Full text of "Some account of the Council of Nicaea : in connexion with the life of Athanasius"

LIBRARY ST. MARY S COLLEGE

AUGUST, 1853.

N EW BOOKS

IN THE COURSE OF PUBLICATION

MESSRS. RIVINGTON,

ST. PAULAS CHURCH YARD, AND WATERLOO PLACE.

INDEX of MODERN BOOKS in THEOLOGY and GE
NERAL LITERATURE, published upon a NEW SCALE of
REDUCED PRICES. In 8vo.

Messrs. RIVINGTON beg to announce that they have recently made a general
reduction in the prices of their Publications (excepting School Books, on
account of the allowance made to Tutors, Periodicals, and Publications not
exceeding four shillings). The above INDEX containing the new prices and
particulars of their plan may be had gratuitously. Their arrangements
with Authors remain undisturbed under this system, upon which they propose
to continue the publication of New Works and New Editions, in the hope of
increasing the circulation of their books, and promoting uniformity and mode
ration of price ; and assisting to maintain, by these arrangements, the respecta
bility of the Bookselling Trade and advance the interests of Literature.

II.

SOME ACCOUNT of the COUNCIL of NIOEA, in con
nexion with the LIFE of ATHANASIUS. By JOHN KAYE, D.D.,
late Lord BISHOP of LINCOLN. In 8vo. Price 8s. [Former
Scale, Qs.~\ (Now ready.)

III.

THE THIRD EDITION of the LIFE, WRITINGS, and OPI
NIONS of JUSTIN MARTYR. By the SAME AUTHOR. In 8vo.
Price 6s. Qd. [Former price, 7s. 6d] (Just published.)

IV.

A COURSE of SERMONS on the EPISTLES and GOS-
PULS for each Sunday in the Year. By the Rev. ISAAC WILLIAMS,
B.D., late Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford, and Author of a " Har
mony of the Gospels, with Reflections," in 8 vols. In 2 vols. small
8vo. (In the Press.)

ST. HIPPOLYTUS and the CHURCH OF ROME in the

Earlier Part of the THIRD CENTURY; from the newly-discovered
"PHILOSOPHUMENA," or, the Greek Text of those Portions
which relate to that subject; with an ENGLISH VERSION and
NOTES ; and an Introductory Enquiry into the Authorship of the Trea
tise, and on the Life and Works of the Writer. By CHRISTOPHER
WORDSWORTH, D.D., Canon of Westminster. In 8vo. 8*. 6d.

BOOKS RECENTLY PUBLISHED

VI.

THE FIRST ITALIAN BOOK; on the Plan of the Rev.
T. K. ARNOLD S FIRST FRENCH BOOK. By Signer PIFFERI,
Professor of the Italian and Latin Languages, and DAWSON W.
TURNER, MA., Head Master of the Royal Institution School,
Liverpool. In 12mo. (In the Press.}

VII.

AN EIGHT WEEKS JOURNAL in NORWAY, c., in
1852. By Sir CHARLES S. H. ANDERSON, Bart. (With 32
Outlines of Scenery.} In crown 8 vo. 6s. (Just published.)

VIII.

PftAYERS for the SICK and DYING. By the Author of
"SICKNESS : its TRIALS and BLESSINGS." Is. 6d.

IX.

SYNTAX of the GREEK LANGUAGE, especially of the
ATTIC DIALECT, for -the Use of Schools. By Dr. J. N. MADVIG,
Professor in the University of Copenhagen. Translated from the
German by the Rev. HENRY BROWNE, M.A., and edited by the
late Rev. THOMAS KERCHEVER ARNOLD, M.A. With an
Appendix on the Greek Particles, by the Translator. In square 8vo.
8s. 6d. (Now ready.)

A SELECTION from the LECTURES delivered at St. Mar
garet s, Lothbury, on the Tuesday Mornings in the Years 1850, 1851,
1852. By the Rev. HENRY MELVILL, B.D., Principal of the
East India College, and Chaplain to the Tower of London. In small
8vo. Price Qs. [Former Scale, 75.]
*#* This is the only Edition authorized and revised by Mr. Melvill.

XI.

MEDITATIONS and PRAYERS on the ORDINATION
SERVICE for DEACONS. By the Rev. JOHN HOTHERSALL
FINDER, M.A., Principal of Wells Theological College. In small
8vo. (In preparation.)

XII.

THE MEDEA of EURIPIDES; with ENGLISH NOTES

from the German of Witzschel. Edited by the Rev. THOMAS
KERCHKVER ARNOLD, M.A., late Rector of Lyndon, and for
merly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 35. (Just published.)

Recently published in this Series, with English Notes :

1. EURIPIDIS BACCH^E, 35. HIPPO LYTUS, 3s. HECUBA, 3s.

2. SOPHOCLIS (EDIPUS COLONEUS, 4s. (ED1PUS TYRANNUS,

45. PHILOCTETES, 85. AJAX, 3s. ANTIGONE, 4s.

3. ECLOGUE ARISTOPHANIC.E (CLOUDS), 35. 6d. (BIRDS),

35. 6d.

BY MESSRS. RIVINGTON.

XIII.

THE SECOND HEBREW BOOK, containing the BOOK
of GENESIS. With Syntax and Vocabulary. By the late Rev.
T. K. ARNOLD, M.A. In 12mo. (Nearly ready.)

Lately published, by the same Author,
The FIRST HEBREW BOOK. 12mo. 7s. 6d.

XIV.

SERMONS preached at Romsey. By the Hon. and Rev.
GERARD J. NOEL, M.A., late Canon of Winchester, and Vicar of
Romsey, Hants. With a Preface by SAMUEL WILBERFORCE,
D.D., Lord Bishop of Oxford. In 12mo. 7s. 6d. [Former Scale,
8s. Qd.]

XV.

THE THIRD GREEK BOOK; containing a Selection from
XENOPHON S CYROP^EDIA, with Explanatory Notes, Syntax,,
and a Glossarial Index. By the Rev. THOMAS KERCHEVER
ARNOLD, M.A., late Rector of Lyndon, and formerly Fellow of
Trinity College, Cambridge. In 12mo. 3s. 6d. (Now rtady.)

XVI.

THE FOURTH GREEK BOOK; or, the Last Four Books
of XENOPHON S ANABASIS, containing the HISTORY of the
RETREAT of the TEN THOUSAND GREEKS : with Explana
tory Notes, and Grammatical References. By the SAME EDITOR. In
12mo. 4s. (Now ready.)

XVII.

PAROCHIAL FRAGMENTS relating to the PARISH of
WEST TARRING, and the CHAPELRIES of HEENE and DUR-
RINGTON, in the County of SUSSEX; including a Life of
THOMAS a BECKET, and some account of the learned JOHN
SELDEN. (Published in Aid of the Restoration of the Church of
West Tarring.) By JOHN WOOD WARTER, B.D., Vicar of
West Tarring. In 8vo. Price 10s. 6d. (Now ready.")

XVIII.

SERMONS. SECOND SERIES. (Preached at Rome in 1851
and 1852.) By the Rev. FRANCIS B. WOODWARD, M.A., Chap
lain to the English Congregation at Rome. In 12mo. Price 6s. 6d.
[Former Scale, 7s. 6dJ]

Lately published,

The FIRST SERIES. Price 6s. (jd. [Former price, 7s. QdJ]

XIX.

EARLY INFLUENCES. By the Author of "Truth without
Prejudice." Third Edition. 3s. 6d.

AIs&lt;&gt;, by the same Author,
TRUTH WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Fourth Edition. 3s. 6d.

xx.

THE DARK AGES ; a Series of Essays in illustration of the
Religion and Literature of the Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth
Centuries. By the Rev. S. R. MAITLAND, D.D., F.R.S., and F.S.A.,
some time Librarian to the late Archbishop of Canterbury, and Keeper
of the MSS. at Lambeth. Third Edition. In 8vo. Price 10s. Cd.
[Former price, 12s.] (Now ready.)

BOOKS RECENTLY PUBLISHED

XXT.

THE BOOK of PSALMS, newly translated from the original
Hebrew into ENGLISH VERSE. By a LAYMAN. In small 8vo.
45. 6d.

XXII.

THE FIFTH EDITION of LECTURES, HISTORICAL, DOC
TRINAL, and PRACTICAL, on the CATECHISM of the CHURCH
of ENGLAND. By FRANCIS-RUSSELL NIXON, D.D., Lord
Bishop of Tasmania. In 8vo. Price Ids. [Former price, 185.]

XXIII.

C. SALLUSTI CRISPI de BELLO JUGURTHINO
LIBER. With ENGLISH NOTES, from the German of RUDOLF
JACOBS and others, by the Rev. HENRY BROWNE, M.A., Canon
of Chichester. (Forming a new Volume of ARNOLD S SCHOOL
CLASSICS.) In 12mo. 35. 6d. (Now ready.")

XXIV.

LECTURES on the APOCALYPSE; Critical, Expository,
and Practical; delivered before the University of Cambridge. By
CHR. WORDSWORTH, D.D., Canon of Westminster. Third
Edition. In 8vo. Price 10s. 6d. [Former Scale, 125.]

XXV.

TWO LECTURES on the DOCTRINE of a MILLENNIUM ;

from " LECTURES ON THE APOCALYPSE." By CHRISTOPHER
WORDSWORTH, D.D., Canon of Westminster. New Edition.
In 8vo. 3s. Qd.

XXVI.

THE NEW TESTAMENT, according to the Authorized Ver
sion. With a COMMENTARY for General Readers, by the Rev.
HENRY ALFORD, B.D., Editor of the Greek Testament, with Eng
lish Notes. (In preparation.)

XXVII.

THE THIRD and CONCLUDING VOLUME of the
GREEK TESTAMENT: with a Critically revised Text, Various
Readings, and a Critical and Exegetical Commentary in English.
By the SAME EDITOR.

The Second Edition of the FIRST VOLUME is in the Press.
XXVIII.

EGYPT; a Poem. By JOHN DRYDEN PIGOTT, Author

of "The Patriarch of the Nile." In small 8 vo. 45. (Ready.)

XXIX.

SERMONS, preached in the Parish Churches of Chetton,
Glazeley, and Deuxhill, Shropshire. By the late WILLIAM
VICKERS, M.A., Archdeacon of Salop, in the Diocese of Hereford.
In small 8vo. Price 5s. (Just published.)

BY MESSRS. RIVINGTON. 5

XXX.

ECCLESIASTICAL BIOGRAPHY: or, LIVES of EMI
NENT MEN connected with the HISTORY of RELIGION in
ENGLAND, from the commencement of the REFORMATION to
the REVOLUTION. Selected, and Illustrated with NotEs. By
CHRISTOPHER WORDSWORTH, D.D., late Rector of Buxted
with Uckfield, Sussex, and Master of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Fourth Edition. In 4 vols. 8vo. With 5 Portraits. Price 21. 14s.
[Former price, 3Z. 3s.]

Also, by the same Editor (uniformly printed),

CHRISTIAN INSTITUTES : A Series of DISCOURSES and TRACTS,
selected, arranged systematically, and illustrated with NOTES. Second
Edition. In 4 vols. 8vo. Price *2l. 14s. [Former price, 31. 3s.~]

XXXI.

THE INSPIRATION of HOLY SCRIPTURE, its NA
TURE and PROOF : Eight Lectures delivered before the University
of Dublin during the Years 1852 and 1853. By WILLIAM LEE,
M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College. (In preparation.}

XXXII.

THE ANNUAL REGISTER; or, a View of the History and
Politics of the Year 1852. In 8vo. (Now ready.)
XXXIII

A GREEK and ENGLISH LEXICON for the Poems of
HOMER, and the HOMERID^E; illustrating the Domestic, Reli
gious, Political, and Military Condition of the Heroic Age. With an
Explanation of the most difficult Passages, and of all Mythological
and Geographical Proper Names. Translated from the German of
CRUSIUS, by Professor SMITH. Revised and edited by the Rev.
T. K. ARNOLD, M.A., late Rector of Lyndon, and formerly Fellow
of Trinity College, Cambridge. In 12mo. 9s.

Lately published,

HOMERI ILIAS. With ENGLISH NOTES, by the late Rev.
T. K. ARNOLD, M.A. 12*.

xxxiv.
HANDBOOK of ANCIENT GEOGRAPHY and HISTORY.

With Questions. Translated from the German of Piitz, by the
Rev. R. B. PAUL, M.A., and edited by the late Rev. THOMAS
KERCHEVER ARNOLD, M.A. Second Edition. In 12mo. 6s. 6d.
(Just published.}

Also, by the same Editors,

1. HANDBOOK of MEDIAEVAL HISTORY and GEOGRAPHY.
4s. 6rf.

2. HANDBOOK of MODERN HISTORY and GEOGRAPHY.
5s. 6d.

" The leading characteristic of these Handbooks is their exceeding
simplicity, the excellent order with which they are arranged, the com
pleteness of their details, and the remarkable accuracy and elaborate
erudition which they exhibit in every page. They have this further
advantage, which it is impossible to over-estimate that they bring
down their respective subjects to the very latest period, and present us
with the results of the most recent investigations of the critics and
antiquarians by whom they have been discussed." Dublin Review.

BOOKS RECENTLY PUBLISHED

XXXV.

THE PSALTER, marked for CHANTING, upon an entirely
new Principle, combining the SENSE and HARMONY. Adapted
for the Use of Choirs and Parish Churches. By the Rev. JOHN
JAMES SCOTT, M.A., Incumbent of Holy Trinity Church, Barn-
staple. New Edition. In a pocket Volume, price 2s. Qd.

XXXVI

THE CHRISTIAN CHARACTER; Six Sermons preached
in Lent. By JOHN JACKSON, D.D., Lord Bishop of Lincoln.
Fourth Edition. In small 8vo. 35. Qd. (Just published.}

XXXVII.

A Second Series of SERMONS, preached in the Parish Church
of Yoxall. By the Rev. HENRY SULIVAN, M.A., Rector of
Yoxall, Lichfield. In 12mo. 65.

XXXVIII.

LECTURES on the BEATITUDES, delivered during the
Season of Lent, in St. Paul s Episcopal Chapel, Edinburgh. By the
Rev. FRANCIS GARDEN, M.A., of Trinity College, Cambridge.
In small 8vo. 3s. Qd.

XXXIX.

VIRGILII JENEIS. With ENGLISH NOTES, from the
German of Dr. DUBNER. Edited by the Rev. T. K. ARNOLD,
M.A., late Rector of Lyndon, and formerly Fellow of Trinity College,
Cambridge. In 12mo. Gs.

Also, by the same Editor,

VIRGILII ^ENEIDOS Lib. I. VI. Addita est Interpretatio ex Ad-
notationibus Heynii, Wunderlichii, Wagneri, Forbigeri, aliorum ex-
cerpta. In 8vo. 12s.

XL.

THE COLONIAL CHURCH CHRONICLE and MIS
SIONARY JOURNAL. VOL. V. [July, 1851 June, 1852.]
In 8vo. 7*.

*** The Contents of this established Journal consist of numerous Ori
ginal Articles, Correspondence, and Documents relating to the CHURCH
in the COLONIES ; Reviews and Notices of New Publications ; together
with a Monthly Summary of Colonial, Foreign, and Home News.
Continued in Monthly Numbers, price Qd. each.

XLI.

THE SECOND VOLUME of the Rev. W. H. LANDON S
New GENERAL ECCLESIASTICAL DICTIONARY. Carefully
edited and revised. In 12mo. Price 10s. 6 rf. [ Former Scale, 12s.]
( Just published. )

This Work includes an Account of the Sees, Patriarchates, Reli
gious Foundations and Brotherhoods, together with Lists of the
Archbishops and Bishops throughout Christendom, from the earliest
times; also, a History of Sects ; an Explanation of Rites and Cere
monies, and of Ecclesiastical and Ecclesiological Terms ; and a copious
Biographical Dictionary of eminent Ecclesiastical Persons, with a List
of their Writings.

Also, The FIRST VOLUME. Price 10s. Qd. [Former price, 12s.]

BY MESSRS. RIVINGTON.

XLII.
GRADUS AD PARNASSUM NOVUS ANTICLEPTICUS :

founded on Quicherat s Thesaurus Poeticus Lingua Latince. Edited
by the Rev. THOMAS KERCH EVER ARNOLD, M.A., late Rector
of Lyndon, and formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. In
8vo. 125.

The object of the ANTICLEPTIC GRADUS is to give the pupil all the help
afforded to him by the old Gradus, supplying it in the form of materials
to be worked up by himself, not in the concrete state of ready-made lines.
Its anticleptic character consists in the insertion of expressions and
phrases from the best authors, illustrative of the several words without
producing the complete lines of quotation ; thus exercising the taste of
the student and adding to his stock of poetical ideas, but obliging him
to use his own powers upon the matter presented to him. It contains
a careful selection of Epithets, and will be found a sufficient Dictionary
for the best Latin poets.

XLIIT.

SERMONS to the YOUNG. By the Rev. C. E. KENNAWAY,

M.A. Second Edition. In small 8vo. 5s.
XLIV.

SELECTIONS from CICERO. Part IV.; De FINIBUS
MALORUM et BONORUM : on the SUPREME GOOD. With
a Preface, and English Notes, partly from Madvig and others, by the
Rev. JAMES BEAVEN, D.D., late Professor of Theology in King s
College, Toronto. (Forming a New Volume of ARNOLD S SCHOOL
CLASSICS.) In 12mo. 5s. Qd.

XLV.

A NEW AND COMPLETE EDITION OF THE WORKS AND
CORRESPONDENCE of the Right Hon. EDMUND BURKE.

In 8 Vols. 8vo. With Portrait. 4l. 4s.

Contents :

1. Mr. BURKE S CORRESPONDENCE between the year 1744 and his
Decease in 1797, first published from the original MSS. in 1844, edited by
Earl Fitzwilliam and Sir Richard Bourke, in four Volumes ; containing
numerous Historical and Biographical Notes, and several Original Letters
from the leading Statesmen of the period, and forming an Autobiography of
this celebrated Writer. The most interesting portion of the Letters of Mr.
Burke to Dr. French Laurence, published from the original MSS. by the late
Archbishop of Cashel in 1827, is incorporated in the Correspondence :

2. The WORKS of Mr. BURKE, as edited by his Literary Executors, and
completed by the publication of the 15th and 16th Volumes, in 1826, under
the superintendence of the late Bishop of Rochester, Dr. Walker King.

The political Events of the present day give increased importance and in
terest to the valuable writings of this eminent philosophical Statesman.

This Edition includes the whole of the Contents of the former Edition, in
20 Volumes, published at Ql. 5s.

*** The First Edition of the CORRESPONDENCE may still be had (to
complete former Editions of the WORKS), in 4 Vols. 8vo. Price ll. 16s.
[Former price, 2/. 2s.]

BOOKS RECENTLY PUBLISHED

XLVI.

THE IONIAN ISLANDS, PAST and PRESENT. With
Remarks on GREECE and TURKEY. By GEORGE F. BOWEN,

Esq., M A , Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford, Author of " Mount
Athos, Thessaly, and Epirus." In post 8vo. (Preparing for Pub
lication.}

XLVII.

THE CONFIRMATION of FAITH by REASON and
AUTHORITY : the Hulsean Lectures preached before the University
of Cambridge in 1852. By the Rev. GEORGE CURREY, B.D.,
Preacher at the Charterhouse; formerly Fellow and Tutor of St.
John s College. In 8vo. 7s. Qd. [Former Scale, 8s. Qd. ]

XLVIJI.

A MANUAL for GODFATHERS and GODMOTHERS.

With Answers to the objections commonly made against the use of
Sponsors. By the Rev. G. HILL, M.A. Curate of Tor Mohun
(Torquay), Devon. In small 8vo. 3s.

XLIX.

OCCASIONAL SERMONS, Preached in Westminster Abbey :
FOURTH SERIES. (On the CHURCH of IRELAND.) (Sold sepa
rately.)

CONTENTS : No. 25. Introductory Discourse on the Church History
of Ireland. 26. On the Age of St. Patrick. 27. On the Age of St.
Columba. 28. Invasion of Henry II. 29. Interval between Henry
II. and Henry VIII. 30. Commencement of the Reformation in
Ireland in the Reign of Henry VIII. 31. Reformation in Ireland in
the Reigns of Edward VI. and Elizabeth. 32. Hindrances of the Irish
Church. 33. Hopes of the Irish Church Conclusion. By CHRIS
TOPHER WORDSWORTH, D.D., Canon of Westminster. In 8vo.
Price 8s. [Former Scale, Qs.~\

Lately published, a NEW EDITION of VOLS. I. II. and III. Price

7s. [Former price, 8s. each. ]

SUNDAY READING ; or DISCOURSES on some of the
FIRST LESSONS appointed in the CALENDAR. By THOMAS
SWORDE, M.A., Rector of St. Peter s, Thetford, and Chaplain to
the Duke of Grafton. In 12mo. (Just published.)

LI.

CORNELIUS TACITUS, PART I. (the first Six Books of the
ANNALES, ab Excessu Divi Augusti.) With ENGLISH NOTES,
translated from the German of Dr. KARL NIPPERDEY, by the
Rev. HENRY BROWNE, M.A., Canon of Chichester. (Forming a
New Volume of the Rev. T. K.ARNOLD S SCHOOL CLASSICS.)
In 12mo. 6s.

LII.

THE LIFE of CARDINAL WOLSEY. By GEORGE
CAVENDISH, his Gentleman Usher. New Edition, with numerous
Historical and Biographical Notes, by JOHN HOLMES, Esq., of
the British Museum. In small 4to. Portrait. Price 10s. 6d.
[Former price, 125.]

BY MESSRS. RIVINGTON.

LIII.

EIGHT ESSAYS on VARIOUS SUBJECTS. By the Rev.
S. R. MAITLAND, D.D., F.R.S., and F.S.A. In small 8vo. Price
4s. Qd. [Former price, 5s.]

Also, lately published by the same Author,

ERUVIN; or, MISCELLANEOUS ESSAYS on the NATURE, HISTORY,
and DESTINY of MAN. Second Edition. Price 5s. [Former price,
5s. Qd.-]

LIV.

A SECOND VOLUME of SERMONS. By the Rev. JOHN
PUCKLE, M.A., of Brasenose College, Oxford, Incumbent of St.
Mary the Virgin, Dover. In 8vo. Price Qs. [Former Scale, 10s. 6d.~]

Lately published, The FIRST VOLUME. In 8vo. Price Qs. [Former
price, 10s. 6c?.]

LV.

THE THIRD EDITION of the FIRST FRENCH BOOK : on

the Plan of " Henry s First Latin Book." By the Rev. THOMAS
KERCHEVER ARNOLD, M.A., Rector of Lyndon, and late Fellow
of Trinity College, Cambridge. In 12mo. 5s. Qd.

Also,
A KEY to the EXERCISES. By M. DELILLE. 2*. 6d.

LVI.

