56.
Scripture, in speaking thus, implies, O Arians, not that the Son is originate, but rather other than things originate, and proper to the Father, being in His bosom. (4.) Nor 1 does even the expression ‘become,’ which here occurs, shew that the Son is originate, as ye suppose. If indeed it were simply ‘become’ and no more, a case might stand for the Arians; but, whereas they are forestalled with the word ‘Son’ throughout the passage, shewing that He is other than things originate, so again not even the word ‘become’ occurs absolutely 2, but ‘better’ is immediately subjoined. For the writer thought the expression immaterial, knowing that in the case of one who was confessedly a genuine Son, to say ‘become’ is the same with saying that He had been made, and is, ‘better.’ For it matters not even if we speak of what is generate, as ‘become’ or ‘made;’ but on the contrary, things originate cannot be called generate, God’s handiwork as they are, except so far as after their making they partake of the generate Son, and are therefore said to have been generated also, not at all in their own nature, but because of their participation of the Son in the Spirit 3. And this again divine Scripture recognises; for it says in the case of things originate, ‘All things came to be through Him, and without Him nothing came to be 4,’ and, ‘In wisdom hast Thou made them all 5;’ but in the case of sons which are generate, ‘To Job there came to be seven sons and three daughters 6,’ and, ‘Abraham was an hundred years old when there came to be to him Isaac his son 7;’ and Moses said 8, ‘If to any one there come to be sons.’ Therefore since the Son is other than things originate, alone the proper offspring of the Father’s essence, this plea of the Arians about the word ‘become’ is worth nothing.
(5.) If moreover, baffled so far, they should still violently insist that the language is that of comparison, and that comparison in consequence implies oneness of kind, so that the Son is of the nature of Angels, they will in the first place incur the disgrace of rivalling and repeating what Valentinus held, and Carpocrates, and those other heretics, of whom the former said that the Angels were one in kind with the Christ, and Carpocrates that Angels are framers of the world 9. Perchance it is under the instruction of these masters that they compare the Word of God with the Angels.
There is apparently much confusion in the arrangement of the paragraphs that follow; though the appearance may perhaps arise from Athan.’s incorporating some passage from a former work into his text, cf. note on §32. It is easy to suggest alterations, but not anything satisfactory. The same ideas are scattered about. Thus συγκριτικῶς occurs in (3) and (5). The Son’s seat on the right, and Angels in ministry, (3) fin. (10) (11). ‘Become’ interpreted as ‘is originated and is,’ (4) and (11). The explanation of ‘become,’ (4) (9) (11) (14). The Word’s ἐπιδημία is introduced in (7) and (8) παρουσία being the more common word; ἐπιδημία occursOrat.ii. §67 init.Serap.i. 9. Vid. however, §61, notes. If a change must be suggested, it would be to transfer (4) after (8) and (10) after (3). ↩
ἀπολελυμένως . vid. alsoOrat.ii. 54. 62. iii. 22. Basil.contr. Eunom.i. p. 244. Cyril.Thesaur.25, p. 236. διαλελυμένως .Orat.iv. 1. ↩
[The note, referred to above, p. 169, in which Newman defends the treatment of γενητὸν and γεννητὸν as synonymous, while yet admitting that they are expressly distinguished by Ath. in the text, is omitted for lack of space.] ↩
John i. 3 . ↩
Ps. civ. 24 . ↩
Job i. 2 . ↩
Gen. xxi. 5 . ↩
Cf. Deut. xxi. 15 . ↩
These tenets and similar ones were common to many branches of the Gnostics, who paid worship to the Angels, or ascribed to them the creation; the doctrine of their consubstantiality with our Lord arose from their belief in emanation. S. Athanasius here uses the word ὁμογενής , not ὁμοούσιος which was usual with them (vid. Bull.D. F. N.ii. 1, §2) as with the Manichees after them, Beausobre,Manich.iii. 8. ↩
