§25. He who asserts that the Father is ‘prior’ to the Son with any thought of an interval must perforce allow that even the Father is not without beginning.

But more than this: what exposes still further the untenableness of this view is, that, besides positing a beginning in time of the Son’s existence, it does not, when followed out, spare the Father even, but proves that He also had his beginning in time. For any recognizing mark that is presupposed for the generation of the Son must certainly define as well the Father’s beginning.

To make this clear, it will be well to discuss it more carefully. When he pronounces that the life of the Father is prior to that of the Son, he places a certain interval between the two; now, he must mean, either that this interval is infinite, or that it is included within fixed limits. But the principle of an intervening mean will not allow him to call it infinite; he would annul thereby the very conception of Father and Son and the thought of anything connecting them, as long as this infinite were limited on neither side, with no idea of a Father cutting it short above, nor that of a Son checking it below. The very nature of the infinite is, to be extended in either direction, and to have no bounds of any kind.

Therefore if the conception of Father and Son is to remain firm and immoveable, he will find no ground for thinking this interval is infinite: his school must place a definite interval of time between the Only-begotten and the Father. What I say, then, is this: that this view of theirs will bring us to the conclusion that the Father is not from everlasting, but from a definite point in time. I will convey my meaning by familiar illustrations; the known shall make the unknown clear. When we say, on the authority of the text of Moses, that man was made the fifth day after the heavens, we tacitly imply that before those same days the heavens did not exist either; a subsequent event goes to define, by means of the interval which precedes it, the occurrence also of a previous event. If this example does not make our contention plain, we can give others. We say that ‘the Law given by Moses was four hundred and thirty years later than the Promise to Abraham.’ If after traversing, step by step upwards91    step by step upwards. δι᾽ ἀναλύσεως. This does not seem to be used in the Platonic (dialectic) sense, but in the N.T. sense of “return” or “retrogression,” cf. Luke xii. 36. Gregory elsewhere De Hom. Opif. xxv.), uses ἀναλύειν in this sense: speaking of the three examples of Christ’s power of raising from the dead, he says, ‘you see…all these equally at the command of one and the same voice returning (ἀναλύοντας) to life.’ ᾽Αναλύσις thus also came to mean “death,” as a ‘return.’ Cf. Ecclesiastes xi. 7., the anterior time we reach this end of that number of years, we firmly grasp as well the fact that, before that date, God’s Promise was not either. Many such instances could be given, but I decline to be minute and wearisome.

Guided, then, by these examples, let us examine the question before us. Our adversaries conceive of the existences of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as involving elder and younger, respectively. Well then; if, at the bidding of this heresy, we journey up beyond the generation of the Son, and approach that intervening duration which the mere fancy of these dogmatists supposes between the Father and the Son, and then reach that other and supreme point of time by which they close that duration, there we find the life of the Father fixed as it were upon an apex; and thence we must necessarily conclude that before it the Father is not to be believed to have existed always.

If you still feel difficulties about this, let us again take an illustration. It shall be that of two rulers, one shorter than the other. If we fit the bases of the two together we know from the tops the extra length of the one; from the end of the lesser lying alongside of it we measure this excess, supplementing the deficiency of the shorter ruler by a calculation, and so bringing it up to the end of the longer; a cubit for instance, or whatever be the distance of the one end from the other. So, if there is, as our adversaries say, an excess of some kind in the Father’s life as compared with the Son’s, it must needs consist in some definite interval of duration: and they will allow that this interval of excess cannot be in the future, for that Both are imperishable, even the foes of the truth will grant. No; they conceive of this difference as in the past, and instead of equalizing the life of the Father and the Son there, they extend the conception of the Father by an interval of living. But every interval must be bounded by two ends: and so for this interval which they have devised we must grasp the two points by which the ends are denoted. The one portion takes its beginning, in their view, from the Son’s generation; and the other portion must end in some other point, from which the interval starts, and by which it limits itself. What this is, is for them to tell us; unless, indeed, they are ashamed of the consequences of their own assumptions.