THE OLD CHURCH CLOCK. By the Rev. RICHARD
PARKINSON, D.D., Canon of Manchester, and Principal of St.
Bees College, Whitehaven. Fourth Edition. In small 8vo. 4s. Qd.

LVII.

MOUNT ATHOS, THESSALY, and EPIRUS; being the
Diary of a Journey from Constantinople to Corfu. By GEORGE
F. BOWEN, Esq., MA., Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford. In
post 8vo. Price 6s. Qd. [Former price, 7s. Qd.~]

LVIII.

COMFORT for the AFFLICTED. Selected from various
Authors. Edited by the Rev. C E. KENNAWAY. With a Pre
face by S. WILBERFORCE, D.D., Lord Bishop of Oxford. Sixth
Edition. In small 8vo. 4s. Qd.

LtX.

THE CHRISTIAN S DUTY, from the SACRED SCRIP
TURES. In Two Parts. PART I. Exhortations to Repentance and
a Holy Life. PART II. Devotions for the Closet, in Three Offices, for
every Day in the Week. New Edition. Edited by the Rev.
THOMAS DALE, M.A., Vicar of St. Pancras, and Canon of St.
Paul s. In small 8vo. Price 4s. Qd. [Former price, 5s.~\

LX.

THE OLD MAN S RAMBLES. This Work contains nume
rous Tales and Dialogues, illustrating the Duties of Churchmen in
humble life, and is well suited for Parochial Libraries. New Edition.
In small 8vo. Price 4s. [Former price, 4s. 6c?.]

10 BOOKS RECENTLY PUBLISHED

LXI.

PLAIN SERMONS on the DOCTRINES and OFFICES of
the CHURCH of ENGLAND, preached in the Parish Church of
Fordham, Cambridgeshire, in the Year 1852. By the Rev. BENJAMIN
WILSON, M.A., Curate of Fordham, Cambridgeshire. Vol. II. In
12mo. 7s. 6d.

LXII.

THE SECOND GREEK BOOK; on the same Plan as
" The First Greek Book." By the Rev. THOMAS KERCHEVER
ARNOLD, M.A., late Rector of Lyndon, and formerly Fellow of
Trinity College, Cambridge. In 12mo. 5s. 6d.

* # * This Work contains an Elementary Treatise on the Greek
Particles and the Formation of Greek Derivatives.

LXI1I.

A HARMONY of the APOCALYPSE ; in a Revised Transla
tion, from the best MSS. By CHRISTOPHER WORDSWORTH,
D.D., Canon of Westminster. In Parallel Columns. In 4to. Price
4s. 6d. [Former price, 5s.]

LXIV.

A PRACTICAL INTRODUCTION to LATIN PROSE
COMPOSITION. By THOMAS KERCHEVER ARNOLD, M.A.,

late Rector of Lyndon, and formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cam
bridge. Ninth Edition. In 8vo. 6s. 6d.
*** This Work is founded upon the principles of imitation arid frequent

repetition. It is at once a Syntax, a Vocabulary, and an Exercise Book ;

and considerable attention has been paid to the subject of Synonymes.

It is used at all, or nearly all, the public Schools.

LXV.

HINTS on the ART of CATECHISING ; being a Post
humous Work of the Ven. EDWARD BATHER, M.A., late Arch
deacon of Salop, in the Diocese of Lichfield, and Vicar of Meole Brace.
To which is prefixed A CHARGE, ON SCRIPTURAL EDUCA
TION. Edited by his WIDOW. Third Edition. InlSmo. 2s. 6d.

LXVI.

CHRISTIAN WATCHFULNESS, in the Prospect of SICK-
NESS, MOURNING, and DEATH. By the Rev. JOHN JAMES,
D.D., Canon of Peterborough, Author of" A Comment on the Col
lects." Seventh Edition. In 12mo. 5s. (Just published.)

Also, by the same Author,

A DEVOTIONAL COMMENTARY on the MORNING and
EVENING SERVICES in the BOOK of COMMON PRAYER.

In2Vols. 12mo. 13s.

LXVII.

A New CATALOGUE of MODERN BOOKS in THEO
LOGY and GENERAL LITERATURE, with the New Reduced
Scale of Prices. Arranged in CLASSES according to their SUBJECTS,
and with full Titles to each Work. In 8vo. (In preparation.)

BY MESSRS. RIVINGTON. 11

RECENT PAMPHLETS AND TRACTS.

A CHARGE, Addressed to the Clergy of the Diocese of RIPON, at the
Triennial Visitation, in April, 1853. By CHARLES-THOMAS LONG-
LEY, D.D., Lord Bishop of Ripon. In 8vo. Is. 6d.

ii.

ENGLISH EDUCATION FOR THE MIDDLE CLASSES ; a SERMON, preached
at Hurstpierpoint Church, on the 21st June, 1853, on occasion of
the Opening of ST. JOHN S SCHOOL. By CONNOP THIRLWALL,
D.D., Bishop of St. David s. In 8vo. Is.

HI.

SUGGESTIONS for the EXTENSION of the MINISTRY, by the REVIVAL of the
LESSER ORDERS of MINISTERS : in a CHARGE, addressed to the Clergy of
the Archdeaconry of LONDON, May 3, 1853. By W. H. HALE, M.A.,
Archdeacon of London. In 8vo. Is.

IV.

CORRESPONDENCE between BISHOP SPENCER and ARCHDEACON
DENISON. In 8vo. Is. Go/.

CHURCH QUESTIONS of 1853 ; a CHARGE delivered to the Clergy of the
Archdeaconry of MIDDLESEX, in April, 1853. By the Venerable JOHN
SINCLAIR, M.A., Archdeacon of Middlesex, and Vicar of Kensington.
In 8vo. Is. 6d.

VI.

THE CHURCH S SONS BROUGHT BACK TO HER FROM FAR ; a SERMON,
preached in the Cathedral Church of Canterbury, on Sunday, Feb. 27,
1853, the day after the Burial in the Cathedral of the Right Reverend
WILLIAM GRANT BROUGHTON, D.D., Lord Bishop of Sydney, and
Metropolitan of all Australasia. By BENJAMIN HARRISON, M.A.,
Archdeacon of Maidstone, Canon of Canterbury. In 8vo. Is.

VII.

SUBSTANCE OF A REPLY TO A DEPUTATION APPOINTED AT A PUBLIC
MEETING OF MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, held in Hobart Town,
on Thursday, April 22, 1852. By FRANCIS-RUSSELL NIXON, D.D.,
Bishop of Tasmania. Second Edition. In 8vo. Is. 6d.

VIII.

AN ATTEMPT TO ELUCIDATE THEPROPHECIEScoNCERNiNGANTICHRIST:
with Remarks on some Works of J. H. Frere, Esq. By the Rev. S. R.
MAITLAND, D.D., F.R.S., & F.S.A., some time Librarian to the late
Archbishop of Canterbury, and Keeper of the MSS. at Lambeth. Second
Edition. In 8vo. 2s. 6d.

IX.

AN EXPLANATION AND DEFENCE OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED, in
Two Sermons. By the Rev. EDMUND MORTLOCK, B.D., Rector of
Moulton, and late Fellow of Christ s College, Cambridge. In 8vo. 2s.

A FEW WORDS IN ANSWER TO THE ATTACK ON MY " CLASSICAL SCHOOL-
BOOKS," published in Eraser s Magazine, and afterwards reprinted for
general circulation. By the Rev. THOMAS KERCHEVER ARNOLD,
M.A., late Rector of Lyndon, and formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cam
bridge. In 8vo. 6d.

12 BOOKS RECENTLY PUBLISHED

RECENT PAMPHLETS AND TRACTS. (Continued.)
XI.

THE CLAIM of the INCORPORATED CHURCH BUILDING SOCIETY

to MORE LIBERAL SUPPORT on the Part of MEMBERS of the CHURCH of ENG
LAND, especially at the Present Time, Advocated in a Letter reprinted from
the " John Bull " Newspaper, of April 2, 1853. In 8vo. 6d.

XII.

THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY AND THE MINISTRY OF SOULS; THREE SER
MONS, Preached in the Chapel of King s College, London, at the Opening
Services of the Theological Department. By EDWARD HAYES
PLUMPTRE, M.A., Chaplain and Honorary Fellow, Assistant Preacher at
Lincoln s Inn, late Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford. In 12mo.
Is. 6d.

XIII.

ENGLAND S Two GREAT MILITARY CAPTAINS, MARLBOROUGH and
WELLINGTON : a LECTURE delivered to the Members of the Church
of England Young Men s Society at Islington, December 17, 1852. By the
Rev. ROBERT WHELER BUSH, M.A., of Worcester College, Oxford,
and Head Master of the Islington Proprietary School. In 8vo. Is. 6d.

AN EXHORTATION on the LORD S DAY. By the Rev. ROBERT
WILSON EVANS, B.D., Vicar of Heversham, and late Fellow of Trinity
College, Cambridge, Author of " The Rectory of Valehead." In small 8vo.
Is. 6d.

xv.

A SERMON, Preached in Aid of the Training Institution for Nurses,
in Trinity Church, Tottenham, on Palm Sunday, 1852. By the Rev.
HENRY A. GIRAUD, M.A., Curate. In 12mo. 3d.

PRAYERS for the USE of SCHOOLS and FAMILIES during the HOLY
SEASONS. Part II. (Advent to Septuagesima Sunday.) By the Rev.
THOMAS BOWDLER, M.A. In 12mo. 3d. (Lately published.")
PART I. ; containing PRAYERS for the HOLY WEEK, EASTER, THE ASCENSION,
WHITSUNTIDE, and TRINITY SUNDAY. 6d.

XVII.

CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DUTIES AND OFFICES OF CHURCH-
WARDENS, and the conflicting Laws in which they are involved. By
the Rev. BENJAMIN WILSON, M.A., Curate of Fordham, Cambridge
shire. 6d.

XVIII.

CORRESPONDENCE ON THE REVIVAL OF CONVOCATION, AND

other PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Originally
published in the " Morning Chronicle." By the same Author. 6d.

XIX.

THE CHURCH CHRONICLE for the DIOCESE of LICHFIELD. Volume I.
Is. (Continued in Monthly Numbers, Id.)

BY MESSRS. RIVINGTON. 13

CLASSICAL AND EDUCATIONAL WORKS,

BY THE

REV. T. KERCHEVER ARNOLD, M.A.

LATE RECTOR OF LYNDON, AND FORMERLY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

The Works under the several numbers may be studied at or about the same stage of a

pupil s progress.
KEYS (supplied to Tutors only} are published to those Works to which f is prefixed.

LATIN,

1.
f HENRY S FIRST LATIN BOOK. Tenth Edition. 12mo. 3s.

The object of this Work (which is founded on the principles of imitation and frequent repetition)
is to enable the pupil to do exercises from the first day of his beginning his Accidence. It is
recommended by the Oxford Diocesan Board of Education, as a useful work for Middle or Com
mercial Schools ; and adopted at the National Society s Training College at Chelsea.

f A SECOND LATIN BOOK, and PRACTICAL GRAMMAR. Intended as a

SEQUEL to Henry s First Latin Book. Fifth Edition. 12mo. 4s.
f A FIRST VERSE BOOK, PART I.; intended as an easy Introduction to the Latin

Hexameter and Pentameter. Fifth Edition. 12mo. 2s.
A FIRST VERSE BOOK, PART II. ; containing additional Exercises. Is.

A THIRD LATIN BOOK. (In the Press.)

HISTORIC ANTIQUE EPITOME, from Cornelius Nepos, Justin, &c. With English

Notes, Rules for Construing, Questions, Geographical Lists, &c. Fifth Edition. 4s.

A FIRST CLASSICAL AT LAS, containing fifteen Maps, coloured in outline ; intended

as a Companion to the Histories Antiquce Epitome. 8vo. TS. Gd.

"These Maps are executed with great accuracy, and apparently quite free from that indistinctness
and disproportion which are the great fault of all our small maps. We think Mr. Arnold suc
cessful here as always ; and he has done his part to render geography, as it should be, an
additional inducement for work." Guardian.
OVID. ECLOGUE OVIDIAN^E, with English Notes ; PART I. (from the Elegiac

Poems.) Eighth Edition. 12mo. 2s. 6d.

This Work is from the Fifth Part of the Lateinuches Elementurbuch of Professors Jacobs and
Dorpig, which has an immense circulation on the Continent and in America.

OVID. ECLOGUE OVIDIAN^E, PART II. ; containing Selections from the META
MORPHOSES. With English Notes. 12mo. 5s.
A PRACTICAL INTRODUCTION to LATIN PROSE COMPOSITION. Ninth

Edition. 8vo. 6s. Gd.

This Work is founded on the principles of imitation and frequent repetition. It is at once a
Syntax, a Vocabulary, and an Exercise Book ; and considerable attention lias been paid to the
subject of Synonymes. It is now used at all, or nearly all, the public schools.

f NEPOS. CORNELIUS NEPOS, PART L ; with Critical Questions and Answers,

and an imitative Exercise on each Chapter. Third Edition. 12mo. 4s.
VIRGIL VIRGILII ^ENEIS. With English Notes from DUBNER. 12mo. Gs.
VIRGIL. VIRGILII BUCOLICA ET GEORGICA, with English Notes from

DUBNER. (In Preparation.}

VIRGIL. VIRGILII ^ENEIDOS LIBRI I. VI. ; Addita est Interpretatio ex Adno-
tationibus Heynii, Wunderlichii, Wagneri, Forbigeri, aliorum excerpta. 8vo. 12s
HORACE. ECLOGUE HORATIAN^E, PARS I. ; CARMINA prope Omnia Continens.
Addita est Familiaris Interpretatio ex Adnotationibus Mitscherlichii, Doeringii,
Orellii, aliorum excerpta. Second Edition. 12mo. 5s.
HORACE. ECLOGUE HORATIAN^E, PARS II. ; SERMONES. 5s.

*** All the objectionable passages are omitted from these Editions.

HORACE. HORATII OPERA, with English Notes from DUBNER. (In Preparation.)
f A PRACTICAL INTRODUCTION to LATIN VERSE COMPOSITION.

Contents : 1. " Ideas" for Hexameter and Elegiac Verses. 2. Alcaics. 3. Sap
phics. 4. The other Horatian Metres. 5. Appendix of Poetical Phraseology,
and Hints on Versification. 8vo. Third Edition. 5s. 6d.

ELLISIAN EXERCISES ; adapted to the " Practical Introduction to Latin Prose
Composition." 3s. Gd. The KEY, 3s.

14. BOOKS RECENTLY PUBLISHED

GRADUS AD PARNASSUM NOVUS ANTICLEPTICUS ;. The ANTICLEPTIC

GRADUS : founded on Quicherat s Thesaurus Poeticus Linguae Latince. 12s.
"This Work is so superior to an ordinary Gradus as scarcely to come under the same category.
The epithets and phrases are equally well chosen and well arranged. A treasury it certainly is,
and a valuable one too, for all who wish to read and imitate the Latin Poets with success."
Athenceum.

5.
ECLOGUE HISTORIC^E ; or, Selections from the Roman Historians (Sallust, Livy,

Curtius, Tacitus), with Latin Notes. 12mo. 4s.

CICERO. Selections from Cicero s ORATIONS, with English Notes, from the best
and most recent sources. Contents : The Fourth Book of the Impeachment
of Verres, the Four Speeches against Catiline, and the Speech for the Poet
Archias. 12mo. 4s.

CICERO. Selections from Cicero, with English Notes,PART II. ; containing EPISTLES,
arranged in the order of time, with accounts of the Consuls, events of each year,
&c. 12mo. 5s.

The Notes are from the best Commentators, especially Matthiae.

CICERO. Selections from Cicero, PART III. ; containing the TUSCULAN DISPU
TATIONS (entire). With English Notes, translated from the German of TISCHER,
by the Rev. R. B. PAUL, M.A. 12mo. 5s. 6d.

11 The Notes abound in critical and philological remarks of great value. They are copious without
being redundant, clearly expressed, and always to the point. All allusions and technical
expressions are fully explained. A master s hand is discernible in the translations occasionally
given of particular portions that present any difficulty." Athenceum.

CICERO. Selections from Cicero, PART IV. ; containing De FINIBUS MALORUM
et BONORUM. (On the Supreme Good.) With a Preface, English Notes,
&c., partly from Madvig and others, by the Rev. JAMES BEAVEN, D.D., late
Professor of Theology in King s College, Toronto. 12mo. 5s. 6d.

CICERO. Selections from Cicero, PART V. ; containing CATO MAJOR, sive DE ,
SENECTUTE DIALOGUS ; with English Notes from Sommerbrodt, by the Rev.
HENRY BROWNE, M.A., Canon of Chichester. 12mo. 2s. 6d.

TACITUS, PART I. The first Six Books of the ANNALES of TACITUS, ab Excessu
Divi Augusti. With English Notes, translated from the German of Dr. KARL
NIPPERDEY, by the Rev. HENRY BROWNE, M.A. 12mo. 6s.

TACITUS, PART II. (In the Press.)

SALLUST. The HISTORY of the JUGURTHINE WAR, explained by RUDOLF
JACOBS. The Notes translated by the Rev. HENRY BROWNE, M.A. 12mo. 3s. 6d.

f A PRACTICAL INTRODUCTION to LATIN PROSE COMPOSITION, PART II.;
containing the Doctrine of LATIN PARTICLES, with Vocabulary, an Antibar-
barus, &c. Third Edition. 8vo. 8s.

6.
f LONGER LATIN EXERCISES, PART I. Second Edition. 8vo. 4s.

The object of this Work is to supply boys with an easy collection of short passages, as an
Exercise-book for those who have gone once, at least, through the First Part of the Editor s
" Practical Introduction to Latin Prose Composition."

f LONGER LATIN EXERCISES, PART II. ; containing a Selection of Passages of

greater length, in genuine idiomatic English, for Translation into Latin. 8vo. 4s.

MATERIALS for TRANSLATION into LATIN : selected and arranged by AUGUSTUS

GROTEFEND. Translated from the German by the Rev. H. H. ARNOLD, B.A.,

with Notes and Excursuses. Second Edition. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

A COPIOUS and CRITICAL ENGLISH-LATIN LEXICON, by the Rev. T. K.
ARNOLD and the Rev. J. E. RIDDLE. Third Edition. IL 5s.

GREEK.
+ The FIRST GREEK BOOK ; on the Plan of " Henry s First Latin Book." Second

Edition. 12mo. 5s.

The SECOND GREEK BOOK (on the same Plan) ; containing an Elementary Treatise

on the Greek Particles and the Formation of Greek Derivatives. 12mo. 5s. 6d.

The THIRD GREEK BOOK, containing Selections from Xenophon s Cyropeedia,

with English Notes, and a Vocabulary. 12mo. 3s. 6d.
The FOURTH GREEK BOOK, containing Xenophon s Anabasis, Books IV. to

VII., with English Notes. 12mo. 4s.

A PRACTICAL INTRODUCTION to GREEK ACCIDENCE. With Easy Exer
cises and Vocabulary. Fifth Edition. 8vo. 5s. Gd.
f A PRACTICAL INTRODUCTION to GREEK PROSE COMPOSITION, PART I.

Seventh Edition. 8vo. 6s. Gd.

** The object of this Work is to enable the Student, as soon as he can decline and conjugate
with tolerable facility, to translate simple sentences after given examples, and with given
words; the principles trusted to being principally those of imitation and very frequent repeti
tion. It is at once a Syntax, a Vocabulary, and an Exercise Book.

BY MESSRS. RIVINGTON. 15

COMPANION to the above. A PRACTICAL INTRODUCTION to GREEK CON
STRUING. 8vo. 6s. Gtl.

This Work is intended to be used simultaneously with the Author s " Practical Introduction to

Greek Prose Composition," either as a Reading Book, or for written Exercises.
f A PRACTICAL INTRODUCTION to GREEK PROSE COMPOSITION, PART II.

(On the PARTICLES.) 8vo. 6s. 6d.
A GREEK GRAMMAR ; intended as a sufficient Grammar of Reference for Schools

and Colleges. Second Edition. 8vo, half-bound. 10s. 6d.

PROFESSOR MADVIG S SYNTAX of the GREEK LANGUAGE, especially of
the Attic Dialect ; Translated by the Rev. HENRY BROWNE, M.A. Together
with an Appendix on the GREEK PARTICLES, by the Translator. Square 8vo.
8s. 6d. (Ready.)

An ELEMENTARY GREEK GRAMMAR. 12mo. 5s. ; or, with Dialects, 6s.
Some Account of the GREEK DIALECTS, for the Use of Beginners ; being an Ap
pendix to "An Elementary Greek Grammar." 12mo. Is. 6d.

An ELEMENTARY GREEK READER, from the ODYSSEY of HOMER. With
Grammatical Introduction, Notes, and Glossary. From the German of Dr.
AHRENS, Director of the Lyceum at Hanover. 12mo. 3s.
HOMER. The ILIAD, BOOKS I. to IV. ; with a Critical Introduction, and copious

English Notes. 12mo. 7*. 6^-

" This Edition is intended to assist more advanced students at schools and colleges. A more

useful and complete guide to the study of Homer we do not know. Although it treats only of the

first four books, if any body makes himself thoroughly master of the contents of this volume, he

will find no difficulty in fully comprehending any other part of the Iliad or Odyssey." Athenczum.

HOMER for BEGINNERS. The FIRST THREE BOOKS of the ILIAD, with English Notes;

forming a sufficient Commentary for young Students. 12mo. 3s. 6d.
HOMER. The ILIAD COMPLETE, with English Notes and Grammatical Refer
ences. In one thick volume, 12mo., half-bound. 12s.

In this Edition, the Argument of each Book is divided into short Sections, which are prefixed to
those portions of the Text, respectively, which they describe. The Notes (principally from
Diibner) are at the foot of each page. At the end of the volume are useful Appendices.
HOMER. A Complete GREEK and ENGLISH LEXICON for the POEMS of
HOMER, and the HOMERID^E. Translated from the German of CRUSIUS,
by PROFESSOR SMITH. New and Revised Edition. 9s.
HERODOTUS. ECLOGUE HERODOTE^E, Part I. ; from the Text of Schweighseu-

ser. With English Notes. 12mo. 3s. 6d.

THTJCYDIDES, BOOK THE FIRST ; with copious English Notes, especially from Poppo
and Kriiger, and Grammatical References. 12mo. 5s. 6d.

BOOK THE SECOND. (In the Press).

DEMOSTHENES, with English Notes from the best and most recent sources, SAUPPE,

DOBERENZ, JACOBS, DISSEN, WESTERMANN, &c.
The OLYNTHIAC ORATIONS. 12mo. 3s.
The ORATION on the CROWN. 12mo. 4s. 6d.
The PHILIPPIC ORATIONS. 12mo. 4s.
2ESCHINES SPEECH AGAINST CTESIPHON. 12mo. 4s.

