Contra Arianos Fragmentum

FRAGMENT AGAINST THE ARIANS. In a miscellaneous Vatican codex, Reg. LVII, p. and 7, there exist two leaves written in approximately the eleventh century, in the first of which I recognized part of a sermon on the creed against pagans and Arians, which the Maurist editors place among the spurious Augustinian works, in the appendix of volume VIII, p. 11 ff. In the second leaf, however, which is written in the same hand, I also read a fragment against the Arians, which, as I considered it, I suspected might belong to those treatises of Augustine against the aforementioned heresy which we know to be lost. I myself feel that I pronounce on this matter quite dangerously; for it may be that either a known fragment of Augustine is involved (concerning which I cannot investigate more deeply due to lack of time) or that of some other Father, of whose many writings against the Arians exist, and most of which I have read, yet I do not now recall having read this particular passage in them, although I almost remember having seen something similar somewhere. But what forbids me from presenting the aforementioned leaf to my readers at this point after the Arian fragments; whether it has been published elsewhere or not, it certainly defends Catholic truth well? Indeed, this very objection of the Arians concerning the begotten and unbegotten is proposed and wisely resolved by Basil, Orat. contra Arr., ed. Garn., t. II, p. 194; and Ambrose, De Incarn. sacramento, chh.

and 9; likewise Augustine, On the Trinity, V, 4, who also prefaces concerning that matter thus: "Among the many things which the Arians are accustomed to dispute against the Catholic faith, they seem to set forth for themselves this most cunning device especially when they say," etc. On the parchment is written in chalk the mark of the seventh quire; whence we recognize the remainder to be a fragment from some larger codex..... not taught by the words of human wisdom, but taught by the Spirit. Give back, therefore, heretic, what the Spirit taught; give back so that faith may not be in the wisdom of men, and there will be no heresy. And lest we delay longer, let us come to those things which they are accustomed to oppose to us like an iron wall, saying: "Is the unbegotten and the begotten the same, or not?" so that by the dissimilar sound in the name, the same substance of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit may not appear. According to which form I also ask: if the name "begotten" differs from "unbegotten," so that the substance may not appear the same, then whatever is called unbegotten will be of the same substance, if the name "begotten" differs from "unbegotten." Therefore the Father is called unbegotten and uncreated: and the Son is called begotten and uncreated. If, therefore, in that "unbegotten" and "begotten" differ from each other, then in that they are called "uncreated" and "uncreated," they will be of the same substance. The Holy Spirit also, of whom it is written that he is neither the Father, nor the Son, nor made; what shall be said?

will be unbegotten; but if unbegotten, it will be of the same substance as the world, or as those things which are from nothing. But the world, although it was made, is unbegotten: for it is not the Son, because it was made; therefore it will be what the Father is, who is unbegotten: by which reasoning, if the Holy Spirit also was made, he too will be, like the world, unbegotten. But we have said that the Son is uncreated, for he was not made: therefore whatever was not made will be of the same substance. The Father was not made; the Holy Spirit was not made; the Son was not made: therefore the Holy Spirit, or the Son, will be of the same substance as the Father. The Father is unbegotten, the Holy Spirit is unbegotten, and the world is unbegotten (for they were not born); they will be of the same substance as the Father: but the world was made, while the Father was not made, nor was the Son or the Holy Spirit; therefore only the world will not be of the same substance as the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit. Why, then, do we linger over names and humanly convenient wisdom, and not over those things which Scripture has signified by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are to be believed? For if faith is to be given to names, so that whatever sounds unbegotten or uncreated, it is necessary that whatever was unbegotten or uncreated be of the same substance: and by this reasoning, whatever that may be which is called immortal, or incorrupt, or incorporeal, or uncreated, it would seem to be of the same substance.

The world was made, or those things which are in the world: are those things which were made of the same substance, that is, heaven, earth, air, water? If, therefore, those things which were made are not of the same substance, because they were not born, then the unbegotten and the begotten, which were not made, will be of the same substance, because it is one thing to be born and another to be made: for those things which are made by the will of the maker consist in a diversity of substance; but those things which are born, even from things made, always hold the truth of the same nature. Consider the natures of trees, seeds, cattle, wild beasts, birds, and men; consider also their works, or the dwellings of men, or the lairs of wild beasts, or the nests of birds, or the cells of bees, or the storehouses of ants, or the caves of spiders, or the secret places of all kinds, and in these things which I have mentioned, consider their works. Are they of similar substance? Those things which either generate or are generated are so far from the nature of the generating things that all their works are far from it. Only birth is an indication of the substance that generates itself. Also, the Dominations, Virtues, Powers, Thrones, Principalities were made: are they, because they were made, also called begotten? But if they are not called begotten, because they were made, they will certainly be unbegotten: if they are unbegotten, will they be of the same substance as the Father, who is unbegotten? Therefore, they are called Thrones, Powers, Principalities, Dominations, Virtues: will they be of the same substance, even though there seems to be a diversity of names?

because the diversity of names is a sign of honor, and not of their substance. For when they are called Virtues, Dominations, Thrones, Powers, this is an expression of honors, not a demonstration of substance, which or of what kind they ought to be understood. And indeed all these are said to be incorporeal and incorruptible and immortal and unbegotten; for they are not sons, because there is only one Son, who laid bare the bosom of the Father. Finally, what does the Apostle say about angels? To which of the angels did he ever say, "You are my son, O Lord" (Heb. 1:5)? Therefore, by denying sons, he denied nativity in them, but he did not deny creation. Thus the Apostle says: "Whether Dominations, or Principalities, or Virtues, or Powers, all things were made through him" (Col. 1:16). He said all things were made, not however born. Is it therefore from the fact that they are called either incorporeal or incorruptible or immortal, a confession of their substance, which or of what kind they are, and not rather a denial of passions? For when we say something is incorporeal, we deny a body, but we do not confess a substance. Or when we say incorruptible and immortal, we declare not what it is, but what it does not suffer: for that which is called immortal or incorruptible does not suffer either death or corruption; hence let no one, by so many, such great, and so many names, either say that all things are of the same substance, or again compo...