|
{213} Chapter 7. Objections to the foregoing Proof
1. RANKING Him among these, according to the teaching of Eusebius, and accounting Him such as the things which come into being through Him, the Arians revolted from the truth, and used, when they commenced this heresy, to go about with dishonest phrases which they had got together [Note 1]; nay, up to this time some of them a [Note A], when they fall in with boys in the market-place, question them, not out of divine Scripture, but thus, as if bursting with the abundance of their heart [Matt. xii. 34.];—"He who is, did He make him who was not, from Him who is, or him who was? therefore did He make the {214} Son, whereas He was, or whereas He was not?" [Note B] And again, "Is the Ingenerate one or two?" and "Has He free will, and yet does not alter at His own choice, as being of an alterable nature? for He is not as a stone to remain by Himself unmoveable." Next they turn to women, and address them in turn in this womanish language; "Hadst thou a son before bearing? now, as thou hadst not, so neither was the Son of God before His generation." In such language do the disgraceful men sport and revel, and liken God to men, pretending to be Christians, but changing God's glory into an image made like to corruptible man [Note 2]. § 23. 2. Words so senseless and dull deserve no answer at all; however, lest their heresy appear to have any foundation, it may be right, though we go out of the way for it, to refute them even here, especially on account of the women who are so readily deceived by them. When they thus speak, they should inquire of an architect, whether he can build without materials; and if He cannot, whether it follows that God could not make the universe without materials [Note 3]. Or they should ask every man, whether he can be without place; and if he cannot, whether it follows that God is in place [Note 4]; that so they may be brought to shame even by their audience. Or why is it that, on hearing that God has a Son, they deny Him by the parallel of themselves; whereas, if they hear that He creates and makes, no longer do they object their human ideas? they ought in creation also to entertain the same, and to supply God with materials, and so deny Him to be Creator, till they end in herding with Manichees. But if the bare idea of God transcends such thoughts, and, on very first hearing, a man believes and knows that He is in being, not as we are, and yet in being as God, and creates not as man creates, but yet creates as God, it is plain that He begets also not as men beget, but begets as God. For God does {215} not make man His pattern; but rather we men, for that God is properly, and alone truly [Note 5], Father of His Son, are also called fathers of our own children; for of Him is every fatherhood in heaven and earth named [Eph. iii. 15.]. And their positions, while unscrutinized, have a shew of sense; but if any one scrutinize them by reason, they will but bring on them derision and mockery. § 24. 3. For first of all, as to their first question, which is such as this, how dull and vague it is! they do not explain who it is they ask about, so as to allow of an answer, but they say abstractedly, "He who is," "him who is not." Who then "is," and what "are not," O Arians? or who "is," and who "is not?" what are said "to be," what "not to be?" for He that is, can make things which are not, and which are, and which were before. For instance, carpenter, and goldsmith, and potter, each, according to his own art, works upon materials previously existing, making what vessels he pleases; and the God of all Himself, having taken the dust of the earth existing and already brought to be, fashions man; that very earth, however, whereas it was not once, He has at one time made by His own Word. If then this is the meaning of their question, the creature on the one hand plainly was not before its generation, and men, on the other, work the existing material; and thus their reasoning is inconsequent, since both "what is" becomes, and "what is not" becomes, as these instances show. But if they speak concerning God and His Word, let them complete their question and then ask, Was the God "who is" ever without rational Word [Note 6]? and, whereas He is Light, was He ray-less? or was He always Father of the Word? Or again in this manner, Has the Father "who is" made the Word "who is not," or has He ever with Him His Word, as the proper offspring of His substance? This will shew them that they do but presume and venture on sophisms about God and Him who is from Him. Who indeed can bear to hear them say that God was ever without rational Word? this is what they fall into a second tune, though endeavouring in vain to escape it and to hide it with their sophisms. Nay, one would fain not hear them disputing at all, that God was not always Father, but became so afterwards, (which is necessary for their fantasy, that his Word {216} once was not,) considering the number of the proofs already adduced against them; while John besides says, The Word was [John i. 1.], and Paul again writes, Who being the brightness of His glory [Heb. i. 3.], and, Who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen [Rom. ix. 5.]. § 25. 