"Exar ody 6 Oeds rv Eavtod Adyov evdidberov év Tots iiois omAdyxvors, eyevyngev avrov pera THs Eavtod copias ekepevEduevos mpd tov drtov...dmdre bé nOéAnoev 6 Beds mojoa éc0a €Bovdevoato, rodroy tov Adyov eyévynoe mpopopiKdy, MpatdsroKxoy Téons KTicews. AA Autol. ii. 1o—22.
Bishop Bull, Defens. F. NV. iii. s—8, meets this representation by maintaining that the yévvnots Which S, Hippolytus and other writers spoke of, was but a metaphorical generation, the real and eternal truth being shadowed out by a succession of events in the economy of time, such as is the Resurrection (Acts xiii. 33), nay, the Nativity; and that of these His going forth to create the worlds was one. And he maintains (ibid. iii. 9) that such is the mode of speaking adopted by the Fathers after the Nicene Council as well as before. And then he adds (which is our present point), that it is even alluded to and recognised in the Creed of the Council, which anathematizes those who say that ‘the Son was not before His generation,’ i.e. who deny that ‘the Son was before His generation, which statement accordingly becomes indirectly a Catholic truth.
I am not aware whether any writer has preceded or followed this great authority in this viewt. The more obvious mode of understanding the Arian formula is this, that it is an argument ex absurdo, drawn from the force of the word Son, in behalf of the Arian doctrine; it being, as they would say, a truism, that, ‘whereas He was begotten, He was not before He was begotten,’ and the denial of it a contradiction in terms. This certainly does seem to myself the true force of the formula; so much so, that if Bishop Bull’s explanation be admissible, it must, in order to its being so, first be shewn to be reducible to this sense, and to be included under it.
The point at issue between the two interpretations is this; whether the clause zpiv yevnOjvar od« fv is intended for a denial of the contrary proposition, ‘He was before His generation,’ as Bishop Bull says; or whether it is what Aristotle calls an enthymematic sentence, assuming the falsity, as confessed on all hands, of that contrary proposition, as self-contradictory, and directly denying, not it, but ‘He was from everlasting.’ Or, in other words, whether it opposes the position of the five writers, or the great Catholic doctrine itself; and whether in consequence the Nicene Fathers are in their anathema indirectly sanctioning that position, or stating that doctrine. Bull considers that both sides contemplated the proposition, ‘He was before His generation,’—and that the Catholics asserted or defended it; some reasons shall here be given for the contrary view.
1. Now first, let me repeat, what was just now observed by the way, that the formula in question, when taken as an enthymematic sentence, or reductio. ad absurdum, exactly expresses the main argument of the Arians, which they brought forward in so many shapes, as feeling that their cause turned upon it, ‘He is a son, therefore He had a beginning.’ Thus Socrates records Arius’s words in the beginning of the controversy, (1) ‘If the Father begat the Son, He who is begotten has a beginning of existence; (2) therefore once the Son was not, hv bre ob« tv; (3) therefore He has His subsistence from nothing, ef od dvtwy yer Thy indoracw,’ LH. E. i. 5. The first of these propositions exactly answers to the ov« #v mply yervnOjvar taken enthymematically; and it may be added that when so taken, the three propositions will just answer to the three first formulze anathematized at Nicaea, two of which are indisputably the same as two of them; viz. 8t: jv wore t Waterland expresses the view here taken, and not Bishop | cessit. Qzzs vero, inquam, sevzsus dicti hujus, ‘‘ Filius non erat, Bull's; vol. i. p.114. Bull’s language, on the other hand, is very | sive non existebat, priusquam nasceretur ex Patre ante conditum strong: “Sape olim, ut verum ingenue fatear, animum meum|mundum?” Ego sane nullus dubito, quin hoc pronunciatum subiit admiratio, quid effato isto, ‘ Filius priusquam nasceretur, | Arianorum oppositum fuerit Catholicorum istorum sententize, qui non erat,’ sib¢ voluerint Ariani. De nativitate Christi ex beatis-| docerent, Filium quidem paulo ante conditum mundum inexplisima Virgine dictum non esse exponendum constat...Itaque de | cabili quodam modo ex Patre progressum fuisse ad constituendum nativitate Filii loquuntur, que hujus universi creationem ante-! universa, &c. D. #. N. iii. 9. § 2.
