214 As God exists without place,and creates without materials, Disc. whereas He was not?" And again, “Is the Ingenerate one I. 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 Rom. 1, be Christians, but changing God's glory into an image made like to corruptible man1. 23. i p. 179, ref. 3. 2. Words so senseless and dull deserve no answer at all; §. 23. however, lest their heresy appear to have any foundation, it may 2 supr. p. 18. note o. 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". Or they should ask every man, whether he can be without place; and 3 de if he cannot, whether it follows that God is in place3; that so Decr. they may be brought to shame even by their audience. Or why §. 11. p.17,18. 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 not make man His b This objection is found In Alex. Ep. Encycl. 2. ò äv bròs Tòv μn övra in To un vros. Again, ora yeyvvnns oux vra. Greg. Orat. 29.9. who answers it. Pseudo-Basil. contr. Eunom. iv. p. 281.2. Basil calls the question zoλguaanroy, 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, oux v gìv yevuntṛ, vid. note at the end of this Discourse. so He begets without time. 215 VII. p. 56, pattern; but rather we men, for that God is properly, and CHAP. alone truly', Father of His Son, are also called fathers of our own children; for of Him is every fatherhood in heaven and note k. earth named. And their positions, while unscrutinized, Eph. 3, have a shew of sense; but if any one scrutinize them by reason, they will but bring on them derision and mockery. 66 15. 3. For first of all, as to their first question, which is such as §. 24. 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 66 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 shew. 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 Word2? and, whereas He2 λoyos p. 208, is Light, was He ray-less? or was He always Father of the note b. 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 aud 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 time, 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 once was not,) considering the number of the 2 Disc. proofs already adduced against them; while John besides I. says, The Word was, and Paul again writes, Who being 1. the brightness of His glory, and Who is over all, God blessed Heb. 1, for ever. Amen. John 1, 3. 1 vid. Basil. contr. Rom. 9, 4. They had best have been silent; but since it is otherwise, 5. it remains to meet their shameless question with a bold §. 25. retort'. Perhaps on seeing the counter absurdities which beset themselves, they may cease to fight against the truth. Eunom. After many prayers then that God would be gracious to us, ii. 17. thus we might ask them in turn; God who is, has He so 2 yiyor become, whereas He was not? or is He also before His gene3 yimra ration? whereas He is, did He make Himself, or is He of γονεν с nothing, and being nothing before, did He suddenly appear Himself? Indecent is such an inquiry, 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 1, 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 5 p. 43, without 5; 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 ir6 p. 2, rational. As then if a person saw the sun, and then inquired note c. concerning its radiance, and said, “ Did that which is make note b. 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. " I Præf.ad Monach. "The unwearied habit Did the Father need an instrument to create, He not perfect. 217 VII. that which was, or that which was not," he would be held not CHAP. 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; and, whereas He was Son of John 1, God, He made Him in consummation of the ages also Son of 14. Man, unless forsooth, after Samosatene, they affirm that He did not even exist at all, till He became man. 7. This is sufficient from us in answer to their first ques- §. 26. tion; 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, as carpenter might do or shipwright, 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? dőgyavor, vid. p. 12, note g. 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. Disc. I. CHAP. VIII. OBJECTIONS CONTINUED. Whether we may decide the question by the parallel of human sons, which are born later than their parents. No, for the force of the analogy lies in the idea of connaturality. Time is not involved in the idea of Son, but is adventitious to it, and does not attach to God, because He is without parts and passions. The titles Word and Wisdom guard our thoughts of Him and His Son from this misconception. God not a Father, as a Creator, in posse from eternity, because creation does not relate to the substance of God, as generation does. 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, instead of extracting serpent-like from the earth only what turns to poison? Those who ask of parents, and |