The [ Geneton,Genneton ]

 IN these Treatises [ geneton ] and [ genneton ] seem to be one word, whatever distinction was made at a later date. So they were considered by S. Ignatius, by the Neo-Platonists, and by the Arians, who availed themselves of the equivoque of meaning, in order to pronounce our Lord a creature, [ gennema ], though not as other creatures. So also by Athan. and Basil. Hence perhaps it is that Basil is severe on the application of [ gennema ] to our Lord, his brother Gregory supporting him. Athanasius on the other hand uses it of our Lord with an explanation. After a time the distinction was made, and this will account for other Fathers, Nazianz. etc., following Athanasius. vid. supr. art. [ gennema ]. Also Damasc. F. O. i. 8, p. 135, and Le Quien s note; also note in Cotelerius, in Ign. Eph. t. 2, p. 13.

 Athanasius considers that Scripture sanctions both the one and the two uses; and he considers the one and the same word, in its two forms, to have the meaning of Son, but that Son admits of a primary sense and of a secondary. He virtually says, It is true that the Word of God and the creatures whom He has made may both be called [ gennemata ], but both in a very different sense. Both may be called 'Sons of God,' but the Word of God is true [ gennema ] by nature, whereas creatures are sons, [ gennemata ], only by adoption, and that adoption through a mere [ metousia ] or participation of the divine nature, which is a gift of grace; but our Lord possesses the very [ ousia ] of the Father, and is thereby His fulness, and has all His attributes.

 Hence Athan. says, Things generate, [ genneta ], cannot receive this name, (God s handiwork though they be,) except so far as, after their making, they partake of the Son who is the True Generate, 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. Orat. i. § 56. Vid. art. [ Arche ].

 It is by a like neglect of the one [ n ] and the two, that our Lord is called [ monogenes ] with a single [ n ]. And Athan. speaks of the [ genesis ] of human sons, and of the Divine, de Decr. § 11; and in de Syn. § 47, he observes that S. Ignatius calls the Son [ genetos kai agenetos ], without a hint about the distinction of roots. Again, one of the original Arian positions was that our Lord was a [ gennema all' ouk hos hen ton gennematon ], which Athan. frequently notices and combats, vid. Orat. ii. 19. But instead of answering it by showing that our Lord s epithet should have a double [ n ] and creatures a single, he allows [ gennematon ] to be applied to creatures improperly, and only argues that there is a proper sense of it in which it applies to the Word, not as one of a number, as the Arians said, but solely, incommunicably, as being the [ monogenes ]. It may be admitted, as evident even from this passage, that though Athan. does not distinguish between [ geneton ] and [ genneton ], yet he considers [ gegennesthai ] and [ gennema ] as especially appropriate to the Son, [ gegonenai ] and [ genomenos ] to the creation.