IN THE NICENE ANATHEMA. 348 SS eee are ov« avs bri mply yerynOijvae obk Hv" Ste e& odK bvTwy eyévero, On the other hand, we hear nothing in the controversy of the position which Bull conceives to be opposed by Arius (‘ He was before His generation’), that is, supposing the formula in question does not allude to it; unless indeed it is worth while to except the statement reprobated in the Letter of the Arians to Alexander, gvra mportepov, ‘yevynbévta eis vidvy, which is explained, de Syn. 16, note 12.;; 2. Next, it should be observed that the other formulz here, as elsewhere, mentioned, are enthymematic also, or carry their argument with them, and that, an argument resolvable often into the original argument derived from the word ‘Son.’ Such are 6 dy roy un dvta ek Tod byTOs 4) Thy ByTa; and ev Td GyévnTov ® So; and in like manner as regards the question of the tpemréy; ‘Has He free will’ (thus Athanasius states the Arian objection) ‘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? as wood or stone, has He not His choice free to be moved, and incline hither and thither?’ supr. § 35. That is, they wished the word rpem7ds to carry with it its own self-evident application to our Lord, with the alternative of an absurdity; and so to prove His created nature.
3. Ing 32, S. Athanasius observes that the formula of the ayéynrov was the later substitute for the original formule of Arius; “when they were no longer allowed to say, “ out of nothing,” and ‘“‘ He was not before His generation,”’ they hit upon this word Unoriginate, that, by saying among the simple that the Son was originate, they might imply the very same phrases “ out of nothing” and ‘* He once was not.”’ Here he does not in so many words say that the argument from the ayévnrov was a substitute for the ob Fv mplv yevynOjvat, yet surely it is not unfair so to understand him. But it is plain that the ayéynrov was brought forward merely to express by an appeal to philosophy and earlier Fathers, that to be a Son was to have a beginning and a creation, and not to be God. This therefore will be the sense of the ob« qv mply yerynOhvat. Nay, when the Arians asked, “Is the ayevntoy one or two,’ they actually did assume that it was granted by their opponents that the Father only was ayévnros; which it was not, if the latter held, nay, if they had sanctioned at Niczea, as Bull says, that our Lord jy aply yevyn@f; and moreover which they knew and confessed was not granted, if their own formula ovK Hv ply yerynOjva was directed against this statement.
4. Again, it is plain that the ov« jv mply yevyn@jvat is used by S. Athanasius as the same objection with 6 dy roy uh bvra ex Tod bvTos, &c. E.g. he says, ‘ We might ask them in turn, God who is, has He so become, whereas He was not? oy is He also before His generation? whereas He is, did He make Himself, or is He of nothing, &c., § 25. Now the 6 dy rdv uh dvra, &c., is evidently an argument, and that, grounded on the absurdity of saying 6 dy rby bvta. S. Alexander’s Encyclical Letter (vid. Socr. i. 6), compared with Arius’s original positions and the Nicene Anathemas as referred to above, is a strong confirmation. In these three documents the formulz agree together, except one; and that one, which in Arius’s language is ‘he who is begotten has a beginning of existence,’ is in the Nicene Anathema, ov« jv mply yevvnOjvat, but in S. Alexander’s circular, 6 dv beds Thy pi dvtTa ex ToD Mh vTOS weTolncev. The absence of the ove Fv mplv, &c., in S. Alexander is certainly remarkable. Moreover the two formule are treated as synonymous by Greg. Naz. Orat.29.9. Cyril, Thesaur. 4. p- 29 fin., and by Basil as quoted below. But indeed there is an internal correspondence between them, shewing that they have but one meaning. They are really but the same sentence in the active and in the passive voice.
