|« Prev||Chapter I. The author distinguishes the faith…||Next »|
The author distinguishes the faith from the errors of Pagans,16701670 Or “Gentiles.” The Christians regarded themselves as placed in the world much as the Hebrews had been planted in the midst of the “nations round about.” Jews, and Heretics, and after explaining the significance of the names “God” and “Lord,” shows clearly the difference of Persons in Unity of Essence.16711671 The Latin word is natura, which, at first sight, seems less abstruse and metaphysical than the Greek οὐσία, or ὑπόστασις, or the Latin essentia and substantia, though it is not really so. A man’s natura, nature, is what he is at and from the beginning; “change of nature” means not an absolute change, but a reformation, a new guidance and treatment of tendencies, passions, powers—some receiving a precedence denied them before, others being suppressed and put in subjection. So God’s “nature” is what He is from and to all eternity, in Himself, unchangingly and unchangeably. In dividing the Essence, the Arians not only bring in the doctrine of three Gods, but even overthrow the dominion of the Trinity.
6. Now this is the
declaration of our Faith, that we say that God is One, neither dividing
His Son from Him, as do the heathen,16721672 Lit.
“the nations”—gentes, τὰ
ἔθνη. The Romans of the
Republic used to speak of foreign peoples—especially if subject
to kings—as gentes exteræ, in contradistinction to
the Populus Romanus. St. Ambrose of course means those who
still clung to the ancient religions, who were foreigners to the
commonwealth (res publica) of the Church. nor
denying, with the Jews, that He was begotten of the Father before all
original is ante tempora—“before the
ages”—“before time was.” Cf.
1 Cor. viii. 6; Phil. ii.
6–8; Col. i. 15
of all creation,” which Justin Martyr interprets as meaning
all created things.”) Hebrews i. 1–12; Rev. i. 8, 18; John
Justin Martyr, Apology, II. 6; Dialogue with Tryphon,
61. Tempora answers to the Greek αἰῶνες, rendered
“worlds” in Heb.
i. 2. and afterwards
born of the Virgin; nor yet, like Sabellius,16741674 Sabellius
was a presbyter in the Libyan Pentapolis (Barca), who came to Rome and
there ventilated his heretical teaching, early in the third century,
a.d. (about 210). He appears to have
maintained that there was no real distinction of Persons in the
Godhead. God, he said, was one individual Person: when
different divine Persons were spoken of, no more was meant than
different aspects of, or the assumption of different parts by, the same
subject. Sabellius thus started from the ordinary usages of the
as denoting (1) a mask, (2) a character or part in a drama.
The Latin persona was used in the same way. Sabellianism
never counted many adherents; its professors were called Patripassians,
because their doctrine was tantamount to asserting that God the Father
was crucified. confounding the Father with the Word,
and so maintaining that Father and Son are one and the same Person; nor
again, as doth Photinus,16751675 Photinus was a
Galatian, who became Bishop of Sirmium (Mitrovitz in Slavonia) in the
fourth century. He taught that Jesus Christ did not exist before
His mother Mary, but was begotten of her by Joseph. The man
Jesus, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting, was enlightened
and guided by the influence of the Logos, or Divine Reason, whereby He
became the Son of God, preeminent over all other prophets and
teachers. holding that the
Son first came into existence in the Virgin’s womb: nor
believing, with Arius,16761676 Arius was a presbyter of
Alexandria; the origin of his heresy, however, is, as Cardinal Newman
has shown, to be sought in Syria rather than in Egypt, in the sophistic
method of the Antiochene schools more than in the mysticism of the
Alexandrian. It was in the year 319 that Arius began to attract
attention by his heterodox teaching, which led eventually to his
excommunication. He found favour, however, with men of
considerable importance in the Church, such as Eusebius of Cæsarea
in Palestine, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Athanasius of Anazarbus, and
others. The question was finally discussed in a synod of bishops
convened, on the summons of the Emperor Constantine, at Nicæa in
Bithynia. The acts of that Council condemned
Arianism—notwithstanding which, the heresy prevailed in the East
till the reign of Theodosius the Great (379–395 a.d.); and having won the acceptance of the Goths, it was
predominant in Gaul and Italy during the fifth century, and in Spain
till the Council of Toledo (589 a.d.), and its
influence affected Christian thought for centuries
afterwards—possibly it is not even yet dead.