4. They had best have been silent; but since it is otherwise, it remains to meet their shameless question with a bold retort [Note 7]. Perhaps on seeing the counter absurdities which beset themselves, they may cease to fight against the truth. After many prayers [Note C] then that God would be gracious to us, thus we might ask them in turn; God who is, has He so become [Note 8], whereas He was not? or is He also before His generation [Note 9]? whereas He is, did He make Himself, or is He of nothing, and being nothing before, did He suddenly appear Himself? Indecent is such an enquiry, yea, indecent and very blasphemous, yet parallel with theirs; for the answer they make, abounds in irreligion. But if it be blasphemous and utterly irreligious thus to inquire about God, it will be blasphemous too to make the like inquiries about His Word. 5. However, by way of exposing a question so senseless and so dull, it is necessary to answer thus:—whereas God is, He was eternally; since then the Father is ever, His Radiance ever is, which is His Word. And again, God who is, hath from Himself His Word who also is; and neither hath the Word been added [Note 10], whereas He was not before, nor was the Father once without a Word. For this assault upon the Son makes the blasphemy recoil upon the Father; as if He devised for Himself a Wisdom, and Word, and Son from without [Note 11]; for whichever of these titles you use, you denote the offspring from the Father, as has been said. So that this their objection does not hold; and naturally; for denying the Word they in consequence ask questions which are irrational [Note 12]. As then if a person saw the sun, and then inquired concerning its radiance, and said, "Did that which is make {217} that which was, or that which was not," he would be held not to reason sensibly, but to be utterly mazed, because he fancied what is from the Light to be external to it, and was raising questions, when and where and whether it were made; in like manner, thus to speculate concerning the Son and the Father and thus to inquire, is far greater madness, for it is to conceive of the Word of the Father as external to Him, and to image the natural offspring as a work, with the avowal, "He was not before His generation." 6. Nay, let them over and above take this answer to their question;—The Father who was, made the Son who was, for the Word was made flesh [John i. 14.]; and, whereas He was Son of God, He made Him in consummation of the ages also Son of Man, unless forsooth, after Samosatene, they affirm that He did not even exist at all, till He became man. § 26. 7. This is sufficient from us in answer to their first question; and now on your part, O Arians, remembering your own words, tell us whether He who was needed Him who was not for the framing of the universe, or Him who was? Ye said that He made for Himself His Son out of nothing, as an instrument whereby to make the universe. Which then is superior, that which needs or that which supplies the need? or does not each supply the deficiency of the other? Ye rather prove the weakness of the Maker, if He had not power of Himself to make the universe, but provided for Himself an instrument from without [Note D], as carpenter might do or wright, unable to work any thing, without axe and saw? Can any thing be more irreligious! yet why should one dwell on its heinousness, when enough has gone before to shew that their doctrine is a mere fantasy? {218} Chapter 8. Objections continued
1. NOR is answer needful to their other very simple and foolish inquiry, which they put to women; or none besides that which has been already given, namely, that it is not suitable to measure divine generation by the nature of men. However, that as before they may pass judgment on themselves, it is well to meet them on the same ground, thus:—Plainly, if they inquire of parents concerning their son, let them consider whence is the child which is begotten. For, granting the parent had not a son before his begetting, still, after having him, he had him, not as external or as foreign, but as from himself, and proper to his substance and his unvarying image, so that the former is beheld in the latter, and the latter is contemplated in the former. If then they assume from human examples that generation implies time, why not from the same infer that it implies the Natural and the Proper [Note A], instead of extracting serpent-like from the earth only what turns to poison? Those who ask of parents, {219} and say, "Hadst thou a son before thou didst beget him?" should add, "And if thou hadst a son, didst thou purchase him from without as a house or any other possession?" [Note 13] And then thou wouldest be answered, "He is not from without, but from myself." For things which are from without are possessions, and pass from one to another; but my son is from me, proper and similar to my substance [Note 14], not become mine from another, but begotten of me; wherefore I too am wholly in him, while I remain myself what I am." [Note B] For so it is; though the parent be distinct in time, as being man, who himself has come to be in time, yet he too would have had his child ever coexistent with him, but that his nature was a restraint and made it impossible. For Levi too was already in the loins of his great-grandfather, before his own generation, and his grandfather begot him. When then the man comes to that age at which nature supplies the power, immediately, with nature unrestrained, he becomes father of the son from himself. § 27. Therefore, if on asking parents about children, they get for answer, that children which are by nature are not from without, but from their parents, let them confess in like manner concerning the Word of God, that He is simply from the Father. And if they make a question of the time, let them say what is to restrain God (for it is {220} necessary to prove their irreligion on the very ground on which their scoff is made), let them tell us, what is there to hinder God from being always Father of the Son; for that what is begotten must be from its father is undeniable. 2. Moreover, they will pass judgment on themselves in attributing such timings to God, if, as they questioned women on the subject of time, so they inquire of the sun concerning its radiance, and of the fountain concerning its issue [Note 15]. They will find that these, though an offspring, always exist with those things from which they are [Note C]. And if parents, such as these, have in common with their children nature and duration, why, if they suppose God inferior to things that come to be [Note D], do they not openly say out their own irreligion? But if they do not dare to say this openly, and the Son is confessed to be, not from without, but a natural offspring from the Father, and that there is nothing which is a hindrance to God, (for not as man is He, but more than the sun, or rather the God of the sun,) it follows that the Word co-exists with the Father both as from Him and as ever, through whom the Father caused that all things which were not should be. That then the Son comes not of nothing but is eternal and from the Father, is certain even from the nature of the case; and the question of the heretics to parents exposes their perverseness; for they confess the point of nature, and now have been put to shame on the point of time. § 28. 