is properly, and alone truly, Father of his Son, we men are also called fathers of our own children; for from him “every fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named.” Their positions seem to make sense while no one examines them; but if anyone examines them by reason, they will be found to deserve much ridicule and mockery. [e]

First of all, take their first question. How dull and vague it is! They do not explain whom they are asking about, so as to allow an answer, but say in the abstract, “he who is,” “him who is not.” Who, then, “is,” and what “is not,” you Arians? Or who “is,” and who “is not”? What are said “to be,” and what “not to be”? For he who is can make things that are not, and things that are, and things that were before. For instance, the carpenter, the goldsmith, and the potter each work by their own craft on materials that already exist, making whatever vessels they please. And the God of all himself took the dust of the earth, which existed and had already been brought into being, and fashioned man; yet that very earth, which once was not, he made at one time by his own Word. If this, then, is what their question means, it is plain that the creature was not before it came into being, and that men work on material that already exists. So their reasoning does not follow, since both “what is” and “what is not” come to be, as these examples show. But if they are speaking about God and his Word, let them complete their question and then ask: Was God, “who is,” ever without Reason? Since he is Light, was he without his ray? Or was he always Father of the Word? Or again in this way: Has the Father “who is” made the Word “who is not,” or does he always have his Word with him, as the offspring that is his own, from his substance? This will show them that they are only presuming and venturing on clever tricks about God and the one who is from him. Who could bear to hear them say that God was ever without Reason? This is what they fall into a second time, though they try in vain to escape it and to hide it with their tricks. Indeed, one would rather not hear them argue at all that God was not always Father, but became so afterward (which their fantasy requires, if his Word once was not), considering how many proofs have already been brought against them. Besides, John says, “The Word was,” and Paul again writes, “who, being the brightness of his glory,” and, “who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.” [f]

They would have done best to keep silent. But since they have not been, it remains to meet their shameless question with a bold question in return. Perhaps, when they see the absurdities that face them in turn, they will stop fighting against the truth. So, after many prayers that God would be gracious to us, we might ask them in our turn: Did God, who is, come to be when he was not? Or was he also before he came into being? When he was, did he make himself? Or is he from nothing, and, being nothing before, did he suddenly appear himself? Such an inquiry is unfitting, both unfitting and very blasphemous; yet it runs parallel with theirs, for the answer they give is full of irreverence. But if it is blasphemous and utterly irreverent to ask such things about God, it will be blasphemous too to ask the like about his Word. Still, to expose a question so senseless and so dull, we must answer like this. Since God is, he was eternally; and since the Father always is, his Radiance always is, which is his Word. And again, God who is has from himself his Word, who also is. Neither has the Word been added, as though he was not before, nor was the Father once without Reason. For this attack on the Son turns the blasphemy back on the Father, as though he had devised for himself a Wisdom and Word and Son from outside; for whichever of these titles you use, you mean the offspring from the Father, as has been said. So this objection of theirs does not hold, and naturally so; for since they deny the Word, the Logos, the questions they ask are without logic. Suppose someone saw the sun and then asked about its radiance, saying, “Did what is make what was, or what was not?” He would be thought not to reason sensibly but to be utterly bewildered, because he imagined that what is from the light was outside it, and was raising questions about when and where and whether it was made. In the same way, to speculate like this about the Son and the Father, and to ask such things, is far greater madness. For it is to think of the Word of the Father as outside him, and idly to call the natural offspring a work, declaring, “He was not before he was begotten.” Moreover, let them take this answer to their question as well: the Father who was made the Son who was, for “the Word was made flesh”; and though he was Son of God, the Father made him also Son of Man at the end of the ages. Unless, of course, they say with the man from Samosata that he did not exist at all until he became man. [h]

This is enough from us in answer to their first question. And now, you Arians, remembering your own words, tell us in your turn: did he who was need one who was not for framing the universe, or one who was? You said that he made his Son for himself out of nothing, as an instrument with which to make the universe. Which then is superior, the one who needs or the one who supplies the need? Or does each not supply what the other lacks? You rather prove the weakness of the Maker, if he did not have the power in himself to make the universe, but provided himself with an instrument from outside, as a carpenter or a shipwright might, who can make nothing without an adze and a saw! Could anything be more irreverent? Yet why should one dwell on how wicked it is, when what has gone before is enough to show that their teaching is mere fantasy? [j]