Chapter 6.—Reply is Made to the Cavils of the Heretics in Respect to the Same Words Begotten and Unbegotten.

7. But if they think they can answer this reasoning thus,—that the Father indeed is so called in relation to the Son, and the Son in relation to the Father, but that they are said to be unbegotten and begotten in relation to themselves, not in relation each to the other; for that it is not the same thing to call Him unbegotten as it is to call Him the Father, because there would be nothing to hinder our calling Him unbegotten even if He had not begotten the Son; and if any one beget a son, he is not therefore himself unbegotten, for men, who are begotten by other men, themselves also beget others; and therefore they say the Father is called Father in relation to the Son, and the Son is called Son in relation to the Father, but unbegotten is said in relation to Himself, and begotten in relation to Himself; and therefore, if whatever is said in relation to oneself is said according to substance, while to be unbegotten and to be begotten are different, then the substance is different:—if this is what they say, then they do not understand that they do indeed say something that requires more careful discussion in respect to the term unbegotten, because neither is any one therefore a father because unbegotten, nor therefore unbegotten because he is a father, and on that account he is supposed to be called unbegotten, not in relation to anything else, but in respect to himself; but, on the other hand, with a wonderful blindness, they do not perceive that no one can be said to be begotten except in relation to something. For he is therefore a son because begotten; and because a son, therefore certainly begotten. And as is the relation of son to father, so is the relation of the begotten to the begetter; and as is the relation of father to son, so is the relation of the begetter to the begotten. And therefore any one is understood to be a begetter under one notion, but understood to be unbegotten under another. For though both are said of God the Father, yet the former is said in relation to the begotten, that is to the Son, which, indeed, they do not deny; but that He is called unbegotten, they declare to be said in respect to Himself. They say then, If anything is said to be a father in respect to itself, which cannot be said to be a son in respect to itself, and whatever is said in respect to self is said according to substance; and He is said to be unbegotten in respect to Himself, which the Son cannot be said to be; therefore He is said to be unbegotten according to substance; and because the Son cannot be so said to be, therefore He is not of the same substance. This subtlety is to be answered by compelling them to say themselves according to what it is that the Son is equal to the Father; whether according to that which is said in relation to Himself, or according to that which is said in relation to the Father. For it is not according to that which is said in relation to the Father, since in relation to the Father He is said to be Son, and the Father is not Son, but Father. Since Father and Son are not so called in relation to each other in the same way as friends and neighbors are; for a friend is so called relatively to his friend, and if they love each other equally, then the same friendship is in both; and a neighbor is so called relatively to a neighbor, and because they are equally neighbors to each other (for each is neighbor to the other, in the same degree as the other is neighbor to him), there is the same neighborhood in both. But because the Son is not so called relatively to the Son, but to the Father, it is not according to that which is said in relation to the Father that the Son is equal to the Father; and it remains that He is equal according to that which is said in relation to Himself. But whatever is said in relation to self is said according to substance: it remains therefore that He is equal according to substance; therefore the substance of both is the same. But when the Father is said to be unbegotten, it is not said what He is, but what He is not; and when a relative term is denied, it is not denied according to substance, since the relative itself is not affirmed according to substance.

CAPUT VI.

7. Occurrit haereticorum cavillationibus in eadem voce geniti et ingeniti. Si autem huic sic putant resistendum esse sermoni, quod Pater quidem ad Filium dicitur et Filius ad Patrem, ingenitus tamen et genitus ad se ipsos dicuntur, non ad alterutrum: non enim hoc est dicere ingenitum, quod est Patrem dicere; quia et si Filium non genuisset, nihil prohiberet eum dicere ingenitum: et si gignat quisque filium, non ex eo ipse ingenitus est, quia geniti homines ex aliis hominibus, gignunt et ipsi alios: inquiunt ergo: Pater ad Filium dicitur, et Filius ad Patrem, ingenitus autem ad se ipsum, et genitus ad se ipsum dicitur: et ideo si quidquid ad se ipsum dicitur, secundum substantiam dicitur, diversum est autem ingenitum esse et genitum esse; diversa igitur substantia est: hoc si dicunt, non intelligunt de ingenito quidem aliquid se dicere, quod diligentius pertractandum sit, quia nec ideo quisque pater quia ingenitus, nec ingenitus ideo quia pater, et propterea non ad aliquid, sed ad se dici putatur ingenitus: genitum vero mira caecitate non advertunt dici non posse, nisi ad aliquid. Ideo quippe filius quia genitus, 0915 et quia filius utique genitus. Sicut autem filius ad patrem, sic genitus ad genitorem refertur; et sicut pater ad filium, ita genitor ad genitum. Ideoque alia notio est qua intelligitur genitor, alia qua ingenitus. Nam quamvis de Patre Deo utrumque dicatur, illud tamen ad genitum, id est, ad Filium dicitur; quod nec illi negant: hoc autem quod ingenitus dicitur, ad se ipsum dici perhibent. Dicunt ergo: Si aliquid ad se ipsum dicitur Pater, quod ad se ipsum dici non potest Filius, et quidquid ad se ipsum dicitur, secundum substantiam dicitur, et ad se ipsum dicitur ingenitus, quod dici non potest Filius; ergo secundum substantiam dicitur ingenitus, quod Filius quia dici non potest, non ejusdem est substantiae. Cui versutiae respondetur ita, ut ipsi cogantur dicere secundum quid sit aequalis Patri Filius; utrum secundum id quod ad se dicitur, an secundum id quod ad Patrem dicitur. Non enim secundum id quod ad Patrem dicitur, quoniam ad patrem filius dicitur, ille autem non filius, sed pater est. Quia non sic ad se dicuntur pater et filius, quomodo amici aut vicini. Relative quippe amicus dicitur ad amicum; et si aequaliter se diligunt, eadem in utroque amicitia est: et relative vicinus dicitur ad vicinum; et quia aequaliter sibi vicini sunt (quantum enim iste illi, tantum et ille huic vicinatur), eadem in utroque vicinitas. Quia vero Filius non ad Filium relative dicitur, sed ad Patrem; non secundum hoc quod ad Patrem dicitur, aequalis est Filius Patri: restat ut secundum id aequalis sit, quod ad se dicitur. Quidquid autem ad se dicitur, secundum substantiam dicitur: restat ergo ut secundum substantiam sit aequalis. Eadem est igitur utriusque substantia. Cum vero ingenitus dicitur Pater, non quid sit, sed quid non sit dicitur. Cum autem relativum negatur, non secundum substantiam negatur, quia ipsum relativum non secundum substantiam dicitur.