|
HOME | GREEK LANGUAGE |
LIBRARIES |
BLOG | HELP | SEARCH | BOOKSTORE | FREEWARE |
|
|
Translated by Cardinal Newman.
St Athanasius the Great Resources Online and in Print
|
This Part: 128 Pages
Page 69
The point at issue between the two interpretations is this; whether the clause prin gennethenai ouk en 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, en hote ouk en; (3) therefore He has His subsistence from nothing, ex ouk onton echei ten hupostasin.' H. E. i. 5. The first of these propositions exactly answers to the ouk en prin gennethenai taken enthymematically; and it may be added that when so taken, the three propositions will just answer to the three first formulae anathematized at Nicaea, two of which are indisputably the same as two of them; viz. hoti en pote dte ouk en; & 234;ti prin gennethenai ouk en; & 234;ti ex ouk onton egeneto. 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, onta proteron, gennethenta eis hui& 231;n, which is explained, de Syn. 16. note 12.
2. Next, it should be observed that the other formulae 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 ho on ton me onta ek tou ontos e ton onta; and hen to ageneton e duo; and in like manner as regards the question of the trepton; '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. S:35. That is, they wished the word treptos 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.
Reference address : https://www.elpenor.org/athanasius/discourses-against-arians.asp?pg=69
