Chapter 3.—The Argument of the Arians is Refuted, Which is Drawn from the Words Begotten and Unbegotten.

4. Wherefore,—to being now to answer the adversaries of our faith, respecting those things also, which are neither said as they are thought, nor thought as they really are:—among the many things which the Arians are wont to dispute against the Catholic faith, they seem chiefly to set forth this, as their most crafty device, namely, that whatsoever is said or understood of God, is said not according to accident, but according to substance, and therefore, to be unbegotten belongs to the Father according to substance, and to be begotten belongs to the Son according to substance; but to be unbegotten and to be begotten are different; therefore the substance of the Father and that of the Son are different. To whom we reply, If whatever is spoken of God is spoken according to substance, then that which is said, “I and the Father are one,”561    John x. 30    [The term “God,” in the proposition, “the Word was with God,” must refer to the Father, not to “the Father and Son together,” because the Son could not be said to be “with” himself. St. John says that “the word was God” (θεὸς). The absence of the article with θεὸς denotes the abstract deity, or the divine nature without reference to the persons in it. He also says that “the Word was with God” (τὸν θεὸν). The presence of the article in this instance denotes one of the divine persons in the essence: namely, the Father, with whom the Word was from eternity, and upon whose “bosom” he was from eternity. (John i. 18).—W.G.T.S.] is spoken according to substance. Therefore there is one substance of the Father and the Son. Or if this is not said according to substance, then something is said of God not according to substance, and therefore we are no longer compelled to understand unbegotten and begotten according to substance. It is also said of the Son, “He thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”562    Phil. ii. 6    John i. 1 We ask, equal according to what? For if He is not said to be equal according to substance, then they admit that something may be said of God not according to substance. Let them admit, then, that unbegotten and begotten are not spoken according to substance. And if they do not admit this, on the ground that they will have all things to be spoken of God according to substance, then the Son is equal to the Father according to substance.

CAPUT III.

4. Arianorum argumentum ex voce geniti et ingeniti desumptum diluitur. Quamobrem ut 0913 jam etiam de iis quae nec dicuntur ut cogitantur, nec cogitantur ut sunt, respondere incipiamus fidei nostrae adversariis: inter multa quae Ariani adversus catholicam fidem solent disputare, hoc sibi maxime callidissimum machinamentum proponere videntur, cum dicunt: Quidquid de Deo dicitur vel intelligitur, non secundum accidens, sed secundum substantiam dicitur. Quapropter ingenitum esse Patri secundum substantiam est, et genitum esse Filio secundum substantiam est. Diversum est autem ingenitum esse, et genitum esse: diversa est ergo substantia Patris et Filii. Quibus respondemus: Si quidquid de Deo dicitur, secundum substantiam dicitur; ergo quod dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus (Joan. X, 30), secundum substantiam dictum est. Una est igitur substantia Patris et Filii. Aut si hoc non secundum substantiam dictum est, dicitur ergo aliquid de Deo non secundum substantiam; et ideo jam non cogimur secundum substantiam intelligere ingenitum et genitum. Item dictum est de Filio, Non rapinam arbitratus est esse aequalis Deo (Philipp. II, 6): quaerimus secundum quid aequalis. Si enim non secundum substantiam dicitur aequalis, admittunt ut dicatur aliquid de Deo, non secundum substantiam: admittant ergo non secundum substantiam dici ingenitum et genitum. Quod si propterea non admittunt, quia omnia de Deo secundum substantiam dici volunt, secundum substantiam Filius aequalis est Patri.