NOTE on page 214.
On the meaning of the formula [prin gennethenai ouk en],
in the Nicene Anathema
IT was observed p. 61, note
D. that there were two clauses in the Nicene Anathema which required
explanation. One of them, [ex heteras hypostaseos e
ousias], has been discussed in the Note, pp. 66-72; the other, [prin
gennethenai ouk en], shall be considered now.
Bishop 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 "Son"
implied a beginning, or that our Lord was not Very God; the
Catholics said that it implied connaturality. 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 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 [logos endiathetos], or Reason, in the
Father, or (as may be speciously represented) a mere attribute; next,
as the [logos prophorikos], or Word, terms which have been
already explained, p. 113, note Z. This doctrine, when divested of
figure and put into literal statement, might appear nothing more or
less than this,—that 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's perfections to mankind;—which, it is
scarcely necessary to say, is the doctrine of Arianism. {273}
Thus S. Hippolytus says,
[Ton de ginomenon archegon
kai symboulon kai ergaten egenna logon, hon logon echon
en heautoi aoraton te onta toi ktizomenoi kosmoi,
horaton poiei; proteran phonen phthengomenos, kai phos
ek photos gennon, proeken tei ktisei
kurion]. contr. Noet. 10.
And S. Theophilus:
[Echon ouk ho theos ton heautou logon
endiatheton en tois idiois splanchnois, egennesen auton meta tes
heautou sophias exereuxamenos pro ton holon … hopote
de ethelesen ho theos poiesai hosa ebouleusato,
touton ton logon egennese prophorikon, prototokon pases
ktiseos]. ad Autol. ii. 10-22.
Bishop Bull, Defens. F. N. iii. 5-8, meets this
representation by maintaining that the [gennesis] 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. iii.
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 "the Son was
not before His generation," i.e. who deny that "the Son was
before His generation," which statement accordingly becomes
indirectly a Catholic truth.
I am not aware whether any writer has preceded or
followed this great authority in this view [Note
A]. 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, "whereas He was begotten, He was not before
He was begotten," 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's 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.
The point at issue between the two
interpretations is this; whether the clause [prin gennethenai
ouk en] is intended for a denial of the contrary
proposition, "He was before His generation," 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,
{274} position, as self-contradictory, and directly denying, not it,
but "He was from everlasting." 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, "He was before His generation,"—and that the Catholics
assented or defended it; some reason shall here be given for the
contrary view.
1. 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, "He is
a Son, therefore He had a beginning." Thus Socrates records
Arius's words in the beginning of the controversy, (1) "If the Father
begat the Son, He who is begotten has a beginning of existence; (2)
therefore once the Son was not, [en hote ouk en];
(3) therefore He has His subsistence from nothing, [ex ouk onton
echei ten hypostasin]." Socr. i. 5. The first of these
propositions exactly answers to the [ouk en prin gennethenai]
taken enthymematically; and it may be added that when so taken, the
three propositions will just answer to the three first formulę
anathematized at Nicęa, two of which are indisputably the same as two
of them; viz. [hoti en pote hote ouk en. hoti prin
gennethenai ouk en; hoti ex ouk onton
egeneto]. On the other hand, we hear nothing in the controversy of
the position which Bull conceives to be opposed by Arius, ("He was
before His generation,") 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, [onta
proteron, gennethenai eis huion], which has been
explained, p. 97, note M.
2. Next, it should be observed that the other
formulę 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 "Son." Such are [ho
on ton me onta ek tou ontos e ton onta]; and
[hen to ageneton e duo]. And in like manner as
regards the question of the [trepton]; "Has He free will," thus
Athanasius states the Arian objection, "or has He not? is He good from
choice according to free will, and can He, if He will, after, being of
an alterable nature? as wood or stone, has He not His choice free to
be moved, and incline hither and thither?" supr. § 35. p. 230. That
is, they wished the word [treptos] 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.
3. In § 32, supr. p. 227, S. Athanasius observes
that the formula of the [ageneton] was the later
substitute for the original formulę of Arius; "when they were no
longer allowed to say, 'out of nothing,' and 'He was not before His
generation,' they hit upon this word Ingenerate, that, by saying among
the simple that the Son was generate, they might imply the very
same phrases 'out of nothing' and 'He once was not.'" Here he does
not in so many words say that {275} the argument from the [ageneton]
was a substitute for the [ouk en prin gennethenai],
yet surely it is not unfair so to understand him. But it is plain that
the [ageneton] 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 [ouk en prin gennethenai].
