|
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 70
3. In S:32, S. Athanasius observes that the formula of the ageneton was the later substitute for the original formulae 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 ageneton was a substitute for the ouk en prin gennethenai, yet surely it is not unfair so to understand him. But it is plain that the ageneton 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 ouk en prin gennethenai. Nay, when the Arians asked, 'Is the ageneton one or two,' they actually did assume that it was granted by their opponents that the Father only was agenetos; which it was not, if the latter held, nay, if they had sanctioned at Nicaea, as Bull says, that our Lord en prin gennethe; and moreover which they knew and confessed was not granted, if their own formula ouk en prin gennethenai was directed against this statement.
4. Again, it is plain that the ouk en prin gennethenai is used by S. Athanasius as the same objection with ho on ton me onta ek tou ontos, &c. E.g. he says, 'We might ask them in turn, God who is, has He so become, whereas He was not?' or is He also before His generation? whereas He is, did He make Himself, or is He of nothing. &c., S:25. Now the ho on ton me onta, &c., is evidently an argument, and that, grounded on the absurdity of saying ho on ton onta. 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 formulae 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, ouk en prin gennethenai, but in S. Alexander's circular, ho on theos ton me onta ek tou me ontos pepoieken. The absence of the ouk en prin, &c., in S. Alexander is certainly remarkable. Moreover the two formulae 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.
Reference address : https://www.elpenor.org/athanasius/discourses-against-arians.asp?pg=70