. A number of scattered passages in Athanasius lead us to the same conclusion. For instance, if the Arian formula had the sense which is here maintained, of being an argument against our Lord’s eternity, the Catholic answer would be, ‘ He could not be éefore His generation because His generation is eterna/, as being from the Father.’ Now this is precisely the language Athanasius uses, when it occurs to him to introduce the words in question. Thus in Orat. ii. § 57 he says, ‘ The creatures began to come to be (yivec@at); but the Word of God, not having beginning (apx7%v) of being, surely did not begin to be, nor begin to come to be, but was always. And the works have a beginning (apxiv) in the making, and the beginning precedes things which come to be; but the Word not being of such, rather Himself becomes the Framer of those things which have a beginning. And the being of things originate is measured by their becoming (év @ yiveo@a), and at some beginning (origin) doth God begin to make them through the Word, that it may be known that they were not before their origination (mplv yevécOc); but the Word hath His being in no other origin than the Father’ (vid. supr. § 11, note 1), ‘whom they themselves allow to be unoriginate, so that He too exists unoriginately in the Father, being His offspring not His creature.’ We shall find that other Fathers say just the same. Again, we have already come to a passage where for ‘ His generation,’ he substitutes ‘making,’ a word which Bull would not say that either the Nicene Council or S. Hippolytus would use; clearly shewing that the Arians were not quoting and denying a Catholic statement in the ov« Hv xplv, &c., but laying down one of their own. ‘ Who is there in all mankind, Greek or Barbarian, who ventuies to rank among creatures One whom he confesses the while to be God, and says that ‘‘ He was not ‘ before He was made,’ mply moinOij.””? Orat. i.§ 10. Arius, who is surely the best explainer of his own words, says the same; that is, he interprets ‘ generation’ by ‘ making,’ or confesses that he is bringing forward an argument, not opposing a dogma; ‘Before His generation,’ he says, ‘or creation, or destination (6.067), Rom. i. 4), ov founding (vid. Prov. viii. 23), He was not; for He was not ingenerate. _Theod. Hist. i. 4.
Eusebius of Nicomedia also, in a passage which has already come before us, says distinctly, ‘ ‘‘ It is plain to any one,” that what has been made was not before its generation; but what came to be has an origin of being.’ De - é i there are passages in Athanasius which seem to favour the opposite interpretation, that is, to imply that the Catholics held or allowed, as Bp. Bull considers, that ‘before His generation, He was,’ they admit of an explanation. E.g. ‘‘How is He not in the number of the creatures, if, as they say, He was not before His generation? for it is proper to the creatures and works, not to be before their generation. Orat. ii. § 22. This might be taken to imply that the Arians said, ‘ He was not,’ and Catholics ‘He was.’ But the real meaning is this, ‘ How is He not a creature, if the formula be true, which they use, “‘ He was not before His generation 2? for it may indeed properly be said of creatures that ‘‘they were not before their generation. And so again when he says, ‘if the Son was not before His generation, Truth was not always in God,’ supr. § 20, he does not thereby imply that the Son was before His generation, but he means, ‘if it be ¢rue that, &c.,’ ‘if the formula holds,’ ‘if it can be said of the Son, ‘‘ He was not, &c.””’ Accordingly, shortly afterwards, in a passage already cited, he says the same of the Almighty Father in the way of parallel; ‘God who is, hath He so become, whereas He was not, or “is He too before His generation?’” (§ 25), not implying here any generation at all, but urging 346 NOTE ON ‘HE WAS NOT BEFORE HIS GENERATION,’ that the question is id/e and ivrelevant, that the formula is wxmeaning and does not apfly ¢o, cannot be sa7d of, Father or Son, é stself: 7. Such an explanation of these passages, as well as the view here taken of the formula itself, receive abundant confirmation from S. Gregory Nazianzen and S. Hilary. What has been maintained is, that when S. Athanasius says, ‘if the Son zs not before His generation, then, &e.,’ he does but mean, ‘if it can be said, if the words can be wsed or applied in this case.’ Now the two Fathers just mentioned both decide that it is not true, either that the Son cas before His generation, or that He was not; in other words, that, the question is unmeaning and irrelevant, which is just the interpretation which has been here given to Athanasius. But again, in thus speaking, they thereby assert also that they did zor hold, that they do of allow, that formula which Bull considers the Nicene Fathers defended and sanctioned, as being Catholic and in use both before the Council and after, viz. ‘ He was before His generation.’ Thus S. Gregory in the passage in which he speaks of ‘did He that is make Him that is not, &c.,? and ‘before His generation, &c.,’ as one and the same, expressly says, ‘In His case, to be begotten 7s concurrent with existence and is from the beginning,’ and that 2 contrast to the instance of men; who he says, do fulfil in a manner ‘ He who is, &c.’ (Levi being in the loins of Abraham), i.e. fulfil Bull’s proposition, ‘He was before generation.’ He proceeds, ‘I say that the question 7s irrelevant, not the answer difficult.’ And presently after, mentioning some idle inquiries by way of parallel, he adds, ‘ more ill-instructed, be sure, is it to decide whether what was generated from the beginning was or was not before generation, mpd THs yevvncews.” Orat. 29. 9., 8. S. Hilary, on the other hand, is so full on the subject in his de Zyin. xii., and so entirely to the point for which I would adduce him, that but a few extracts of what might be made are either necessary or practicable.
He states and argues on the formula expressly as an objection; Adjiciant hec argiuta satis atque auditu Placentia; Si, inquit, natus est, coepit; et cum ccepit, non fuit; et cum non fuit, non patitur ut fuerit. Atque idcirco pix intelligentize sermonem esse contendant, Non fuit ante quam nasceretur, gzza ut esset, qui non erat, natus est.’ n. 18. He answers the objection in the same way, ‘ Unigenitus Deus neque non fuit aliquando non filius, neque fuit aliquid ante quam filius, neque quidquam aliquid ipse nisi filius,’ n. 15, which is in express words to deny, ‘He was before His generation.’ Again, as Gregory, ‘ Ubi pater auctor est, ibi et nativitas est; et vero ubi auctor eeternus est, ibi et nativitatis eternitas est,’ n. 21. And he substitutes ‘ being always born’ for ‘ being before birth;’ ‘ Numquid ante tempora eeterna esse, id ipsum sit quod est, eum qui erat nasci? quia nasci quod erat, jam non nasci est, sed se ipsum demutare nascendo...Non est itaque id ipsum, natum ante tempora eterna semper esse, et esse antequam nasci.’ n. 30. And he concludes, in accordance with the above explanation of the passages of Athanasius which I brought as if objections, thus: ‘Cum itaque natum semper esse, nihil aliud sit confitendum esse, quam natum, id sensui, antequam nascitur vel fuésse, vel non fuisse non subjacet. n. 31.’
g. It mayseem superfluous to proceed, but as Bishop Bull is an authority not lightly to be set aside, a passage from S. Basil shall be added. Eunomius objects, ‘God begat the Son either being or not being, &c...to him that is, there needs not generation.’ He replies that Eunomius, ‘ decawse animals first are not, and then are generated, and he who is born to-day, yesterday did not exist, ¢ransfers this conception to the subsistence of the Only-begotten; and says, szce He has been generated, He was not before His generation, mpd tis yevvhrews,’ contr. Eunom. ii. 14, And he solves the objection as the other Fathers, by saying that our Lord is from everlasting, speaking of S. John, in the first words of his Gospel, as rH aidiryTs Tod matpds Tod Movoryevous ocwdrtoy Thy yévunow. § 15.