Nay, when the Arians asked, "Is the [ageneton] one or
two," they actually did assume that it was granted by their opponents
that the Father only was [agenetos]; which it was not,
if the latter held, nay, if they had sanctioned at Nicęa, as Bull
says, that our Lord [en prin gennethei];
and moreover which they knew and confessed was not granted, if their
own formula [ouk en prin gennethenai] was
directed against this statement.
4. Again, it is plain that the [ouk en
prin gennethenai], is used by S. Athanasius as the same
objection with [ho on ton me onta ek tou ontos],
&c. E.g. he says, "We might ask them in turn, God who is, has He
so become, whereas He was not? or is He also before His generation?
whereas He is, did He make Himself, or is He of nothing, &c." §
25. p. 216. Now the [ho on ton me onta], &c.
is evidently an argument, and that, grounded on the absurdity
of saying [ho on ton onta]. S. Alexander's Encyclical
Letter (vid. Socr. i. 6), compared with Arius's original positions and
the Nicene Anathemas as referred to above, is a strong confirmation.
In these three documents the formulę agree together, except one; and
that one, which in Arius's language is "He who is begotten has a
beginning of existence," is in the Nicene Anathema, [ouk en
prin gennethenai], but in S. Alexander's circular, [ho
on theos ton me onta ek tou me ontos pepoieken].
The absence of the [ouk en prin], &c. in S.
Alexander is certainly remarkable. Moreover the two formulę 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.
5. 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's eternity, the Catholic answer would be, "He could not be before
His generation because His generation is eternal, as being from
the Father." Now this is precisely the language Athanasius uses, when
it occurs to him to introduce the words in question. Thus in Orat. ii.
§ 57 [infra p. 363], he says, "The creatures began to come to be ([ginesthai]);
but the Word of God, not having beginning ([archen]) of
being, surely did not begin to be, nor begin to come to be, but was
always. And the works have a beginning ([archen]) 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 generate is
measured by their becoming ([en toi ginesthai]), 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 generation ([prin
genesthai]); but the Word hath His being in no other origin than
the Father" (vid. {276} supr. p. 195, note A) "whom they themselves
allow to be unoriginate, so that He too exists unoriginately in the
Father, being His offspring not His creature." We shall find that
other Fathers say just the same. Again, we have already come to a
passage where for "His generation," he substitutes "making," 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 [ouk en prin],
&c. but laying down one of their own. "Who 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 'He was not before
He was made, [prin poiethei].'" Orat. i. §
10. p. 194. Arius, who is surely the best explainer of his own words,
says the same; that is, he interprets "generation" by "making," or
confesses that he is bringing forward an argument, not opposing a
dogma; "Before Hs generation," he says, "or creation, or
destination ([horisthei], Rom. i. 4), or founding
(vid. Prov. viii. 23), He was not; for He was not ingenerate." Theod.
Hist. i. 4. Eusebius of Nicomedia also, in a passage which has already
come before us, says distinctly, "It is plain to any one, that
what has been made was not before its generation; but what came
to be has an origin of being." de Syn. § 17. supr. p. 99.
6. 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 "before His
generation, He was," they admit of an explanation. E.g. "How 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." Orat. ii. § 22 [infra p. 312]. This might
be taken to imply that the Arians said, "He as not," and Catholics "He
was." But the real meaning is this, How is He not a creature, if the formula
be true, which they use, He was not before His generation?' for it
may indeed properly be said of creatures that 'they were not
before their generation.'" And so again when he says, "if the Son was
not before His generation, Truth was not always in God" supr. § 20.
p. 209; he does not thereby imply that the Son was before His
generation, but he means, "if it be true that, &c." "if the
formula holds," "if it can be said of the Son, 'He was
not, &c." Accordingly, shortly afterwards, in a passage already
cited, he says the same of the Almighty Father in the way of parallel;
"God who is, hath He so become, whereas He was not, or is He too
before His generation?" (§ 25. p. 216) not implying here any
generation at all, but urging that the question is idle and irrelevant,
that the formula is unmeaning and does not apply to,
cannot be said of, Father or Son.