It admits not of a doubt, then, that they will not be able to find at all the other portion, corresponding to the first portion of their fancied interval, except they were to suppose some beginning of their Ungenerate, whence the middle, that connects with the generation of the Son, may be conceived of as starting. We affirm, then, that when he makes the Son later than the Father by a certain intervening extension of life, he must grant a fixed beginning to the Father’s existence also, regulated by this same interval of his devising; and thus their much-vaunted “Ungeneracy” of the Father will be found to be undermined by its own champions’ arguments; and they will have to confess that their Ungenerate God did once not exist, but began from a starting-point: indeed, that which has a beginning of being is not inoriginate. But if we must at all risks confess this absence of beginning in the Father, let not such exactitude be displayed in fixing for the life of the Son a point which, as the term of His existence, must cut Him off from the life on the other side of it; let it suffice on the ground of causation only to conceive of the Father as before the Son; and let not the Father’s life be thought of as a separate and peculiar one before the generation of the Son, lest we should have to admit the idea inevitably associated with this of an interval before the appearance of the Son which measures the life of Him Who begot Him, and then the necessary consequence of this, that a beginning of the Father’s life also must be supposed by virtue of which their fancied interval may be stayed in its upward advance so as to set a limit and a beginning to this previous life of the Father as well: let it suffice for us, when we confess the ‘coming from Him,’ to admit also, bold as it may seem, the ‘living along with Him;’ for we are led by the written oracles to such a belief. For we have been taught by Wisdom to contemplate the brightness92    brightness. Heb. i. 3, ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης. of the everlasting light in, and together with, the very everlastingness of that primal light, joining in one idea the brightness and its cause, and admitting no priority. Thus shall we save the theory of our Faith, the Son’s life not failing in the upward view, and the Father’s everlastingness being not trenched upon by supposing any definite beginning for the Son.

καὶ ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις, ὅπερ καὶ μᾶλλον ἀπελέγχει τὴν ἀτοπίαν τοῦ δόγματος, οὐ μόνον τῷ υἱῷ κατασκευασθήσεται χρονική τις ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς ὑπάρξεως ἐκ τοῦ τοιούτου λόγου, ἀλλ' οὐδὲ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκ τῆς τοιαύτης ἀκολουθίας φείσονται τὸ μὴ οὐχὶ κἀκεῖνον ἀπὸ χρόνου τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐσχηκέναι κατασκευάσαι. εἰ γάρ τι σημεῖον ὑπέρκειται γνωριστικὸν τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ γεννήσεως, ἐκεῖνο δηλονότι καὶ τῷ πατρὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν ὁρίσει τῆς ὑποστάσεως.