These then being the explanations which the contemporary and next following Fathers give of the Arian formula which was anathematized at Niczea, it must be observed that the line of argument which Bishop Bull is pursuing, does not lead him to assign any direct reasons for the substitution of a different interpretation in their place. He is engaged, not in commenting on the Nicene Anathema, but in proving that the Post-Nicene Fathers admitted that view or statement of doctrine which he conceives a/so implied in that anathema; and thus the sense of the anathema, instead of being the subject of proof, is, as he believes, one of the proofs of the point which he is establishing. However, since these other collateral evidences which he adduces, may be taken to be some sort of indirect comment upon the words of the Anathema, the principal of them in point of authority, and that which most concerns us, shall here be noticed: it is a passage from the second Oration of Athanasius.
While commenting on the words, dpy7 684y eis ra pya in the text, ‘The Lord has created me the beginning of His ways unto the works,’ S. Athanasius is led to consider the text ‘ first born of every creature,’ mpordroxos raojs kricews; and he says that He who was povoyevs from eternity, became by a ovykardBaois at the creation of the world mporéroxos. This doctrine Bp. Bull considers declaratory of a going forth, mpoédevars, or figurative birth from the Father, at the beginning of all things.
It will be observed that the very point to be proved is this, viz. not that there was a ovycardSuois merely, but that according to Athanasius there was a yévynors or proceeding from the Father, and that the word mpordroxos marks it. Bull’s words are, that ‘ Catholici quidam Doctores, qui post exortam controversiam Arianam vixerunt,...illam rod XOyeul. «2! CX Patre progresstonem (quod et ovyxardBaow, hoc est, condescensionem eorum nonnulli appellarunt), ad condendum hec universa agnovere; atque ejus etiam progressionis respectu ipsum tov déyov a Deo Patre quasi natum fuisse et omnis creature primogenttum in Scripturis dici confessi sunt.’ JD), 18, IN, iil. 9. § I. Now I consider that S. Athanasius does not, as this sentence says, understand by primogenitus that our Lord was ‘ progressionis respectu a Deo Patre guasi natus.’ He IN THE NMICENE ANATHEMA. 347 does not seem to me to speak of a generation or birth of the Son at all, though figurative, but of the birth of a// things, and that 7x Him.
. That Athanasius does not call the cvykatdéBaois of the Word a birth, as denoted by the term pwrdrokos, is plain from his own avowal in the passage to which Bull refers. ‘Nowhere in the Scriptures,’ he says, ‘is He called rpwrdéroxos Tod @eod, first-born of God, nor creature of God, but Only-begotten, Word, Wisdom, have their relation to the Father, and are proper to Him.’ ii. 62. Here surely he expressly denies Bull’s statement that first-born’ means ‘a Deo natus,’ ‘born of God.’ Such additions as map rod matpds, he says, are reserved for Movoyerys and Adyos. He goes on to say whaé the term mpwrdrovos does mean; viz. instead of having any reference to a mpoéAevats from the Father, it refers solely to the creatures; our Lord is not called mpwrdétokos, because His mpoéAevots is a type of His eternal generation,’ but because by that rpoéevors He became the ‘ Prototype of all creation.’ He, as 1t were, stamped His image, His Sonship, upon creation, and became the first-born in the sense of being the Archetypal Son. If this is borne out by the passage, Athanasius, it is plain, does not speak of any yévynots whatever at the era of creation, though figurative; rpwrdéroxos does but mean povoyerys mpwredwy ev th Ktloe, or “pxXn 17s KTigews, OY mpwrdtumoy yevynua, OY mdvos yevynTds ev ToIs ‘yeynTots; and no warrant is given, however indirect, to the idea that in the Nicene Anathema, the Fathers implied an allowance of the proposition, ‘ He was before His generation.’ ___ As the whole passage occurs in the Discourse which immediately follows, it is not necessary to enter formally into the proof of this view of it, when the reader will soon be able to judge of it for himself. But it may be well to add two passages, one from Athenagoras, the other from S. Cyril, not in elucidation of the words of Athanasius, but of the meaning which I would put upon them.
