Ingenerate not a word of Scripture. 229 IX. latter title, as I have said, does nothing more than refer to all CHAP: 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' only from the Son. rara 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 John14, hath seen Me, hath seen the Father, and I and the Father 10, 30. are One"; 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 Lukell, ye pray, say, Our Father, which art in heaven. And it was His will that the Summary of our faith should have the same 2 p. 123, 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". A vain thing then is their argument about the term "Ingenerate," as is now proved, and nothing more than a fantasy. 2 Hær. 76. p. 941. Greg. Nyss. contr. These three texts are found together frequently in Athan. particularly in Orat. iii. where he considers the doctrines of the "Image" and the sexgnois. vid. de Decr. §. 21. §. 31. de Syn. §. 45. Orat. iii. 3. 5. 6. 10. 16 fin. 17. Ep. Eg. 13. Sent. D. 26. ad Afr. 7. 8. 9. vid. also Epiph. h Here ends the extract from the de 10. 9. 2. ref. 1. 2 DISC. I. §. 35. σιος προει ρέσει CHAP. X. OBJECTIONS CONTINUED. How the Word has free-will, yet without being alterable. He is unalterable because the Image of the Father, proved from texts. 1. As to their question whether the Word is alterable, it is superfluous to examine it; it is enough simply to write down what they say, and so to shew its daring irreligion. How they trifle, appears from the following questions:-"Has He 1arığoú- free will1, or has He not? is He good from choice according to free will, and can He, if He will, alter, being of an alterable nature? or, as wood or stone, has He not His choice free to be moved and incline hither and thither?" It is but agreeable to their heresy thus to speak and think; for, when once they have framed to themselves a God out of nothing and a created Son, of course they also adopt such terms as are suitable to a creature. However, when in their controversies with Churchmen they hear from them of the real and only Word of the Father, and yet venture thus to speak of Him, does not their doctrine then become the most loathsome that can be found? Is it not enough to distract a man on mere hearing, though unable to reply, and to make him stop his ears, from astonishment at the novelty of what he hears them say, which even to mention is to blaspheme? For if the Word be alterable and changing, where will He stay, and what will be the end of His progress? how shall the alterable possibly be like the Unalterable? How should he who has seen the alterable, be considered to have seen the Unalterable? in which of His states shall we be able to behold in Him the Father? for it is plain that not at all times shall argsrròs, i. e. not, changeable, but of a moral nature capable of improvement. Arius maintained this in the strongest terms at starting. "On being asked whether the Word of God is capable of altering as the devil altered, they scrupled not to say, "Yea, He is capable." Alex. ap. Socr. i. 6. p. 11. The Son unalterable, because the Father's Image. 231 truth we see the Father in the Son, because the Son is ever CHAP. X. altering, and is of changing nature. For the Father is unalterable and unchangeable, and is always in the same state and the same; but if, as they hold, the Son is alterable, and not always the same, but ever of a changing nature, how can such a one be the Father's Image, not having the likeness of His unalterableness1? how can He be really in the Father, if His supr. moral choice is indeterminate? Nay, perhaps, as being init. §. 22. alterable, and advancing daily, He is not perfect yet. But p. 212. away with such madness of the Arians, and let the shine out, and shew that they are beside themselves. For must not He be perfect who is equal to God? and must not He be unalterable, who is one with the Father, and His Son proper to His substance? and the Father's substance being unalterable, unalterable must be also the proper Offspring from it. And if they slanderously impute alteration to the Word, let them learn how much their own reason is in peril2; 2 p. 2, for from the fruit is the tree known. For this is why he who hath seen the Son, hath seen the Father, and why the knowledge of the Son is knowledge of the Father. note e. 8. 10-12. 2. Therefore the Image of the unalterable God must be §. 36. unchangeable; for Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, Heb.13, and for ever. And David in the Psalm says of Him, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thine hands. They shall Heb. 1, perish, but Thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment. And as a vesture shalt Thou fold them up, and they shall be changed, but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail. And the Lord Himself says of Himself through the Prophet, See now that I, even I am He, and I Deut. change not. It may be said indeed that what is here expressed Mal. 3, relates to the Father; yet it suits the Son also to speak it, spe- 6. cially because, when made man, He manifests His own identity and unalterableness to such as suppose that by reason of the flesh He is changed and become other than He was. More trustworthy are the sacred writers, or rather the Lord, than the perversity of the irreligious. For Scripture, as in the above-cited passage of the Psalter, signifying under the name of heaven and earth, that the nature of all things generate and created is alterable and changeable, yet excepting the 32, 39. note g. 232 The Son unalterable because from the Father's substance. DISC. Son from these, shews us thereby that He is in no wise a I. thing generate; nay teaches that He changes every thing else, and is Himself not changed, in saying, Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail. And with reason; for p. 223, things generate, being from nothing', and not being before their generation, because, in truth, they come to be after not being, have a nature which is changeable; but the Son, being from the Father, and proper to His substance, is unchangeable and unalterable as the Father Himself. For it were sin to say that from that substance which is unalterable was begotten an alterable word and a changeable wisdom. For how is He longer the Word, if He be alterable? or can that be Wisdom which is changeable? unless perhaps, as accident in 2 p. 37, substance', so they would have it, viz. as in any particular substance, a certain grace and habit of virtue exists accidentally, which is called Word and Son and Wisdom, and admits of being taken from it and added to it. For they have often expressed this sentiment, but it is not the faith of Christians; as not declaring that He is truly Word and Son of God, or that the wisdom intended is the true Wisdom. For what alters and changes, and has no stay in one and the same condition, how can that be true? whereas the Lord says, I am John 14, the Truth. If then the Lord Himself speaks thus concerning Himself, and declares His unalterableness, and the sacred writers have learned and testify this, nay and our notions of God acknowledge it as religious, whence did these men of irreligion draw this novelty? from their heart as from a seat note y. 6. 3 de Syn. of corruption did they vomit it forth3. §. 16 fin. p. 98. CHAP. XI. TEXTS EXPLAINED; AND FIRST, PHIL. ii. 9, 10. Various texts which are alleged against the Catholic doctrine; e. g. Phil. ii. 9, 10. Whether the words " Wherefore God hath highly exalted" prove moral probation and advancement. Argued against, first, from the force of the word "Son ;" which is inconsistent with such an interpretation. Next, the passage examined. Ecclesiastical sense of "highly exalted," and "gave," and "wherefore;" viz. as being spoken with reference to our Lord's manhood. Secondary sense; viz. as implying the Word's "exaltation" through the resurrection in the same sense in which Scripture speaks of His descent in the Incarnation; how the phrase does not derogate from the nature of the Word. 1. BUT since they allege the divine oracles and force on CHAP. them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense, it _XI. becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to lay claim to §. 37. these passages, and to shew that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error. They say then, that the Apostle writes, Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Phil. 2, Him, and given Him a Name which is above every name; that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth; and David, Wherefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Ps.45,9. Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows. Then they a vid. supr. p. 78, note n. "We must not make an appeal to the Scriptures, nor take up a position for the fight, in which victory is not, or is doubtful, or next to doubtful. For though this conflict of Scripture with Scripture did not end in a drawn battle, yet the true order of the subject required that that should be laid down first, which now becomes but a point of debate, viz. who have a claim to the faith itself, whose are the Scriptures." Tertull. de Præscr. 19. "Ruffinus says of S. Basil and S. Gregory, "Putting aside all Greek literature, they are said to have passed thirteen years together in studying the Scriptures alone, and followed out their sense not from their private opinion, but by the writings 9. 10. |