3. As we said above, so now we repeat, that the divine generation must not be compared to the nature of men, nor the Son considered to be part of God, nor generation to imply any passion whatever; God is not as man; for men beget passibly, having a transitive nature, which waits for periods by reason of its weakness. But with God this cannot be; for He is not composed of parts, but being impassible and simple, He is impassibly and {221} indivisibly Father of the Son [Note 16]. This again is strongly evidenced and proved by divine Scripture. For the Word of God is His Son, and the Son is the Father's Word and Wisdom; and Word and Wisdom is neither creature nor part of Him whose Word He is, nor an offspring passibly begotten. Uniting then the two titles [Note 17], Scripture speaks of "Son," in order to herald the offspring of His substance natural and true; and, on the other hand, that none may think of the Offspring humanly, while signifying His substance, it also calls Him Word, Wisdom, and Radiance; to teach us that the generation was impassible, and eternal, and worthy of God [Note E]. What affection then, or what part of the Father is the Word and the Wisdom and the Radiance? So much may be impressed even on these men of folly; for as they asked women concerning God's Son, so [Note 18] let them inquire of men concerning the Word, and they will find that the word which they put forth is neither an affection of them nor a part of their mind. But if such be the word of men, who are passible and partitive, why speculate they about passions and parts in the instance of the immaterial and indivisible God, that under pretence of reverence [Note F] they may deny the true and natural generation of the Son? {222} 4. Enough was said above to shew that the offspring from God is not an affection; and now it has been shewn in particular that the Word is not begotten according to affection. The same may be said of Wisdom; God is not as man; nor must they here think humanly of Him. For, whereas men are capable of wisdom, God partakes in nothing, but is Himself the Father of His own Wisdom, of which whoso partakes is given the name of wise. And this Wisdom is not a passion, nor a part, but an Offspring proper to the Father. Wherefore He is ever Father, nor is the character of Father adventitious [Note 19] to God, lest He seem alterable; for if it is good that He be Father, yet He has not ever been Father, then good has not ever been in Him. § 29. 5. But, observe, say they, God was always a Maker, nor is the power of framing adventitious to Him; does it follow then, that, because He is the Framer of all, therefore His works also are eternal, and is it wicked to say of them too, that they were not before generation? Senseless are these Arians; for what likeness is there between Son and Work, that they should parallel a father's with a maker's function? How is it that, with that difference between offspring and work, which has been shewn, they remain so ill-instructed? Let it be repeated then, that a work is external to the nature, but a son is the proper offspring of the substance; it follows that a work need not have been always, for the workman frames it when he will; but an offspring is not subject to will, but is proper to the substance [Note 20]. And a man may be and may be {223} called Maker, though the works are not as yet; but father he cannot be called, nor can he be, unless a son exist. And if they curiously inquire why God, though always with the power to make, does not always make, (though this also be the presumption of madmen, for who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His Counsellor [Rom. xi. 24.]? or how shall the thing formed say to the potter, why hast thou made me thus [Ib. ix. 20.]? however, not to leave even a weak argument unnoticed,) they must be told, that although God always had the power to execute, yet the things generated had not the power of being eternal [Note G]. For they are out of nothing, and therefore were not before their generation; but things which were not before their generation, how could these co-exist with the ever-existing God? Wherefore God, looking to what was good for them, then made them all when He saw that, when produced, they were able to abide. And as, though He was able, even from the beginning in the time of Adam, or Noe, or Moses, to send His own Word, yet He sent Him not until the consummation of the ages; for this He saw to be good for the whole creation, so also things generated did He make when He would, and as was good for them. But the Son, not being a work, but proper to the Father's offspring, always is; for, whereas the Father always is, so what is proper to His substance must always be; and this is His Word and His Wisdom. And that creatures should not be in existence, does not disparage the Maker; for He hath the power of framing them, when He wills; but for the offspring not to be ever with the Father, is a disparagement of the perfection of His substance. Wherefore His works were framed, when He would, through His Word; but the Son is ever the proper offspring of the Father's substance. {224} Chapter 9. Objections continued