The Text is that of Baiter and Sauppe ; the Notes are by Professor Champlin, with additional

Notes by President Woolsey and the Editor.
SOPHOCLES, with English Notes, from SCHNEIDEWIN.

PART I. The AJAX. 3s. 1 T i T&gt; TJ T,

PART II. The PHILOCTETES. 3 ,.}By the Kev.R. B. PAUL, M.A.

PART III. The CEDIPUS TYRANNUS. 4s.^|

PART IV. The CEDIPUS COLONEUS. 4s. Jfiy the Rev. HENRY BROWNE, M.A.

PART V. The ANTIGONE. 4s. J

"This Edition of Antigone is fully equal in merit to the preceding plays of Sophocles, edited after
the German edition of Srhneidewin, whose erudite notes are reproduced in English. It is im
possible to turn over the pages of this and other editions of the Classics, and to look back upon
the School Editions of former days, without gratefully acknowledging how much has been
done by Mr. Kerchever Arnold towards the advancement of sound classical learning by his
admirable publications." John Bull.

EURIPIDES, with English Notes, from HARTUNG, DU BNER, WITZSCHEL, SCHONE, &c.
The HECUBA. 3s. The HIPPOLYTUS. 3s.

TheBACCHLE. 3s. The MEDEA. 3s.

The IPHIGEN1A IN TAURIS. (In the Press.)

ARISTOPHANES. ECLOGUE ARISTOPHANIC^E, PART I. ; Selections from the
CLOUDS, with English Notes, by Professor FELTON. 12mo. 3s. 6d.

, p ART n &gt;5 containing the BIRDS. 12mo. 3s. 6d.

In these Editions the objectionable passages are omitted.

CLASSICAL EXAMINATION PAPERS. A Series of 93 Extracts from Greek,
Roman, and English Classics, for Translation, with occasional Questions and
Notes ; each extract on a separate leaf. Price of the whole in a specimen
packet, 4s., or 6 copies of any Separate Paper may be had for 3d.

16 BOOKS PUBLISHED BY MESSRS. RIVINGTON.

HEBREW.

The FIRST HEBREW BOOK ; on the Plan of "Henry s First Latin Book." 12mo. 7s. 6cL
11 The arrangement is excellent. The addition of English characters is very well calculated to
assist the learner, and to incite those who, from the difficulty of reading fluently, are disinclined
to become learners. Mr. Arnold says in his preface : Wishing to tempt many persons to teach
themselves the language in which the Scriptures of the Old Testament were composed, I have
felt it necessary to smooth the path to the accomplishment of the first and most irksome portion
of the lahour. This task he has performed most successfully." English Churchman.
The SECOND HEBREW BOOK, containing the BOOK of GENESIS, with Syntax and
Vocabulary. (In the Press).

GERMAN.
The FIRST GERMAN BOOK ; on the Plan of " Henry s First Latin Book." Third

Edition. I2mo. 5s. 6d.

A KEY to the EXERCISES, by Dr. FRADERSDORFF. 2s. 6d.

A READING COMPANION to the FIRST GERMAN BOOK ; containing Extracts
from the best Authors, withacopious Vocabulary and explanatory Notes. 12mo. 4s.
A HANDBOOK of GERMAN VOCABULARY. 4s.
The SECOND GERMAN BOOK. (In the Press.)

FRENCH.
The FIRST FRENCH BOOK ; on the Plan of Henry s First Latin Book." Third

Edition. 12mo. 5s. 6d.

A KEY to the EXERCISES, by M. DELTLLE. 2s. 6d.
A HANDBOOK of FRENCH VOCABULARY. 4s. 6d.

ENGLISH.

HENRY S ENGLISH GRAMMAR; a First Book. (In the Press.)
SPELLING turned ETYMOLOGY. 12mo. 2s. 6d.
The PUPIL S BOOK, (a Companion to the above.) Is. 3d.

LATIN via ENGLISH ; being the SECOND PART of the above Work. 12mo. 4s. 6d.
An ENGLISH GRAMMAR for CLASSICAL SCHOOLS; being a Practical Intro
duction to "English Prose Composition." Fifth Edition. 12mo. 4s. 6d.

HANDBOOKS FOR THE CLASSICAL STUDENT (WITH QUESTIONS), under the

General Superintendence and Editorship of the Rev. T. K. ARNOLD.
"The leading characteristic of these Handbooks is their exceeding simplicity, the excellent order
with which they are arranged, the completeness of their details, and the remarkable accuracy
and elaborate erudition which they exhibit in every page. They have this further advantage,
which it is impossible to over-estimate ; that they bring down their respective subjects to the
very latest period, and present us with the results of the most recent investigations of the
critics and antiquarians by whom they have been discussed." Dublin Review, Oct. 1, 1851.

I. HANDBOOKS of HISTORY and GEOGRAPHY. From the German of PUTZ.

Translated by the Rev. R. B. PAUL.

1. ANCIENT HISTORY. Second Edition. 6s. 6d.\ These Works have been already

2. MEDIAEVAL HISTORY, 4s. 6d. } translated into the Swedish and

3. MODERN HISTORY, 5s. 6d. ) Dutch languages.

II. The ATHENIAN STAGE, from the German of WITZSCHEL. Translated by the Rev.

R. B. PAUL. 4s.

III. 1. GRECIAN ANTIQUITIES,"]

3s. 6d. I From the Swedish of BOJESEN. Translated from

2. ROMAN ANTIQUITIES, f Dr. HOFFA S German version by the Rev. R. B. PAUL.
Second Edition. 3s. 6d.

The pupil will receive from these works a correct and tolerably complete picture of Grecian and
Roman life: the political portions (the account of the national institutions and their effects)
appear to be of great value ; while the very moderate extent of each admits of its being tho
roughly mastered of its being got up and retained.

3. HEBREW ANTIQUITIES. By the Rev. HENRY BROWNE, M.A. 4s.

This Work describes the manners and customs of the ancient Hebrews which were common to
them with other nations, and the rites and ordinances which distinguished them as the chosen
people Israel.

IV. HANDBOOKS of SYNONYMES :

1. GREEK SYNONYMES. From the French of PILLON. 6s. 6d.

2. LATIN SYNONYMES, from the German of DODERLEIN. Translated by the
Rev. H. H. ARNOLD. Second Edition. 4s.

V. HANDBOOK of GRECIAN MYTHOLOGY,) From the German of Professor

(with Outline Engravings of Ancient Statues}. 5s. J STOLL, by the Rev. R. B. PAUL.

VI. HANDBOOK of CHRONOLOGY. ANNALES Veterum REGNORUM et

POPULORUM, imprimis Romanorum, confecti a C. T. ZUMPTIO. 5s.

The BOY S ARITHMETIC, PART I. By the Rev. CHARLES ARNOLD, M.A.,

Rector of Tinwell, and late Fellow of Caius College, Cambridge. Second Edition. 12mo.
3s. 6d. Also, PART II. 3s. 6d.

The object of this book is to make Arithmetic easier to little boys, by enabling them to under
stand it, and to prevent their forgetting a rule as soon as they have entered upon a new one.

LONDON :
RIVINGTONS, ST. PAUL S CHURCH YARD, & WATERLOO PLACE.

ACCOUNT

OF THE

COUNCIL OF NIC^A,

IN CONNEXION WITH THE

LIFE OF ATHANASIUS^

JOHN KAYE, ^Br

LORD BISHOP OP LINCOLN.

if: ^ H % ^
&*1i&

LONDON:
PEANCIS & JOHN EIVINGTON,

ST. PAUL S CHUKCH YAED, AND WATERLOO PLACE.
1853.

LIBRARY ST. MARY S COLLEGE

LONDON I

GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PI
ST. JOHN S SQUARE.

ADVERTISEMENT.

IT is generally known that the death of the learned
and pious Dr. Kaye took place at the commence
ment of the present year. In consequence of that
event the publication of this work was postponed,
partly because the revision of the Preface had not
been completed by the Author, and partly because
the Publishers had been led to expect that an
Appendix would be found among his papers. As
this expectation has not been realized, it is con
cluded, either that the Author had abandoned his
intention, or had not the leisure to carry it into
effect. The work is therefore presented to the
public in the state in which it was left at the time
of his decease. The Preface has been submitted
to his learned and very intimate friend, the Rev.
J. A. Jeremie, D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity
in the University of Cambridge, with the view of
correcting verbal errors, should any have occurred,
in that portion of the work which had not received
the final revision of the Author.

July, 1853.

PREFACE.

THE following work is designed for the use of the
Theological Student, to assist him in arriving at a
just judgment respecting the history and nature of the
Arian controversy. As far as that controversy affected
the temporal interests of the Christians, its history
forms a part of the history of the Roman empire,
and, in consequence, occupies the twenty-first chap
ter of Gibbon s great work. That chapter displays,
in common with every other part of his history, the
indefatigable industry of the author in collecting
his materials, and his consummate skill in arranging
them, so as to give the reader a clear and compre
hensive view of the subject. I think, too, that on
the whole he is not chargeable with unfairness. The
controversy was not between Christians and heathen
philosophers ; there was, therefore nothing to call
forth the expression of that personal resentment
which he has been accused of entertaining against
Christianity. Both parties were Christians; and

VI PREFACE.

he is content to look down upon them with con
temptuous impartiality. I must, however, add that
I know no part of the history in which the student
requires to be more on his guard against that which
I conceive to be his greatest danger in perusing
it, the danger of becoming insensibly inoculated
with the sceptical and sneering spirit of the author.

The history of the controversy has also been
written by Mr. Newman, in " The Arians of the
Fourth Century." The reader will find occasional
references to the work, as well as to the author s
notes in the Oxford translation of the treatises of
Athanasius. No one can read them without ad
miring the extensive reading and the subtlety of
the writer, nor without feeling a conviction that he
was, when he wrote them, contemplating the step
which he afterwards took, that of secession to
Rome.

Prefixed to the Translation of the Historical
Tracts is a Dissertation on certain chronological
difficulties connected with the life of Athanasius.
The design of my work did not render it necessary
for me to aim at minute accuracy on these points.
I have, therefore, adopted the dates assigned by
Montfaucon, the Benedictine editor, with whom I
concur in thinking that only one council was held
at Rome in the case of Athanasius.

PREFACE. Vll

I have referred to the Philosophumena under the
name of Origen. In making that reference, I do
not mean to pronounce an opinion on the disputed
question respecting the authorship of the work ; I
have not examined it with that accuracy which
would justify me in pronouncing one. For the
purpose for which I refer to the work it matters
little whether Origen or Hippolytus, Bishop of
Portus, was the author. I will add the dates of
the principal works of Athanasius, as assigned by
Montfaucon :

Oratio contra Gentes . . ^Before the rise of the AriarO
De Incarnatione Verbi Dei I Controversy, probably \

Encyclica ad Episcopos Epistola A.D. 341

Apologia contra Arianos about A.D. 350

De Decretis Synodi Nicaense A.D. 352

De Sententia Dionysii A.D. 352

Epistola ad Episcopos lEgypt. et Lib A.D. 356

Apologia ad Constantium A.D. 356

Apologia de Fuga A.D. 357, 358

Epistola ad Monachos A.D. 358

Orationes contra Arianos A.D. 358

Epistola ad Serapionem de Spiritu Sancto . . . .A.D. 358

De Synodis A.D. 359

De Incarnatione Dei Verbi et contra Arianos . . . A.D. 365

Epistola ad Afros A.D. 369

ad Epictetum Episcopum Corinthium . . .A.D. 371

Contra Apollinarium A.D. 372

CONTENTS.

PAGE

ACCOUNT OF THE COUNCIL OF NIC^EA 1

SOME ACCOUNT OF THE FOUR ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS
AGAINST THE ARIANS 152

SOME ACCOUNT OF THE TRACT DE INCARNATIONE CHRISTI 282

SOME ACCOUNT

OF THE

COUNCIL OF NIC^EA,

&c. &c. &c.

NEXT to the conversion of Constantine to Chris
tianity, the calling of the Council of Nicaea was the
event of his reign most productive of important
consequences to the Church. We might, therefore,
reasonably expect to find in the pages of the His
torian of the Church and the Panegyrist of the
Emperor, a full account of the causes which gave
occasion to it, of the discussions which took place
during its continuance, and of the decrees by which
the assembled Fathers decided the disputed points
and settled the Christian Creed. If, however, we
turn to the pages of Eusebius \vith this expectation,
we shall be disappointed. The subject was one on
which he evidently felt little disposition to dwell,
whether from dissatisfaction with the course which
the proceedings took, or with the Confession of
Faith which the Council finally propounded. No
thing can be more meagre than his account. We

2 COUNCIL OF NIOffiA.

must, therefore, draw our information from other
sources, of which the principal are the writings of
Athanasius, who, though he attended the Council
only as the deacon of the Bishop of Alexandria,
spent his life in the uncompromising assertion of its
decrees; and the works of three historians, one a
bishop, ] Theodoret, the other two laymen, 2 Socrates,
and 3 Sozomen, who lived in the fifth century.

1 Bishop of Cyrus in Syria. He bore a prominent part in the
Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon See Cave s Historia Lite-
raria, Saec. V.

2 Socrates says himself, that he was born and bred at Con
stantinople (L. 5. c. 24), where, while very young, he received
instruction from Helladius and Ammonius, heathen grammarians,
who had fled from Alexandria after the commotion excited by
the attempt of Theophilus the Bishop, to destroy the heathen
temples. L. 5. c. 16. This tumult took place in the eleventh
year of the reign of Theodosius, A.D. 389. Valesius assigns
reasons for concluding, that he studied rhetoric under the Sophist
Troilus. He afterwards pleaded as an advocate at Constanti
nople, and on that account received the title of Scholasticus.
He has been charged with being a Novatian. Valesius thinks
that he was not himself a member of their sect, though he might
not be disinclined to their tenets.

3 The grandfather of Sozomen had been converted to Chris
tianity, by witnessing a miraculous cure performed upon an in
habitant of the town in which he dwelt, by the monk Hilarion.
L. 5. c. 15. His family appears to have been settled at
Maiuma, tie port of Gaza, in Palestine, where he was probably
bom. L. 7. c. 28. He afterwards pleaded as an advocate at
Constantinople, L. 2. c. 3, and was present at the ceremony
which took place, during the episcopate of Proclus, in honour of
the forty martyrs who suffered death during the reign of Licinius,
and whose relics had been discovered. L. 9. c. 2. He always
speaks favourably of the monastic life. He had composed, in

COUNCIL OF NIC^SA. 6

According to 1 Socrates, Alexander, Bishop of
Alexandria, in discoursing on the doctrine of the
Holy Trinity before the presbyters and other clergy,
insisted so strongly on the Unity in Trinity, that
2 Arius, a man skilled in dialectics, charged him with
introducing Sabellianism, and running into the oppo
site extreme, contended that, 3 if the Father begat
the Son, He who was begotten had a commencement
of subsistence : that there was consequently a time
when the Son was not ; and 4 He derived His
substance from things which were not. 5 Sozomen s
account differs in some respect from that of Socrates.
According to him, Arius caused the disturbance of
the peace of the Church by broaching his opinions :
and Alexander was charged with remissness, because
he did not immediately notice them. He then

two books, an Epitome of Ecclesiastical History, from the As
cension of Christ to the deposition of Licinius, L. 1. c. 1. p.
327 C : this work has perished.

1 L. 1. c. 5. Theodoret, L. 1. c. 2, accuses Arius of being
actuated by envy of Alexander s elevation to the Episcopal
throne.

2 In his letter to Eusebius o f Nicomedia, Arius says that
Alexander used expressions such &s the following: d /m 7ran)p,
cfya VIOQ avi VTrap^i ayevvtiTWc JQ VIOQ ry 0w* ayeri riToyevrjG
taTiv ovre 7riyo/ct, OVTE aro/^w TIVI Trpoayet 6 Qoe TOV vlov e
avTov effrl TOV Qtov 6 V\OQ. Theodoret, L. 1. c. 5.

3 i 6 Trarrjp eyevrrjae TOV viov, ap^/v VTrap^we e ^ei 6 yivvr]

KCU fK TOVTOV SijXov OTI i\v ore OVK i)v 6 viog a.KO\ovdei TE i, uvdy-
KYJQ et, OVK OVTWV x ftj/ avTOV TYJV viroaTaaiv.

4 In other words, He was a created Being, made out of things
which were not. Theodoret, L. 1. c. 2.

5 L. 1. c. 15.

4 COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

summoned the two parties before him, and required
them to state their respective arguments, in hearing
which he exhibited great impartiality : but at last
decided in favour of those who held the Consub-
stantiality and Co-eternity of the Son. l Mr. New
man adopts the account of Alexander s remissness,
and says that much mischief ensued from his mis
placed meekness. Yet it may be urged in his
behalf, that the questions raised by Arius were
2 new, and turned upon points beyond the reach of
human comprehension : points, upon which a man,
conscious of his own fallibility, might well pause
before he pronounced an authoritative decision. It
may be doubted also, whether Alexander s meekness
did not conciliate many who might have been
alienated from him, if he had at once assumed a
peremptory and dogmatic tone. Arius appears to
have been a man of unstable mind. 3 He at first

1 History of Arians, c. 3. sect. 1. According to Socrates,
Alexander became excited, Trpoe opy^ ^ctTrrfrat, by hearing that
many bishops sided with Arius. L. 1. c. 6-

els ^K]rTf\(jLv ayuvaai ra Trporepoi * f^c raara. Sozomen, ubi
supra.

3 Sozomen, ubi s. Ph^ostorgius tells us, that on the occasion
of the election into the vacant see of Alexandria, after the death
of Achillas, A^nis caused the suffrages, which were going in his
own favour, to be transferred to Alexander, whose election he thus
secured. Theodoret, as we have seen, makes a very different
statement. The same writer adds, that a presbyter of the name
of Alexander, who was next in rank to Arius, and called Baucalis,
on account of an excrescence on his back, caused the dispute
between the bishop and Arius, respecting the consubstantiality of
the Son. L. 1. cc. 3, 4.

COUNCIL OF NIC^A. 5

attached himself to Meletius, of whom we shall
hear more in the account of the proceedings of the
Council, and whom he afterwards quitted. He was
then ordained deacon by Peter, Bishop of Alex
andria; but when Meletius was excommunicated,
again joined him, and was involved in the same
sentence of excommunication. After the Martyr
dom of Peter, having asked pardon for his offence,
he was permitted by Achillas, who succeeded Peter,
to officiate. He was afterwards admitted to the
presbyterate, and greatly esteemed by Alexander.
1 Epiphanius describes him as tall in stature, with a
downcast look, his figure composed like that of a
subtle serpent, to deceive the guileless by his crafty
exterior ; his dress was simple ; his address soft and
smooth, calculated to persuade and attract, so that
he had drawn away seven hundred virgins from the
Church to his party.

2 The flame kindled by the dissensions at Alex
andria quickly spread through the whole of jEgypt,
Libya, and the Upper Thebais, and extended itself

1 Haeresis Ixix. c. 3. This is the passago referred to and
praised by Gibbon, c. 21. In his letter to Eusebius of Nico-
medea, Arms calls Ammonias, by whom he sent it, his fat
but the Benedictine Editor thinks that the title was given to
testify respect, not to express the actual relationship between the
parties. Epiphanius says, that he was by birth a Libyan, and
presbyter of a church in Alexandria, called Baucaleus.

2 Socrates, L. 1. c. 6.

6 COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

to other provinces. Bishops, according to the lively
description of ] Eusebius, were engaged in wordy
warfare with bishops : the people were divided into
parties ; while the Heathen, taking advantage of the
folly and madness of the Christians, 2 made the most
awful mysteries of Faith subjects of profane ridicule
in the theatre. Several bishops sided with Arius,
among them Eusebius, formerly Bishop of Berytus,
then of 3 Nicomedia in Bithynia, to whom he ad
dressed a letter, in which he complained of being
persecuted by Alexander ; and stated that Eusebius
of Csesarea, Theodotus of Laodicea, Paulinus of
Tyre, Athanasius of Anazarbus, Gregory of Berytus,
Aetius of Lydda, indeed all the Eastern bishops,
with the exception of 4 Philogonius, Hellanicus, and

1 De vita Constantini, L. 2. c. 61. See Theodoret, L. 1. c. 6.

2 Athanasius charges the Arians with making the disputed
points subjects of common and irreverent talk among women and
children. Oratio 1, contra Arianos, c. 22. Alexander makes a
similar charge in his letter to his namesake of Constantinople.
Theodoret, L. 1. c. 4. p. 9 D.

3 The Bishops of ^Egypt, in their encyclical letter, animadvert
severely on Eusebius on account of this translation, which was
contrary to the Canons. Apologia contra Arianos, c. 6. See
also c. 25. At^nasius charges him also with plotting to pro
cure the pjection of Paul from Constantinople, in order that he
m,Vht himself occupy the See. Ad Monachos, c. 7. Theodoret,
L. 1. c. 19, and Philostorgius, L. 2. c. 12, say erroneously, that
Eusebius succeeded Alexander in the See of Constantinople.

Theodoret, L. 1. c. 5. Arius charges Philogonius, who was
Bishop of Antioch, with calling the Son ipvyfi, a word which I
do not attempt to translate ; Hellanicus, who was Bishop of

COUNCIL OF NICE A. 7

Macarius, whom he styles heretical, uninstructed
(aKaTriyjiTwv) men, maintained that } God, being Him
self unoriginate, existed before the Son. He him
self maintained that the Son was not ingenerate,
nor in any respect a part of the Ingenerate, nor
from any subject matter, but from things which
were not : He subsisted by the will and counsel
(of the Father) before all times and ages, perfect
God, only begotten, unchangeable; and He was not,
before He was 2 begotten, or created, or predestined,
or founded. For holding this opinion, Arius com
plains that he was persecuted.

To this letter 3 Eusebius replied in one of en
couragement, in which he expressed his entire con
currence with the opinions of Arius; saying, that
what is made could not be before it was made, and
must have a beginning of existence. 4 He also
addressed a letter to Paulinus of Tyre, who, though
numbered by Arius among those who agreed with
him, appears to have abstained from openly giving
an opinion. Eusebius, therefore, urged Paulinus to

Tripolis, with calling Him 7rpo/3oA&gt;/, an emission ; and Macarius,
who was Bishop of Jerusalem, with saying that He was co-
ingenerate avrayirvr)TOQ with the Father.
on Trpovirdp^fi 6 QEOQ TOV vlov dvap^wg.

2 OVK r)v Trplv yevvrjdfj, ijroi KriaOrj, rj opiadfj, r) d[J.\t(t)dfj.

3 De Synodis, c. 17.

1 Theodoret, L. 1. c. 6. It appears from this letter, that
Eusebius of Caesarea had at one time expressed himself more
openly in favour of Arius.

