I am now to give instances of incorrect and unadvisable terms and statements in some of the early Fathers, founded upon the doctrine of the Syncatabasis, as I have drawn it out, which may be taken for Semi-Arianism, and gave some countenance to it, when it was openly professed. And I shall arrange them under three heads, according as they belong to our Lord’s three titles,—the Word, Wisdom, and the Son.
1. The Divine Word
Our Lord, as the Word of God, is considered first, as in the bosom of the Father, next, as proceeding from Him to create, form, and govern the universe. This contrast is sometimes expressed by the terms [endiathetos] and [prophorikos], the internal and the external Word. These terms are taken from heathen philosophy; nor are they often used by the Fathers, but the idea they convey has a Christian meaning, and requires terms equivalent to these to express it, if these, on account of their associations, are inexpedient. Heathen terms are not in themselves inexpedient, since St. John uses the word “Logos,” which the Platonists, as well as Philo, had used before him; and, as these philosophers also use the two words, Endiathetic and Prophoric, in order to denote change of condition in the Eternal Word, which Christianity also acknowledges, it was but natural in Christian writers to follow the precedent of the Apostle, and, as he designated the Second Person of the Trinity the Logos, in like manner to call him Endiathetic, viewed in His relation to God, and Prophoric, viewed in His relation to creation.
The history of the words is this:—Logos, as we know, stands, in Greek, both for reason and for speech; and, since the inward thought is immediately connected with and passes on into language, as its corresponding development, it was natural to consider the mental and vocal act as virtually one, as the common term expressing them suggested, as if a thought were only an inchoate word, and a word only a perfected thought. Hence came the Logos Endiathetic and Prophoric of the Stoics, who thus both distinguished and identified thinking and speaking. Still more appropriately were these terms applied by the Platonists to their Divine Logos, to express his state of repose and then of action. From the Platonists the terms passed over to Christian writers.
It was natural that the latter should thus adopt them; still they did not commonly use them; some of them did, but others looked on them with suspicion, convenient and expressive as they were, for the reason that heretical authors, as well as Platonists, had used them for their own purposes. The one term without the other would obviously be the symbol of a heresy; the Inward Word betokened Sabellianism, and the External, Arianism. Both together might represent the Catholic Truth, and accordingly they are used for the Divine Word as in the bosom of the Father, and as manifested in creation, by St. Theophilus, prior to the Nicene Council, and St. Cyril 1 of Alexandria after it; but, on the whole, they were avoided by the Fathers on account of their associations.
“Nothing essentially belonging to God could be external to God; if, then, Catholics held their Logos to be Prophoric, that was enough to prove that He was not God.” This is what the Arians said, whether that External Word was a Divine action or a Divine Messenger. Hence it was that Catholic writers disowned the Logos Prophoricus. Thus, long before the rise of Arianism, Ignatius had said of our Lord, that He was “God’s Eternal Word, not proceeding from silence,” as a sound or voice does; and Athanasius, with various other Fathers, says that “He is not Prophoric, a sound of words.” Arius, on the other hand, assuming what Athanasius denies, says, “Many words does God speak; which of them is the Son?” To obviate this inference, the Fathers spoke of the Word as a substance, hypostasis, or nature. [Hos ek logikou logos], says Athanasius, [houtos ex hypostaseos hypostatos, kai ex ousias ousiodes kai enousios, kai ex ontos on]. Orat. iv. 1.
Logos was not the only term, which, from its properly denoting an attribute or act, was denied by the Arians, except in a figurative sense, to the Divine Son. Some Latin writers translated it by “Sermo;” which carries with it an idea of imperfection and complexity, since conversation or talking is made up of parts, and has no determinate limits. Tertullian feeling this, though he uses “Sermo” himself, observes, “Ergo das aliquam substantiam esse sermonem? Plane.” adv. Prax. 7. Hence, in contrast, Augustine says of the more usual title, “Verbum,” and in opposition to Arius, as above quoted, “Unus est Deus, Unum Verbum habet; in Uno Verbo omnia continet.” In Joan. Tract. 22.