34.
Therefore it is more pious and more accurate to signify God from the Son and call Him Father, than to name Him from His works only and call Him Unoriginate 1. For the latter title, as I have said, does nothing more than signify all the works, individually and collectively, which have come to be at the will of God through the Word; but the title Father has its significance and its bearing only from the Son. And, whereas the Word surpasses things originated, by so much and more doth calling God Father surpass the calling Him Unoriginate. For the latter is unscriptural and suspicious, because it has various senses; so that, when a man is asked concerning it, his mind is carried about to many ideas; but the word Father is simple and scriptural, and more accurate, and only implies the Son. And ‘Unoriginate’ 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 am in the Father, and the Father is in Me;’ and, ‘He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father,’ and ‘I and the Father are One 2;’ but nowhere is He found to call the Father Unoriginate. Moreover, when He teaches us to pray, He says not, ‘When ye pray, say, O God Unoriginate,’ but rather, ‘When ye pray, say, Our Father, which art in heaven 3.’ And it was His will that the Summary 4 of our faith should have the same bearing, in bidding us be baptized, not into the name of Unoriginate and originate, nor into the name of Creator and creature, but into the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For with such an initiation we too, being numbered among works, are made sons, and using the name of the Father, acknowledge from that name the Word also in the Father Himself 5. A vain thing then is their argument about the term ‘Unoriginate,’ as is now proved, and nothing more than a fantasy.
For analogous arguments against the word ἀγέννητον , see Basil,contr. Eunom.i. 5. p. 215. Greg. Naz.Orat.31. 23. Epiph.Hær.76. p. 941. Greg. Nyss.contr. Eunom. vi. p. 192, &c. Cyril.Dial.ii. Pseudo-Basil.contr. Eunom.iv. p. 283. ↩
John xiv. 11 ; xiv. 9; x. 30. These three texts are found together frequently in Athan. particularly inOrat.iii. where he considers the doctrines of the ‘Image’ and the περιχώρησις . vid. Index of Texts, also Epiph.Hær.64. 9. Basil.Hexaem.ix. fin. Cyr.Thes.xii. p. 111. [add in S. Joan, 168, 847] Potam.Ep. ap.Dacher. t. 3. p. 299. Hil.Trin.vii. 41. et supr. ↩
Luke xi. 2 . ↩
De Syn.28, note 5. ↩
Here ends the extract from thede Decretis.The sentence following is added as a close. ↩