8 COUNCIL OF NIC^A.

declare himself, and to write to Alexander, with
whom his authority would have great weight. Find
ing that Arius and his friends were thus active in
circulating their sentiments, Alexander, as we have
seen, was roused to anger, and wrote 2 letters to
the bishops of the Universal Church to put them on
their guard against the misrepresentations of Eu-
sebius and the other supporters of the Arian cause.
3 He also addressed a letter to Alexander, Bishop of
Constantinople, in which he entered fully into the
tenets of Arius, whom he charges with being actu
ated by the desire of power. He describes the
Arians as selecting those passages of Scripture which
speak of the humiliation of Christ, and passing over
those which declare His Godhead, and thus in
sidiously instilling their opinions into the minds of
those who frequented their assemblies. Ebion, he
says, Artemas, and Paul of Samosata were the fore
runners of Arius ; but he derived his doctrine im
mediately from 4 Lucian, who had adopted the cause

1 See note 1, p. 4.

2 Socrates, L. I.e. 6.

3 Theodoret, L. 1. c. 4, who states that Alexander wrote also
to Philogonius and Eustathius, Bishops of Berrhcea, and to other
orthodox bishops. According to Epiphanius, he wrote nearly
seventy letters to different bishops, among whom were Eusebius
of Caesarea, Macarius of Jerusalem, Asclepas of Gaza, Longinus
of A seal on, Macrinus of lamnia. He wrote also to Zeno, an
aged man of Tyre. Hseres. Ixix. c. 4.

4 Jerome in Catalogo says, that Lucian was a presbyter of
Antioch, a man of great eloquence: that an edition of the Sep-
tuagint, which was generally received in the Eastern Church,

COUNCIL OF NIC^A. 9

of Paul, and had remained out of the communion of
the Church during the incumbency of three suc
cessive bishops of Antioch. Alexander adds, that
three Syrian Bishops, supposed by Valesius to be
Eusebius of Csesarea, Theodotus, and Paulinus, had
espoused the cause of Arius, and confirmed him in
his error. In the encyclical letter, Alexander speaks
of the Arians as transgressors of the law, and authors
of an apostasy which might be justly called the fore
runner of Antichrist ! .

bore his name : that he suffered martyrdom at Nicomedia in the
persecution of Maximin, and was buried at Helenopolis, in
Bithynia. See Eusebius H. E. L. 9. c. 6. According to Epi-
phanius, he lived in the time of Constantine, and was numbered
by the Arians among their martyrs. Hseresis, xliii. c. 1. Eu
sebius of Nicomedia, and Leontius of Antioch were intimate with
him. Haeresis, Ixix. c. 5. The same may be inferred with
respect to Arius, who addresses Eusebius by the title of &lt;rv\-
\ovKtartffrd. Philostorgius, who gives an account of the tortures
to which he was subjected during his imprisonment, and of the
remarkable manner in which he nevertheless continued to cele
brate the Eucharist, names among his disciples Leontius, Maris
of Chalcedon, Theognius of Nicaea, Anthony of Tarsus, Meno-
phantus, Numenius, Eudoxius, Alexander, and Asterius the
Cappadocian. L. 2. cc. 3. 13, 14, 15. As we find all these
persons engaged in the support of the opinions of Arius, Alex
ander appears to have been justified in considering Lucian as in
some measure the author of the heresy, Philostorgius further
tells us, that the memory of Lucian was held in so great rever
ence by Helena, the mother of Constantine, that she ehose as the
site of the city, called after her Helenopolis, the spot to \vlii c h
the corpse of Lucian was conveyed, after his martyrdom, by a
dolphin, c. 12.

1 The title of Forerunner of Antichrist is frequently applied
to the Arian heresy by Athanasius. Apologia contra Arianos
sub fine. Oratio 1, contra Arianos, cc. 1. 7. De Synodis, c. 5.

10 COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

In the same letter he gives ] the following account
of the opinions of Arius and his followers. They
affirmed " that God was not always a Father : that
there was a time when He was not a Father : that
the Word of God did not always exist, but was
made out of things 2 which were not. The self-
existing God having made Him who was not out of
things which were not, there was consequently a
time when He did not exist. The Son is a 3 Being
created and made ; neither is He 4 like in essence to
the Father; nor the true Word of the Father by
nature, nor His true Wisdom, but one of the things
made and generated. The titles Word and Wisdom
are improperly applied to Him, inasmuch as He Him
self was made by the proper Word (or Reason) of God,
and by the Wisdom in God, in which God made both
Him and all things. He is, therefore, 5 by nature

1 Compare ad Ep. JEgypt. et Lib. c. 12 ; De Dec. Syn. Nic.
c. 6 ; Oratio I. contra Arianos, cc. 5, 6 ; De Synodis, cc. 15, 16 ;
and the letter written by Arius from Nicomedia to Alexander.
Epiphanius, Haeres. Ixix. c. 7-

2 ! OVK OVTWV. Hence the Arians were called i&vKovnoi, De
Synodis, c. 31.

3 KTiffjjLa Kal noirjua at OpwTroi KTifffjia \iyovTtQ flvat TOV Qeov
\6yov, Kal, o&gt; ot" E l \\rji Cj XarptvovTtg rfj KTiffei wapa TOI&gt; Kriffavra
QEOV. Ad Ep. ^gypt. et Lib. cc. 4. 13. Oratio II. contra
Arianos, c. 14. In order, however, to soften the startling sound of
this assertion, they made a distinction and said that the Son was
a creature, but not as one of the creatures; icr/o/ja, aXX ov% we tv
r&v Krifffjuirw, De Synodis, c. 23.

4 Hence the title of Anomsearis, De Synodis, c. 31 ; Ad Afros,
c. 7.

KCLKta ^(11 aSrf/C fitKTlKOl TOV VIUV TOV QlOU.

COUNCIL OF NIOE1A. 11

liable to change, like all other rational creatures. The
Word is also extraneous to and separate from the
essence of God. Moreover, the Father is ineffable
by the Son; for the Son neither perfectly nor ac
curately knows the Father, nor can perfectly see
Him. The Son does not even know His own
essence as it is ; for He was made for our sakes,
that God might use Him as an instrument in creat
ing us: He would not have subsisted if God had
not thought fit to create us. The Arians do not
appear to have shrunk from the consequences of
their opinions; for when asked whether the Word
of God might be perverted as the devil was, they
answered in the affirmative, since He is by nature
liable to change."

We learn from the letter not only the tenets of
Arius, but also the manner in which Alexander
refuted them by appealing to Scripture.

To the assertion that there was a time when the
Word was not, Alexander opposed John i. 1 : " In
the beginning was the Word."

To the assertion that the Son was one of the
things made, the title of Only-Begotten, and tin
declaration of St. John, i. 3, that all things were

Socrates, L. 1. c. 9. p. 23 D ; Sozomen, L. 1. c. 15. p. 347 D ;
Ad Jovianum, c. 1.

12 COUNCIL OF NIC^EA.

made by Him. He who was the Maker could not
be on a level with the things which He made, nor
could He who was the Only-Begotten be numbered
with them.

To the assertion that the Word of God was made
from things that were not, Alexander opposed Psalm
1 xlv. 1 ; ex. 3.

To the assertion that the Son is unlike in essence
to the Father, Colossians i. 15, where the Son is
called the Image; and Hebrews i. 3, where He is
called the radiance of the glory of the Father ; and
John xiv. 9, where Christ says to Philip, " He who
hath seen Me, hath seen the Father."

How, Alexander asks, if the Son is the Word or
Reason and Wisdom of God, can it be said that
there was a time when He was not? for that were
to say that God was then without the Word or
Reason (aXoyog) and without Wisdom. How can He
be liable to variation or change, who says of Him
self, " I am in the Father and the Father in Me "
(John xiv. 10); and "I and the Father are one"

1 In the Septuagint version, ifypevtuTo r/ Kapcia juov \6yov
dyadoi , and tK yaorpog Trpo Ewo^opov iyirvrjad &lt;re. These pas
sages are quoted repeatedly by the orthodox Fathers, in proof
of the co-essentiality and co-eternity of the Word : a reference to
the Hebrew original would have deprived them of these supports
of their cause. We have seen that Arius accused Philogonius of

COUNCIL OF NICJEA. 13

(John x. 30) ; and of whom it is said by the prophet,
"I am, and I change not?" Alexander refers also
to Hebrews xii. 13; "Jesus Christ, the same yester
day, to-day, and for ever."

To the assertion that the Son was made for us,
Alexander opposes 1 Cor. viii. 6, where St. Paul
says that all things are by Him : and to the assertion
that He did not perfectly know the Father, the de
claration of Christ Himself, John x. 15; "As the
Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father." If
the Son s knowledge of the Father is imperfect, so
must also be the Father s knowledge of the Son ; such
is the impiety to which the assertions of Arius lead 2 .

From the foregoing extracts from 3 the Encyclical

calling the Son epvyfj. Perhaps because he alleged the former of
the above passages. In his letter to his namesake of Constan
tinople Alexander quotes the latter, to prove that Christ is by
nature, not by adoption, the Son of God ; and uses the following
extraordinary language : TijQ Trarpu j/c yuauixrfwe 0i/&lt;rio)j/ ivdeiK-
VVTI.U. vtor^ra, ou rpoTrov tirij.it\t.i(j[, KCU TrpokOirfJQ affKr)fft t aXAa
(fjvaewg i^iwjuan ravrrji Xa^o^rot,, Theodoret, L. 1. c. 4. p.
14 D.

1 Malachi iii. 6: 3u5ri iyb Kvptoe b Oeoc vptiv, KUI ou/c &gt;}XXo/w-
jucu. Alexander says that some perhaps will contend that this text
applies to the Father rather than to the Son. The Hebrew original
here would lend some countenance to his own interpretation.

2 Compare ad Ep. ^Egypt. et Lib. c. 16.

3 In his letter to his namesake of Constantinople Alexander
enters much more fully into the subject; and sometimes uses
expressions which, in the opinion of Valesius, require a lenient
construction. He seems, for instance, to speak of the nature of

14 COUNCIL OF NKXflSA.

Letter of Alexander, the reader will be able to form
some idea of the points on which the controversy
turned, and of the manner in which it was con
ducted. But as this representation of the opinions
of the Arians is made by an adversary, he may
wish to know whether they admitted its correctness ;
I will, therefore, add l the Profession of Faith which
they addressed to Alexander. They state in it, that
God begat His Only-Begotten Son before eternal
times, and by Him made the ages and the universe ;
that God begat Him not in 2 appearance, but in truth,
unchangeable and unalterable because He 3 so willed ;
perfect creature of God, but not as one of the crea
tures; offspring of God, but not as one of things
generated. They then reject the notions of Valen-
tinus, Manichseus, Sabellius, and 4 Hieracas, and

the Only-Begotten as something intermediate between the In-
create God and created things : MV /zeo-ircuovo-a fyvcric poroysvijc,
ct ?/ TCL 6 Aa e OVK bvTWv eTroirjo tv 6 Trarfjp TOV 0fov Aoyov, ty c
avrov TOV OVTOQ Trarpoe ysye^vr/rat, Theodoret, L. 1. C. 4. p. 17 A.
Valesius supposes him to use nature in the sense of person. He
may have intended to refer to the mediatorial office of Christ, for
the execution of which two natures, the Divine and Human, the
increate and created, were united in Him.

1 De Synodis, cc. 16, 17. Athanasius says that similar state
ments were made before the Nicene Council by Narcissus of
Neronias, Patrophilus, Maris, Paulinus, Theodotus, Athanasius
of Anazarbus, both the Eusebii, and George of Laodicea.

2 ov od/&lt;7, in allusion to the Docetae.

3 rw iciy deXrjfjLaTc, TUI iSiu avre&vffiu, ad Ep. uEgypt. et Lib.
c. 12.

4 Hieracas seems to have compared the generation of the Son
to the lighting of a lamp from a lamp ; or to the division of one

COUNCIL OF NTC7EA. 15

a notion which they assert to have been publicly
condemned by Alexander that the Son, having
previously existed, was generated or newly created
into a Son. They proceed to state their own be
lief to be, that the Son was created by the " will
of God before times and ages; that He received
life and being from the Father, the Father sub
stantially l communicating to Him His own glory ;
not that the Father, in giving Him the inheritance
of all things, deprived Himself of that which He
has 2 uningenerately in Himself, inasmuch as He is
the fountain of all things. There are, therefore,
three 3 Subsistences : God, the cause of all things,
alone, without 4 beginning, or unoriginate. The
Son, begotten by the Father, 5 not in time, created
and 6 founded before the ages, was not before He
was begotten ; but begotten, not in time, before all
things, alone 7 subsisted by the Father ; for He is
neither eternal, nor co-eternal, nor co-ingenerate
with the Father ; nor has He existence together
with the Father as is the language of some who,
in speaking of their relation to each other, introduce
8 two ingenerate principles or origins. But as God

lamp into two. The heresy of the Hieracitae is the sixty-seventh
in Epiphanius ; he does not mention this notion.

7 P.OVOQ VTTO TOV ?rarpO v

8 $vo ayti i&gt;r}TovQ af&gt;x a &gt; Alexander indignantly repels the

16 COUNCIL OF NICVEA.

is the One and the origin of all things, He is
before all things, and, therefore, ] before the Son.
As, therefore, the Son has being from the Father,
and glory, and life, and all things are delivered
to Him, God is His origin or principle, and being
His God and before Him, has dominion over Him.
They who interpret the expressions from Him,
and 2 from the womb, and / came forth from the
Father, and / am come, as implying a part of
the same substance, or an emission (TrpojSoA^),
make the Father compounded, divisible, liable to
alteration, corporeal ; and, as far as in them lies,
subject the incorporeal God to the accidents of
the body.

To this letter, as given by s Epiphanius, are

charge that he held two ingenerate principles. Theodoret, L. 1.
c. 6. p. 168. We have seen that Arius charged Macarius of
Jerusalem with holding that the Son was co-ingenerate, avvayf.v-
VV)TOQ, with the Father.

1 They affirm that Alexander had himself held this language
in the Church.

2 This is a reference to the interpretation of Psalm ex. 3, on
which I have remarked in note 1, p. 12.

3 Hseresis Ixix. c. 7. Socrat. L. I.e. 6. Theodoret speaks of
Arius as a presbyter, of the rest as deacons ; but omits the
names of Carponas and Gaius. L. I.e. 4. p. 20 B. In the
Letter to the Presbyters and Deacons of Alexandria, and the
Mareotis, Alexander names the Presbyters Charis and Pistus ;
the Deacons, Serapion, Parammon or Ammon, Zosimus and Ire-
naeus as siding with Arius. Athanasius, p. 396, See the En
cyclical Letter to the Bishops, c. 7. The names of Marcus and

COUNCIL OF NIC^EA. 17

affixed the names of Arius, /Ethales, Achilles, 2 Car-
ponas, Sarmates, another s Arius, presbyters ; 4 Etiz-

Sisinnius are also mentioned. Ad Monachos, c. 71. Sozomen
mentions six presbyters and five deacons. L. 1. c. 15. Epi-
phanius seven presbyters and twelve deacons. Haeres. Ixix.
c. 3. Jerome mentions Arius, Euzoius, and Achilles, whom he
calls a leader, as the authors of the heresy. Adv. Luciferianos,
p. 99 C. He mentions also a Libyan presbyter of the name of
Seras. Compare de Synodis, c. 12.

1 In the letter to Alexander, Arius and Achilles are said to
have gone beyond Colluthus, a presbyter of Alexandria, in their
lust of power, and to have been accused by him. If the account
of Epiphanius is to be trusted, much rivalry existed among the
presbyters of Alexandria, and their congregations called them
selves by the names of their several ministers. He says that
Colluthus taught some heretical doctrines which quickly died
away. Haeresis, Ixix. c. 2. The name of Colluthus stands first
in the list of presbyters who signified their assent to the deposi
tion of Arius. He appears to have assumed Episcopal functions,
and to have ordained, among others, Ischyras, who figures in the
history of Athanasius. See the Encyclical Letter of the Egyp
tian Bishops, Apologia contra Arianos, c. 12, where they speak
of him as dead. The Presbyters of Mareotis say, in their letter to
the Prefect Philagrius, that his pretensions to the Episcopate were
examined in a Synod in which Hosius presided, and disallowed ;
that he was reduced to the presbyterate, and his ordinations
annulled. Apologia contra Arianos, c. 75.

2 Carponas and Sarmates are mentioned by Epiphanius as
presbyters of Alexandria. The former is said, in the letter of
Julius, Bishop of Rome, to have been excommunicated by Alex
ander, and afterwards to have been sent by Gregory on a mission
to Rome. Apologia contra Arianos, c. 24.

J The second Arius appears to have become Bishop of Petrae,
and to have quitted the Arian party at the Council of Sardica.
He was, in consequence, together with Asterius, an Arabian
bishop, banished into the Upper Libya by the Arians, when they
obtained the upper hand. Ad Monachos, cc. 15. 18.

4 Euzoius was degraded from the diaconate, and afterwards

18 COUNCIL OF NIOflEA.

oius, Lucius, Julius, Menas, Helladius, Gaius,
deacons ; 2 Secundus, Bishop of Pentapolis, Theonas,
a Libyan, and Pistus, whom the Arians afterwards
made Bishop of Alexandria.

3 Alexander now, with the concurrence of nearly
one hundred bishops of -^Egypt and Libya, proceeded
to deprive Arius and his followers. According to

joined Arius in the Profession of Faith which the latter presented
to Constantine, Socrates, L. 1. c. 25. The Arians appointed him
Bishop of Antioch, and he administered the rite of baptism to
Constantius, Jerome Adv. Luciferianos, p. 99 C ; Ad Monachos,
c. 71, where Athanasius calls him 6 Xctvarcuoc, De Synodis, c.
31. He appears to have presented a petition in favour of the
Arians to Jovian, p. 784.

1 The names of Secundus and Theonas frequently occur in the
history of the Arian controversy. Secundus was excommunicated
by the Council of Nicaea, Ad Ep. ^Egypt. et Lib. cc. 7. 19 ; Ad
Monachos, cc. 5. 71. It appears from the letter of Julius that
he consecrated Pistus, whom the Arians placed in the See of
Alexandria after the banishment of Athanasius, Apologia contra
Arianos, c. 24. See also De Synodis, c. 12.

Athanasius mentions a presbyter of Barca, of the name of
Secundus, whose death was occasioned by the ill treatment of the
Arians, Ad Monachos, c. 65.

2 Julius is said by Athanasius to have been ejected from the
Church by Alexander, Ad Monachos, c. 71.

3 Socrates, L. 1. c. 6: Kal avv&piov TroXXwv tinaKOTTiav KadiaaQ
TOV juev "Aptior Kal rove dirole XpjJiivovQ TY)V Sofav avrov Kadaipel.
See Theodoret, L. 1. c. 4. Athanasius says: o ro/Vvr paKapirriQ
A\e avpoe eiriffKOTrog e^e(5a\e TOv"Apeiov rrJQ KK\r)&lt;Ttac, Ad Ep.
.ZEgypt. et Lib. cc. 12. 18. 22. The last passage marks the
time at which the Synod was held : Trpo rpiaKovTa. KCU || ir&v
aTreSei-xdrjffav atpcru Oi. The epistle was written about the year
356 ; Arius, therefore, was condemned by Alexander about the
year 320. Apologia contra Arianos, c. 23.

COUNCIL OF NIOEA. 19

1 Epiphanius, Arius, after his deprivation, went into
Palestine, and afterwards to Nicomedia, to confer
with Eusebius, who warmly espoused his cause, and
addressed letters both to Alexander, strongly urging
that prelate to receive Arius into communion, and to
the brethren at Alexandria, exhorting them not to
side with Alexander. In order to give effect to his
remonstrances, he called a synod in 2 Bithynia, which
entered into his views. Alexander, however, 3 per
severed in his resolution not to receive Arius. The
mutual exasperation of the parties continually in
creased, and the greatest confusion prevailed; the
4 laity, as well as the clergy, taking part violently in
the contest.

It happened unhappily that at this time the
Alexandrian Church was distracted by another
schism, the Meletian, which, though at first wholly
unconnected with the Arian controversy, was at last
mixed up with it, and exercised a very prejudicial
influence on the personal fortunes of Athanasius.

1 Hseresis, Ixix. cc. 4, 5.

2 Sozomen, L. 1. c. 15.

a The Arians supposed that Athanasius by his advice con
firmed Alexander in this resolution ; hence their bitter dislike to
him, Apologia contra Arianos, c. 6.

4 Socrates, L. 1. c. 6. p. 12 C. The letters written on the
one hand by the opponents of Arius, on the other by his sup
porters, were collected ; and the latter were afterwards used by
the Macedonians and Eunomians in defending their opinions,
p. 13 B.

LIBRARY ST. MARY S COUEGf

20 COUNCIL OF NIOEA.

During the ] episcopate of Peter, who suffered mar
tyrdom in the persecution of Diocletian, Meletius,
Bishop of Lycopolis, in Mgypt, was deposed because
he had offered sacrifice. Having induced many to
join him, he formed a sect, and was in a state of
opposition to the Church when the Arian controversy
arose. Such is the account given by Athanasius,
who charges the Meletians with having evinced hos
tility towards his predecessors Peter, Achillas, and
Alexander, as well as towards himself.

2 Epiphanius, however, ascribes the origin of the
schism to a cause much less discreditable to Mele
tius. According to him, Peter and Meletius were
fellow-sufferers during the persecution, and differed
respecting the mode of dealing with the clergy, who
had fallen away during its continuance. Meletius
contended that they should be prevented, not only
from resuming their clerical functions, but even from
being present at the assemblies for public worship,
until they had given satisfactory proof of their peni
tence. Peter advised a more lenient course. A
division in consequence took place among the clergy
and monks, and the majority sided with Meletius.

1 De vita Constantini, L. 2. c. 12; Apologia contra Arianos,
cc. 11. 59; Ad Ep. jEgypt. et Lib. cc. 22, 23; Ad Monachos,
c. 78 ; Oratio I. contra Arianos, c. 3. The Benedictine editor
assigns 301 as the probable date of the rise of the Meletian
schism.