The passage from Athenagoras is quoted by Bull himself, who of course is far from denying the doctrine of our Lord’s Archetypal office; and does but wish in addition to find in Athanasius the doctrine of a yévynots. Athenagoras says that the Son is ‘ the first offspring, mparov yévvnua, of the Father, not as come to be, yevduevov (for God being Eternal Mind had from the beginning in Himself the Word, as having Reason eternally, AoyiKés &v), but that while as regards matter heavy and light were mixed together ’ (the passage is corrupt here), ‘ He went forth, mpoeA@my, as an idea and energy, i.e. as an Agent to create, and a Form and Rule to create by. And then he goes on to quote the very text on which Athanasius is employed when he explains mpwrdéroxos. ‘ And the Prophetic Spirit confirms this doctrine, saying, The Lord hath created me a beginning (origin) of His ways, for His works.’ Leg. 10.: And so S. Cyril, ‘ He is Only-begotten according to nature, as being alone from the Father, God from God, Light kindled from Light; and He is First-born for our sakes, that, as if to some immortal root the whole creation might be ingrafted and might bud forth from the Everlasting. For all things were made by Him, and consist for ever and are preserved in Him. Thesaur.25 p. 238.
In conclusion it may be suggested whether the same explanation which has here been given of Athanasius’s use of mpwrdroxos does not avail more exactly to the defence of two of the five writers from the charge of inaccurate doctrine, than that which Bull has preferred.
As to Athenagoras, we have already seen that he does not speak of a yevnats at all in his account of creation, but simply calls the Son spérov yévynua, i.€. mpwrdrumoy yevynua.
Nor does Tatian approach nearer to the doctrine of a yéwnots. He says that at the creation the Word épyov mpwidrokov tov matpos yiverat. rovrov icpev Tov Kédcpov THY apxnv. ad Gre. 5. Here the word épyov, which at first sight promises a difficulty, does in fact explain both himself and Athenagoras. He says that at creation the Word became, yiverat, not a Son (figuratively), as Bull would grant to the parties whom he is opposing, but a work. It was His great condescension, svycardBaots, to be accounted the first of the works, as being their ¢yZe; that as they were to be raised to an adoption and called sons, so He for that purpose might stoop tocreation, and be called a work. As Tatian uses the word dpx# in the concluding clause, there is great reason to think that he is alluding to the very text which Athanasius and Athenagoras expressly quote, in which Wisdom is said to be ‘created a beginning, apx7, of ways, unto the WOrRS, cis TA Epya.
As to Novatian, Bishop Bull himself observes that it is a question whether he need be understood to speak of any generation but that which is eternal; nor does Pamelius otherwise explain him.
DES as otk ae CHAPTER XIV, TEXTS EXPLAINED; FOURTHLY, HEBREWS Ill. 2.
Introduction; the Regula Fidei counter to an Arian sense of the text; which is not supported by the word ‘servant,’ nor by ‘made’ which occurs in it; (how can the Judge be among the ‘works’ which *God will bring into judgment?’) nor by ‘ faithful;’ and is confuted by the immediate context, which is about Priesthood; and by the foregoing passage, which explains the word ‘faithful’ as meaning trustworthy, as do 1 Pet. iv. fin. and other texts.. On the whole sade may safely be understood either of the divine generation or the human creation.
1. I pip indeed think that enough had been said already against the hollow professors of Arius’s madness, whether for their refutation or in the truth’s behalf, to insure a cessation and repentance of their evil thoughts and words about the Saviour. ‘They, however, for whatever reason, still do not succumb; but, as swine and dogs wallow? in their own vomit and their own mire, rather invent new expedients for their irreligion. Thus they misunderstand the passage in the Proverbs, ‘The Lord hath created me a beginning of His ways for His works?,’ and the words of the Apostle, ‘Who was faithful to Him that made Him3,’ and straightway argue, that the Son of God is a work and a creature. But although they might have learned from what is said above, had they not utterly lost their power of apprehension, that the Son is not from nothing nor in the number of things originate at all, the Truth witnessing+ it (for, being God, He cannot be a work, and it is impious to call Him a creature, and it is of creatures and works that we say, ‘out of nothing,’ and ‘it was not before its generation’), yet since, as if dreading to desert their own fiction, they are accustomed to allege the aforesaid passages of divine Scripture, which have a good meaning, but are by them practised on, let us as sSSSSSSSS—S—OsesesssSsSh t KvAromevot, Ova. iii. 16.