Σαφηνείας δὲ χάριν οὐκ ἄκαιρον ἴσως φιλοπονώτερον ἐξετάσαι τὸν λόγον. ὁ πρεσβυτέραν τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ ζωῆς τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς δογματίζων διαστήματί τινι τὸν μονογενῆ τοῦ ἐπὶ πάντων θεοῦ πάντως διΐστησι: τοῦτο δὲ ἢ ἄπειρόν τι ὑποθήσεται τὸ διὰ μέσου διάστημα ἤ τισι πέρασι καὶ σημείοις φανεροῖς ὁριζόμενον. ἀλλ' ἄπειρον μὲν εἰπεῖν οὐκ ἐάσει ὁ τῆς μεσότητος λόγος ἢ παντελῶς τὴν τοῦ πατρός τε καὶ υἱοῦ ἔννοιαν διαγράψει τῷ λόγῳ, καὶ οὐδὲ μέσον αὐτὸ νοήσει, ἕως ἂν ἄπειρον ᾖ πρὸς οὐθέτερον ὁριζόμενον, οὔτε ἐπὶ τὸ ἄνω τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς ἐννοίας ἀποτεμνούσης τοῦ ἀπείρου τὴν πρόοδον, οὔτε ἐπὶ τὸ κάτω τοῦ υἱοῦ τὴν ἀπειρίαν ἐκκόπτοντος. αὕτη γὰρ τοῦ ἀπείρου ἡ ἔννοια, τὸ πανταχόθεν ἐκκεχύσθαι τῇ φύσει καὶ μηδενὶ πέρατι μηδαμόθεν περιλαμβάνεσθαι. οὐκοῦν ἵνα παγία καὶ ἀμετάθετος διαμένῃ περί τε τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἡ τοῦ εἶναι ὑπόληψις, οὐδεμίαν ἕξει χώραν ἄπειρον ἐννοεῖν τὸ διάστημα, ἀλλὰ πεπερασμένῳ τινὶ κατὰ πᾶσαν ἀνάγκην τὸν μονογενῆ τοῦ πατρὸς διαστήσουσι. τοῦτο οὖν ἐστιν ὅ φημι, ὅτι ὁ λόγος οὗτος οὐκ ἐξ ἀϊδίου εἶναι τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων θεόν, ἀλλ' ἀπό τινος ὡρισμένου σημείου τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐσχηκέναι κατασκευάσει. ὃ δὲ λέγω, τοιοῦτόν ἐστι: λέξω δὲ διὰ τῶν γνωρίμων ὑποδειγμάτων σαφηνίζων τὸ νόημα, ὡς ἂν γένοιτο διὰ τῶν φαινομένων καταφανὲς ἡμῖν τὸ ἀγνοούμενον. πέμπτῃ μετὰ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἡμέρᾳ γεγενῆσθαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον λέγοντες ἐκ τῆς Μωϋσέως γραφῆς συγκατεσκευάσαμεν τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ κατὰ τὸ σιωπώμενον τὸ πρὸ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων μηδὲ τὸν οὐρανὸν εἶναι: οὕτω τὸ μετά τι γενόμενον διὰ τοῦ πρὸ ἑαυτοῦ διαστήματος ὁρίζει καὶ τὴν τοῦ προϋπονοουμένου ὑπόστασιν. εἰ δὲ οὐχ ἱκανῶς τῷ ὑποδείγματι τὸν λόγον ἐσαφηνίσαμεν, δυνατόν ἐστι καὶ δι' ἑτέρων τὸ νοηθὲν παραστῆσαι. τὸν διὰ Μωϋσέως δοθέντα νόμον τετρακοσίοις ἔτεσι καὶ τριάκοντα τῆς τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ ἐπαγγελίας μεταγενέστερον λέγοντες, ἐὰν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τὸν κατόπιν χρόνον δι' ἀναλύσεως τῷ λογισμῷ παροδεύσαντες εἰς τὸ πέρας τῶν ἠριθμημένων φθάσωμεν ἐτῶν, σαφῶς καταλαμβάνομεν, ὅτι πρὸ τοῦ χρόνου τούτου ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπαγγελία οὔπω ἦν. καὶ πολλὰ τοιαῦτα λέγειν ἔστιν, οἷς τὸ καθ' ἕκαστον ἐπεξιέναι ὡς ὀχληρὸν παραιτήσομαι.
Κατὰ τοίνυν τὴν ἀκολουθίαν τῶν ἐν τοῖς ὑποδείγμασιν εἰρημένων καὶ τὸν προκείμενον ἐξετάσωμεν λόγον. ἦν δὲ οὗτος κατὰ τὴν τῶν ἐναντίων ὑπόληψιν τὸ « πρεσβύτερον » καὶ νεώτερον ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ πατρός τε καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ὑποστάσεως ἕτερον ἑτέρου λέγειν εἶναι. οὐκοῦν ἐπειδὰν τὴν τοῦ υἱοῦ γέννησιν διαβάντες, καθὼς ὑφηγεῖται ὁ τῆς αἱρέσεως λόγος, ἔπειτα προσβῶμεν τῷ διὰ μέσου διαστήματι ὅπερ ἡ ματαία τῶν ταῦτα δογματιζόντων οἴησις ὑποτίθεται τῶν μεταξὺ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς εἶναί τι λογιζομένων, ἐὰν εἰς τὸ ἄκρον ἐκεῖνο σημεῖον φθάσωμεν, ᾧ τὸ διάστημα τὸ μεταξὺ περιγράφουσιν, ἐκεῖ καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν ὅλων ἱσταμένην ἐπὶ τὸ ἄνω τὴν ζωὴν εὑρίσκομεν, ὡς ἐξ ἀνάγκης κατασκευάζεσθαι τὸ πρὸ ἐκείνου μηδὲ τὸν ἀεὶ ὄντα θεὸν πιστεύειν εἶναι.