2 Hseresis, Ixviii.

COUNCIL OF NIC^EA. 21

Peter suffered martyrdom, and was succeeded by
1 Alexander. Meletius was banished to the mines,
but afterwards returned, and ordained bishops, priests,
and deacons, and built churches for his followers,
who called themselves the Church of the Martyrs, in
opposition to the followers of Peter, who called
themselves the Catholic Church. After the death
of Meletius, who lived on friendly terms with Alex
ander, the schism continued ; and Alexander, wish
ing to put an end to it, forbade the Meletians to
hold their assemblies. They sent a deputation to
Constantinople, at the head of which was John, their
bishop, and Callinicus, Bishop of Pelusium, to com
plain of Alexander, and to obtain permission to
resume their meetings. Paphnutius, the anachorite,
was also of the party. They at first could not gain
access to the emperor: bat during their stay at
Nicomedia, whither they followed Constantine, they
were introduced to Eusebius, and through his in
fluence at court accomplished the object of their
mission. Eusebius, however,, exacted as the con
dition of his assistance, that they should receive
Arius into communion. Such, according to Epi-
phanius, was the origin of the union of the Mele
tians and Arians, which he deplores as having given
consistency and strength to the Arian party, many of
the Meletians having been induced to depart from

1 Epiphanius omits Achillas.

22 COUNCIL OF NIOEA.

the true faith and adopt heretical tenets. J Petavius
and the Benedictine editor of Athanasius treat this
narrative as a fiction of one of the Meletian party,
who succeeded in imposing upon Epiphanius. It
contains, undoubtedly, chronological and other errors ;
but when it is compared with the account given by
2 Sozomen, the difference in substance is not very
great. It is certain that Meletius was not charged
at Nicsea with holding any 3 heretical doctrine. The
Council, as we shall hereafter see, only determined
that he and those who had been ordained by him
should cease to exercise their functions, until vacan
cies should occur in the number of the clergy or
dained by Peter and Alexander, into whose places
they were to be substituted. Meletius, shortly be
fore his death, consecrated John as his successor,
and thus the schism was revived.

1 Gibbon says of the Meletian schism : " I have not leisure to
pursue the obscure controversy, which seems to have been mis
represented by the partiality of Athanasius, and the ignorance of
Epiphanius," c. 21, note 96. Mosheim observes that the reason
which occasioned this violent act of authority, the deposition of
Meletius by Peter, has not been sufficiently exposed, Cent. iv.
Part ii. c. 18.

2 L. 2. cc. 21, 22. Nor is this account at variance with that
given by Athanasius himself respecting the coalition between
the Arians and Meletians, Apologia contra Arianos, c. 59.

3 Epiphanius says that Meletius first apprised Alexander of
the mischievous character of the teaching of Arius. Athanasius
charges the Meletians with avarice and ambition, not with
heresy, Ad Ep. .^Egypt. et Lib. c. 22.

COUNCIL OF NIC^A. 23

When the news of the unhappy divisions pre
vailing in the Alexandrian Church reached the ears
of Constantine, he was deeply afflicted, and im
mediately despatched Hosius, Bishop of Corduba, 2 in
whom he placed the greatest confidence, with a
letter addressed to Alexander and Arius, in the
hope of restoring peace between them. He began
with stating, that in his administration of the empire
he had a twofold object in view, to bring all men
to an agreement in opinion respecting the Deity,
and to heal the diseases under which the world had
laboured during the reign of his predecessors. After,
therefore, that he had accomplished the latter object
by the defeat of Licinius, he turned his attention to
the former ; and hearing that a 3 schism had taken
place in Africa, he determined to employ the instru
mentality of some of the bishops of the East the
quarter from which the light of true religion first
shone forth in putting an end to the dissensions.
What then was his surprise, his grief to hear, that
those 4 very Eastern bishops were divided among
themselves on a 5 slight and unimportant question !

1 Eusebius de vita Constantini, L. 2. c. 63. Socrates, L. 1.
c. 7. Sozomen, L. 1. c. 16.

2 De vita Constantini, L. 3. c. 7.

3 The schism of the Donatists, de vita Constantini, L. 2. c. 66,
with the note of Valesius.

4 .(Egypt was reckoned not an African, but an Eastern pro
vince. De vita Constantini, L. 2. c. 67, with the note of Va
lesius.

a (iyar tvreXijQ Kai OV^U^WQ aiu Tfjs roiuur^c (j&gt;t\oi eiKia. c. 68.

24 COUNCIL OF NIOEA.

They, by whose aid he intended to heal others, were
themselves in need of a physician. The bishop, it
appeared, had asked the opinion of the presbyters
1 on some passage of the law, or rather some idle
question, and Arius had returned an ill-considered
answer. Thence a difference had arisen : all com
munion had ceased between them ; and the people
were divided into two parties, some siding with one,
some with the other. Let them mutually forgive
each other, and live in unity. Such questions ought
neither to be asked nor answered : if discussed for
the purpose of intellectual exercise, they ought not
to be publicly propounded. For who is sufficient to
comprehend those divine mysteries, or worthily to
express them if comprehended? There is always
danger 2 lest the disputants should be unable clearly
to explain the matter proposed ; or that the hearers,
through slowness of understanding, should misappre
hend what is said ; and that occasion should thus be
given to blasphemy and schism. It was the more in
cumbent upon them to comply with his exhortation to
concord, and to put an end to their disputes, because

1 UTTtp TLVOQ T07TOV T&V EV VOfJitj) ytyjOCtjU^Vw) , HOL\\OV VTTtp

fj,a.Taiov rtvoc, ^rr/o-ewe pepovg. c. 69.

2 Athanasius expresses nearly the same sentiment towards the
conclusion of the letter to Serapion, c. 5, Kal dta TOVTO OVK

afildoffdai ypdppuTCt t^twrou* feat pdXitTTa Trepl
KCU Kopv(pai6Ta.T(t)y ^oy/iarwr, prjTrore TO Sid
?} TO dSiciTpdrwrov Trjg y\&lt;*)TTT)Q vdf.wG elprjuevov ftXaftr}^ TOIQ
dvaytyv&oKovfftv ifji-noiiiayc. See also the beginning of the letter
ad Monachos, c. 1.

COUNCIL OF NICJEA. 25

in all that is essential they were of one mind. They
differed only about unimportant matters, in which
freedom of opinion should be allowed. Let each
enjoy his own opinion in silence, and not run the
hazard of disturbing the peace of the Church. Con-
stantine concludes with stating, that he had arrived
at Nicomedia with the intent of proceeding to
Alexandria, when the news of the schism reached
him, and diverted him from his design : he was
unwilling to be an eye-witness of dissensions of
which he had never anticipated the possibility.
" Give me back," he says, " my peaceful days, my
nights devoid of anxiety; put an end to your dis
putes, and thus open to me the way to the East ; be
reconciled to each other, and enable the people to
rejoice and give thanks to God for the re-establish
ment of concord and liberty." It was to be ex
pected that Gibbon would find much to approve,
and Mr. Newman much to disapprove in this letter.
1 The latter particularly censures the Emperor for
supposing, that an uninstructed individual like him
self, who had not even received the grace of Bap
tism, could discriminate between great and little
questions in theology. But the letter expresses
sentiments which would naturally arise in the mind
of a person in Constantine s position. "I have
exercised," he would say, "the power with which

1 History of the Arians, c. 3. sect. 1. p. 268.

26 COUNCIL OF NIOflEA.

Providence has entrusted me for the benefit of the
Christians ; I have relieved them from the fear of
persecution, and have not only protected them in
the exercise of their religion, but have conferred
upon them wealth and honour. I was, therefore,
entitled to expect that they at least would not dis
turb the peace of my empire. But I am disap
pointed : no sooner are they freed from external
enemies, than they break out into violent dissensions
among themselves ; and that too about a question,
which even the disputants confess to be beyond the
reach of human comprehension." Constantine might
be an incompetent judge of theological controversy ;
but he certainly was justified in hoping, that it would
be carried on between Christians in a Christian
spirit, in a spirit of mutual charity. The Emperor s
conciliatory letter, though enforced by the personal
exertions and influence of Hosius, failed to produce
the desired effect ; and the dissensions quickly spread
throughout all the Eastern provinces. In addition
also to the Meletian and Arian controversies, ] that
respecting the observance of Easter still continued
to divide the members of the Church. It appears
from 2 Eusebius, that in the time of Irenams, the
Asiatic Churches terminated the Lent fast on the
day on which the Jews kept their Passover, that is,

1 De vita Constantini, L. 3. c. 5. Socrates, L. 1. c. 8.
Sozomen, L. I.e. 16.

2 Hist. Eccles. L. 5. cc. 23, 24, 25.

COUNCIL OF NIC^A. 27

on the fourteenth day of the month, whatever the
day of the week on which it might fall. They did
this, as appears from the letter of Poly crates, Bishop
of Ephesus, on the ground that the custom had been
handed down from St. John. All the other Churches
of Christendom continued the fast till the Sunday
after the Jewish Passover, and then celebrated
Easter. Victor, Bishop of Rome, in his zeal for
uniformity, threatened to excommunicate the Asiatic
Churches ; but was restrained by the remonstrances of
Irenaeus. If we may rely on the authority of a letter of
Constantine given by ! Socrates, the Asiatic Churches
had conformed to the general custom before the
Council of Nicsea. He includes, however, those of
Cilicia in the number, respecting which, as well as
those of Syria and Mesopotamia, 2 Athanasius ex
pressly says that they followed the Jewish custom.
3 Mr. Newman supposes, that the Syrians were in
duced to follow it by Paul of Samosata, who was
under the influence of Zenobia, a Jewess, or at least
a patroness of the Jews. There is no reason, how
ever, for supposing, that the Quarto Decimans
adopted Paul s tenets; no charge of holding er
roneous doctrine was brought against them at the
Council ; and according to the letter of Polycrates
the difference of practice occasioned no interruption

1 L. i. c. 9. p. 29 A.

L&gt; De Synodis, c. 5. Ad Afros, c. 2.

C. 1. sect. 1. p. 16.

28 COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

of communion. l Origen also says, that those of
his day agreed in all respects with the Apostolic
tradition.

2 The Emperor, finding that his attempts at re
conciling the adherents of Alexander and Arius
were wholly unavailing, determined to assemble a

3 general council, in order to heal the divisions of
the Church by settling authoritatively the different
questions by which it was agitated. With this
view, he summoned the bishops from every part of
the empire to meet at Nicsea in Bithynia, furnishing
them with the means of conveyance at the public
expense. In obedience to this summons, more than

4 two hundred and fifty bishops assembled at the

1 Philosophumena, L. 8. c. 18. See also Epiphanius Hseresis,
1. c. 1, and Ixx. cc. 1. 9, where, in treating of the Audians, he
states that they charged the Nicene Council with having decided
the question erroneously, in order to please Constantine. So
crates denies this, L. 5. c. 22. p. 236. If the reader wishes to
obtain a full account of the Quarto Decimans, he may consult
Socrates, L. 5. c. 22, and Sozomen, L. 7. c. 18.

2 To such a length had the mutual exasperation of the parties
proceeded, that they were guilty of breaches of the law, and
offered insults to the statues of the Emperor. De vita Constan-
tini, L. 3. c. 4. See Sozomen, L. 2. c. 25, where Ischyras is
said to have been charged by Athanasius with this offence.

3 avro^ov otfcovjuevt/o/v. De vita Constantini, L. 3. c. 6.
Apologia contra Arianos, c. 7.

4 This is the number mentioned by Eusebius, L. 3. c. 8.
Sozomen makes the number about 320. L. 1. c. 17. The
words of Athanasius are -fiaav TrXe ov T/ iXaaaov rpia/coo-tot. Ad
Monachos, c. 66. De Dec. Nic. c. 3. Julius mentions 300.
Apologia contra Arianos, cc. 23. 25. Constantine, more than 300.

COUNCIL OF NIC^A. 29

place appointed, with an innumerable company of
1 priests and deacons. 2 The different and distant
countries from which they came, naturally recal to
the recollection of Eusebius the description in the
Book of Acts, of the multitude assembled at Jeru
salem on the day of Pentecost. But, in the estima
tion of the historian, the comparison was greatly in
favour of the Council, inasmuch as it was composed
entirely of Ministers of God, whom he compares
to a crown of beautiful flowers, collected by the
Emperor in the bond of peace, as an offering of
gratitude to his Saviour, who had enabled him to
triumph over all his enemies. Some of these min-

Socrates, L. 1. c. 9. Athanasius mentions 318. Ad Afros, c. 2.
Socrates, L. 1. c. 8. 19 D. This particular number appears to
have been suggested by the number of Abraham s company, with
which he rescued Lot. Genesis xiv. See Ambrosius de Fide,
L. 1, Prologue. Socrates refers on this point to the Synodicum
of Athanasius, which is lost. L. 1. c. 13.

1 iTTOyUfVwV t TOVTOIQ TTpefffivTtpW Kdl SlUKOVWV O.KO\Ovd(i)t&gt; T

TrXei oTUM offwv IrtjOwi , ou^ i\v apiOpoQ fte KardX^tv. De vita
Constantini, L. 3. c. 8. Valesius translates aicoXovOttK, acolu-
thorum : but Bingham observes, that no order of acolyths existed
in the Greek Church till the fifth century, Book 3. c. 3. It may
be doubted, therefore, whether the word is used as describing an
ecclesiastical office.

2 Eusebius describes them as coming from every part of
Europe, Asia, and Africa : from Persia, Scythia, Spain. The
Bishop of the Royal City, TYJQ fiaaiXtvuvcrriG TroAfwe, Silvester
(Sozomen, L. I.e. 17, by mistake mentions Julius, see c. 2),
was absent from age, but was represented by his presbyters, Vito
and Vincentius. By the Royal City we are to understand Rome,
not Constantinople, as appears from Sozomen, L. 1. c. 16.
Theodoret, L. 1. c. 7.

30 COUNCIL OF NIC^A.

isters were distinguished for l their wisdom ; some
for their gravity and enduring patience; some for
their moderation ; some were held in honour for
their length of days; some were in the flower of
their age, and in the full vigour of their intellect.

Socrates has particularly mentioned three bishops
who were summoned by Constantine to Nicsea ; whe
ther he selected them for the purpose of proving the
incorrectness of Sabinus assertion, given below, he
does not say. One was 2 the Novatian Bishop of Con-

1 De vita Constantini, L. 3. c. 9. Sozomen, L. 1. c. 17.
Sabinus, however, who was attached to the party of Macedonius,
and made by it Bishop of Heraclea, spoke of them in very
different and very disparaging terms, calling them simple and un
educated men (dfyeXeig Kal t&wrae). Socrates replied, that even
if the bishops were ignorant, yet as they were enlightened by the
Holy Spirit, they could not miss the truth. L. I.e. 8. Sabinus
made a collection of the decrees of the different councils.

2 L. I.e. 10. Sozomen, L. 2. c. 32. Socrates says, that this
story was told him by Auxano, a Novatian presbyter, who, when
very young, accompanied Acesius to Nicsea, and lived till the
reign of the younger Theodosius. C. 13. Valesius doubts its
truth, on the ground that it is mentioned by no other author
excepting Sozomen. L. 1 . c. 2 ; that it is very improbable that
Constantine should have summoned a Novatian bishop to the
Council ; and that Auxano must have been above a hundred
years old, if he lived to the reign of the younger Theodosius.
Socrates himself admits that no other author had mentioned the
story ; but says, that it is the practice of historians to pass over
many facts in silence, either from personal feeling, or from a
desire to gratify individuals. Mr. Newman casts no doubt upon
it. It falls in with his theory respecting the motive by which
Constantine was principally influenced in all his proceedings,

COUNCIL OF NIC^A. 31

stantinople, named Acesius, who expressed his assent
to the Confession of Faith, and to the decree respecting
Easter, which were finally propounded by the Coun
cil. The Emperor, therefore, asked him, why he
was not in communion with the Church, as he agreed
with it on the two points determined at the Council 1
His answer was, that he differed from it on the
question, whether they who committed the sin de
scribed in Scripture as unto death, ought ever to be
re-admitted to the communion of the Church \ he
holding that they ought not, but ought to be ex
horted to repent, and to hope for the remission of
their sins, not from the priests, but from God, who
alone had power to remit and to pardon them.
Constantine, thinking this a very insufficient ground
of separation, said, " Take a ladder, Acesius, and
climb up by yourself to heaven."

1 Another bishop mentioned by Socrates is Paph-
nutius from the Upper Thebais : Socrates says that he
wrought miracles ; that he was deprived of an eye
in the persecution, and was highly esteemed by
Constantine, who frequently sent for him and kissed
the socket out of which the eye had been cut.

the desire of preserving external peace. C. 13. sect. 1. p. 265.
Socrates himself produces it as a proof of the Emperor s anxiety
for peace. On the authority of the same Auxano, he tells a
marvellous story about Eutychianus, a Novatian monk. L. 1.
c. 13.

1 L. 1. c. 11.

32 COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

1 When it was proposed in the Council that bishops,
presbyters, and deacons should be forbidden to co
habit with the wives whom they had married while
laymen, Paphnutius resisted the proposal, telling
those who urged it, that they would injure the
Church by imposing so heavy a yoke on the clergy :
that cohabitation with a lawful wife is chastity ; and
that it was sufficient to adhere to the ancient tra
dition, which forbade the clergy to marry after they
had taken orders. His advice prevailed.

2 The third bishop mentioned by Socrates is Spy-
ridion, Bishop of Trimethus in Cyprus, who was a
shepherd, and according to Sozomen was married and
had children. After his advancement to the bishop-
rick he continued to tend his sheep. Socrates tells
two marvellous stories respecting him : one relating
to the manner in which some thieves, who came to
steal his sheep, were by an invisible Power bound to

1 Sozomen, L. I.e. 23. Valesius doubts the truth of this
portion of the story, on the ground that it is not mentioned by
Rufinus, from whom Socrates obtained the former part of the
account of Paphnutius ; and that no ^Egyptian of the name of
Paphnutius is mentioned among the bishops who attended the
Council. We have seen that, according to Epiphanius, Paph
nutius, whom he calls a distinguished person, accompanied the
Meletian deputation, which was sent to Constantinople to com
plain of Alexander. Perhaps the opinion ascribed to Paphnutius
respecting the celibacy of the clergy, may have disposed Valesius
more readily to doubt the truth of the narrative. Theodoret
says that he was at the Council. L. 1. c. 7.

2 Socrates, L. 1. c. 12. Sozomen, L. 1. c. 11.

COUNCIL OF NIC7EA. 33

the sheep-pens ; the other to the temporary resusci
tation of his daughter from the dead, in consequence
of his prayers, for the purpose of pointing out where
she had deposited a costly ornament, which had
been consigned to her care. Sozomen adds other
stories respecting him.

Constantine repaired to Nicsea, after he had cele
brated his l last triumph over Licinius. Besides the
bishops who were summoned, other persons appear
to have been attracted thither for the purpose of
showing their skill in dialectics, and to have passed
the time previous to the meeting of the Council in
discussions, calculated, 2 according to Socrates, rather
to amuse than to edify, until they were at last
silenced by a layman, who had been a Confessor in
the persecution, and who reminded them that Christ
came not to teach dialectics, but to inculcate faith
and good works. There has unhappily been scarcely
any age of the Church in which its members have not
required to be reminded of this truth.

3 On the day appointed for the meeting of the

1 According to Valesius, the last battle with Licinius took
place on the 15th of the calends of October, in the year 324.
See his note de vita Constantini, L. 3. c. 15. According to
Socrates, the Synod met on the llth of the calends of June, in
the year 325, in the consulate of Paulinus and Julianus, and the
636th year from the reign of Alexander the Great. L. 1. c. 13.

2 L. 1. c. 8. Sozomen, L. 1. c. 18.

3 De vita Constantini, c. 10.

34 COUNCIL OF NIOffiA.

Council, the members having taken each his allotted
seat, Constantino made his entry with great pomp :
his body, according to the historian, arrayed in a
purple robe sparkling with gold and precious stones,
his soul clothed with piety and the fear of God.
His deep humility was evinced by his downcast eyes,
by the blush upon his cheek, by his walk and gait.
At the signal of his approach, all arose ; and he,
proceeding to the first row of seats, stood for a while
in the midst; nor did he seat himself in the low
chair prepared for him, until the bishops had by a
nod, signified that he was so to do : afterwards they
also seated themselves. l The bishop, then, who sat
nearest to him on the right hand arose, and in a
speech addressed to him, gave thanks to God on his
account. All eyes were then directed to the Em
peror, who rose, and in a short 2 speech exhorted the
assembled bishops not to allow the enemy to mar
the happiness which they enjoyed, in consequence of
the removal of their persecutors from the earth.
The internal divisions of the Church were a source

1 De vita Constantini, L. 3. c. 11. Sozomen says that this
bishop was Eusebius himself. L. 1. c. 19. Theodoret, that the
speech was made by Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch. L. 1. c. 7.
Others, by Alexander of Alexandria. Valesius inclines to the
opinion of Sozomen.

2 Constantine delivered this speech in Latin, and used the aid
of an interpreter to make it intelligible to the Council. Eusebius,
however, adds, that he could express himself in Greek, tXX^j U wv
re rrj &lt;pwvrj, on prfe ravrrfg afiadwQ tiye- De vita Constantini,
L. 3. c. 13. See Sozomen, L. 1. cc. 19, 20.

COUNCIL OF NIC/EA, 35

of greater trouble and grief to him than any foreign
war. He exhorted them, therefore, as his friends,
as ministers of God, as good servants of their com
mon Master and Saviour, to lose no time in removing
every cause of contention, and loosing every band
of controversy, by obeying the laws of peace. So
would they do that which was acceptable to God,
the Lord of all, and confer an inestimable favour on
himself, l their fellow-servant. This exhortation to
concord appears to have been far from unnecessary.
2 The bishops at once broke out into mutual accu
sations, exhibited charges in writing against each
other, and displayed so much bitterness of spirit,
that the Emperor, though, according to 3 Sozomen,
he professed his incompetency to decide disputes
between ecclesiastics, was obliged not only to me
diate between them, but even to address himself to
them severally ; till at length, by exhorting some,
by persuading others, and by praising those who
spoke well, he succeeded in bringing them to an
agreement in opinion. He also directed the written
accusations which they had preferred against each
other to be burned ; rightly judging that the pre
servation of such documents could not redound to

Constantine frequently uses this expression.
See cc. 17. 24. His letter to the Bishops assembled at Tyre,
Apologia contra Arianos, c. 86. His letter to the Church of
Alexandria. Socrates, L. I.e. 9. p. 25 D.

2 De vita Constantini, L. 3. c. 13. Socrates, L. I.e. 8.

3 L. 1. c. 17. See also c. 20.

D 2

36 COUNCIL OF NIC^A.

the credit and honour either of the individuals or of
the Church.

