Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| On the Arian Symbol “Unoriginate.” This term afterwards adopted by them; and why; three senses of it. A fourth sense. Unoriginate denotes God in contrast to His creatures, not to His Son; Father the scriptural title instead; Conclusion. PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
Chapter
VII.—On the Arian Symbol
“Unoriginate.” This term afterwards adopted by
them; and why; three senses of it. A fourth sense. Unoriginate denotes
God in contrast to His creatures, not to His Son; Father the scriptural
title instead; Conclusion.
28. This in fact was the
reason, when the unsound nature of their phrases had been exposed at
that time, and they were henceforth open to the charge of irreligion,
that they proceeded to borrow of the Greeks the term Unoriginate946
946 ἀγένητον. Opportunity will occur for noticing this celebrated word on
Orat. i. 30–34. where the present passage is partly
rewritten, partly transcribed. Mention is also made of it in the De
Syn. 46, 47. Athanasius would seem to have been but partially
acquainted with the writings of the Anomœans, whose symbol it was,
and to have argued with them from the writings of the elder Arians, who
had also made use of it. [On Newman’s unfortunate confusion
of ἀγένητον and ἀγέννητον, see Lightfoot, as quoted in the note on Exp. Fid.
§1. Newman’s reasons are stated in note 7 to Orat. i.
56.] | , that, under shelter of it, they might reckon
among the things originated and the creatures, that Word of God, by
whom these very things came to be; so unblushing are they in their
irreligion, so obstinate in their blasphemies against the Lord. If then
this want of shame arises from ignorance of the term, they ought to
have learned of those who gave it them, and who have not scrupled to
say that even intellect, which they derive from Good, and the soul
which proceeds from intellect, though their respective origins be
known, are notwithstanding unoriginated, for they understand that by so
saying they do not disparage that first Origin of which the others
come947
947 Montfaucon quotes a passage from Plato’s Phædrus, in
which the human soul is called ‘unoriginate and immortal [246
a.];’ but Athan. is referring to another subject, the Platonic,
or rather the Eclectic [i.e. Neo-Platonic] Trinity. Thus Theodoret,
‘Plotinus, and Numenius, explaining the sense of Plato, say, that
he taught Three principles beyond time and eternal, Good, Intellect,
and the Soul of all,’ de Affect. Cur. ii. p. 750.
And so Plotinus himself, ‘It is as if one were to place Good as
the centre, Intellect like an immoveable circle round, and Soul a
moveable circle, and moveable by appetite.’ 4 Ennead. iv.
c. 16. vid. Porphyry in Cyril. contr. Julian. viii. t. ult. p.
271. vid. ibid. i. p. 32. Plot. 3 Ennead. v. 2 and 3.
Athan.’s testimony that the Platonists considered their
three ὑποστάσεις
all unoriginate is perhaps a singular one. In 5
Ennead. iv. 1. Plotinus says what seems contrary to it,
ἡ δὲ ἀρχὴ
ἀγέννητος, speaking of his τἀγαθόν. Yet Plato, quoted by Theodoret, ibid. p. 749, speaks of
εἴτε
ἀρχὴν εἴτε
ἀρχάς. | . This being the case, let them say the like
themselves, or else not speak at all of what they do not know. But if
they consider they are acquainted with the subject, then they must be
interrogated; for948
948 ἐπεὶ
μάλισται, ὅτι
μάλιστα,
Orat. 1. §36. de Syn. §21. fin. ὅταν
μάλιστα,
Apol. ad Const. 23. καὶ
μάλιστα,
de Syn. §42, 54. | the expression is not
from divine Scripture949 , but they are
contentious, as elsewhere, for unscriptural positions. Just as I have
related the reason and sense, with which the Council and the Fathers
before it defined and published ‘of the essence,’ and
‘one in essence,’ agreeably to what Scripture says of the
Saviour; so now let them, if they can, answer on their part what has
led them to this unscriptural phrase, and in what sense they call God
Unoriginated? In truth, I am told950
950 And so
de Syn. §46. ‘we have on careful inquiry
ascertained, &c.’ Again, ‘I have acquainted myself on
their account [the Arians’] with the meaning of ἀγένητον.’ Orat. i. §30. This is remarkable, for Athan.
was a man of liberal education, as his Orat. contr. Gent. and
de Incarn. shew, especially, his acquaintance with the Platonic
philosophy. Sulpicius too speaks of him as a jurisconsultus, Sacr.