§ 30. 1. THESE considerations encourage the faithful, and distress the heretical, perceiving, as they do, their heresy over-thrown thereby. Moreover, their further question "whether the Ingenerate be one or two," [Note A] shews how false are their views, how treacherous and full of guile. Not for the Father's honour ask they this, but for the dishonour of the Word. Accordingly, should any one, not aware of their craft, answer, "the Ingenerate is one," forthwith they spirt out their own venom, saving, "Therefore the Son is among things generate, and well have we said, He was not before His generation." Thus they make any kind of disturbance {225} and confusion, provided they can but separate the Son from the Father, and reckon the Framer of all among His works. Now first they may be convicted on this score, that, while blaming the Nicene Bishops for their use of phrases not in Scripture, though these not injurious, but subversive of their irreligion, they themselves went off upon the same fault, that is, using words not in Scripture [Note 21], and those in contumely of the Lord, knowing neither what they say nor whereof they affirm [1 Tim. i. 7.]. For instance, let them ask the Greeks, who have been their instructors, (for it is a word of their invention, not Scripture,) and when they have been instructed in its various significations, then they will discover that they cannot even question properly, on the subject which they have undertaken. For they have led me to ascertain [Note 22] that by "ingenerate" is meant what has not yet come to be, but is possible to be, as wood which is not yet become, but is capable of becoming, a vessel; and again what neither has nor ever can come to be, as a triangle quadrangular, and an even number odd. For neither has nor ever can a triangle become quadrangular; nor has ever, nor can ever, even become odd. Moreover, by "ingenerate," is meant, what exists, but not generated from any, nor having a father at all. Further, Asterius, that unprincipled sophist, the patron too of this heresy, has added in his own treatise, that what is not made, but is ever, is "ingenerate." [Note B] They ought then, when they ask the question, to add in what sense they take the word "ingenerate," and then the parties questioned would be able to answer to the point. § 31. 2. But if they still are satisfied with merely asking, "Is the Ingenerate one or two?" they must be told first of all, as ill-educated men, that many are such and nothing is such, many which are capable of generation, and nothing is not {226} capable, as has been said. But if they ask according as Asterius ruled it, as if "what is not a work but was always" were ingenerate, then they must constantly be told that the Son as well as the Father must in this sense be called ingenerate. For He is neither in the number of things generated, nor a work, but has ever been with the Father, as has already been shewn, in spite of their many variations for the sole sake of testifying against the Lord, "He is of nothing" and "He was not before His generation." When then, after failing at every turn, they betake themselves to the other sense of the question, "existing but not generated of any nor having a father," we shall tell them that the Ingenerate in this sense is only one, namely the Father; and they will take nothing by their question [Note C]. For to say that God is in this sense Ingenerate, does not shew that the Son is a thing generate, it being evident from the above proofs that the Word is such as He is who begat Him. Therefore if God be ingenerate, His Image is not generate, but an Offspring [Note 23], which is his Word and his Wisdom. For what likeness has the generate to the Ingenerate? (one must not weary to use repetition;) for if they will have it that the one is like the other, so that He who sees the one beholds the other, they are like to say that the Ingenerate is the image of creatures; the end of which is a confusion of the whole subject, an equalling of things generated with the Ingenerate, and a denial of the Ingenerate by measuring Him with the works; and all to reduce the Son into their number. § 32. 3. However, I suppose even they will be unwilling to proceed to such lengths, if they follow Asterius the sophist. For he, earnest as he is in his advocacy of the Arian heresy, and maintaining that the Ingenerate is one, runs counter to them in saying, that the Wisdom of God is ingenerate and unoriginate also; the following is a passage out of his work [Note 24]: "The Blessed Paul said not that he preached Christ the power of God or the wisdom of God, but, without the article, God's power and God's wisdom [1Cor. i. 24.]; thus preaching that the proper power of God Himself, which is natural to Him and {227} co-existent with Him ingenerately, is something besides." And again, soon after: "However, His eternal power and wisdom, which truth argues to be unoriginate and ingenerate; this must surely be one." For though misunderstanding the Apostle's words, he considered that there were two wisdoms; yet, by speaking still of a wisdom co-existent with Him, he declares that the Ingenerate is not simply one, but that there is another ingenerate with Him. For what is co-existent, co-exists not with itself, but with another. If then they agree with Asterius, let them never ask again, "Is the Ingenerate one or two," or they will have to contest the point with him; if, on the other hand, they differ even from him, let them not take up their defence upon his treatise, lest, biting one another, they be consumed one of another [Gal. v. 15.]. 4. So much on the point of their ignorance; but who can say enough on their want of principle? who but would justly hate them while possessed by such a madness? for when they were no longer allowed to say "out of nothing" and "He was not before his generation," they hit upon this word "ingenerate," that, by saying among the simple that the Son was generate, they might imply the very same phrases "out of nothing," and "He once was not;" for in such phrases things generate and creatures are implied. § 33. If they have confidence in their own positions, they should stand to them, and not change about so variously [Note 25]; but this they will not, from an idea that success is easy, if they do but shelter their heresy under colour of the word "ingenerate." Yet after all, this term is not used in contrast with the Son, clamour as they may, but with things generate; and the like may be found in the words "Almighty" and "Lord of the Powers." [Note D] For if we say that the Father has power and mastery over all things by the Word, and the Son rules the Father's kingdom, and has the power of all, as His Word, and as the Image of the Father, it is quite plain that neither {228} here is the Son reckoned among that all, nor is God called Almighty and Lord with reference to Him, but to those things which through the Son come to be, and over which He exercises power and mastery through the Word. And therefore the Ingenerate is specified not by contrast to the Son, but to the things which through the Son come to be. And excellently: since God is not as things generate, but is their Creator and Framer through the Son. And as the word "Ingenerate" is specified relatively to things generate, so the word "Father" is indicative of the Son. And he who names God Maker and Framer and Ingenerate, regards and apprehends things created and generated; and he who calls God Father, thereby conceives and contemplates the Son. And hence one might marvel at the obstinacy which is added to their irreligion, that, whereas the term "ingenerate" has the aforesaid good sense, and admits of being used religiously [Note 26], they, in their own heresy, bring it forth for the dishonour of the Son, not having read that he who honoureth the Son honoureth the Father, and he who dishonoureth the Son, dishonoureth the Father [vid. John v. 23.]. If they had any concern at all [Note E] for reverent speaking and the honour due to the Father, it became them rather, and this were better and higher, to acknowledge and call God Father, than to give Him this name. For, in calling God ingenerate, they are, as I said before, calling Him from His works, and as Maker only and Framer, supposing that hence they may imply that the Word is a work after their own measure. But that he who calls God Father, names Him from the Son, being well aware that if there be a Son, of necessity through that Son all things generate were created. And they, when they call Him Ingenerate, name Him only from His works, and know not the Son any more than the Greeks; but he who calls God Father, names Him from the Word; and knowing the Word, he acknowledges Him to be Framer of all, and understands that through Him all things were made. § 34. 5. Therefore it is more pious and more accurate to denote God from the Son and call Him Father, than to name Him from His works only and call Him Ingenerate [Note F]. For the {229} latter title, as I have said, does nothing more than refer to all the works, individually and collectively, which have come to be at the will of God through the Word; but the title Father, has its significance and its bearing [Note 27] only from the Son. And, whereas the Word surpasses things generate, by so much and more doth calling God Father surpass the calling Him Ingenerate. For the latter is unscriptural and suspicious, because it has various senses; so that, when a man is asked concerning it, his mind is carried about to many ideas; but the word Father is simple and scriptural, and more accurate, and only implies the Son. And "Ingenerate" is a word of the Greeks, who know not the Son; but "Father," has been acknowledged and vouchsafed by our Lord. For He, knowing Himself whose Son He was, said, I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me; and, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father, and I and the Father are One [John xiv. 10. 9; x. 30.] [Note G]; but no where is He found to call the Father Ingenerate. Moreover, when He teaches us to pray, He says not, "When ye pray, say, O God Ingenerate," but rather, When ye pray, say, Our Father, which art in heaven [Luke xi. 2.]. And it was His will that the Summary [Note 28] of our faith should have the same bearing, in bidding us be baptized, not into the name of Ingenerate and generate, nor into the name of Creator and creature, but into the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For with such an initiation we too, being of the works, are made sons, and using the name of the Father, acknowledge from that name the Word in the Father Himself also [Note H]. A vain thing then is their argument about the term "Ingenerate," as is now proved, and nothing more than a fantasy. FootnotesA. This miserable procedure, of making sacred and
mysterious subjects a matter of popular talk and debate, which is a
sure mark of heresy, had received a great stimulus about this time by
the rise of the Anomœans. Eusebius's testimony to the profaneness
which attended Arianism upon its rise, has been given above, p. 75,
note H. The Thalia is another instance of it. S. Alexander speaks of
the interference, even judicial, in its behalf against himself, of
disobedient women, [di' entuchias gunaikarion atakton
ha epatesan], and of the busy and indecent gadding
about of the younger, [ek tou peritrochazein pasan aguian asmenos].
Ap. Theod. Hist. i. 3, p 730, also p. 747; also of the men's buffoon
conversation, p. 731. Socrates says that "in the Imperial Court,
the officers of the bedchamber held disputes with the women, and in
the city in every house there was a war of dialectics." Hist. ii.
2. This mania raged especially in Constantinople; and S. Gregory Naz.
speaks of "Jezebels in as thick a crop as hemlock in a
field." Orat. 35. 3. vid. supr. p. 91, note Q. He speaks of the
heretics as "aiming at one thing only, how to make good or refute
points of argument," making "every market-place resound with
their words, and spoiling every entertainment with their trifling and
offensive talk." Orat. 27. 2. The most remarkable testimony of
the kind though not concerning Constantinople, is given by S. Gregory
Nyssen, and often quoted, "Men of yesterday and the day before,
mere mechanics, off-hand dogmatists in theology, servants too and
slaves that have been flogged, runaways from servile work, are solemn
with us and philosophical about things incomprehensible ... With such
the whole city is full; its smaller gates, forums, squares,
thoroughfares; the clothes-venders, the money-lenders, the victuallers.