7. 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, "if the Son is not
before His generation, then, &c." he does but mean, "if it can be said,"
"if the words can be used or applied in this case." Now the two
Fathers just mentioned both decide that it is not true, either
that the Son was {277} 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. "He was
before His generation." Thus S. Gregory in the passage in which he
speaks of "did He that is make Him that is not, &c." and "before
His generation, &c." as one and the same, expressly says, "In His
case, to be begotten is concurrent with existence and is from
the beginning," and that in contrast to the instance of men;
who, he says, do fulfil in a manner "He who is, &c." (Levi being
in the loins of Abraham,) i.e. fulfil Bull's proposition, "He was
before generation." He proceeds, "I say that the question is
irrelevant, not the answer difficult." And presently after,
mentioning some idle inquiries by way of parallel, he adds, "more
ill-instructed, be sure, is it to decide whether what was generated from
the beginning was or was not before generation, [pro tes
genneseos]." Orat. 29. 9.
8. 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 hęc arguta
satis atque auditu placentia; Si, inquit, natus est, cœpit; et
cłm cœpit, non fuit; et cłm non fuit, non patitur ut fuerit. Atque idcirco
pię intelligentię sermonem esse contendant, Non fuit ante quąm
nasceretur, quia ut esset, qui non erat, non qui erat, natus
est." n. 18. He answers the objection in the same way, "Unigenitus
Deus neque non fuit aliquando non filius, neque fuit aliquid ante quam
filius, neque quidquam aliquid ipse nisi filius," n. 15. which is in
express words to deny, "He was before His generation." Again,
as Gregory, "Ubi pater auctor est, ibi et nativitas est; et verņ ubi
auctor ęternus est, ibi et nativitatis ęternitas est," n. 21. And he
substitutes "being always born" for "being before birth;" "Numquid
ante tempora ęterna esse, id ipsum sit quod est, eum qui erat nasci?
quia nasci quod etat, jam non nasci est, sed se ipsum demutare
nascendo … Non est itaque id ipsum, natum ante tempora ęterna
semper esse, et esse antequam nasci." ii. 30. And he concludes, in
accordance with the above explanation of the passages of Athanasius
which I brought as if objections, thus: Cum itaque natum semper esse,
nihil aliud sit confitendum esse, quąm natum, id sensui, antequąm
nascitur vel fuisse vel non fuisse, non subjacet. ii. 31.
9. 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, "God begat the Son
either being or not being, &c. ... to him that is, there needs not
generation." He replies that Eunomius, "because animals first
are not, and then are generated, and he who is born today, yesterday
did not exist, transfers this conception to the subsistence of
the Only-begotten {278} and says, since He has been generated,
He was not before His generation, [pro tes genneseos],
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 [tei aidioteti
tou patros tou monogenous sunapton ten gennesin].
§ 15.
These then being the explanations which the
contemporary and next following Fathers give of the Arian formula
which was anathematized at Nicęa, 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.
While commenting on the words, [arche
hodon eis ta erga] in the text, "The Lord has created Me
the beginning of His ways unto the works," S. Athanasius is led to
consider the text "first born of every creature," [prototokos
pases ktiseos] and he says that He who was [monogenes]
from eternity, became by a [sunkatabasis] at the creation of
the world [prototokos]. This doctrine Bp. Bull considers
declaratory of a going forth, [proeleusis], or figurative birth
from the Father, at the beginning of all things.
It will be observed that the very point to be
proved is this, viz. not that there was a [sunkatabasis]
merely, but that according to Athanasius there was a [gennesis]
or proceeding from the Father, and that the word [prototokos]
marks it. Bull's words are, that "Catholici quidam Doctores, qui post
exortam controversiam Arianam vixerunt, ... illam [tou logou]
… ex Patre progressionem (quam et [sunkatabasin], hoc
est, condescensionem eorum nonnulli appellārunt), ad condendum hęc
universa agnovere; atque ejus etiam progressionis respectu
ipsum [ton logon] ą Deo Patre quasi natum fuisse
et omnis creaturę primogenitum in Scripturis dici confessi
sunt." D. F. N. iii. 9. § 1. Now I consider that S. Athanasius does
not, as this sentence says, understand by primogenitus that our Lord
was "progressionis respectu ą Deo Patre quasi natus." He 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.
