{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/204/2040359.htm","path":"chr/ecf/204/2040359.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/204/2040359.htm","text":"On the Meaning of the Formula \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03bd, in the Nicene Anathema.\nIt was observed on p. 75, note 4(b), that there were two clauses in the Nicene Anathema which required explanation. One of them, \u1f10\u03be \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, has been discussed in the Excursus, pp. 77\u201382; the other, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03bd, shall be considered now.\nBishop Bull has suggested a very ingenious interpretation of it, which is not obvious, but which, when stated, has much plausibility, as going to explain, or rather to sanction, certain modes of speech in some early Fathers of venerable authority, which have been urged by heterodox writers, and given up by Catholics of the Roman School, as savouring of Arianism. The foregoing pages have made it abundantly evident that the point of controversy between Catholics and Arians was, not whether our Lord was God, but whether He was Son of God; the solution of the former question being involved in that of the latter. The Arians maintained that the very word \u2018Son\u2019 implied a \u2018beginning,\u2019 or that our Lord was not Very God; the Catholics said that it implied \u2018connaturality,\u2019 or that He was Very God as one with God. Now five early writers, Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus, Hippolytus, and Novatian, of whom the authority of Hippolytus is very great, not to speak of Theophilus and Athenagoras, whatever be thought of Tatian and of Novatian, seem to speak of the divine generation as taking place immediately before the creation of the world, that is, as if not eternal, though p. 344 at the same time they teach that our Lord existed before that generation. In other words they seem to teach that He was the Word from eternity, and became the Son at the beginning of all things; some of them expressly considering Him, first as the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, or Reason, in the Father, or (as may be speciously represented) a mere attribute; next, as the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2, or Word, terms which are explained, note on de Syn. 26 (5). This doctrine, when divested of figure and put into literal statement, might appear nothing more or less than this,\u2014that at the beginning of the world the Son was created after the likeness of the Divine attribute of Reason, as its image or expression, and thereby became the Divine Word, was made the instrument of creation, called the Son from that ineffable favour and adoption which God had bestowed on Him, and in due time sent into the world to manifest God\u2019s perfections to mankind;\u2014which, it is scarcely necessary to say, is the doctrine of Arianism.\n\u03a4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03b3\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f43\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6 \u1f00& 231\u00b7\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3, \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff3, \u1f41\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u00b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u03c6\u03b8\u03b5\u03b3\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u1fc6\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. contr. Noet. 10.\n\u1fce\u0395\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03be\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u2026\u1f41\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f20\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f10\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd, \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. ad Autol. ii. 10\u201322.\nBishop Bull, Defens. F. N. iii. 5\u20138, meets this representation by maintaining that the \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 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. Acts 3.9) 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 \u2018the Son was not before His generation,\u2019 i.e. who deny that \u2018the Son was before His generation,\u2019 which statement accordingly becomes indirectly a Catholic truth.\nI am not aware whether any writer has preceded or followed this great authority in this view 2209 . 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, \u2018whereas He was begotten, He was not before He was begotten,\u2019 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\u2019s 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.\nThe point at issue between the two interpretations is this; whether the clause \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03bd is intended for a denial of the contrary proposition, \u2018He was before His generation,\u2019 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 \u2018He was from everlasting.\u2019 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, \u2018He was before His generation,\u2019\u2014and that the Catholics asserted or defended it; some reasons shall here be given for the contrary view.\n1. 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, \u2018He is a son, therefore He had a beginning.\u2019 Thus Socrates records Arius\u2019s words in the beginning of the controversy, (1) \u2018If the Father begat the Son, He who is begotten has a beginning of existence; (2) therefore once the Son was not, \u1f26\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03bd; (3) therefore He has His subsistence from nothing, \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\u2019 H. E. i. 5. The first of these propositions exactly answers to the \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 taken enthymematically; and it may be added that when so taken, the three propositions will just answer to the three first formul\u00e6 anathematized at Nic\u00e6a, two of which are indisputably the same as two of them; viz. \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u1f72 p. 345 \u03b4\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03bd\u00b7 & 234\u00b7\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03bd\u00b7 & 234\u00b7\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf. On the other hand, we hear nothing in the controversy of the position which Bull conceives to be opposed by Arius (\u2018He was before His generation\u2019), 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, \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31& 231\u00b7\u03bd, which is explained, de Syn. 16. note 12.\n2. Next, it should be observed that the other formul\u00e6 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 \u2018Son.\u2019 Such are \u1f41 \u1f62\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1; and \u1f13\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf; and in like manner as regards the question of the \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd; \u2018Has He free will\u2019 (thus Athanasius states the Arian objection) \u2018or 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?\u2019 supr. \u00a735. That is, they wished the word \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 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.\n3. In \u00a732, S. Athanasius observes that the formula of the \u1f00\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd was the later substitute for the original formul\u00e6 of Arius; \u2018when they were no longer allowed to say, \u201cout of nothing,\u201d and \u201cHe was not before His generation,\u201d\u2019 they hit upon this word Unoriginate, that, by saying among the simple that the Son was originate, they might imply the very same phrases \u201cout of nothing\u201d and \u201cHe once was not.\u201d Here he does not in so many words say that the argument from the \u1f00\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd was a substitute for the \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, yet surely it is not unfair so to understand him. But it is plain that the \u1f00\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd 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 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. Nay, when the Arians asked, \u2018Is the \u1f00\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd one or two,\u2019 they actually did assume that it was granted by their opponents that the Father only was \u1f00\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2; which it was not, if the latter held, nay, if they had sanctioned at Nic\u00e6a, as Bull says, that our Lord \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc7; and moreover which they knew and confessed was not granted, if their own formula \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 was directed against this statement.\n4. Again, it is plain that the \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03af\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 is used by S. Athanasius as the same objection with \u1f41 \u1f62\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, &c. E.g. he says, \u2018We might ask them in turn, God who is, has He so become, whereas He was not?\u2019 or is He also before His generation? whereas He is, did He make Himself, or is He of nothing. &c., \u00a725. Now the \u1f41 \u1f62\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, &c., is evidently an argument, and that, grounded on the absurdity of saying \u1f41 \u1f62\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1. S. Alexander\u2019s Encyclical Letter (vid. Socr. i. 6), compared with Arius\u2019s original positions and the Nicene Anathemas as referred to above, is a strong confirmation. In these three documents the formul\u00e6 agree together, except one; and that one, which in Arius\u2019s language is \u2018he who is begotten has a beginning of existence,\u2019 is in the Nicene Anathema, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, but in S. Alexander\u2019s circular, \u1f41 \u1f62\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd. The absence of the \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd, &c., in S. Alexander is certainly remarkable. Moreover the two formul\u00e6 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.\n5. 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\u2019s eternity, the Catholic answer would be, \u2018He could not be before His generation because His generation is eternal, as being from the Father.\u2019 Now this is precisely the language Athanasius uses, when it occurs to him to introduce the words in question. Thus in Orat. ii. \u00a757 he says, \u2018The creatures began to come to be (\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9); but the Word of God, not having beginning (\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd) of being, surely did not begin to be, nor begin to come to be, but was always. And the works have a beginning (\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd) 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 (\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9), 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 (\u03c0\u03c1\u03af\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9); but the Word hath His being in no other origin than the Father (vid. supr. \u00a711, note 1), \u2018whom they themselves allow to be unoriginate, so that He too exists unoriginately in the Father, being His offspring not His creature.\u2019 We shall find that other Fathers say just the same. Again, we have already come to a passage where for \u2018His generation,\u2019 he substitutes \u2018making,\u2019 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 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd, &c., but laying down one of their own. \u2018Who is there in all mankind, Greek or Barbarian, who ventures to rank among creatures One whom he confesses the while to be God, and says that \u201cHe was not \u2018before He was made,\u2019 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc7.\u201d\u2019 Orat. i. \u00a710. Arius, who is surely the best explainer of his own words, says the same; that is, he interprets \u2018generation\u2019 by \u2018making,\u2019 or confesses that he is bringing forward an argument, not opposing a dogma; \u2018Before His generation,\u2019 he says, \u2018or creation, or destination (\u1f41\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc7), Rom. i. 4), or founding (vid. Prov. viii. 23), He was not; for He was not ingenerate.\u2019 Theod., Hist. i. 4. Eusebius of Nicomedia also, in a passage which has already come before us, says distinctly, \u2018\u201cIt is plain to any one,\u201d that what has been made was not before its generation; but what came to be has an origin of being.\u2019 De Syn. \u00a717.\n6. If 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 \u2018before His generation, He was,\u2019 they admit of an explanation. E.g. \u201cHow 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.\u2019 Orat. ii. \u00a722. This might be taken to imply that the Arians said, \u2018He was not,\u2019 and Catholics \u2018He was.\u2019 But the real meaning is this, \u2018How is He not a creature, if the formula be true, which they use, \u201cHe was not before His generation?\u201d for it may indeed properly be said of creatures that \u201cthey were not before their generation.\u201d\u2019 And so again when he says, \u2018if the Son was not before His generation, Truth was not always in God,\u2019 supr. \u00a720, he does not thereby imply that the Son was before His generation, but he means, \u2018if it be true that, &c.,\u2019 \u2018if the formula holds,\u2019 \u2018if it can be said of the Son, \u201cHe was not, &c.\u201d\u2019 Accordingly, shortly afterwards, in a passage already cited, he says the same of the Almighty Father in the way of parallel; \u2018God who is, hath He so become, whereas He was not, or \u201cis He too before His generation?\u201d\u2019 (\u00a725), not implying here any generation at all, but urging p. 346 that the question is idle and irrelevant, that the formula is unmeaning and does not apply to, cannot be said of, Father or Son.\n7. 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, \u2018if the Son is not before His generation, then, &c.,\u2019 he does but mean, \u2018if it can be said,\u2019 \u2018if the words can be used or applied in this case.\u2019 Now the two Fathers just mentioned both decide that it is not true, either that the Son was 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 not hold, that they do not 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. \u2018He was before His generation.\u2019 Thus S. Gregory in the passage in which he speaks of \u2018did He that is make Him that is not, &c.,\u2019 and \u2018before His generation, &c.,\u2019 as one and the same, expressly says, \u2018In His case, to be begotten is concurrent with existence and is from the beginning,\u2019 and that in contrast to the instance of men; who he says, do fulfil in a manner \u2018He who is, &c.\u2019 (Levi being in the loins of Abraham), i.e. fulfil Bull\u2019s proposition, \u2018He was before generation.\u2019 He proceeds, \u2018I say that the question is irrelevant, not the answer difficult.\u2019 And presently after, mentioning some idle inquiries by way of parallel, he adds, \u2018more ill-instructed, be sure, is it to decide whether what was generated from the beginning was or was not before generation, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2.\u2019 Orat. 29. 9.\n8. S. Hilary, on the other hand, is so full on the subject in his de Trin. 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 h\u00e6c arguta satis atque auditu placentia; Si, inquit, natus est, c\u0153pit; et cum c\u0153pit, non fuit; et cum non fuit, non patitur ut fuerit. Atque idcirco pi\u00e6 intelligenti\u00e6, sermonem esse contendant, Non fuit ante quam nasceretur, quia ut esset, qui non erat, natus est.\u2019 n. 18. He answers the objection in the same way. \u2018Unigenitus Deus neque non fuit aliquando non filius, neque fuit aliquid ante quam filius, neque quidquam aliquid ipse nisi filius,\u2019 n. 15, which is in express words to deny, \u2018He was before His generation.\u2019 Again, as Gregory, \u2018Ubi pater auctor est, ibi et nativitas est; et vero ubi auctor \u00e6ternus est, ibi et nativitatis \u00e6ternitas est,\u2019 n. 21. And he substitutes \u2018being always born\u2019 for \u2018being before birth;\u2019 \u2018Numquid ante tempora \u00e6terna esse, id ipsum sit quod est, eum qui erat nasci? quia nasci quod erat, jam non nasci est, sed se ipsum demutare nascendo.\u2026Non est itaque id ipsum, natum ante tempora \u00e6terna semper esse, et esse antequam nasci.\u2019 n. 30. And he concludes, in accordance with the above explanation of the passages of Athanasius which I brought as if objections, thus: \u2018Cum itaque natum semper esse, nihil aliud sit confitendum esse, quam natum, id sensui, antequam nascitur vel fuisse, vel non fuisse non subjacet. n. 31.\u2019\n9. It may seem 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, \u2018God begat the Son either being or not being, &c.\u2026to him that is, there needs not generation.\u2019 He replies that Eunomius, \u2018because animals first are not, and then are generated, and he who is born to-day, yesterday did not exist, transfers this conception to the subsistence of the Only-begotten; and says, since He has been generated, He was not before His generation, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2,\u2019 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 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00& 187\u00b7\u03b4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. \u00a715.\nThese then being the explanations which the contemporary and next following Fathers give of the Arian formula which was anathematized at Nic\u00e6a, 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 also 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.\nWhile commenting on the words, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u1f41\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 in the text, \u2018The Lord has created me the beginning of His ways unto the works,\u2019 S. Athanasius is led to consider the text \u2018first born of every creature,\u2019 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2: and he says that He who was \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 from eternity, became by a \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 at the creation of the world \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2. This doctrine Bp. Bull considers declaratory of a going forth, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, or figurative birth from the Father, at the beginning of all things.\nIt will be observed that the very point to be proved is this, viz. not that there was a \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 merely, but that according to Athanasius there was a \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 or proceeding from the Father, and that the word \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 marks it. Bull\u2019s words are, that \u2018Catholici quidam Doctores, qui post exortam controversiam Arianam vixerunt,\u2026illam \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5.\u2026ex Patre progressionem (quod et \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, hoc est, condescensionem eorum nonnulli appellarunt), ad condendum h\u00e6c universa agnovere; atque ejus etiam progressionis respectu ipsum \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd a Deo Patre quasi natum fuisse et omnis creatur\u00e6 primogenitum in Scripturis dici confessi sunt.\u2019 D. F. N. iii. 9. \u00a71. Now I consider that S. Athanasius does not, as this sentence says, understand by primogenitus that our Lord was \u2018progressionis respectu a Deo Patre quasi natus.\u2019 He p. 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 all things, and that in Him.\nThat Athanasius does not call the \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 of the Word a birth, as denoted by the term \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, is plain from his own avowal in the passage to which Bull refers. \u2018Nowhere in the Scriptures,\u2019 he says, \u2018is He called \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, first-born of God, nor creature of God, but Only-begotten, Word, Wisdom, have their relation to the Father, and are proper to Him.\u2019 ii. 62. Here surely he expressly denies Bull\u2019s statement that \u2018first-born\u2019 means \u2018a Deo natus,\u2019 \u2018born of God.\u2019 Such additions as \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, he says, are reserved for \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 and \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2.\nHe goes on to say what the term \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 does mean; viz. instead of having any reference to a \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 from the Father, it refers solely to the creatures; our Lord is not called \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, because His \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 is a \u2018type of His eternal generation,\u2019 but because by that \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 He became the \u2018Prototype of all creation.\u2019 He, as it 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 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 whatever at the era of creation, though figurative; \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 does but mean \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, or \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, or \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, or \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2; and no warrant is given, however indirect, to the idea that in the Nicene Anathema, the Fathers implied an allowance of the proposition, \u2018He was before His generation.\u2019\nAs 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.\nThe passage from Athenagoras is quoted by Bull himself, who of course is far from denying the doctrine of our Lord\u2019s Archetypal office; and does but wish in addition to find in Athanasius the doctrine of a \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. Athenagoras says that the Son is \u2018the first offspring, \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, of the Father, not as come to be, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd (for God being Eternal Mind had from the beginning in Himself the Word, as having Reason eternally, \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f62\u03bd), but that while as regards matter heavy and light were mixed together\u2019 (the passage is corrupt here), \u2018He went forth, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd, as an idea and energy\u2019, 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 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2. \u2018And the Prophetic Spirit confirms this doctrine, saying, The Lord hath created me a beginning (origin) of His ways, for His works.\u2019 Leg. 10.\nAnd so S. Cyril, \u2018He 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.\u2019 Thesaur. 25 p. 238.\nIn conclusion it may be suggested whether the same explanation which has here been given of Athanasius\u2019s use of \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 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.\nAs to Athenagoras, we have already seen that he does not speak of a \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 at all in his account of creation, but simply calls the Son \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, i.e. \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1.\nNor does Tatian approach nearer to the doctrine of a \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. He says that at the creation the Word \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f34\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd. ad Gr\u00e6c. 5. Here the word \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, which at first sight promises a difficulty, does in fact explain both himself and Athenagoras. He says that at creation the Word became, \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, not a Son (figuratively), as Bull would grant to the parties whom he is opposing, but a work. It was His great condescension, \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, to be accounted the first of the works, as being their type; that as they were to be raised to an adoption and called sons, so He for that purpose might stoop to creation, and be called a work. As Tatian uses the word \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 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 \u2018created a beginning, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74, of ways, unto the works, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1.\u2019\nAs 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.\nWaterland expresses the view here taken, and not Bishop Bull\u2019s; vol. i. p. 114. Bull\u2019s language, on the other hand, is very strong: \u2018S\u00e6pe olim, ut verum ingenue fateai, animum meum subiit admiratio, quid effato isto, \u2018Filius priusquam nasceretur, non erat,\u2019 sibi voluerint Ariani. De nativitate Christi ex beatissima Virgine dictum non esse exponendum constat.\u2026Itaque de nativitate Filii loquuntur, qu\u00e6 hujus universi creationem antecessit. Quis vero, inquam, sensus dicti hujus \u201cFilius non erat, sive non existebat, priusquam nasceretur ex Patre ante conditum mundum?\u201d Ego sane nullus dubito, quin hoc pronunciatum Arianorum oppositum fuerit Catholicorum istorum sententi\u00e6, qui docerent, Filium quidem paulo ante conditum mundum inexplicabili quodam modo ex Patre progressum fuisse ad constituendum universa, &c. D. F. N. iii. 9. \u00a72.","title":"Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol. IV: Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.): Excursus B. On \u00a722 (Note 3).","type":"page"}