Ask about pence, and he will discuss the Generate and Ingenerate;
inquire the price of bread, he answers, Greater is the Father, and the
Son is subject; say that a bath would suit you, and he defines that
the Son is made out of nothing." t. 2, p. 898. B.
This objection is found in Alex. Ep. Encycl. 2. [ho on theos
ton me onta ek tou me ontos]. Again, [onta gegenneke
e ouk onta]. Greg. Orat. 29. 9. who answers it.
Pseudo-Basil, contr. Eunom. iv. p. 281, 2. Basil calls the question [poluthrulleton],
contr. Eunom. ii. 14. It will be seen to be but the Arian formula of "He
was not before His generation," in another shape; being but this, that
the very fact of His being begotten, or a Son, implies a
beginning, that is, a time when He was not; it being by the very force
of the words absurd to say that "God begat Him that was," or to
deny that "God begat Him that was not." For the symbol, [ouk
en prin gennethei], vid. note at the end of
this Discourse. C.
This cautious and reverent way of speaking is a characteristic of S.
Athanasius. "I had come to the resolution to be silent at this time,
but on the exhortation of your holiness, &c. I have in few words
written this Epistle, and even this hardly, of which do you supply the
defects." &c. ad Serap. i. 1. vid. ii. init. ad. Epict. 13 fin. ad
Max. init. Præf. ad Monach. "The unwearied habit of the religious man
is to worship the All ([to pan]) in silence, and to hymn God
his benefactor with thankful cries, … but since," &c. contr.
Apoll. i. init. "I must ask another question, bolder, yet with a
religious intention; be propitious, O Lord, &c." Orat. iii. 63
[infra p. 490]. vid. p 20, ref. 1. p. 25, note C. p. 153, note D. D.
[organon], vid. p. 12, note Z. p. 118. note N. p. 62, note F.
This was alleged by Arius, Socr. i. 6. and by Eusebius, Eccles. Theol.
i. 8. supr. p. 62, note F. and by the Anomœans, supr. p. 12, note X. A.
supr. p. 10, note N. The question was, What was that sense of
Son which would apply to the Divine Nature? The Catholics said that
its essential meaning could apply, viz. consubstantiality,
whereas the point of posteriority to the Father depended on a
condition, time, which could not exist in the instance of God.
p. 16, note K. The Arians on the other hand said, that to suppose a
true Son, was to think of God irreverently, as implying division,
change, &c. The Catholics replied that the notion of materiality
was quite as foreign from the Divine Essence as time, and as the
Divine Sonship was eternal, so was it also clear both of imperfection
or extension. B.
It is from expressions such as this that the Greek Fathers have been
accused of tritheism. The truth is, every illustration, as being
incomplete on one or other side of it, taken by itself, tends to
heresy. The title Son by itself suggests a second God, as the title
Word a mere attribute, and the title Instrument a creature. All
heresies are partial views of the truth, and are wrong, not so much in
what they say, as in what they deny. The truth, on the other hand, is
a positive and comprehensive doctrine, and in consequence necessarily
mysterious and open to misconception. vid. p. 43, note D. p. 140, note
N. When Athan. implies that the Eternal Father is in the Son, though
remaining what He is, as a man in his child, he is intent only upon
the point of the Son's connaturality and equality, which the Arians
denied. In like manner he says in a later Discourse, "In the Son
the Father's Godhead is beheld. The Emperor's countenance and form are
in his Image, and the countenance of his Image is in the Emperor. For
the Emperor's likeness in his Image is an unvarying likeness, [aparallaktos],
so that he who looks upon the Image, in it sees the Emperor, and again
he who sees the Emperor, recognises that he is in the Image. The Image
then might say, 'I and the Emperor are one.'" Orat. iii. § 5
[infra p. 405]. And thus the Auctor de Trin. refers to "Peter,
Paul, and Timothy having three subsistencies and one humanity." i.
p. 918. S. Cyril even seems to deny that each individual man may be
considered a separate substance except as the Three Persons are such
(Dial. i. p. 409): and S. Gregory Nyssen is led to say that, strictly
speaking, the abstract man, which is predicated of separate
individuals, is still one, and this with a view of illustrating the
Divine Unity. ad Ablab. t. 2. p. 449. vid. Petav. de Trin. iv. 9. C.
The question is not, whether in matter of fact, in the particular
case, the rays would issue after, and not with the first existence of
the luminous body; for the illustration is not used to shew how
such a thing may be, or to give an instance of it, but to
convey to the mind a correct idea of what it is proposed to
teach in the Catholic doctrine. D.
S. Athanasius's doctrine is, that, God containing in Himself all
perfection, whatever is excellent in one created thing above another,
is found in its perfection in Him. If then such generation as radiance
from light is more perfect than that of children from parents, that
belongs, and transcendently, to the All-perfect God. E.