2 Prov. viii. 22. Cf. i.
4 Vid. infr. note on 35.
proceed afresh to take up the question of the sense of these, to remind the faithful, and to shew from each of these passages that they have no knowledge at all of Christianity. Were it otherwise, they would not have shut themselves up in the unbelief5 of the present Jews®, but would have inquired and learned® that, whereas ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,’ in consequence, it was when at the good pleasure of the Father the Word became man, that it was said of Him, as by John, ‘The Word became flesh’;’ so by Peter, ‘ He hath made Him Lord and Christ®;’—as by means of Solomon in the Person of the Lord Himself, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works9;’ so by Paul, ‘Become so much better than the Angels’?;’ and again, ‘He emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant*?;” and again, ‘Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Jesus, wha was faithful to Him that made Him®™.’ For all these texts have the same force and meaning, a religious one, declarative of the divinity of the Word, even those of them which speak humanly concerning Him, as having become the Son of man. But, though this distinction is sufficient for their refutation, still, since from a misconception of the Apostle’s words (to mention them first), they consider the Word of God to be one of the works, because of its being written, ‘Who was faithful to Him that made Him,’ I have thought it needful to silence this further argument of theirs, taking in hand 73, as before, their statement.
© ray viv Iovdaiwyv, means literally ‘ the Jews of this day,’ as here and Orvat. i. 8. 10. 38 Ovat. ii. 1. b. iii. 28. c. But elsewhere this and similar phrases as distinctly mean the Arians, being used in contrast to the Jews. Their likeness to the Jews is drawn out, Ovat. iii. 27. de Decr. i.
6a épwravres éuavOavov; and so pabay eb.daoKev, Orat. iii. 9. de Decry. 7. supr. p. 13, note a. 7 John i. 14.
1 Phil. ii. 7, 12 Heb. ili. 1,2; Sezt. D. xr.
13 By AauBavovres map’ adtav To Anuma, ‘accepting the pro-| position they offer,’ he means that he is engaged in going through DISCOURSESIN ee 2. If then He be not a Son, let Him be called a work, and let all that is said of works be said of Him, nor let Him and Him alone be called Son, nor Word, nor Wisdom: neither let God be called Father, but only Framer and Creator of things which by Him come to be; and let the creature be Image and Expression of His framing will, and let Him, as they would have it, be without generative nature, so that there be neither Word, nor Wisdom, no, nor Image, of His proper substance. For if He be not Son +, neither is He Image?. But if there be not a Son, how then say you that God is a Creator? since all things that come to be are through the Word and in Wisdom, and without This nothing can be, whereas you say He hath not That in and through which He makes all things. For if the Divine Essence be not fruitful itself 3, but barren, as they hold, as a light that lightens not, and a dry fountain, are they not ashamed to speak of His possessing framing energy? and whereas they deny what is by nature, do they not blush to place before it what is by will#? But if He frames things that are external to Him and before were not, by willing them to be, and becomes their Maker, much more will He first be Father of an Offspring from His proper Essence. For if they attribute to God the willing about things which are not, why recognise they not that in God which lies above the will? now it is a something that surpasses will, that He should be by nature, and should be Father of His proper Word. If then that which comes first, which is according to nature, did not exist, as they would have it in their folly, how could that which is second come to be, which is according to will? for the Word is first, and then the creacertain texts brought against the Catholic view, instead of bringing his own proofs, vid. Ovat. i. 37. Yet after all it is commonly his way, as here, to start with some general exposition of the Catholic doctrine which the Arian sense of the text in question opposes, and thus to create a prejudice or proof against the latter. vid. Orat. i. 10, 38. 40. init. 53. d. ii. 5. 12. init. 32—34. 35. 44. init. which refers to the whole discussion, 18—43. 73. 77. iii 18. init. 36. init.