1 Gibbon observes very truly, that the transactions
of the Council of Nicsea are related by the ancients,
not only in a partial, but in a very imperfect manner ;
and we must join in his regret, that no such picture
as Fra Paolo would have drawn can now be re
covered. 2 Sozomen tells us that, before the meeting
of the Council, the bishops met among themselves,
and sent for Arius and discussed the points in dis
pute ; some, those especially who were simple in
their life and conversation, and embraced the faith
of Christ without entering into curious enquiries,
contending, that no innovation ought to be made in
the creed which had been handed down from the
beginning: others, that the ancient opinions were
not to be implicitly received without examination.
He adds, that many of the bishops, and of the ec
clesiastics who accompanied them, distinguished
themselves by their skill in disputation, and attract
ed the notice of the Emperor and of the court;
among them Athanasius, then the Deacon of Alex
ander. No specimens, known, of their controversial
ability and eloquence have been preserved, excepting
those contained in the works of Athanasius. We
know only, that the 3 cause of Arius was chiefly

1 C. 21, note 55. 2 L. 1. c. 17.

3 Socrates, L. 1. c. 8. Theodoret, L. 1. c. 7, who mentions

COUNCIL OF NIOEA. 37

maintained by Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognius of
Nicsea, and Maris of Cbalcedon, in Bitbynia ; wbile
the defence of the Catholic cause rested principally
on l Athanasius, who was supported by 2 Marcellus
of Ancyra and Asclepas of Gaza. According to
Athanasius, the Catholics were so triumphant in
the argument, that they reduced their opponents to
3 silence. This is certain, that the result of the
contest was in their favour. The Council adopted a
creed which was set forth by 4 Hosius, and pro
nounced the condemnation of Arius. The creed
set forth by Hosius was as follows :

"We believe in one God, Father Almighty,
Maker of all things visible and invisible ; and in one
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, only-begotten of
the Father, that is of the essence of the Father, God
of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, be
gotten, not made ; of one essence with the Father ;
by whom all things were made, both in heaven and

also Menophantus of Ephesus, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Nar
cissus of Neronias, inCilicia, Theonas of Marmarica, and Secundus.

1 The Benedictine editor supposes Athanasius to have been
at this time about thirty years of age.

2 This is stated by Pope Julius. Apologia ad Arianos, cc.
23. 32, and in the letter of the Synod of Sardica, c. 44, where
Asclepas is also mentioned. See also de Fuga, c. 3.

3 a^cu tTc per sjjierov ovrot, KCU Std rf}Q ffuoiriJQ (apoKoyovv rfjv
ITTI rfj KdKocio&q. avrwv alayvvr]v. De Dec. Syn. Nic. c. 3.

4 Ad Monachos, c. 42. According to Socrates, L. 3. c. 7, Ho
sius himself, in his anxiety to confute the heresy of Sabellius, gave
occasion to the question respecting the words ovcria and i/7ro0ra&lt;7ie.

38 COUNCIL OF NIC^A.

earth; who for us men and for our salvation came
down, and was incarnate, and was made man, and
suffered, and rose again on the third day, and as
cended into heaven, and shall come again to judge the
quick and the dead ; and (we believe) in the Holy
Ghost. But the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
Church anathematizes those who say that there was
a time when the Son of God was not ; that He was
not before He was begotten; that He was made
from things which were not ; that He is of another
substance or essence; that He was created and is
liable to change."

According to } Socrates, all the bishops present
subscribed this Confession of Faith, with the excep
tion of five: according to 2 Sozomen, seventeen at
first hesitated, but the greater portion of them after
wards subscribed. The five mentioned by Socrates
are 3 Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognius, Maris,
Theonas, and Secundus. They objected to the word
ojuoovaioe, co-essential or consubstantial, contending
that whatever is co-essential with any thing comes
from it either Kara TrpojSoAjjv, by emission or being
thrown out, as a branch from the root; or Kara
, by efflux, as children from their father; or
ov, by division, as bits* of gold from a

1 L. 1. c. 8. 2 L. 1. c. 20.

3 In the five named by Sozomen, L. 1. c. 21, we find the
name of Patrophilus of Scythopolis instead of that of Theonas.

cor NOIL OF NIC^A. 39

mass; and that none of these modes of derivation
could be predicated of the Son. They, together
with Arius, were excommunicated by the synod ;
and Eusebius and Theognius were involved in the
sentence of banishment pronounced by Constantino
against Arius, and were deprived of their bishoprics.
The Council also condemned a work of Arius, en
titled } Thalia, in which he set forth his opinions in
verse, and from which Athanasius gives several ex
tracts. Athanasius 2 accuses him of imitating in the
effeminate character of his metre the Egyptian
Sotades. The Oxford annotator on the works of
Athanasius supposes him to have written in verse in
order to 3 popularise his heresy; and compares his
proceeding to that of some modern sectaries, who
sing their hymns to popular airs. Eusebius of
Caesarea was one of those who hesitated to subscribe.
In a 4 letter which he addressed to the members

1 Socrates, L. 1. c. 9; Sozomen, L. 1. c. 21. He had not
seen the work.

2 eypa ^t OaXemv tcr0rj\vjuevote Kal ytXo/oic ijQtffi, Kara TOV
AlyviTTiov ^wra^j/, De Sent. Dionysii, c. 6 ; De Dec. Syn. Nic.
c. 16 ; Ad Ep. ^Egypt. et Lib. cc. 7- 20 ; Oratio I. contra
Arianos, cc. 2. 4, 5, 6. 8, 9, 10; Oratio II. c. 37; de Synodis,
c. 15.

3 Philostorgius says that Arius wrote songs for the sea, the
mill, and the road, after he seceded from the Church, L. 2. c. 2.

4 Socrates, L. 1. c. 8; Theodoret, L. 1. c. 12; De Dec.
Syn. Nic. c. sub fin. In this letter, as given by Theodoret, and
in the works of Athanasius, occur the following sentences, which
are not found in the copy given by Socrates : en /o)y TO cira-
Oep.ciTieffdai TO irpb TOV ysvrrjdfji aiovK i\v OVK aTOirot et

40 COUNCIL OF NIC^IA.

of his own Church he states, that he himself pro
posed a Confession of Faith, which the Emperor
approved and declared to be in accordance with his
own opinions, and wished the other bishops to sub
scribe; with the insertion, however, of the word
o^uoovo-ioc, which was to be understood, not in the
sense of any bodily affection, as implying subsistence
by division or abscission from the Father, but in a
divine and ineffable sense ; since that which is im
material and an object of the intellect and incor
poreal cannot be subject to any bodily affection.
The whole letter is of an apologetic character, and
implies a consciousness on the part of the writer
that his subscription to the Nicene Creed required
explanation, as if there were expressions in it not in
perfect agreement with his former teaching. He

r Trapa iraoi fjirjv duo\oyEiffOat eivai CLVTOV vlov TOV Oeou Kal npo
Trjg Kara crapKa yf.vvi]Gf.wQ. rjdr) f u 0eo0iAe oTci7oe fiuu&gt;v fiaariXevc;
ra&gt; Xoya&gt; KaTffKevaf. Kal Kara TYJV Zt deov avrov yivvi\aiv TV\V Trpo
TTCLVTWV aluvwv Etvai avTOv. f.irf.1 Kal Trptv ivf.pyf.ia yEVi rjOrjvai,
^vvafJLf.1 i\v kv TU&gt; Trorpt dyevvr/rwc, OVTOQ TOV Trarpog ael Trarpoe, we
Kal fia(Ti\eu)Q aei t Kal orwr^pog dfi, $vvap.f.i TraVra ovroc, aei re Kal
Kara ra avra KOI axraurwe e^ovroc. Bull considers these sen
tences to be an interpolation, partly from internal evidence, but
chiefly on the ground that they are omitted by Socrates, De
Filii, 7&J &lt;7vi cu3fg&gt;, III. 9. 3 ; but the Benedictine editor and the
Oxford annotator suppose them to have been purposely
omitted, on account of their heterodox aspect, by Socrates, who
was a maintainer of the orthodoxy of Eusebius. Athanasius cer
tainly refers to them, De Dec. Syn. Nic. c. 3 ; De Synodis, c. 13.
In the former place Athanasius mentions his intention of sub
joining the letter to the tract, in order to show that Eusebius had
assented to the expression buoouviot; and c rj

COUNCIL OF NIC^A. 41

states, therefore, that the different expressions were
carefully weighed and canvassed ; and gives his
reasons for assenting to the word oVooucnoc, and to
the expression " begotten, not made ;" as well as for
concurring in the anathema at the end. He had
never, he says, himself used the expressions con
demned ; nor 2 are they to be found Sn Scripture.
I have noticed the very meagre account given by
him of the proceedings of the synod. The pre
ference shown to the Confession of Faith finally
adopted over his own, and a consciousness that in
subscribing he had in some measure compromised
his own opinions, may have contributed to indispose
him to dwell on the subject.

The part which Eusebius took in the Arian con
troversy has caused both his integrity and his ortho
doxy to be called in question. I shall content
myself with observing that he was evidently 3 re
garded with suspicion and dislike by the Catholics,
and that it is consequently necessary to receive their
statements respecting him with some allowance.

1 He says that some eminent bishops of former times had
used the word in speaking of the relation of the Son to the
Father.

2 Does not this objection apply also to the word bpoovatoQ ?
Athanasius seems to have felt this difficulty. His defence is,
that the orthodox used such expressions in a pious, the Arians in
an impious sense, Oratio 1. contra Arianos, c. 30.

3 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 77 5 sub fin.

42 COUNCIL OF NIC.3EA.

The * ^Egyptian bishops charged him in their Ency
clical Letter with having offered sacrifice during the
persecution ; and 2 Epiphanius tells us that this
charge was openly brought against him at the Council
of Tyre by Potamo, Bishop of Heraclea. Athanasius
also accuses 3 him of having affirmed, in a letter to
Euphratio, that Christ is not true God. Yet we
have seen that he subscribed, though perhaps reluc
tantly, the declaration that the Son is ouoovaios with
the Father ; a subscription which, if sincerely made,
seems to imply a recognition of the 4 essential Divi
nity of the Son.

Perhaps the Creed which he proposed to the
Council may give us some insight into the real
nature of his opinions. It is as follows :

" We believe in one God, Father Almighty,
Maker of all things, visible and invisible ; and in one
Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God,
Light of Light, Life of Life, the only-begotten Son,
the first-begotten of every creature, begotten of the

1 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 8.

2 Haeresis, Ixviii. c. 7.

3 De Synodis, c. 17. Euphratio was Bishop of Balanea.

4 The word essence appears to me better to express the
meaning of the word ovala than substance. By the essence of a
thing I understand that by which it is what it is. Athanasius
insisted upon the insertion of the word ojjtoovfftoQ in the Creed,
because no other word could so fully express that the Son was
very God.

COUNCIL OF NIOEA. 43

Father before all ages, by whom all things were
made; who for our salvation was incarnate, and
lived among men ; who suffered, and rose again the
third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall
come again in glory to judge both the quick and
the dead. We believe also in one Holy Ghost.
Each of them we believe to be and to subsist the
Father truly Father, the Son truly Son, the Holy
Ghost truly Holy Ghost; as our Lord, when He
sent forth his Apostles to preach, said, Go, make
disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. "

Mr. Newman l says of this Creed, that, though
the terms were orthodox, and would have satis
factorily answered the purposes of a test if the
existing questions had never been agitated, and were
consistent with certain produceable statements of
the Ante-Nicene Fathers, they were irrelevant at a
time when evasions had been found for them all and
triumphantly proclaimed. He supposes it to have
been drawn up for the purpose of avoiding a test
which the Arians had committed themselves in con
demning, inasmuch as 2 Eusebius of Nicomedia had in
the beginning of the controversy declared that the
Son was not EK T?C ovaias of the Father. If this was

1 History of the Arians, chap. iii. sect. i. p. 272.

2 Theodoret, L. I.e. 6.

44 COUNCIL OF NIC.EA.

the object of Eusebius, the Emperor completely frus
trated it by insisting on the insertion of the word
i

O/UOOUOtO.

In his Notes on the Letter, in the Oxford transla
tion of Athanasius, Mr. Newman has carefully pointed
out the artifices by which he supposes Eusebius to
have evaded the full force of the words which he con
sented to use. Eusebius admitted that the Son was
tK r7c oJcriac, but not as a part; he seems to have
added this qualification in order to guard against
the notion that he supposed the Divine Essence to
be divisible. Mr. Newman, however, doubts whether
he admitted the 6/c rfc ovaiag at all. In like manner,
though he adopted the word djuoownoc, yet Mr. New
man infers from the explanation which he gave of
the sense in which he understood it, that he did
believe, not in a oneness of substance, but in two
substances. In his History of the Arians Mr.
1 Newman has said that there is, in the writings of
Eusebius, little which fixes upon him any charge be
yond that of an attachment to the Platonic phrase
ology ; and that had he not connected himself with
the Arian party, it would have been unjust to accuse
him of heresy. In the 2 interval between the pub
lication of that work and of the Notes on Athanasius,
his faculty of detecting heresy appears to have be
come more acute. The opinions of Eusebius may

1 Chap. iii. sect. 2. p. 282. 2 Between 1833 and 1842.

COUNCIL OF NIC^IA. 45

be collected from the second chapter of the first
book of his Ecclesiastical History, in which he treats
of the p re-existence and Divinity of Christ; and
they appear to have been in accordance with those
of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, who l held that the
Word existed with the Father from eternity, being
personally distinct, but that He was begotten in
order to create the world ; the generation of which
they spake was a generation in time, not from
eternity. The reluctance of Eusebius to subscribe
to the word d,uoou&lt;noc may be partly ascribed to his
belief that it savoured of Sabellianism ; he knew
that it had been rejected 2 by the Council of Antioch,
by which Paul of Samosata was condemned.

The Council, before it separated, addressed a
3 letter to the Church of Alexandria, and to the
brethren in ^Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, to inform
them of the questions which had been discussed, and
of the manner in which they had been determined.
The opinions of Arius had first been condemned and
himself excommunicated, together with 4 Theonas of
Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, whom he
had infected with his errors.

1 Select Treatises of Athanasius. Note on p. 214.

2 Ibid. Note on p. 247.

3 Socrates, L. 1. c. 9. Theodoret, L. 1. c. 9.

4 Ad Ep. .Egypt, et Lib. c. 19. De Synodis, c. 12. Theo
doret says that these two bishops alone refused to join in the
condemnation of Arius, L. 1. c. 7. Sozomen tells us that
Secundus expressed his approval of the Creed, L. 1. c. 21 ; but

46 COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

The letter of the Council goes on to say, that the
case of l Meletius was next considered and deter
mined; that he was allowed to retain the title of
bishop, but was restrained from laying on hands in
his own city, and from visiting any other place or
city for the purpose. That they who had been
ordained by him were to receive a 2 more regular
ordination, and to be admitted to communion on the
condition that they should retain their honour and
ministry, but be second in all things to those whom
Alexander had ordained, and should not possess the
power of doing any ecclesiastical act without the
consent of the bishops subject to Alexander s juris
diction. In the event, however, of the death of any
of the Catholic ministers they might take the vacant

according to Philostorgius, Theonas and Secundus alone per
sisted in their refusal to subscribe the Creed; and Secundus
charged Eusebius of Nicomedia with subscribing in order to
escape banishment ; which, however, he did not escape, as he was
banished three months afterwards, L. 1. c. 8. Athanasius expressly
states that Eusebius subscribed, De Dec. Syn. Nic. cc. 3. 18. And
according to Philostorgius, they subscribed, at the suggestion o
Constantina, the Emperor s sister, with a mental reservation,
affixing to the word 6juoov&lt;nog the meaning of o/jioiovarioc. Philo
storgius appears himself to have been an Homceousian ; and says
that Eusebius of Nicomedia, Leontius of Antioch, and Anthony
of Tarsus always adhered to that doctrine, but that Maris of
Chalcedon abandoned it ; that Theognius of Nicaea held that God
was Father before He begat the Son, because He possessed the
power of begetting ; and that Asterius affirmed that the Son was
the exact (aTrapaXAcuTo* ) image of the Father : all these, as we
have seen, were disciples of Lucian.

1 Compare Sozomen, L. 1. c. 24; Theodoret, L. 1. c. 9;
Apologia contra Arianos, c. 59.

COUNCIL OF NICJBA. 47

places, if they were deemed worthy and chosen by the
laity with the approval of the Bishop of Alexandria.
Meletius was also required to give in a l list of those
whom he had ordained. 2 Athanasius appears to
have been opposed to this arrangement, which could
scarcely fail to lead to disputes. The Meletian
presbyters would be desirous to resume their func
tions, and would not be content to wait until a
vacancy occurred ; and, on the other hand, when it
did occur, the Catholics would resist the introduction
of the Meletian claimant. There is no doubt that
one of the objects of the Meletians, in uniting them
selves to the Arians, was to re-establish themselves
in the possession of their churches.

The letter next congratulates the bishops to whom
it is addressed on the settlement of the " Paschal
controversy. The decision of the Council was that
Easter was to be celebrated, not according to the
reckoning of the Jews, but according to that in
general use throughout the Christian world. Con-
stantine, who took an active part in the discussion,
argued that Christians ought not in any thing to

1 Athanasius gives this list, Apologia contra Arianos, c. 71.

2 His words are : ore MeXertoe vireSexQri, we p/7ror w^eXoi .
The enmity of the Meletians against Athanasius appears to have
been occasioned by his resistance to their attempts to recover
their churches.

3 De vita Constantini, L. 3. cc. 17 20. Sozomen, L. 1. c.
12. Theodoret, L. I.e. 9.

48 COUNCIL OF NIC^EA.

follow the customs of the impious race which put
Christ to death. Tt is worthy of observation that
Eusebius, omitting all mention of the Decree upon
the most important matter which occasioned the
assembling of the Council the controversy between
Alexander and Arius contents himself with in
serting the letter in which Constantino announced
to the bishops the decision upon the Paschal ques
tion. The omission can only be accounted for on
the supposition that he was dissatisfied with the
determination of the Council.

The letter concludes with an exhortation to the
Alexandrians, to receive with due honour Alexander,
who had undergone great labour for the peace of
the Church ; and to join with them in praying that
the decrees of the Council might remain unaltered.

1 A record was made of all the points determined
by the Council, and signed by all the bishops. The
Emperor, before he dismissed them to their several
sees, invited them to a splendid banquet, which, to
borrow the language of 2 his panegyrist, afforded a

1 iwpoiiTO de tfdr) Kat iv ypafyrj i* vTroffrj/AEHoaEwg tKatrrov ret
Koivfj fcfoyftcpa. De vita Constantini, L. 3. c. 14. Twenty
canons of the Council are extant.

2 De vita Constantini, L. 3. c. 15. Eusebius appears to have
had in his mind Matt. xxvi. 29. Constantine at this time cele
brated the Vicennalia, the twentieth anniversary of his reign.
Sozomen, L. 1. c. 25.

COUNCIL OF NTCJEA. 49

lively representation of the Kingdom of Christ, and
appeared rather a dream than a reality. He dis
tributed among them presents according to their dif
ferent ranks and merits ; and addressed them in ] a
speech, in which he strongly inculcated the necessity
of concord ; warning them not to give way to envious
feelings against those of their brethren who enjoyed
a higher reputation for wisdom and eloquence than
themselves; and at the same time cautioning all
who possessed those endowments, not to treat their
inferiors with contempt. He especially exhorted
all to avoid contentions among themselves, lest they
should render the Divine law a subject of ridicule
to those who were inclined to blaspheme. He then
proceeded to propound his views respecting the
course to be taken in order to convert men to
Christianity. 2 Pains must be taken to convince
them, that the worldly condition of a Christian is
one to be desired. We must not trust to the force
of reason alone, since few love truth for itself. As
a physician varies his remedies according to each

1 De vita Constantini, L. 3. c. 16 21. The necessity for these
frequent exhortations to concord, does not convey a very favour
able impression respecting the Christian temper of the assembled
bishops.

2 Constantine acted upon this principle, when he established
the Christian worship at Heliopolis. He made ample provision
for the relief of the poor, in order to win them to the Gospel;
saying, in allusion to the words of St. Paul (Philip, i. 18),
" Whether in pretence, or in truth, let Christ be preached,"
De vita Constantini, L. 3. c. 58.

50 COUNCIL OF NIO&A.

particular case, so we must vary our modes of con
version according to the tempers of individuals.
Some are won by the prospect of obtaining the
means of subsistence; others of gaining influence
with the great : some by courtesy of manners : some
by presents. In conclusion, Constantine commended
himself to the prayers of the bishops, and bade them
farewell. I do not observe that Mr. Newman refers,
as he well might, to this speech in proof of the
political character of Constantino s Christianity. The
advice here given, bespeaks an accurate acquaintance
with human nature ; but savours more of the poli
tician than of the missionary. Men will naturally
be disposed to embrace Christianity more readily, if
they find that by embracing it, far from injuring,
they are promoting their worldly interests ; and the
preacher of the Gospel may be justified in endea
vouring to satisfy them that this will be the case ;
but to hold out temporal advantages as inducements
to conversion, is to act in direct opposition to the
spirit of the Gospel.

Constantine, after the termination of the Council,
addressed ] letters to the Churches and bishops, in

1 Socrates, L. 1. c. 9, gives his letter to the Church of Alex
andria ; that to the bishops and laity, in which he calls the Arians
Porphyrians, see ad Monachos, c. 5 1 ; and that to the Churches,
in which he gives an account of the decision on the paschal ques
tion. De vita Constantini, L. 3. c. 17, and Sozomen, L. 1. c. 21.

COUNCIL OF NIOEA. 51

which he congratulated them on the establishment
of the true faith and the restoration of peace ; and
ridiculed Arius and his followers, whom he called
Porphyrians, because Arius, like Porphyry, had
written against the Christian faith. He directed

also, that the works of Arius should be burned ; and
that all who should be detected in concealing them,
should be capitally punished. These angry invectives
and denunciations, are little in accordance with the
moderate and tolerant language which he employed
in his letter to Alexander and Arius, written pre
viously to the Council. But his object, as he him
self states, was to bring all his subjects to an agree
ment respecting religion. As, therefore, the Council
had decreed what the true faith was, and he had
confirmed its decrees by his sanction, and had ] com
manded them to be received as the dictates of the
Holy Spirit, he appears to have regarded the few
bishops who refused to subscribe them, not only as
perverse and contumacious gainsayers of the truth,
but as also conspiring to resist his sovereign au
thority, and consequently deserving condign pun
ishment. 2 Mr. Newman, however, who appears to
condemn the repressive measures adopted by Con-

1 trav yap on & ev role ayioig TWV eiriffKOTTtjJV

, TOVTO Trpog rrjv deiav fiov\r}aiv tyti T)}V ara^opdr. De vita
Constantini, L. 3. c. 17. Socrates, L. I.e. 9. Sozomen, L. 1.
c. 20.

2 History of the Arians, c. 3. sect. 1. p. 264.

E 2

52 COUNCIL OF NIC7EA.

stantine against the Donatists, l thinks that, in his
proceedings after the Council of Nicsea, he acted a
part altogether consistent with his own previous
sentiments, and praiseworthy under the circum
stances of his defective knowledge.

The history of the events which took place after
the Council, is involved in great confusion. Alex
ander, Bishop of Alexandria, 2 died about five months
after it, and was succeeded by Athanasius, who, as
we have seen, attended him as his deacon, at Nicsea,
and, if we are to believe the Ecclesiastical historians,
was marked out from the age of boyhood for the
episcopal office. According to 3 Socrates, he and

1 History of the Arians, c. 3. sect. 1. p. 273. See a curious
statement respecting the early theory of persecution, in a note on
the Epistle ad Mbnachos, in the Oxford translation, c. 67. The
theory was that, when a cause is good, there is nothing wrong in
using force in due subordination to argument. As the civil magis
trate may hold out the secular blessings following on Christianity,
as inducements to individuals who are incapable of higher motives,
so he may with propriety employ force. Constantine was, there
fore, consistent with himself; for we have seen that he held out
temporal advantages as inducements to conversion. The annotator
does not say whether he himself adopted the early theory ; he was
not then a member of an infallible Church : now his cause must
necessarily be good, and he cannot hesitate to use force, but of
course in due subordination to argument when argument has
failed to convince the stubborn gainsayer.

2 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 59. Theodoret, L. 1. c. 26.

3 L. 1. c. 15. He tells the story on the authority of Rufinus.
Sozomen tells it with some variation. L. 2. c. 17. Theodoret
does not mention it ; and the Benedictine editor disbelieves it.
Sozomen says, on the authority of Apollinarius Syrus, that

COUNCIL OF NICJEA. 53

some of his playfellows were amusing themselves on
the anniversary of the martyrdom of Peter, a former
bishop of Alexandria, with assigning to each other
the titles of the different sacred orders: one was
called a bishop, another a priest, another a deacon ;
and the title of bishop fell to Athanasius. Alex
ander, happening to pass by, called the boys to him,
and asked each what title he had received ; and
thinking that there was something of a prophetic
character in the transaction, ordered them all to be
taken to the church and instructed ; but particu
larly singled out Athanasius, whom he ordained as
his deacon.

If Constantine entertained ^the hope that the
decision of the Council would restore permanent
peace to the Church, he was doomed to disap
pointment. The controversy, which appears never
to have ceased entirely ] in jEgypt, was renewed
there with all its original bitterness ; and the
disputes among the bishops rose to such a height,
that the Emperor found it necessary to interpose his
authority, and to address a special letter to them.
The triumph of the Catholics at the Council appeared

Athanasius at first declined the bishopric. See Apologia contra
Arianos, c. 6. The Benedictine editor places the birth of Atha
nasius in 296 ; he was, therefore, thirty years of age at the time
of his elevation to the episcopate. He says also, that after his
appointment, he visited the Thebais, and there saw Pachomius,
and Sarapion Bishop of Tentyra.

1 De vita Constantini, L. 3. c. 23 ; L. 4. c. 41.

54 COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

to be complete : Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and
Theognius were, as we have seen, banished, and the
latter two deprived of their bishoprics ; while the
Emperor seemed well disposed to employ the whole
force of civil power in crushing the Arian party.
But suddenly the scene is changed, and the Euse-
bians are in their turn triumphant. * Eusebius
and Theognius are recalled from banishment and
reinstated in their sees, Arius 2 having been previ
ously allowed to return. 3 The Eusebians contrive
to expel several of the Catholic bishops, and to get
possession of their bishoprics ; and we find Constan-
tine, who had so recently banished Arius, command
ing Athanasius to receive him into communion,
under pain of being himself deposed. If we may
give credit to the account of Socrates, the change
in the opinions of Constantino was effected through
the instrumentality of an 4 Arian presbyter, who

1 Socrates, L. 1. c. 14. Sozomen, L. 2. c. 16. In the letter
of retractation addressed by them to the bishops, they assert that
they did not dissent from the confession of faith set forth by the
Council, but objected to the excommunication of Arius. Com
pare Sozomen, L. 3. c. 19, where the Arian account is given.

2 This appears from the letter of retractation just mentioned.
Philostorgius says, that the recal of Eusebius and Theognius
took place three years after the Council : but his statement is in
many respects erroneous. L. 2. c. 7.

3 Athanasius says, that the Eusebians commenced their in
trigues immediately after the Council. De Synodis, c. 21.

4 Socrates, L. 1. cc. 25, 26. Sozomen, L. 2. c. 27. Socrates
says, that Constantine deposited his will in the hands of this
presbyter, with injunctions to deliver it only to Constantius.
L. 1. c. 39. Arius, ut orbem deciperet, sororem principis ante
decepit. Jerome ad Ctesiphontem, Tom. 2. p. 171 C.

COUNCIL OF NICJEA. 55

possessed great influence with Constantia, the sister
of Constantine and widow of Licinius. In her last
illness she commended this presbyter to her brother s
favour, who admitted him to great intimacy. Of
this intimacy he availed himself, to represent Arius
as a much injured man, whose belief was not what
his enemies affirmed it to be, but in agreement
with the creed set forth by the Council. Constan
tine was in consequence induced to recal Arius,
who went to Constantinople accompanied by Euz-
oius, who had been degraded from the diaconate by
Alexander. The Emperor admitted them to his
presence, and required them to bring him their
profession of faith in writing. This they did, stating
that they had derived it from the Holy Gospel, in
which Christ commanded his disciples to go and
make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. They
appealed to the judgment of God, both here and
hereafter, in attestation of their acknowledgment of
the three Persons of the Holy Trinity as the Catholic
Church acknowledged them, and as the Scripture in

1 Socrates gives the letter of recal ; from which it appears,
that Constantine had previously summoned Arius to his presence.
Valesius thinks that the Arius, who, in company with Euzoius
presented the profession of faith to Constantine, was not the
haeresiarch, but another person of the same name. The letter,
however, of Athanasius to Serapion seems to be decisive on this
point. See the note of the Benedictine editor. Apologia contra
Arianos, c. 84.

56 COUNCIL OF NIC^EA.

which they implicitly believed, taught. They, there
fore, entreated the Emperor to unite them to their
mother, the Church, removing out of the way all
questions and superfluity of words, to the end that
they and the Church might offer their united prayers
for the Emperor s kingdom and for all his race.

The following was the * profession of faith pre
sented by Arius and Euzoius :

" We believe in one God, Father Almighty ; and
in the Lord Jesus Christ, his Son, begotten of Him
before all ages, God the Word, by Whom all things
were made, both in heaven and earth ; who de
scended, and was incarnate, and suffered, and rose
again, and ascended into heaven, and shall come
again to Judge the quick and the dead. (We be
lieve) in the Holy Ghost, in the resurrection of the
flesh, in the life of the world to come, in the king
dom of heaven, and in one Catholic Church, ex
tending from one end of the earth to the other."

Such is the statement of Socrates, w r hich he
derived from Rufinus. Valesius doubts the truth
of the story, and observes that Athanasius takes no
notice of it. Yet it is not in itself improbable ;

1 The Oxford annotator on the works of Athanasius, supposes
this creed to be referred to in the Synodal epistle of the Council
of Jerusalem. De Synodis, c. 25.

COUNCIL OF NIC.EA. 57

and it accounts for that which requires to be ac
counted for Constantino s change of opinion. The
Benedictine editor adopts it.

Constantino had hoped, that the decree of the
Council would effect the object which he had nearest
his heart, that of making all men of one mind in
religion. He had, therefore, enforced by all the
means in his power, subscription to the decree ; and,
as we have seen, had required Eusebius of Csesarea
to insert the word o/noovmoQ in his creed. The result,
however, had disappointed the Emperor s expecta
tions; and the Eusebians, whose cause appears to
have been espoused by many members of the im
perial family, succeeded in persuading him that,
although they objected to the word, their senti
ments were really orthodox, and that Athanasius,
by pertinaciously insisting on the use of the word,
was the chief obstacle to the restoration of peace.
I have already explained the 2 reason of the perti
nacity of Athanasius; the expressions o^uoouo-ioc, t/c
rr/c ouaiV TOV 0eou, were the only expressions which
the Arians could not evade. They were content to

1 Athanasius says, that Eutropius was expelled from the see
of Hadrianople through the influence of Basilina, the mother of
Julian. Ad Monachos, c. 5.

2 De Dec. Syn. Nic. cc. 19, 20. The Oxford annotator has
however remarked, that in the three treatises against the Arians,
the word bp.oovai.oQ scarcely occurs. The history of the contro
versy will perhaps account for this remarkable fact. De Synodis,
c. 54. p. 157, note i.

58 COUNCIL OF NIOEA.

say that the Son was of God (tic rou Gtou), because
the expression is not inconsistent with the opinion
that He is a creature (/ma^a), all created things
being of God : but the expression ZK T*JQ ouaiV u
Geou, implies His essential divinity that He is in-
create. It appears, 1 however, that many considered
the expressions to savour of Sabellianism, and to be
destructive of the subsistence or personality (u7rapiv)
of the Son. This charge was brought by 2 Eusebius
of Csesarea against Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch,
who in turn charged Eusebius with corrupting the
faith, and with introducing polytheism. The dis
putes rose to such a height, that a 3 Synod was
assembled at Antioch in order to settle them. The
party opposed to Eustathius prevailed, and he was
deposed from his bishopric on the ground that he
did not adhere to the Nicene doctrine, but taught
Sabellianism. If, however, we may believe 4 Socrates,

1 Sozomen, L. 3. c. 13.

2 Socrates, L. 1. c. 13, observes upon this dispute that, while
both parties recognized the proper personality and subsistence of
the Son, they quarrelled because they did not understand each
other ; and like men fighting in the dark, brought mutual ac
cusations of blasphemy. But Mr. Newman would say that
Socrates, an uninstructed layman, was incompetent to pronounce
upon the amount and importance of the difference between them.
Sozomen, L. 2. c. 19.

3 The Benedictine editor places these events about the year 330.
1 St ciAActe OVK ayaOcLQ cur/ag, &lt;avf&gt;we yap OVK elpriKciai.

Socrates states, on the authority of George, Bishop of Laodicaea
in Syria, an opponent of the Homoousian doctrine, who wrote a
panegyric on Eusebius Emisenus, that Cyrus, Bishop of Berrhoea,

COUNCIL OF NIC.KA. 59

this was only a pretence; the real cause of his
deposition being such as could not be avowed.
This, the historian adds, was the universal practice :
whenever an unfortunate bishop was deposed, the
bishops who concurred in the sentence loaded him
with all sorts of accusations, and charged him with
impiety, though they never expressly stated wherein
the impiety consisted. The deposition of Eustathius
was the signal for a violent outbreak of party feeling
at Antioch. When the time for the election of his
successor arrived, one portion of the people wished
to replace him in the see, another to elect Eusebius
of Csesarea ; and so great was the tumult, that the
city had nearly been destroyed. Not only the
municipal authorities, but the military also took
part in the contest ; and the two parties would have
proceeded to blows, if Constantine had not sent one
of the counts of the empire with letters addressed to
the lay-members of the Church ; and Eusebius had

was the accuser of Eustathius ; and adds, that he is unable to
reconcile this account to a subsequent statement of the same
George, that Cyrus himself was deposed for Sabellianism. L. 1.
c. 24. See L. 2. c. 9. Sozomen, L. 2. c. 19. Athanasius
mentions Cyrus among the bishops expelled by the Arians. De
Fuga, c. 3. Ad Monachos, c. 5. According to Theodoret,
Eusebius of Nicomedia and his party concocted a charge of in
continence against Eustathius. L. 1. cc. 21, 22. Philostorgius,
L. 2. c. 7. Athanasius mentions his banishment, as well as
another charge which must have been still more injurious to him,
that he had insulted the mother of Constantine. De Fuga, c. 3.
Ad Monachos, c. 4.

60 COUNCIL OF NTC^A.

not, either spontaneously, or at the Emperor s sug
gestion, declined the bishopric. We have com
plained of the meagreness of the account given by
Eusebius of the Nicene Council ; the same complaint
applies to his account of that of Antioch, though he
took so prominent a part in the proceedings. He
speaks of the serious disturbances in that city ; but
says nothing respecting the causes in which they
originated, or of the grounds of the deposition of
Eusebius; but contents himself with giving some
2 letters of Constantine, one addressed to himself in
commendation of his refusal to quit Caesarea for
Antioch ; another addressed to the bishops assembled
at Antioch, in which the Emperor states that Eu
sebius, in declining the bishopric of Antioch, had
acted in strict conformity to 3 ecclesiastical rule ; and
4 commends especially to their choice Euphronius,

1 De vita Constantini, L. 3. cc. 59, 60, 61, 62. Socrates says
that, in consequence of the slight notice taken by Eusebius of the
causes of the disputes which led to the assembling of the Council
of Antioch, he acquired the reputation of being double-tongued,
and was suspected of insincerity in his assent to the Nicene faith.
L. 1. c. 21.

2 In the letter to Eusebius, Constantine says that he wrote at
the divine suggestion, TrporpoTrfj rov Qeov. C. 61.

3 See the eleventh Apostolic Canon.

4 According to Socrates, L. I.e. 24, the see of Antioch re
mained vacant eight years : Euphronius was then appointed to it
through the influence of the Arians. Sozomen, L. 2. c. 19.
Valesius contends that this statement is incorrect ; that Paulinus,
Bishop of Tyre, was translated to Antioch (see Eusebius contra
Marcellum, L. 1. c. 4, sub in. Philostorgius, L. 3. c. 15), and

COUNCIL OF NIC^EA. 61

a presbyter of Coesarea, in Cappadocia, and George
of Arethusa, who had been ordained presbyter by
Alexander at Alexandria. The former appears to
have been appointed, though there is some doubt
whether he was the immediate successor of Eus-
tathius. Socrates says that he was an Arian ; and
the succession of Arian bishops at Antioch certainly
continued for many years. But the Catholics also
appointed a successor to Eustathius; so that the
effect of his deposition was to create an open schism
in the Church of Antioch, the two parties renouncing
alt communion with each other : till then there had
been no open separation, but the two parties ] had
joined in public worship.

The victory obtained by the Arians at Antioch
encouraged them to proceed to further acts of ag
gression against their opponents, and to the deposi
tion of 2 other bishops. The influence of Eusebius

having held the bishopric only six months, was succeeded by
Eulalius. According to Theodoret, Eulalius succeeded Eusta
thius, and held the bishopric a very short time. An attempt was
then made to introduce Eusebius, but he declined the office ; and
Euphronius was elected, who lived little more than a year, and
was succeeded by Placentius (Flaccillus). See, with respect to
Paulinus, the note of Valesius on Eusebius Hist. Eccl. L. 10.
c. 1.

1 Sozomen, L. 2. c. 32. L. 3. c. 13.

2 Athanasius mentions nine who were deprived of their
bishoprics : among them Asclepas of Gaza, and Eutropius of
Hadrianople, ad Monachos, c. 5.

62 COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

of Nicomedia and Theognius on the mind of the
Emperor appears to have been gradually on the
increase, and they at length determined to assail
Athanasius himself. We have seen that Constantino
had admitted Arius to his presence at Constantinople.
He was now prevailed upon, not only to give Arius
permission to ] return to Alexandria, but to require
Athanasius to receive him into communion. Atha
nasius, however, refused : and the Emperor, incensed
at the refusal, wrote him a very angry letter, threaten
ing him with deprivation of his bishopric, and ex
pulsion from Alexandria. These threats not pro
ducing the desired effect, the Eusebians, in order to
entirely destroy him in the opinion of the Emperor,
brought various charges against him. 2 They denied
the validity of his consecration, asserting that, after
the death of Alexander, fifty-five bishops (Catholic
and Meletian) from ^Egypt and the Thebais met
together, and bound themselves by an oath to elect
his successor by public suffrage; but that six or
seven of the number held a clandestine meeting in
violation of their oath, and consecrated Athanasius ;
who affirmed in refutation of this charge, and his
statement is supported by the testimony of the

1 Socrates says that Arius actually returned, L. 1. c. 27.
Valesius doubts it. Athanasius does not mention it, Apologia
contra Arianos, c. 59, where Constantine s letter is given.

2 Sozomen, L. 2. cc. 17- 25. Compare Apologia contra
Arianos, cc. 6. 28; Philostorgius, L. 2. c. 11. Socrates says
that the Arians charged Athanasius with personal unworthiness.

COUNCIL OF NIC^A. 63

bishops of jEgypt and Libya, that his consecration
had taken place, not merely with the consent, but
at the earnest demand of the people of Alexandria,
and that a majority of the bishops assisted at the
solemnity. The ] Eusebians then induced the Mele-
tians, who for the reasons already stated had formed
a 2 coalition with them, to bring various accusations
against Athanasius; many of them of a frivolous
character. He was charged, for instance, with im
posing upon the people of ^Egypt a tax for providing
linen vestments for the church at Alexandria. This
charge was refuted by 3 Alypius and Macarius, two
presbyters of Alexandria, who happened to be at
Nicomedia. Constantino in consequence rebuked
the accusers, and ordered Athanasius to repair to
his court. Eusebius then concocted another charge,
that Athanasius had 4 joined in a conspiracy against
the Emperor, and had sent a purse of gold to one
Philumenus for the use of those who were engaged

1 Socrates mentions particularly Eusebius, Theognius, Maris,
Ursacius, and Valens as the instigators of these proceedings,
L. 1. c. 27. Compare Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos, c.
59. Theodoret mentions also Theoclorus of Heraclea, L. 1.
c. 28.

2 Sozomen says that the Arians were called Meletians in
^Egypt, L. 2. cc. 21, 22. The names of the accusers were
Ision, Endaemon, and Callinicus, see Apologia, c. 60.

3 Athanasius calls him Apis, c. 60.

4 Contra Arianos, c. 60. Theodoret, L. I.e. 26. The Emperor
heard this charge in person, in the suburb of Nicomedia called
Psammathia.

64 COUNCIL OF NIC^IA.

in it ; but Constantine, on investigation, found this
charge also to be false, and sent back Athanasius
with a ] letter to the members of the Church of
Alexandria, in which he told them that their bishop
had been calumniated. A third charge was afterwards
brought forward, not against Athanasius directly,
but against Macarius, the presbyter who had as
sisted in disproving the charge respecting the linen
vestments, in the hope that his condemnation might
indirectly contribute to that of his patron. The
name of the accuser in this case was Ischyras, who,
though never ordained, had ventured to exercise the
functions of the priesthood in the 2 Mareotic region ;
and, being detected, had 3 fled to Nicomedia, where
Eusebius had not only allowed him to officiate as a
priest, but had promised to raise him to the 4 episco
pate if he would assist in procuring the condemna-

1 Athanasius gives this letter, contra Arianos, c. 61. Theo-
doret, L. 1. c. 27.

2 According to Socrates, this was a very populous region,
abounding in villages and churches, and under the jurisdiction of
the Bishop of Alexandria : rarrorrcu de avrai at tKicXrjffiai VTTO raj
rfjg A/\ecu fy&gt;m (.TnaKoir^, KOI eiffiv VTTO rrji avrov TTU\IV WQ
Trapoidai. Athanasius says that there was neither episcopus nor
chorepiscopus in the region ; which, if the Benedictine editor
rightly interprets the passage, contained ten or more villages, each
having its presbyter, Apologia contra Arianos, c. 85.

3 The Benedictine editor doubts whether he fled to Nico
media.

* According to Athanasius this promise was fulfilled. At the
request of Eusebius, the Emperor ordered a church to be built
for him.

COUNCIL OF NIC^EA. G5

tion of Atliaiiasius. He in consequence ] accused
Macarius of having rushed into his church, leaped
upon the holy table, broken the mystic cup, and
burned the sacred books.

According to 2 Sozomen, many other charges were
brought against Athanasius : he was accused of de
posing Callinicus, Bishop of Pelusium, merely be
cause that prelate would not adopt his opinions, and
throwing him into prison ; of committing the care of
the church to one Mark, who had been degraded
from the presbyterate ; 3 of causing other bishops to
be scourged ; and of 4 violating a female. But a still
more heinous crime was laid to his charge : his
enemies produced a hand which they affirmed to be

1 Apologia contra Arianos, cc. 11. 27. 37. 41. 46. 83. 85.
In the decree of the Arian Synod of Philippopolis, Athanasius
himself is charged with breaking the cup. Hilarii ex opere
historico Fragm. iii. c. 6. See also Sozomen, L. 2. c. 25.

2 L 2. c. 25. Philostorgius, L. 2, c. 11. We have seen that
among the accusers of Athanasius in the matter of the linen vest
ments was one named Callinicus. Sozomen calls Callinicus a
bishop of the Catholic Church ; but his name appears in the list
of Meletian bishops submitted by Meletius to Alexander.

3 Gibbon observes that Athanasius takes no notice of this
charge.

4 Sozomen says that this charge is not recorded in the Acts of
the Synod of Tyre. The Benedictine editor assigns satisfactory
reasons for disbelieving that it was ever made. It appears, how
ever, that the Arian was not the only party which had recourse
to this species of calumny ; according to Philostorgius, L. 2.
c. 11, a similar charge was brought against Eusebius of Nico-
media. See Theodoret, L. I.e. 30.

66 COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

that of l Arsenius, the Meletian Bishop of Hypsala,
and to be used by Athanasius for magical purposes.

On receiving these accusations Constantine directed
his nephew, 2 Dalmatius the censor, who resided at
Antioch in Syria, to summon the accused parties,
and to punish them if convicted. He sent also
Eusebius and Theognius to Antioch, in order that
they might be present at the investigation. Atha
nasius, on receiving the summons, 3 caused search to
be made for Arsenius, but could not find him, as he
was concealed by the opposite party, and directed
continually to change his hiding-place. The in
vestigation, however, was speedily closed by the
Emperor, who directed the bishops whom he had
summoned to the dedication of the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, to stop at Tyre by the
way, and inquire into the charges. He appears to
have wavered much in his opinion ; for Athanasius
expressly says that he had satisfied himself by his
own inquiries at 4 Nicomedia of the falsehood of the

1 Sozomen, L. 2. c. 23. Apologia contra Arianos, cc. 8. 38.
42. See his own letter to Athanasius, Apologia, c. 69. Theo-
doret, L. 1. c. 30. His name does not appear in the list sent in
by Meletius.

2 Valesius observes that the Dalmatius here mentioned must
have been the brother, not the nephew of Constantine.

3 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 65.

4 In the Psammathia, Apologia contra Arianos, c. 65. It
should seem from the letter given by Athanasius, c. 68, that the
Emperor had also been satisfied by the investigation before

COUNCIL OF NKLEA. 67

charge against Macarius respecting the cup, and that
Dalmatius was sent to inquire only into the charge
respecting Arsenius. Both charges were, however,
remitted to the bishops assembled at ! Tyre.

According to 2 Sozomen a synod had thirty months
before been summoned at Csesarea, but Athanasius
did not appear. He showed equal unwillingness to
attend the synod at Tyre, not so much, Socrates
says, from dread of the accusations, inasmuch as he
was ignorant of their nature, as from fear lest some
innovation should be attempted in the Creed settled
at Nicsea. The Emperor, however, intimated to
him that, if he did not come willingly, he would
be brought by force; at last, therefore, he obeyed
the summons.

Sixty bishops met at Tyre, and 3 Macarius was

Dalmatius of the innocence of Athanasius in the matter of
Arsenius,

1 Socrates, L. I.e. 28. He says that it was held in the thirtieth
year of the reign of Constantine ; Valesius says in the twenty-
eighth ; Eusebius mentions, and only mentions it, De vita Con-
stantini, L. 4. cc. 41, 42.