This is a view familiar to the Fathers, viz. that in this consists our
Lord's Sonship, that He is the Word, or as S. Augustine says, Christum
ideo Filium quia Verbum. Aug. Ep. 120. 11. "If God is the Father of a
Word, why is not He which is begotten a Son?" de Decr. § 17. .supr.
p. 27: "If I speak of Wisdom, I speak of His offspring;" Theoph. ad
Autolyc. i. 3: "The Word, the genuine Son of Mind;" Clem. Protrept. p.
58. Petavius discusses this subject accurately with reference to the
distinction between Divine generation and Divine Procession. de Trin.
vii. 14. F.
Heretics have frequently assigned reverence as the cause of their
opposition to the Church; and if even Arius affected it, the plea may
be expected in any other. "O stultos et impios metus," says
S. Hilary, "et irreligiosam de Deo sollicitudinem." de Trin.
iv. 6. It was still more commonly professed in regard to the Catholic
doctrine of the Incarnation. Thus Manes, Absit ut Dominum nostrum
Jesum Christum per naturalia mulieris descendisse confitear; ipse enim
testimonium dat, quia de sinibus Patris descendit. Archel. Disp. p.
185. "We, as saying that the Word of God is incapable of
defilement, even by the assumption of mortal and vulnerable flesh,
fear not to believe that He is born of a Virgin; ye" Manichees,
"because with impious perverseness ye believe the Son of God to
be capable of it, dread to commit Him to the flesh." August.
contr. Secund. 9. Faustus "is neither willing to receive Jesus of
the seed of David, nor made of a woman ... nor the death of Christ
itself, and burial, and resurrection," &c. August. contr.
Faust xi. 3. As the Manichees denied our Lord a body, so the
Apollinarians denied Him a rational soul, still under pretence of
reverence, because, as they said, the soul was necessarily sinful.
Leontius makes this their main argument, [ho nous hamartetikos
esti], de Sect. iv. p. 507. vid. also Greg. Naz. Ep. 101, ad
Cledon. p. 89; Athan. in Apoll. i. 2. 14. Epiph. Ancor. 79. 80. Athan.
&c. call the Apollinarian doctrine Manichean in consequence. vid.
in Apoll. ii. 8. 9. &c. Again, the Eranistes in Theodoret, who
advocates a similar doctrine, will not call our Lord man.
"I consider it important to acknowledge an assumed nature,
but to call the Saviour of the world man
is to impair our Lord's glory." Eranist. ii. p. 83. Eutyches, on
the other hand, would call our Lord man,
but refused to admit His human nature,
and still with the same profession. "Ego," he says, "sciens
sanctos et beatos patres nostros refutantes duarum
naturarum vocabulum, et non audens
de naturâ tractare Dei Verbi, qui in carnem venit, in veritate non in
phantasmate homo factus,"
&c. Leon. Ep. 21. 1 fin. "Forbid it," he says at
Constantinople, "that I should say that the Christ was of two
natures, or should discuss the nature, [physiologein], of my
God." Concil. t. 2,
p. 157 [in Act. prima conc. Chalc. t. iv. 1001 ed. Col.]. And so in
this day popular Tracts have been published, ridiculing St. Luke's
account of our Lord's nativity under pretence of reverence towards the
God of all, and interpreting Scripture allegorically on Pantheistic
principles. A modern argument for Universal Restitution takes the same
form: "Do not we shrink
from the notion of another's being sentenced to eternal punishment;
and are we more merciful than
God?" vid. Matt. xvi. 22, 23. G.
Athan.'s argument is as follows: that, as it is of the essence
of a son to be connatural with the father, so is it of the essence
of a creature to be of nothing, [ex ouk onton];
therefore, while it was not impossible from the nature of
the case, for Almighty God to be always Father, it was
impossible for the same reason that He should be always a Creator.
vid. infr. § 58 [p. 263]: where he takes, "They shall perish," in the
Psalm, not as a fact but as the definition of the nature of a
creature. Also ii. § 1 [infra p. 282], where lie says, "It is proper
to creatures and works to have said of them, [ex ouk onton]
and [ouk en prin gennethei]." vid. Cyril.
Thesaur. 9. p. 67. Dial. ii. p. 460. on the question of being a
Creator in posse, vid. supra, p. 65. note M. A.
The word [agenneton] was in the philosophical schools
synonymous with "God;" hence by asking whether there were two
Ingenerates, the Anomœans implied that there were two Gods, if Christ
was God in the sense in which the Father was. Hence Athan. retorts, [phaskontes,
ou legomen duo ageneta, legousi duo theous]. Orat. iii. 16
[infra p. 423]; also ii. 38. Plato used [agenneton] of
the Supreme God (supr. p. 51, note B); the Valentinians, Tcrtull.
contr. Val. 7; and Basilides, Epiph. Hær. 31. 10. S. Clement uses it,
supr. p. 147, note T; and S. Ignatius applies it to the Son, p. 147.