Εἰ δὲ ἀμφιβάλλεις ἔτι, πάλιν τὸν λόγον δι' ὑποδειγμάτων κατανοήσωμεν. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐπὶ δύο κανόνων, ὅταν ὁ μὲν ἐλάττων ὁ δὲ ὑπερέχων ᾖ, τὰς βάσεις ἀμφοτέρων ἰσώσαντες ἐν ταῖς κορυφαῖς τὸ πλεονάζον ἐπιγινώσκομεν (παραθέντες γὰρ τὸ τοῦ ἐλάττονος πέρας ἀπ' ἐκείνου τὸ περισσὸν τοῦ ὑπερέχοντος ἔγνωμεν, καὶ ὅσον ἐνδεῖ τῷ βραχυτέρῳ, διά τινος μέτρου τὸ λεῖπον πρὸς τὸ πέρας τοῦ μείζονος παρισώσαντες εὕρομεν, εἴτε πῆχυς εἴτε ὁποσονοῦν ἐστιν, ὅσον τοῦ ἐλάττονος τὸ μεῖζον ἀφέστηκεν) οὕτως εἴ τίς ἐστι κατὰ τὸν τῶν ὑπεναντίων λόγον τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς ζωῆς ὡς πρὸς τὴν ζωὴν τοῦ υἱοῦ πλεονασμός, ἔν τινι ῥητῷ διαστήματι πάντως ἐστί, τοῦτο δὲ οὐκ εἰς τὸ ἐφεξῆς περισσεύειν ἀναγκαίως συνθήσονται. ἀθάνατον γὰρ ὁμοίως ἑκάτερον εἶναι καὶ οἱ ἐχθροὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ὁμολογοῦσιν, ἀλλ' εἰς τὸ ἄνω τὴν διαφορὰν ταύτην ἐπινοοῦσιν, οὐκ ἰσοῦντες πρὸς τὸν πατέρα τοῦ υἱοῦ τὴν ζωήν, ἀλλ' ὑπερεκτείνοντες τὴν περὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἔννοιαν τῷ τῆς ζωῆς διαστήματι. ἐπεὶ οὖν πᾶν διάστημα διπλοῖς πέρασι περιγράφεται πάντως, ἀνάγκη πᾶσα καὶ τοῦ ἐπινοηθέντος παρ' αὐτῶν διαστήματος τὰ δύο σημεῖα τὰ γνωριστικὰ τῶν περάτων καταληφθῆναι. ὥσπερ οὖν τὸ ἓν μέρος κατ' αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς γεννήσεως τοῦ μονογενοῦς τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔχει, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἕτερον ἄκρον ἑτέρῳ τινὶ πέρατι πάντως συναπολήξει, ᾧ συναπαρτιζόμενον τὸ διάστημα ἑαυτὸ περιγράφει. τί οὖν ἐστι τοῦτο τὸ πέρας, αὐτοὶ εἰπάτωσαν, εἴπερ τοῖς ἰδίοις λόγοις ἀκολουθεῖν οὐκ αἰσχύνονται.