Arius urged the following dilemma: “Either the Son is an original Divine Essence; if so we must acknowledge two Gods. Or He was created, formed, begotten; if so, He is not God in the same sense as the Father is God.” Arius himself chose the latter alternative, which St. Ambrose regarded as a lapse into paganism, with its “gods many and lords many,” dii majores and dii minores, and divinities begotten of gods and goddesses.
Arius’s errors are summarized in the anathema appended to the original Nicene Creed. “But those who say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that He had no existence before He was begotten, or that He was formed of things non-existent, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different substance or essence, or is created, mutable, or variable, these men the Catholic and Apostolic Church of God holds accursed.” in a number of diverse Powers,16771677 Compare Eph. i. 21; Col. i. 16. Hierarchies of “Thrones, Dominations, Princedoms, Virtues, Powers,” were characteristic features of the Gnostic systems of the second century. The Gnostics generally thought that the world had been created by an inferior, secondary, limitary power, identified with the God of the Old Testament, whom they distinguished from the true Supreme God. and so, like the benighted heathen, making out more than one God. For it is written: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord thy God is one God.”16781678 The A.V. of 1611 runs thus: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord” (Jahveh our God is one Jahveh).
7. For God and Lord is a name of majesty, a name of power, even as God Himself saith: “The Lord is My name,”16791679 Ex. iii. 15. and as in another place the prophet declareth: “The Lord Almighty is His name.”16801680 “Ego Dominus; hoe est nomen meum.”—Vulg., Is. xlii. 8. “I am the Lord, that is My name.”—A.V. 1611, ibid. God is He, therefore, and Lord, either because His rule is over all, or because He beholdeth all things, and is feared by all, without difference.16811681 The word Θεός, “God,” is derived by most authorities from θεᾶσθαι, which means “to look upon.” Here we have another derivation suggested, viz., from δέος, “fear,” on this ground that God inspires fear.—H. Neither derivation is correct. The best perhaps is given by Herodotus (II. 52), viz., from the verb τίθημι, to place, set, array, the idea being that God is the principal of all order and law.
8. If, then, God is One, one is the name, 203one is the power, of the Trinity. Christ Himself, indeed, saith: “Go ye, baptize the nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”16821682 S. Matt. xxviii. 19. In the name, mark you, not in the names.”16831683 A similar argument in Gal. iii. 16.
9. Moreover, Christ Himself saith: “I and the Father are One.”16841684 S. John x. 30. “One,” said He, that there be no separation of power and nature; but again, “We are,” that you may recognize Father and Son, forasmuch as the perfect Father is believed to have begotten the perfect Son,16851685 Cf. S. Matt. v. 48. and the Father and the Son are One, not by confusion of Person, but by unity of nature.16861686 Athanasian Creed, clause 4.
10. We say, then, that there is one God, not two or three Gods, this being the error into which the impious heresy of the Arians doth run with its blasphemies. For it says that there are three Gods, in that it divides the Godhead of the Trinity; whereas the Lord, in saying, “Go, baptize the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” hath shown that the Trinity is of one power. We confess Father, Son, and Spirit, understanding in a perfect Trinity both fulness of Divinity and unity of power.16871687 Or “perfect fulness of Divinity, and perfect unity of power.”
11. “Every kingdom divided against itself shall quickly be overthrown,” saith the Lord. Now the kingdom of the Trinity is not divided. If, therefore, it is not divided, it is one; for that which is not one is divided. The Arians, however, would have the kingdom of the Trinity to be such as may easily be overthrown, by division against itself. But truly, seeing that it cannot be overthrown, it is plainly undivided. For no unity is divided or rent asunder, and therefore neither age nor corruption has any power over it.16881688 S. Matt. xii. 25; Ps. cii. 25–27; Dan. iv. 3.
|« Prev||Chapter I. The author distinguishes the faith…||Next »|