|
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," 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." 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.
|
|