That Athanasius does not call the [sunkatabasis]
of the Word a birth, as denoted by the word [prototokos],
is plain from his own avowal in the passage to which Bull refers. "No
where in the Scriptures," he says, "is He called [prototokos
tou Theou], first born of God, nor creature of God, but
Only-begotten, Word, Wisdom, have their relation to the Father, and
are proper to {279} Him." ii. 62 [infra p. 369]. Here surely he
expressly denies Bull's statement that "first-born" means "ą Deo
natus," "born of God." Such additions as [para tou patros], he
says, are reserved for [monogenes] and [logos].
He goes on to say what the term [prototokos]
does mean; viz. instead of having any reference to a [proeleusis]
from the Father, it refers solely to the creatures; our Lord is not
called [prototokos], because His [proeleusis] is
a type of His eternal generation, but because by that [proeleusis]
He became the Prototype of all creation. 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 [gennesis]
whatever at the era of creation, though figurative; [prototokos]
does but mean [monogenes proteuon en tei
ktisei], or [arche tes ktiseos], or [prototupon
gennema], or [monos gennetos en tois genetois];
and no warrant is given, however indirect, to the idea that in the
Nicene Anathema, the Fathers implied an allowance of the proposition, "He
was before His generation."
As 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.
The passage from Athenagoras is quoted by Bull
himself, who of course is far from denying the doctrine of our Lord's
Archetypal office; and does but wish in addition to find in Athanasius
the doctrine of a [gennesis]. Athenagoras says that the
Son is "the first offspring, [proton gennema], of
the Father, not as come to be, [genomenon], (for God being
Eternal Mind had from the beginning in Himself the Word, as having
Reason eternally, [logikos on],) but that, while as
regards matter heavy and light were mixed together," (the passage is
corrupt here,) He went forth, [proelthon], as an idea
and energy," 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 [prototokos]. "And
the Prophetic Spirit confirms this doctrine, saying, The Lord hath
created Me a beginning (origin) of His ways, for His works." Leg. 10.
And so S. Cyril, "He 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." Thesaur. 25. p. 238.
In conclusion it may be suggested whether the
same explanation which has here been given of Athanasius's use of [prototokos]
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.
As to Athenagoras, we have already seen that he
does not speak {280} of a [gennesis] at all in his
account of creation, but simply calls the Son [proton gennema],
i.e. [prototupon gennema].
Nor does Tatian approach nearer to the doctrine
of a [gennesis]. He says that at the creation the Word [ergon
prototokon tou patros ginetai; touton ismen tou kosmou ten
archen]. ad Gręc. 5. Here the word [ergon], which,
at first sight promises a difficulty, does in fact explain both
himself and Athenagoras. He says that at creation the Word became, [ginetia],
not a Son (figuratively), as Bull would grant to the parties
whom he is opposing, but a work. It was His great
condescension, [sunkatabasis], 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 [arche]
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 "created a beginning, [arche],
of ways, unto the works, [eis ta erga]."
As 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.
A. Waterland expresses the view here taken, and
not Bishop Bull's; vol. i. p. 114. Bull's language, on the other hand,
is very strong; "Sępe olim, ut verum ingennuč fatear, animum meum
subiit admiratio, quid effato isto, 'Filius priusquam
nasceretur, non erat,' sibi voluerint Ariani. De nativitate
Christi ex beatissimā Virgine dictum non esse exponendum constat. …
Itaque de nativitate Filii loquuntur, quę hujus universi creationem
antecessit. Quis vero, inquam, sensus dicti hujus, 'Filius
non erat, sive non existebat, priusquam nasceretur ex Patre ante
conditum mundum?' Ego sane nullus dubito, quin hoc pronunciatum
Arianorum oppositum fuerit Catholicorum istorum sententię, qui
docerent, Filium quidem paulo ante conditum mundum inexplicabili
quodam modo ex Patre progressum fuisse ad constituendum universa,"
&c. D. F. N. iii. 9. § 2. Return to text