S. Dionysius Alex. puts as an hypothesis in controversy the very
position of the Anomœans, on which their whole argument turned. ap.
Euseb. Præp. vii. 19. viz. that [he agennesia]
is the very [ousia] of God, not an attribute. Their view is
drawn out at length in Epiph. Hær. 76. S. Athanasius does not go into
this question, but rather confines himself to the more popular form of
it, viz. the Son is by His very name not [agennetos],
but [gennetos], but all [genneta] are
creatures; which he answers, as de Decr. § 28. supr. p. 53, by saying
that Christianity had brought in a new idea into theology, viz. the
sacred doctrine of a true Son, [ek tes ousias]. This was
what the Arians had originally denied, [hen to agenneton hen
de to hyp' autou alethos, kai ouk ek tes ousias
autou]. Euseb. Nic. ap. Theod. Hist. i. 5. When they were urged what
according to them was the middle idea to which the Son answered, if
they would not accept the Catholic, they would not define but merely
said, [gennema, all' ouk hos hen ton gennematon],
vid. p. 10, note U. B.
The two first senses here given answer to the two first mentioned, de
Decr. § 28. and, as he there says, are plainly irrelevant. The third
in the de Decr. which, as he there observes, is ambiguous and used for
a sophistical purpose, is here divided into third and fourth,
answering to the two senses which alone are assigned in the de Syn. §
46. and on them the question turns. This is an instance, of which many
occur, how Athan. used his former writings and worked over again his
former ground, and simplified or cleared what he had said. In the de
Deer. A.D. 350, we have three senses of [agenneton],
two irrelevant and the third ambiguous; here in Orat. 1. (358,) he
divides the third into two; in the de Syn. (359,) he rejects and omits
the two first, leaving the two last, which are the critical senses. C.
These two senses of [agenneton] unbegotten and unmade
were afterwards expressed by the distinction of [nn] and [n],
[agenneton] and [ageneton]. vid. Damasc.
F. O. i. 8. p. 135. and Le Quien's note. D.
The passage which follows is written with his de Decr. before him. At
first he but uses the same topics, but presently he incorporates into
this Discourse an actual portion of his former work, with only such
alterations as an author commonly makes in transcribing. This, which
is not unfrequent with Athan. shews us the care with which he made his
doctrinal statements, though they seem at first sight written off. It
also accounts for the diffuseness and repetition which might be
imputed to his composition, what seems superfluous being often only
the insertion of an extract from a former work. E.
Here he begins a close transcript of the de Decr. § 30. supr. p. 55.
the last sentence, however, of the paragraph being an addition. F.
The arguments against the word Ingenerate here brought together are
also found in Basil, contr. Eunom. i. 5. p. 215. Greg. Naz. Orat. 31.
23. Epiph. Hær. 76. p. 941. Greg. Nyss. contr. Eunom. vi. p. 192.
&c. Cyril. Dial. ii. Pseudo-Basil. contr. Eunom. iv. p. 283. G.
These three texts are found together frequently in Athan. particularly
in Orat. iii. where he considers the doctrines of the "Image" and the
[perichoresis]. vid. de Decr. §21. § 31. de Syn.
§ 45. Orat. iii. 3. 5. 6. 10. 16 fin. 17. Ep. Æg. 13. Sent. D. 26.
ad Afr. 7. 8. 9. vid. also Epiph. Hær. 64. 9. Basil. Hexaem. ix. fin.
Cyr. Thes. xii. p. 111. [add in S. Joan. 168, 847] Potam. Ep. ap.
Dacher. t. 3. p. 299. Hil. Trin. vii. 41. et supr. Vid. also Animadv.
in Eustath. Ep. ad Apoll. hom. 1796. H.
Here ends the extract from the de Decretis. The sentence following is
added as a close. Margin Notes1. p. 193, ref. 6. 2.
p. 179, ref. 3. 3.
supr. p. 18, note O. 4.
de Decr. § 11. pp. 17, 18. 5.
p. 56, note K. 6.
[alogos] p. 208, note B. 7.
vid. Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 17. 8.
[gegonen]. 9.
[genetai]. 10.
[epigegonen]. 11.
p. 43, note B. 12.
p. 2, note C. 13.
p. 21. 14.
p. 210, note E. 15.
p. 20. 16.
p. 19. 17.
p. 140, note N. 18.
Orat. iii. 67. 19.
[epigegone]. 20.
vid. Orat. iii. § 59, &c. 21.
p. 31, note P. 22.
p. 52, note D. 23.
p. 209, note D. 24.
de Syn. § 18. p. 101. infr. ii. 37 [p. 332]. 25.
p. 84, note B. 26.
de Syn. § 47. p. 147. 27.
[histatai]. 28.
p. 123, ref. 1. Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman |