{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/205/2050119.htm","path":"chr/ecf/205/2050119.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/205/2050119.htm","text":"\u00a73. He further shows that the pretemporal generation of the Son is not the subject of influences drawn from ordinary and carnal generation, but is without beginning and without end, and not according to the fabrications constructed by Eunomius, in ignorance of His power, from the statements of Plato concerning the soul and from the sabbath rest of the Hebrews.\nWhat he says runs thus:\u2014\u201cAs all generation is not protracted to infinity, but ceases on arriving at some end, those who admit the origination of the Son are absolutely obliged to say that He then ceased being generated, and not to look incredulously on the beginning of those things which cease being generated, and therefore also surely begin: for the cessation of generation establishes a beginning of begetting and being begotten: and these facts cannot be disbelieved, on the ground at once of nature itself and of the Divine laws 914 .\u201d Now since he endeavours to establish his point inferentially, laying down his universal proposition according to the scientific method of those who are skilled in such matters, and including in the general premise the proof of the particular, let us first consider his universal, and then proceed to examine the force of his inferences. Is it a reverent proceeding to draw from \u201call generation\u201d evidence even as to the pre-temporal generation of the Son? and ought we to put forward ordinary nature as our instructor on the being of the Only-begotten? For my own part, I should not have expected any one to reach such a point of madness, that any such idea of the Divine and unsullied generation should enter his fancy. \u201cAll generation,\u201d he says, \u201cis not protracted to infinity.\u201d What is it that he understands by \u201cgeneration\u201d? Is he speaking of fleshly, bodily birth, or of the formation of inanimate objects? The affections involved in bodily generation are well known\u2014affections which no one would think of transferring to the Divine Nature. In order therefore that our discourse may not, by mentioning the works of nature at length, be made to appear redundant, we shall pass such matters by in silence, as I suppose that every sensible man is himself aware of the causes by which generation is protracted, both in regard to its beginning and to its cessation: it would be tedious and at the same time superfluous to express them all minutely, the coming together of those who generate, the formation in the womb of that which is generated, travail, birth, place, time, without which the generation of a body cannot be brought about,\u2014things which are all equally alien from the Divine generation of the Only-begotten: for if any one of these p. CCXV things were admitted, the rest will of necessity all enter with it. That the Divine generation, therefore, may be clear of every idea connected with passion, we shall avoid conceiving with regard to it even that extension which is measured by intervals. Now that which begins and ends is surely regarded as being in a kind of extension, and all extension is measured by time, and as time (by which we mark both the end of birth and its beginning) is excluded, it would be vain, in the case of the uninterrupted generation, to entertain the idea of end or beginning, since no idea can be formed to mark either the point at which such generation begins or that at which it ceases. If on the other hand it is the inanimate creation to which he is looking, even in this case, in like manner, place, and time, and matter, and preparation, and power of the artificer, and many like things, concur to bring the product to perfection. And since time assuredly is concurrent with all things that are produced, and since with everything that is created, be it animate or inanimate, there are conceived also bases of construction relative to the product, we can find in these cases evident beginnings and endings of the process of formation. For even the procuring of material is actually the beginning of the fabric, and is a sign of place, and is logically connected with time. All these things fix for the products their beginnings and endings; and no one could say that these things have any participation in the pretemporal generation of the Only-begotten God, so that, by the aid of the things now under consideration, we are able to calculate, with regard to that generation, any beginning or end.\nNow that we have so far discussed these matters, let us resume consideration of our adversaries\u2019 argument. It says, \u201cAs all generation is not protracted to infinity, but ceases on arriving at some end.\u201d Now, since the sense of \u201cgeneration\u201d has been considered with respect to either meaning,\u2014whether he intends by this word to signify the birth of corporeal beings, or the formation of things created (neither of which has anything in common with the unsullied Nature), the premise is shown to have no connection with the subject 915 . For it is not a matter of absolute necessity, as he maintains, that, because all making and generation ceases at some limit, therefore those who accept the generation of the Son should circumscribe it by a double limit, by supposing, as regards it, a beginning and an end. For it is only as being circumscribed in some quantitative way that things can be said either to begin or to cease on arriving at a limit, and the measure expressed by time (having its extension concomitant with the quantity of that which is produced) differentiates the beginning from the end by the interval between them. But how can any one measure or treat as extended that which is without quantity and without extension? What measure can he find for that which has no quantity, or what interval for that which has no extension? or how can any one define the infinite by \u201cend\u201d and \u201cbeginning?\u201d for \u201cbeginning\u201d and \u201cend\u201d are names of limits of extension, and, where there is no extension, neither is there any limit. Now the Divine Nature is without extension, and, being without extension, it has no limit; and that which is limitless is infinite, and is spoken of accordingly. Thus it is idle to try to circumscribe the infinite by \u201cbeginning\u201d and \u201cending\u201d\u2014for what is circumscribed cannot be infinite. How comes it, then, that this Platonic Ph\u00e6drus disconnectedly tacks on to his own doctrine those speculations on the soul which Plato makes in that dialogue? For as Plato there spoke of \u201ccessation of motion,\u201d so this writer too was eager to speak of \u201ccessation of generation,\u201d in order to impose upon those who have no knowledge of these matters, with fine Platonic phrases. \u201cAnd these facts,\u201d he tells us, \u201ccannot be disbelieved, on the ground at once of nature itself and of the Divine laws.\u201d But nature, from our previous remarks, appears not to be trustworthy for instruction as to the Divine generation,\u2014not even if one were to take the universe itself as an illustration of the argument: since through its creation also, as we learn in the cosmogony of Moses, there ran the measure of time, meted out in a certain order and arrangement by stated days and nights, for each of the things that came into being: and this even our adversaries\u2019 statement does not admit with regard to the being of the Only-begotten, since it acknowledges that the Lord was before the times of the ages.\nIt remains to consider his support of his point by \u201cthe Divine laws,\u201d by which he undertakes to show both an end and a beginning of the generation of the Son. \u201cGod,\u201d he says, \u201cwilling that the law of creation should be impressed upon the Hebrews, did not appoint the first day of generation for the end of creation, or to be the evidence of its beginning; for He gave them as the memorial of the creation, not the first day of generation, but the seventh, whereon He rested from His works.\u201d Will any one believe that this was written by Eunomius, and that the words cited have not been inserted by us, by way of misrepresenting his composition so as to make him appear ridiculous to our readers, in dragging in to prove his point p. CCXVI matters that have nothing to do with the question? For the matter in hand was to show, as he undertook to do, that the Son, not previously existing, came into being; and that in being generated, He took a beginning of generation, and of cessation 916 ,\u2014His generation being protracted in time, as it were by a kind of travail. And what is his resource for establishing this? The fact that the people of the Hebrews, according to the Law, keep sabbath on the seventh day! How well the evidence agrees with the matter in hand! Because the Jew honours his sabbath by idleness, the fact, as he says, is proved that the Lord both had a beginning of birth and ceased being born! How many other testimonies on this matter has our author passed by, not at all of less weight than that which he employs to establish the point at issue!\u2014the circumcision on the eighth day, the week of unleavened bread, the mystery on the fourteenth day of the moon\u2019s course, the sacrifices of purification, the observation of the lepers, the ram, the calf, the heifer, the scapegoat, the he-goat. If these things are far removed from the point, let those who are so much interested in the Jewish mysteries tell us how that particular matter is within range of the question. We judge it to be mean and unmanly to trample on the fallen, and shall proceed to enquire, from what follows in his writings, whether there is anything there of such a kind as to give trouble to his opponent. All, then, that he maintains in the next passage, as to the impropriety of supposing anything intermediate between the Father and the Son, I shall pass by, as being, in a sense, in agreement with our doctrine. For it would be alike undiscriminating and unfair not to distinguish in his remarks what is irreproachable, and what is blamable, seeing that, while he fights against his own statements, he does not follow his own admissions, speaking of the immediate character of the connection while refusing to admit its continuity, and conceiving that nothing was before the Son and having some suspicion that the Son was while yet contending that He came into being when He was not. We shall spend but a short time on these points (since the argument has already been established beforehand), and then proceed to handle the arguments proposed.\nIt is not allowable for the same person to set nothing above the existence of the Only-begotten, and to say that before His generation He was not, but that He was generated then when the Father willed. For \u201cthen\u201d and \u201cwhen\u201d have a sense which specially and properly refers to the denoting of time, according to the common use of men who speak soundly, and according to their signification in Scripture. One may take \u201cthen shall they say among the heathen 917 ,\u201d and \u201cwhen I sent you 918 \u201d and \u201cthen shall the kingdom of heaven be likened 919 ,\u201d and countless similar phrases through the whole of Scripture, to prove this point, that the ordinary Scriptural use employs these parts of speech to denote time. If therefore, as our opponent allows, time was not, the signifying of time surely disappears too: and if this did not exist, it will necessarily be replaced by eternity in our conception 920 . For in the phrase \u201cwas not\u201d there is surely implied \u201conce\u201d: as, if he should speak of \u201cnot being,\u201d without the qualification \u201conce,\u201d he would also deny his existence now: but if he admits His present existence, and contends against His eternity, it is surely not \u201cnot being\u201d absolutely, but \u201cnot being\u201d once which is present to his mind. And as this phrase is utterly unreal, unless it rests upon the signification of time, it would be foolish and idle to say that nothing was before the Son, and yet to maintain that the Son did not always exist. For if there is neither place nor time, nor any other creature where the Word that was in the beginning is not, the statement that the Lord \u201conce was not\u201d is entirely removed from the region of orthodox doctrine. So he is at variance not so much with us as with himself, who declares that the Only-begotten both was and was not. For in confessing that the conjunction of the Son with the Father is not interrupted by anything, He clearly testifies to His eternity. But if he should say that the Son was not in the Father, we shall not ourselves say anything against such a statement, but shall oppose to it the Scripture which declares that the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son, without adding to the phrase \u201conce\u201d or \u201cwhen\u201d or \u201cthen,\u201d but testifying His eternity by this affirmative and unqualified utterance.\nThis quotation from Eunomius presents some difficulties, but it is quite as likely that they are due to the obscurity of his style, as that they are due to corruption of the text.\nCCXV:915\ni. e.with the subject of discussion, the generation of the Only-begotten.\nCCXVI:916\nThe genitive \u03bb\u03b7\u03be\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 is rather awkward; it may be explained, however, as dependent upon \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd; \u201cHe began to be generated: He began to cease being generated.\u201d\nCCXVI:917 CCXVI:918\nS. Luke xxii. 35.\nCCXVI:919\nS. Matt. xxv. 1\nCCXVI:920\nThe phrase is obscure, and the text possibly corrupt. To read \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (as Gulonius seems to have done) would simplify matters: but the general sense is clear\u2014that the denial of the existence of time implies eternity.","title":"Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol. V: Dogmatic Treatises.: He further shows that the pretemporal generation of the Son is not the subject of influences drawn from ordinary and carnal generation, but is without beginning and without end, and not according to the fabrications constructed by Eunomius, in ignorance of His power, from the statements of Plato concerning the soul and from the sabbath rest of the Hebrews.","type":"page"}