Hist. ii. 50. S. Gregory Naz. says, that he gave some attention,
but not much, to the subjects of general education, τῶν
ἐγκυκλίων, that he might not be altogether ignorant, of what he
nevertheless despised, Orat. 21. 6. In the same way S. Basil,
whose cultivation of mind none can doubt, speaks slightingly of his own
philosophical knowledge. He writes of his ‘neglecting his own
weakness, and being utterly unexercised in such disquisitions;’
contr. Eunom. init. And so in de Sp. §5. he says,
that ‘they who have given time’ to vain philosophy,
‘divide causes into principal, cooperative,’ &c.
Elsewhere he speaks of having ‘expended much time on vanity, and
wasted nearly all his youth in the vain labour of pursuing the studies
of that wisdom which God has made foolishness,’ Ep. 223.
2. In truth, Christianity has a philosophy of its own. Thus in the
commencement of his Viæ Dux Anastasius says, ‘It is a
first point to be understood, that the tradition of the Catholic Church
does not proceed upon, or follow, the philosophical definitions in all
respects, and especially as regards the mystery of Christ, and the
doctrine of the Trinity, but a certain rule of its own, evangelical and
apostolical.’ p. 20. | , that the name
has different senses; philosophers
say that it means, first ‘what has not yet, but may, come to
be;’ next, ‘what neither exists, nor can come into
being;’ and thirdly, ‘what exists indeed, but was neither
originated nor had origin of being, but is everlasting and
indestructible951
951 Four
senses of ἀγένητον
are enumerated, Orat. i. §30. 1. What is
not as yet, but is possible; 2. what neither has been nor can be; 3.
what exists, but has not come to be from any cause; 4. what is not
made, but is ever. Only two senses are specified in the de Syn.
§46. and in these the question really lies; 1. what is, but
without a cause; 2. uncreate. | .’ Now perhaps they will wish to
pass over the first two senses, from the absurdity which follows; for
according to the first, things that already have come to be, and things
that are expected to come to be, are unoriginated; and the second is
more absurd still; accordingly they will proceed to the third sense,
and use the word in it; though here, in this sense too, their
irreligion will be quite as great. For if by unoriginated they mean
what has no origin of being, nor is originated or created, but eternal,
and say that the Word of God is contrary to this, who comprehends not
the craft of these foes of God? who but would stone952
952 Βαλλέσθωσαν
παρὰ
πάντων,
Orat. ii. §28. An apparent allusion to the punishment of
blasphemy and idolatry under the Jewish Law. vid. [Ex. xix. 13. and] reference to
Ex. xxi. 17, in §27, note 2. Thus, e.g. Nazianzen: ‘While I
go up the mount with good heart, that I may become within the cloud,
and may hold converse with God, for so God bids; if there be any Aaron,
let him go up with me and stand near. And if there be any Nadab or
Abihu, or of the elders, let him go up, but stand far off, according to
the measure of his purification.…But if any one is an evil and
savage beast, and quite incapable of science and theology; let him
stand off still further, and depart from the mount: or he will be
stoned and crushed; for the wicked shall be miserably destroyed.
For as stones for the bestial are true words and strong. Whether he be
leopard, let him die spots and all,’ &c. &c. Orat.
28. 2. |
such madmen? for, when they are ashamed to bring forward again those
first phrases which they fabled, and which were condemned, the wretches
have taken another way to signify them, by means of what they call
unoriginate. For if the Son be of things originate, it follows, that He
too came to be from nothing; and if He has an origin of being, then He
was not before His generation; and if He is not eternal, there was once
when He was not953
953 The
Arians argued that the word unoriginate implied originate
or creature as its correlative, and therefore indirectly
signified Creator; so that the Son being not unoriginate, was
not the Creator. Athan. answers, that in the use of the word, whether
there be a Son does not come into the question. As the idea of Father
and Son does not include creation, so that of creator and creature does
not include generation; and it would be as illogical to infer that
there are no creatures because there is a Son as that there is no Son
because there are creatures. | .
29. If these are their sentiments they ought to
signify their heterodoxy in their own phrases, and not to hide their
perverseness under the cloke of the Unoriginate. But instead of this,
the evil-minded men do all things with craftiness like their father,
the devil; for as he attempts to deceive in the guise of others, so
these have broached the term Unoriginate, that they might pretend to
speak piously of God, yet might cherish a concealed blasphemy against
the Lord, and under a veil might teach it to others. However, on the
detecting of this sophism, what remains to them? ‘We have found
another,’ say the evildoers; and then proceed to add to what they
have said already, that Unoriginate means what has no author of being,
but stands itself in this relation to things originated. Unthankful,
and in truth deaf to the Scriptures! who do everything, and say
everything, not to honour God, but to dishonour the Son, ignorant that
he who dishonours the Son, dishonours the Father. For first, even
though they denote God in this way, still the Word is not proved to be
of things originated. For again, as being an offspring of the essence
of the Father, He is of consequence with Him eternally. For this name
of offspring does not detract from the nature of the Word, nor does
Unoriginated take its sense from contrast with the Son, but with the
things which come to be through the Son; and as he who addresses an
architect, and calls him framer of house or city, does not under this
designation allude to the son who is begotten from him, but on account
of the art and science which he displays in his work, calls him
artificer, signifying thereby that he is not such as the things made by
him, and while he knows the nature of the builder, knows also that he
whom he begets is other than his works; and in regard to his son calls
him father, but in regard to his works, creator and maker; in like
manner he who says in this sense that God is unoriginate, names Him
from His works, signifying, not only that He is not originated, but
that He is maker of things which are so; yet is aware withal that the
Word is other than the things originate, and alone a proper offspring
of the Father, through whom all things came to be and consist954
954 The
whole of this passage is repeated in Orat. i. 32. &c. vid.
for this particular argument, Basil also, contr. Eunom. i.
16. | .
30. In like manner, when the Prophets spoke of
God as All-ruling, they did not so name Him, as if the Word were
included in that All; (for they knew that the Son was other than things originated, and Sovereign
over them Himself, according to His likeness to the Father); but
because He is Ruler over all things which through the Son He has made,
and has given the authority of all things to the Son, and having given
it, is Himself once more the Lord of all things through the Word.
Again, when they called God, Lord of the powers955 , they
said not this as if the Word was one of those powers, but because while
He is Father of the Son, He is Lord of the powers which through the Son
have come to be. For again, the Word too, as being in the Father, is
Lord of them all, and Sovereign over all; for all things, whatsoever
the Father hath, are the Son’s. This then being the force of such
titles, in like manner let a man call God unoriginated, if it so please
him; not however as if the Word were of originated things, but because,
as I said before, God not only is not originated, but through His
proper Word is He the maker of things which are so. For though the
Father be called such, still the Word is the Father’s Image, and
one in essence with Him; and being His Image, He must be distinct from
things originated, and from everything; for whose Image He is, His
property and likeness He hath: so that he who calls the Father
unoriginated and almighty, perceives in the Unoriginated and the
Almighty, His Word and His Wisdom, which is the Son. But these wondrous
men, and prompt for irreligion, hit upon the term Unoriginated, not as
caring for God’s honour, but from malevolence towards the
Saviour; for if they had regard to honour and reverent language, it
rather had been right and good to acknowledge and to call God Father,
than to give Him this name; for in calling God unoriginated, they are,
as I said before, calling Him from things which came to be, and as a
Maker only, that so they may imply the Word to be a work after their
own pleasure; but he who calls God Father, in Him withal signifies His
Son also, and cannot fail to know that, whereas there is a Son, through
this Son all things that came to be were created.
31. Therefore it will be much more accurate to
denote God from the Son and to call Him Father, than to name Him and
call Him Unoriginated from His works only; for the latter term refers
to the works that have come to be at the will of God through the Word,
but the name of Father points out the proper offspring from His
essence. And whereas the Word surpasses things originated, by so much
and more also doth calling God Father surpass the calling Him
Unoriginated; for the latter is non-scriptural and suspicious, as it
has various senses; but the former is simple and scriptural, and more
accurate, and alone implies the Son. And ‘Unoriginated’ 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 in the Father and the Father in Me956 ;’ and, ‘He that hath seen Me hath
seen the Father;’ and, ‘I and the Father are one957 ;’ but nowhere is He found to call the
Father Unoriginated. Moreover, when He teaches us to pray, He says not,
‘When ye pray, say, O God Unoriginated,’ but rather,
‘When ye pray, say, Our Father, which art in heaven958 .’ And it was His Will, that the Summary
of our faith should have the same bearing. For He has bid us be
baptized, not in the name of Unoriginate and Originate, not into the
name of Uncreate and Creature, but into the name of Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit959
959 And so
S. Basil, ‘Our faith was not in Framer and Work, but in Father
and Son were we sealed through the grace in baptism.’ contr.
Eunom. ii. 22. And a somewhat similar passage occurs Orat.
ii. §41. | , for with such an initiation we too are
made sons verily960
960 υἱοποιούμεθα
ἀληθῶς. This
strong term ‘truly’ or ‘verily’ seems taken
from such passages as speak of the ‘grace and truth’ of the
Gospel, John i. 12–17. Again S. Basil says,
that we are sons, κυρίως,
‘properly,’ and πρώτως ‘primarily,’ in opposition to τροπικῶς, ‘figuratively,’ contr. Eunom. ii. 23.
S. Cyril too says, that we are sons ‘naturally’
φυσικῶς as well as κατὰ
χάριν, vid. Suicer
Thesaur. v. υἱ&
231·ς. i. 3. Of these words,
ἀληθῶς,
φυσικῶς,
κυρίως,
and πρώτως, the
first two are commonly reserved for our Lord; e.g. τὸν
ἀληθῶς υἱ&
232·ν, Orat. ii.
§37. ἡμεῖς υἱοὶ,
οὐκ ὡς
ἐκεῖνος
φύσει καὶ
ἀληθεία,
iii. §19. Hilary seems to deny us the title of
‘proper’ sons; de Trin. xii. 15; but his
‘proprium’ is a translation of ἴδιον, not κυρίως. And when Justin says of Christ ὁ μόνος
λεγόμενος
κυρίως υἱ&
232·ς, Apol. ii. 6.
κυρίως
seems to be used in reference to the word κύριος, Lord, which he has just been using, κυριολογεῖν
being sometimes used by him as others in the sense of
‘naming as Lord,’ like θεολογεῖν. vid. Tryph. 56. There is a passage in
Justin’s ad Græc. 21. where he (or the writer) when
speaking of ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ
ὣν, uses the word in the same
ambiguous sense; οὐδὲν γὰρ
ὄνομα ἐπὶ
θεοῦ
κυριολογεῖσθαι
δυνατὸν,
21; as if κύριος, the
Lord, by which ‘I am’ is translated, were a sort of symbol
of that proper name of God which cannot be given. But to return; the
true doctrine then is, that, whereas there is a primary and secondary
sense in which the word Son is used, primary when it has its formal
meaning of continuation of nature, and secondary when it is used
nominally, or for an external resemblance to the first meaning, it is
applied to the regenerate, not in the secondary sense, but in the
primary. S. Basil and S. Gregory Nyssen consider Son to be ‘a
term of relationship according to nature’ (vid.
supr. §10, note 1.), also Basil in Psalm xxviii. 1. The
actual presence of the Holy Spirit in the regenerate in
substance (vid. Cyril, Dial. 7. p. 638.) constitutes this
relationship of nature; and hence after the words quoted from S. Cyril
in the beginning of the note, in which he says, that we are
sons, φυσικῶς, he proceeds, ‘naturally, because we are in Him, and
in Him alone.’ vid. Athan.’s words which follow in the text
at the end of §31. And hence Nyssen lays down, as a received
truth, that ‘to none does the term “proper,”
κυριώτατον, apply, but to one in whom the name responds with truth to
the nature,’ contr. Eunom. iii. p. 123. And he also
implies, p. 117, the intimate association of our sonship with
Christ’s, when he connects together regeneration with our
Lord’s eternal generation, neither being διὰ
πάθους, or, of
the will of the flesh. If it be asked, what the distinctive
words are which are incommunicably the Son’s, since so much is
man’s, it is obvious to answer, ἴδιος
υἱ& 232·ς and
μονογενὴς, which are in Scripture, and the symbols ‘of the
essence,’ and ‘one in essence,’ of the Council; and
this is the value of the Council’s phrases, that, while they
guard the Son’s divinity, they allow full scope, without risk of
entrenching on it, to the Catholic doctrine of the fulness of the
Christian privileges. vid. supr. §19, note. | , and using the name
of the Father, we acknowledge from that name the Word in the Father. But if He wills that we
should call His own Father our Father, we must not on that account
measure ourselves with the Son according to nature, for it is because
of the Son that the Father is so called by us; for since the Word bore
our body and came to be in us, therefore by reason of the Word in us,
is God called our Father. For the Spirit of the Word in us names
through us His own Father as ours, which is the Apostle’s meaning
when he says, ‘God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into
your hearts, crying, Abba, Father961 .’
32. But perhaps being refuted as touching the
term Unoriginate also, they will say according to their evil nature,
‘It behoved, as regards our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ also,
to state from the Scriptures what is there written of Him, and not to
introduce non-scriptural expressions.’ Yes, it behoved, say I
too; for the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture,
than from other sources962
962 Cf.
contr. Gent. init. Incarn. 57. ad Ep. Æg. 4.
Vit. Ant. 16. And passim in Athan. | ; but the ill
disposition and the versatile and crafty irreligion of Eusebius and his
fellows, compelled the Bishops, as I said before, to publish more
distinctly the terms which overthrew their irreligion; and what the
Council did write has already been shewn to have an orthodox sense,
while the Arians have been shewn to be corrupt in their phrases, and
evil in their dispositions. The term Unoriginate, having its own sense,
and admitting of a religious use, they nevertheless, according to their
own idea, and as they will, use for the dishonour of the Saviour, all
for the sake of contentiously maintaining, like giants963
963 And so,
Orat. ii. §32, κατὰ τοὺς
μυθευομένους
γίγαντας. And so Nazianzen, Orat. 43. 26. speaking of the
disorderly Bishops during the Arian ascendancy. Also Socr. v. 10.
Sometimes the Scripture giants are spoken of, sometimes the
mythological. | , their fight with God. But as they did not
escape condemnation when they adduced these former phrases, so when
they misconceive of the Unoriginated which in itself admits of being
used well and religiously, they were detected, being disgraced before
all, and their heresy everywhere proscribed. This then, as I could,
have I related, by way of explaining what was formerly done in the
Council; but I know that the contentious among Christ’s foes will
not be disposed to change even after hearing this, but will ever search
about for other pretences, and for others again after those. For as the
Prophet speaks, ‘If the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard
his spots964 ’, then will they be willing to
think religiously, who have been instructed in irreligion. Thou
however, beloved, on receiving this, read it by thyself; and if thou
approvest of it, read it also to the brethren who happen to be present,
that they too on hearing it, may welcome the Council’s zeal for
the truth, and the exactness of its sense; and may condemn that of
Christ’s foes, the Arians, and the futile pretences, which for
the sake of their irreligious heresy they have been at the pains to
frame among themselves; because to God and the Father is due the glory,
honour, and worship with His co-existent Son and Word, together with
the All-holy and Life-giving Spirit, now and unto endless ages of ages.
Amen.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|