Ἀλλ' οὐδεμίαν ἀμφιβολίαν ὁ λόγος ἔχει, ὅτι οὐδὲν εὑρήσουσι τὸ ἕτερον πέρας ἐπὶ τὸ ἕτερον μέρος τοῦ ἀναπλασθέντος παρ' αὐτῶν διαστήματος, εἰ μή τινα πάντως ἀρχὴν ὑποθοῖντο τῆς τοῦ ἀγεννήτου « ζωῆς » ἀφ' ἧς τὸ μέσον ὡς πρὸς τὴν τοῦ υἱοῦ γέννησιν τῷ λόγῳ διαλαμβάνουσι. τοῦτο οὖν ἐστιν ὃ λέγομεν, ὅτι ὁ μεταγενέστερον τὸν υἱὸν ἔν τινι διαστηματικῇ παρατάσει τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς ζωῆς λέγων ὡρισμένην δώσει καὶ τῷ πατρὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς ὑπάρξεως, τῷ ἐπινοηθέντι κατὰ τὸ μέσον διαστήματι συμπεριγραφομένην: καὶ οὕτως αὐτοῖς εὑρεθήσεται ἡ πολυθρύλλητος τοῦ πατρὸς ”ἀγεννησία„ διὰ τῆς τοιαύτης κατασκευῆς ὑπ' αὐτῶν τῶν προμάχων τῆς „ἀγεννησίας” ἐκκλεπτομένη, ὡς τὸν ἀγέννητον θεὸν μὴ ἀεὶ εἶναι λέγειν, ἀλλ' ἀπό τινος ὡρισμένης ἀρχῆς τοῦ εἶναι τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐσχηκέναι κατασκευάζειν. ὁ γὰρ ἀρχὴν τοῦ εἶναι ἔχων ἄναρχος οὐκ ἔστιν. εἰ δὲ παντὶ τρόπῳ τὸ ἄναρχον τοῦ πατρὸς ὁμολογεῖσθαι προσήκει, μηδὲ τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ ζωῆς ὡρισμένον τι πολυπραγμονείσθω σημεῖον, ἀφ' οὗ τοῦ εἶναι ἀρξάμενος τῆς εἰς τὸ ἐπέκεινα τοῦ σημείου ζωῆς ἀποτέμνεται: ἀλλ' ἀρκεῖ κατὰ μόνον τὸν τῆς αἰτίας λόγον προεπινοεῖν τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸν πατέρα, καὶ μὴ κεχωρισμένην καὶ ἰδιάζουσάν ποτε τοῦ πατρὸς τὴν ζωὴν πρὸ τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ γεννήσεως, ἵνα μὴ συνεισέλθῃ τῇ ὑπολήψει ταύτῃ διαστηματικόν τι νόημα πρὸ τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ ἀναδείξεως τῇ ζωῇ τοῦ γεγεννηκότος παραμετρούμενον, ᾧ κατ' ἀνάγκην ἀκολουθήσει τὸ καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀρχήν τινα τῆς ζωῆς ὑποθέσθαι, καθ' ἣν τὸ ἀναπλασθὲν πρὸ τοῦ υἱοῦ διάστημα προϊὸν ἐπὶ τὸ ἄνω στήσεται, συμπεριγράφον αὑτῷ τῆς προεπινοηθείσης τοῦ πατρὸς ζωῆς τὴν ἀρχήν. ἀλλὰ « δεῖ » τὸ ”ἐξ αὐτοῦ„ ὁμολογοῦντας, κἂν τολμηρόν τι φαίνηται, καὶ τὸ „σὺν αὐτῷ” μὴ ἀρνεῖσθαι, ὑπὸ τῆς ἐν ταῖς ὑποθήκαις γραφῆς πρὸς τὴν ἔννοιαν ταύτην ὁδηγουμένους: ἀπαύγασμα γὰρ ἀϊδίου φωτὸς παρὰ τῆς σοφίας ἀκούσαντες συνεπιθεωροῦμεν τῇ ἀϊδιότητι τοῦ πρωτοτύπου φωτὸς τὸ ἀπαύγασμα, καὶ τὸ αἴτιον τοῦ ἀπαυγάσματος ἐννοοῦντες καὶ τὸ « πρεσβύτερον » οὐ δεχόμενοι: καὶ οὕτως ἡμῖν ὁ τῆς εὐσεβείας διασωθήσεται λόγος, οὔτε τῷ υἱῷ τῆς ζωῆς ἐπὶ τὸ ἄνω λειπούσης οὔτε τῆς ἀϊδιότητος τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν τῷ ὁριστὴν ὑποτίθεσθαι τοῦ υἱοῦ τὴν ἀρχὴν κολοβουμένης.