DISC. I. CHAP. IX. OBJECTIONS CONTINUED. Whether is the Ingenerate one or two? Inconsistent in Arians to use an unscriptural word; necessary to define its meaning. Different senses of the word. If it means "without Father," there is but One Ingenerate; if "without beginning or creation," there are two. Inconsistency of Asterius. "Ingenerate" a title of God, not in contrast with the Son, but with creatures, as is "Almighty," or "Lord of powers." "Father" is the truer title, as not only Scriptural, but implying a Son, and our adop tion as sons. 1. THESE Considerations encourage the faithful, and distress the heretical, perceiving, as they do, their heresy overthrown §. 30. thereby. Moreover, their further question "whether the Ingenerate be one or two"," 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, saying, "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 and confusion, pro a The word ayivrov was in the philosophical schools synonymous with "God;" hence by asking whether there were two Ingenerates, the Ano. moans implied that there were two Gods, if Christ was God in the sense in which the Father was. Hence Athan. retorts, pácxorres, où λíyous duo ἀγένητα, λέγουσι δύο θεούς. Orat. iii. 16. also ii. 38. Plato used yinToy of the Supreme God, (supr. p. 51, note b.) the Valentinians, Tertull. 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 Anomoans, on which their whole argument turned. ap. Euseb. Præp. vii. 19. viz. that ἡ ἀγεννησία is the very ouría 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 ἀγέννητος, but γεννητὸς, but all γεννητὰ 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, ix rns ovcías. This was what the Arians had originally denied, ἓν τὸ ἀγέννητον. ἐν δὲ τὸ ὑπ ̓ αὐτοῦ ἀληθῶς, xal oix in rñs ovcíus avrou. 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, γέννημα, ἀλλ ̓ οὐκ ὡς ἓν τῶν γεννημάτων, vid. p. 10, note u. Different senses of the word " Ingenerate." 2 225 IX. note p. note d. vided they can but separate the Son from the Father, and CHAP. 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 1, and those in contumely of the 1 p. 31, Lord, knowing neither what they say nor whereof they 1 Tim. affirm. For instance, let them ask the Greeks, who have 1, 7. 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 that 2 p. 52, 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"." 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. 2. But if they still are satisfied with merely asking, “Is §. 31. 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 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 I. DISC. 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. 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 p. 209, Image is not generate, but an Offspring', 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. note d. $. 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 un2 de Syn. originate also; the following is a passage out of his work": .18. p. The Blessed Paul said not that he preached Christ the ii. 37. power of God or the wisdom of God, but, without the article, 1 Cor. 1, God's power and God's wisdom; thus preaching that the proper power of God Himself, which is natural to Him and 101.infr. 24. c These two senses of ἀγέννητον unbegotten and unmade were afterwards expressed by the distinction of " and ", ἀγέννητον and ἀγίνητον. vid. Damasc. F. O. i. 8. p. 135. and Le Quien's not. Admission of Asterius unfavourable to the Arians. 227 IX. co-existent with Him ingenerately, is something besides.” CHAP. 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, coexists 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 Gal. 5, another, they be consumed one of another. 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. If they have §. 33. confidence in their own positions, they should stand to them, and not change about so variously1; but this they will not, p. 84, 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"." 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 here is the Son 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 note b. 228 God Ingenerate relatively to works, Father relatively to Son. Disc, reckoned among that all, nor is God called Almighty and I. 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 1 de Syn. of being used religiously', they, in their own heresy, bring it $.47 forth for the dishonour of the Son, not having read that he p. 147. vid. who honoureth the Son honoureth the Father, and he who John 5, dishonoureth the Son, dishonoureth the Father. If they had any concern at all 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 pleasure. 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'. For the 23. 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. |