Chapter 5
the first discourse against the arians chapter five by athanasius of alexandria translated by john henry newman and archibald robertson this librivox recording is in the public domain that the son is eternal and in-create continued when these points are thus proved their profaneness goes further if there never was when the son was not they say but he is eternal and co-exists with the father you call him no more the father's son but brother oh insensate and contentious for if we said only that he was eternally with the father and not his son their pretended scruple would have some plausibility but if while we say that he is eternal we also confess him to be son from the father how can he that is begotten be considered brother of him who begets and if our faith is in father and son what brotherhood is there between them and how can the word be called brother of him whose word he is this is not an objection of men really ignorant for they comprehend how the truth lies but it is a jewish pretence and that from those who in solomon's words through desire separate themselves from the truth
for the father and the son were not generated from some pre-existing origin that we may account them brothers but the father is the origin of the son and begat him and the father is father and not born the son of any and the son is son and not brother further if he is called the eternal offspring of the father he is rightly so called for never was the essence of the father imperfect that what is proper to it should be added afterwards nor as man from man has the son been begotten so as to be later than his father's existence but he is god's offspring and as being proper son of god who is ever he exists eternally for whereas it is proper to men to beget in time from the imperfection of their nature god's offspring is eternal for his nature is ever perfect if then he is not a son but a work made out of nothing they have but to prove it and then they are at liberty as if imagining about a creature to cry out there was once when he was not for things which are originated were not and have come to be
but if he is son as the father says and the scriptures proclaim and son is nothing else than what is generated from the father and what is generated from the father is his word and wisdom and radiance what is to be said but that in maintaining once the sun was not they rob god of his word like plunderers and openly predicate of him that he was once without his proper word and wisdom and that the light was once without radiance and the fountain was once barren and dry for though they pretend alarm at the name of time because of those who reproach them with it and say that he was before times yet whereas they assign certain intervals in which they imagine he was not they are most irreligious still as equally suggesting times and imputing to god an absence of reason but if on the other hand while they acknowledge with us the name of son from an unwillingness to be publicly and generally condemned they deny that the son is the proper offspring of the father's essence on the ground that this must imply parts and divisions
what is this but to deny that he is very son and only in name to call him son at all and is it not a grievous error to have material thoughts about what is immaterial and because of the weakness of their proper nature to deny what is natural and proper to the father it does but remain that they should deny him also because they understand not how god is and what the father is now that foolish men they measure by themselves the offspring of the father and persons in such a state of mind as to consider that there cannot be a son of god demand our pity but they must be interrogated and exposed for the chance of bringing them to their senses if then as you say the son is from nothing and was not before his generation he of course as well as others must be called son and god and wisdom only by participation for thus all other creatures consist and by sanctification are glorified you have to tell us then of what he is partaker all other things partake of the spirit but he according to you of what is he partaker of the spirit nay rather the spirit himself takes from the son
as he himself says and it is not reasonable to say that the latter is sanctified by the former therefore it is the father that he partakes for this only remains to say but this which is participated what is it or whence if it be something external provided by the father he will not now be partaker of the father but of what is external to him and no longer will he be even second after the father since he has before him this other nor can he be called son of the father but of that as partaking which he has been called son and god and if this be unseemly and irreligious when the father says this is my beloved son and when the son says that god is his own father it follows that what is partaken is not external but from the essence of the father and as to this again if it be other than the essence of the son an equal extravagance will meet us there being in that case something between this that is from the father and the essence of the son whatever that be
such thoughts then being evidently unseemly and untrue we are driven to say that what is from the essence of the father and proper to him is entirely the son for it is all one to say god is wholly participated and that he begets and what does begetting signify but a son and thus of the son himself all things partake according to the grace of the spirit coming from him and this shows that the son himself partakes of nothing but what is partaken from the father is the son for as partaking of the son himself we are said to partake of god and this is what peter said that ye may be partakers in a divine nature as says too the apostle know ye not that ye are a temple of god and we are the temple of a living god and beholding the son we see the father for the thought and comprehension of the son is knowledge concerning the father because he is his proper offspring from his essence and since to be partaken no one of us would ever call affection or division of god's essence
for it has been shown and acknowledged that god is participated and to be participated is the same thing as to beget therefore that which is begotten is neither affection nor division of that blessed essence hence it is not incredible that god should have a son the offspring of his own essence nor do we imply affection or division of god's essence when we speak of son and offspring but rather as acknowledging the genuine and true and only begotten of god so we believe if then as we have stated and are showing what is the offspring of the father's essence be the son we cannot hesitate rather we must be certain that the same is the wisdom and word of the father in and through whom he creates and makes all things and his brightness too in whom he enlightens all things and is revealed to whom he will and his expression and image also in whom he is contemplated and known
wherefore he and his father are one and whoso looketh on him looketh on the father and the christ in whom all things are redeemed and the new creation wrought afresh and on the other hand the son being such offspring it is not fitting rather it is full of peril to say that he is a work out of nothing or that he was not before his generation for he who thus speaks of that which is proper to the father's essence already blasphemes the father himself since he really thinks of him what he falsely imagines of his offspring chapter five