2 L. 2. c. 25. Theodoret seems to say that the Emperor
allowed the synod to be transferred from Csesarea to Tyre,
thinking that the known hostility of Eusebius to Athanasius
would furnish the latter with a just plea for not appearing, L. 1.
c. 28. Hilarii ex opere historico Fragm. iii. c. 7. The Bene
dictine editor places this Synod A.D. 333, and consequently, that
of Tyre A.D. 335.

3 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 71.

F 2

G8 COUNCIL OF NIC^EA.

carried thither in chains under a military guard.
Athanasius contended that it ought in the first in
stance to be proved that Ischyras, the accuser, had
really been ordained priest, since he was so desig
nated in the charge. l His name does not appear in
the list of Meletian clergy delivered by Meletius
to Alexander; and Athanasius gives a letter ad
dressed to the Synod of Tyre by the presbyters and
deacons of the Mareotis, in which they deny that he
had ever been ordained. He adds that the Mele-
tians had never been able to introduce their schism
into the region, nor to establish a church nor
ministers in it. There was, therefore, neither cup to
be broken nor table to be overturned. So long as
Athanasius was present nothing was proved against
Macarius ; but it was finally determined to send a
commission to the Mareotis to ascertain the state of
facts upon the spot. Nothing, however, could be
more unfair than the whole procedure ; the 2 com-

1 Apologia contra Arianos, cc. 11, 12. 63. 71, 72. Hilary
calls Ischyras a deacon, Ex op. hist. Fragm. ii. c. 16. His
own statement was that he was ordained by Colluthus, a presbyter
of Alexandria, who assumed to himself episcopal functions, and
whose ordinations were, as we have seen, annulled. The bishops
who accompanied Athanasius to Tyre call his opponents Collu-
thians, as well as Meletians and Arians, Apologia, c. 77.

2 They were Theognius, Maris, Theodorus, Macedonius, Ur-
sacius, and Valens ; Philagrius, the prefect, accompanied them
to the Mareotis. Socrates, L. 1. c. 31. Apologia contra Arianos,
cc. 13, 14. 28. 72. 74. According to the statement in c. 15,
they committed many acts of violence upon the Catholics of
Alexandria.

COUNCIL OF NIOffiA. 69

missioners were selected from the personal enemies
of Athanasius ; and while Macarius was detained in
custody at Tyre, his accuser, Ischyras, was allowed
to accompany them. Athanasius, therefore, finding
that ] the Count Dionysius, whom Constantine had
sent to preside over the synod, was hostile to him,
and that, notwithstanding his urgent remonstrances,
the commission was composed entirely of his enemies,
secretly withdrew and went to the Emperor.

According to Athanasius, the result of the inquiry
was wholly in favour of Macarius ; 2 and Ischyras
confessed, in letters addressed to Alexander of
Thessalonica and to Athanasius himself, that the
whole story was a fabrication, and that force had
been employed in order to induce him to tell it,
The investigation into the case of 3 Arsenius resulted

1 Athanasius gives a letter of Alexander, Bishop of Thes
salonica, to Dionysius, in which he affirms that there was a con
spiracy against Athanasius, and complains that none but his
personal enemies had been sent, and that he himself had not been
consulted, Apologia contra Arianos, cc. 27, 28. 80. See also the
letters of the presbyters and deacons of Alexandria to the com
missioners, c. 73 (the Synod of Alexandria complains of the
irregular and violent proceedings of Dionysius, cc. 8, 9) ; and of
the ^Egyptian bishops to Dionysius, c. 79.

2 Apologia contra Arianos, cc. 28. 64. It was proved also,
by the evidence of a catechumen, that at the time when Macarius
was said to have interrupted Ischyras in the performance of the
divine offices, and to have broken the cup, Ischyras was lying ill
in his cell.

3 Socrates says that the name of the accuser in the matter of
Arsenius was Ahab or John (the same whom Meletius con-

70 COUNCIL OF NIC^A.

also in the establishment of the innocence of Atha-
nasius. We have seen that the Meletians had
1 directed Arsenius to conceal himself; he was, how
ever, 2 discovered providentially in the following
manner. He went privately to Tyre ; and the ser
vants of Archelaus, a man of consular rank, heard
some men in a tavern say that Arsenius, who was
reported to have been murdered, was in the house
of a person whose name they mentioned. The ser
vants, having taken such notice of the individuals
who made the statement as to be able to recognize
them, reported what they had heard to their master,
who forthwith sought out and secured Arsenius, and

secrated, according to Epiphanius), and that he contrived to escape
in the confusion which followed the detection of the falsehood, L. 1.
c. 30. Apologia contra Arianos, c. 65, where he is called Arcaph.

1 See the letter of the presbyter Pinnes, in which he gives an
account of the manner in which he enabled Arsenius to avoid the
pursuit of the deacon of Athanasius, Apologia, c. 67.

2 Socrates, L. 1. c. 29. Apologia contra Arianos, c. 65.
Athanasius gives a letter in which Alexander Bishop of Thes-
salonica congratulates him on the detection of the conspiracy in
the case of Arsenius, c. 66 ; and one from Arsenius himself, in
which Arsenius expresses his anxiety to be received into com
munion with the Catholic Church ; but it contains no allusion
either to the charge or to the detection of the fraud, c. 69. He
gives also one from Constantine to John or Ahab, in proof that
the latter had expressed his sorrow for having been a party to
the accusation. The letter, however, only expresses the Em
peror s satisfaction at the return of John to the communion of the
Church, and his reconciliation to Athanasius, c. 70. Socrates
states that Arsenius subscribed the sentence of deprivation against
Athanasius, L. 1. c. 32. The Benedictine editor doubts this : nor
is it probable.

COUNCIL OF NIC^A. 71

sent word to Athanasius that he need be under no
alarm, as Arsenius was alive. Arsenius, when seized,
pretended to be another person; but Paul, Bishop
of Tyre, who had known him long before, identified
him. When, therefore, Athanasius was summoned
before the synod and the hand was produced, he
asked his accusers whether any of them knew Arse
nius. Many affirming that they did, Arsenius was
introduced, having his hands concealed beneath his
garment. Athanasius then asked whether this was
the man whose hand was cut off; and, gradually
unfolding the garment, showed first one, then the
other of his hands ; and turning to those present,
said : " Arsenius, as you see, has two hands ; ] whence
the third was obtained, let my enemies explain."

Notwithstanding, however, these proofs of the
innocence of Athanasius, the synod, when the com
missioners returned from the Mareotis, pronounced
a sentence of deprivation against him. He must
have been prepared for this result, since it was
almost entirely composed of his 2 enemies ; and, if

1 Socrates doubts, or affects to doubt, whether the accuser of
Athanasius had cut the hand from a dead body, or had purposely
murdered a man in order to obtain it, c. 27. Sozomen, L. 2. c. 25,
gives the statement made by the Meletians of the grounds on which
they were justified in believing that Arsenius was dead.

2 Eusebius of Caesarea and George of Laodicea, who had been
degraded by Alexander, took an active part : Apologia contra
Arianos, cc. 8. 77. Many, however, of those present did not
concur in the sentence. Paphnutius, in particular, took Maximus,

72 COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

we can place implicit reliance on the account given
by him, they were themselves so ashamed of their
proceedings, that ] they endeavoured to suppress the
publication of the Acts of the Council. One copy,
however, fell into the hands of Julius, Bishop of
Rome, who communicated it to Athanasius. 2 Four
Alexandrian presbyters were also banished by the
synod, though they had not appeared at Tyre. At
the conclusion of their proceedings, 3 the bishops, in
obedience to the Emperor s commands, proceeded to
Jerusalem to celebrate the dedication of the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre. On their arrival they re
ceived Arius and Euzoius 4 into communion, in
compliance, as they said, with the Emperor s in
junction ; and 5 in a synodical letter urged the
Alexandrians to restore peace to the Church by
receiving the Arians generally. The concourse of

Bishop of Jerusalem, by the hand, and led him out of the
assembly, saying that they were confessors, and ought not to be
associated with wicked men. Sozomen, L. 2. c. 21.

1 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 83.

* Apologia, cc. 17. 40. Their names were Aphthonius, Atha
nasius the son of Capito, Paul, and Plutio.

3 Socrates, L. 1. c. 33. Sozomen, L. 2. c. 27.

4 They also received John, the accuser of Athanasius : Sozo
men, L. 2. cc. 25. 31. Ad Monachos, c. 1. Sozomen says that
Constantine afterwards banished John, as well as Athanasius.

5 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 84. De Synodis, cc. 21, 22.
In this letter they say that Constantine was satisfied of the ortho
doxy of Arius. Athanasius remarks upon their inconsistency in
pretending that they were anxious to restore the peace of the
Church, while they had banished him in order to restore
Arius.

COUNCIL OF NIC^A. 73

the bishops on the occasion was so great, that l Euse-
bius compares the Synod of Jerusalem to that of
Nicasa. After the completion of the ceremony,
2 they gave an account of their proceedings to the
Emperor ; but in the mean time, as we have seen,
Athanasius had gone to Constantinople. There he
took an early opportunity of throwing himself in
the Emperor s way, and having with difficulty ob
tained a hearing, succeeded in persuading Constan-
tine that he had been unjustly condemned, and that
his accusers ought to be summoned thither in order
that he might have an opportunity of clearing him
self in their presence of the charges brought against
him. Constantine in consequence addressed a 3 letter
to the bishops at Tyre, in which, after giving a
graphic account of his meeting with Athanasius, he
charged them with having conducted the proceed
ings at Tyre tumultuously, with a view rather to the

1 De vita Constantini, cc. 43. 47. The Oxford annotator
calls this comparison invidious : I know not why. De Synodis,
c. 20.

2 In their letter to the Emperor they stated that they had con
demned Athanasius because he had obstinately refused to comply
with the summons to attend at Csesarea ; because he had come
to Tyre with a multitude in his train, had conducted himself with
great intemperance and violence, and had at last avoided the
judgment of the synod by flight ; and because they were satisfied
by the report of the commissioners of the truth of the charges
respecting Macarius and the broken cup. Sozomen, L. 2.
c. 25.

3 Socrates, L. 1. c. 34. Sozomen, L. 2. c. 28. Apologia
contra Arianos, c. 86.

74 COUNCIL OF NIC^A.

gratification of their animosity than to the esta
blishment of the truth, and summoned them to his
presence.

Most of the bishops had already returned to their
dioceses. l But Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognius,
Patrophilus, Ursacius, and Valens went to Constan
tinople ; and instead of attempting to substantiate
the charges already brought forward, preferred 2 a new
one that Athanasius had threatened to prevent the
exportation from Alexandria of the corn usually sent
to Constantinople. This charge, though highly im
probable in itself, Constantino either believed or
affected to believe ; he was naturally weary of these
never-ending disputes, and Socrates insinuates that,
regarding Athanasius as the only or principal ob
stacle to the re-establishment of unity in the Church,
the Emperor was glad of a pretence for removing
him out of the way and banishing him to Treves.
Athanasius himself 3 ascribed his banishment to the
wish of the Emperor to place him out of the reach

1 Socrates, L. 1. c. 35. Theodoret, L. 1. c. 31. Sozomen,
L. 2. c. 28, names Theodorus of Heraclea in the place of Patro
philus. Apologia contra Arianos, c. 87, where a second Eusebius
is mentioned.

2 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 9.

3 Or rather the synod of Egyptian bishops, Apologia contra
Arianos, c. 9. They insinuate that the Eusebians hoped by the last
charge to induce Constantine to punish Athanasius capitally, Ad
Monachos, c. 50. The Benedictine editor places the banishment
of Athanasius A.D. 336.

COUNCIL OF NIC^A. 75

of his enemies ; and in the l letter which the younger
Constantino addressed to the people of Alexandria
when he sent back Athanasius from Gaul, he inti
mates this, and adds that his father fully intended
to revoke the sentence of banishment. It is diffi
cult otherwise to account for Constantino s conduct.
According to the Representation of Athanasius, when
he was summoned to Nicomedia and charged with
having been engaged in a conspiracy, Constantino
was satisfied of his innocence. The result of the
inquiry carried on at 3 Nicomedia into the charge
respecting Macarius and the broken cup, as well as
of that instituted before Dalmatius the censor, at
Antioch, respecting the mutilation of Arsenius, was
equally favourable to Athanasius; the 4 Emperor
expressed himself satisfied of his innocence, though
he remitted both the charges to the bishops assembled
at Tyre. It was not till the charge of threatening
to stop the supply of corn from Alexandria was
brought that Constantino yielded to the solicitations
of his accusers. The threat was one calculated
greatly to incense Constantino, inasmuch as it
directly affected his authority ; but it was, as

1 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 87. Theodoret says that Con-
stantine, before his death, directed Athanasius to return, in spite
of the remonstrances of Eusebius, L. 1. c. 32 ; L. 2. c. 2.

2 Apologia, c. 60.

3 Apologia, c. 65.

4 See the letter of Constantine to Athanasius, Apologia,
c. 68.

7G COUNCIL OF NIOffiA.

1 the Egyptian bishops represent, in the highest degree
improbable that it was ever uttered ; and the pre
cipitancy with which his banishment was pronounced,
lends countenance to the account given by Socrates
of the motives by which Constantine was influenced.
Wearied, as I have already said, by the never-
ending disputes, and assailed by the incessant repre
sentations of the members of his family and his
court, who were for the most part attached to the
Eusebian party, he persuaded himself that he was
consulting the peace of the empire and of the Church,
as well as his own, by banishing Athanasius.

2 It is to be observed, that the charges against
Athanasius turned entirely upon acts committed by
him in the administration of his diocese ; upon his
tyrannical exercise of power, either over his own
clergy or over the Meletians. No charge of heretical
teaching was brought against him. Notwithstanding
the inconsistency of Constantino s conduct towards
him personally, the Emperor appears steadily to
have maintained the decree of the Nicene Council.
3 The friends of Arius were obliged to profess that

1 They ask how a private, and not rich, individual could stop
the supply of corn. The Eusebians, however, appear to have
represented Athanasius as rich and powerful : Apologia contra
Arianos, c. 9.

2 Compare the decree of the Arian Synod of Philippopolis.
Hilarii ex historico opere Fragm. iii. cc. 6, 7.

s Socrates, L. 1. c. 25: fyaaKwv pi aXXug (ppot ~iv apeiov r)
u Ttj ffvvufy doKtl.. See also Sozomen, L. 3. c. 19, and the

COUNCIL OF NIOEA. 77

his doctrine had always been in accordance with
that of the Council, before they could procure per
mission for him to return from banishment ; nor was
it till after the death of Constantino that any
attempt was made to substitute another creed in the
place of the Nicene.

After the banishment of Athanasius, l Arius re
turned to Alexandria, and again created confusion by
openly preaching his doctrine. Constantino, in conse
quence, summoned him to Constantinople. Alexander
then occupied that see, having succeeded Metro-
phanes. Regarding himself as the guardian of the
Nicene faith, but alarmed at the threats of Euse-
bius that he should be deprived unless he admitted
Arius to communion, he was in a great strait. In
his distress he fled to God ; and after frequent fast
ings and supplications, shut himself up in the church
called Irene, and there, prostrate beneath the holy
table, 2 prayed for several successive days and nights

note of the Benedictine editor on Hilary contra Constantium,
c. 27.

1 Socrates, L. 1. cc. 37, 38. Sozomen, L. 2. c. 29, who says
that Arius went to Constantinople, because the Church of Alex
andria refused to communicate with him. Athanasius, Ep. ad
Serapionem, c. 2, says, that the Eusebians prevailed upon the
Emperor to send for him.

2 Athanasius gives a somewhat different and certainly more
unobjectionable version of the prayer. According to him, Alex
ander prayed that God would either have mercy on the Church
and remove Arius from the world ; or would remove him (Alex
ander), that he might not witness the reception of Arius. Ep.

78 COUNCIL OF NIOffiA.

with many tears, that if the doctrine of Arius were
true, he might not live until the day appointed for
the discussion, which was to take place in the pre
sence of Constantine ; but that if his own doctrine
were true, Arius might receive the punishment
of his impiety. Constantine required Arius to
declare on oath that he adhered to the Nicene
faith ; and believing him, commanded him to be re
ceived into communion by Alexander. This took
place on Saturday ; and Arius, who was to be re
ceived into communion on the following day, after
he had quitted the Emperor s presence, went as it
were in triumph through the streets of the city,
surrounded by his partizans. When he came to
the 2 forum of Constantine, his conscience smiting
him on account of his perjury, he was seized with
a looseness, and went aside to 3 a place behind
the forum, where he died, having voided the smaller
intestines, the spleen and the liver. Such was the

ad Serapionem, c. 3. In this letter Alexander is called 6 pciKa-
pirrjQ. See ad Ep. -^Egypt. et Lib. c. 21.

1 Athanasius states the conversation which passed between
Constantine and Arius, and says that the latter used the words of
Scripture, secretly applying to them his own interpretation. Ad
Ep. ^Egypt. etLib. c. 18. Socrates tells, from hearsay, a strange
story respecting an equivocation practised by Arius : he wrote
out his own confession of faith, and having concealed it under his
arm, swore, when he subscribed the Nicene confession, that he
believed as he had written.

2 ti da. o TrofMpvpovQ icpvrat KIUJV.

3 Socrates says that the place continued to be pointed out in
his day.

COUNCIL OF NICffiA. 79

death of Arius, which the Emperor regarded as a
testimony borne by God to the truth of the Nicene
doctrine ; and respecting which Gibbon says, that
we must make our choice between a miracle and
poison. I must confess myself unable to see the
necessity. There is nothing in the circumstance
which, if we make due allowance for exaggeration,
may not be accounted for by natural causes. It was
not a miraculous or preternatural interposition ; but
a most striking and awful event, occurring in the
ordinary course of God s providential government.

The death of Arius was followed quickly by that
of the 2 Emperor himself.

We have seen that the Eusebians availed them
selves of the ascendancy which they obtained at the
Synod of Antioch, in order to oppress and persecute

1 Sozomen says that Arius was found dead on the seat, and
that various opinions were entertained respecting the cause of his
death : some thought that it was occasioned by a sudden affection
of the heart or of the bowels, produced by the excitement arising
from joy at his success ; others, that it was inflicted in punish
ment of his impiety ; others ascribed it to magical arts. L. 2.
c. 29. Athanasius speaks of it as a manifest judgment of God ;
but the description which he gives of it is that of a natural,
though awfully sudden death. He was not himself at Constan
tinople when the event occurred, but received the account from
the presbyter Macarius. Ep. ad Serapionem, c. 3. Ad Ep.
-Sigypt. et Lib. c. 18. Ad Monachos, c. 51.

2 Socrates, L. 1. c. 19. Sozomen, L. 2. c. 34. Theodoret,
L. 1. c. 32. In the year 337, according to the Benedictine editor.

80 COUNCIL OF NIC./EA.

their opponents. The result of the Synod of Tyre
gave them still greater confidence ; and when they
met at Constantinople, they deposed l Marcellus,
Bishop of Ancyra, whom we have mentioned as
joining Athanasius at Nicsea in the defence of the
Homoousian doctrine. He appears, however, in
defending that doctrine against Asterius, an Arian of
whom Athanasius makes frequent mention, to have
been betrayed into the use of language, in which his
adversaries discovered the 2 heresy of Paul of Sa-
mosata, that of denying the pre-existence of Christ.
The real cause of his deposition was, according to
Sozomen, that he had refused to join in the pro
ceedings of the Eusebians in the Synods of Tyre
and Jerusalem, and had absented himself from the
dedication of the church of the Holy Sepulchre,
because he was unwilling to hold communion with
them. 3 His own account of the expressions to
which objection had been taken was, that he had
used them, not to convey his own deliberate opinions,
but merely in order to provoke inquiry. He appears,

1 Socrates, L. I.e. 36. Sozomen, L. 2. c. 33. De Fuga, c. 3.
Ad Monachos, c. 6. Basil was sent to Ancyra in his place.
Theodoret, L. 2. cc. 25. 27. This happened in the year
336.

2 See the account of his opinions, given in the decree of the
Synod of Philippopolis. Hilarii ex historico opere Fragm. iii.
c. 2. In the Macrostic confession of faith, he is coupled with
Photinus. De Synodis, c. 26.

3 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 47.

COUNCIL OF NIOffiA. 81

however, to have leaned to } Sabellianism, although
2 Pope Julius, in his letter to the Oriental bishops,
maintains his orthodoxy. Athanasius himself did
not venture absolutely to affirm it ; but his evident
disinclination to condemn Marcellus gave the Arians
a handle against him 3 . He was restored to the com
munion of the Church at the Council of Sardica.

Another case in which Athanasius charged the
Eusebians with acting with great injustice and
cruelty, was that of Paul, 4 who succeeded Alexander
in the bishopric of Constantinople. Valesius has
written a particular dissertation on the dates con
nected with the events of his episcopacy. 5 In the
decree of the Arian Synod of Philippopolis it is
stated, that he subscribed the deposition of Atha
nasius at Tyre ; a statement not easily reconciled to
the language in which Athanasius speaks of him,
nor to the fact that he was himself, in the 6 following
year, ejected from his bishopric ; to which, however,

1 Eusebius of Caesarea wrote two separate works against him,
which are still extant.

2 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 32. See the reply of Athanasius
to the question put by Epiphanius respecting him, to which
Gibbon has referred. Hseres. Ixxii.

3 See Basil, Ep. 69 or 52.

4 According to Sozomen, Alexander named both Paul and
Macedonius as qualified to succeed him, but gave the preference
to Paul. L. 3. c. 3. Socrates, L. 2. c. 6.

5 Hilarii ex historico opere Fragm. iii. c. 13.

It was alleged that he had been consecrated irregularly, and
that he led a dissolute life. Sozomen, L. 3. c. 3.

82 COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

he was restored at the death of Constantine, when
the other ejected bishops returned to their sees.

1 He was again ejected by the artifices of Eusebius
of Ni corned ia, who took possession of the bishopric.

2 At the death of Eusebius, he returned to Con
stantinople at the invitation of the Catholics, the
Arians at the same time inviting Macedonius. Vio
lent tumults in consequence arose : the populace
took part with Paul, and Hermogenes, who was
sent by Constantius to quell the disturbances, was
murdered. The Emperor, in consequence, went in
person to Constantinople, and directed Paul to be
carried in chains to 3 Sangaris in Mesopotamia, thence
to Emesa, and lastly to Cucusus in Cappadocia,
where he was strangled by the order of Philip the
Prefect, who had first tried to kilt him by starvation.
We may observe that Athanasius is scarcely justified
in casting the odium of the death of Paul upon the
Eusebians: it appears rather to have been the act
of Constantius himself, who might consider Paul as

1 Socrates, L. 2. c. 7. Sozomen, L. 3. c. 4. He was then
banished to Pontus. Ad Monachos, c. 8. The Benedictine
editor refers this banishment to Pontus to his first ejection from
the see.

2 Socrates, L. 2. c. 12. Sozomen, L. 3. c. 7.

3 Ad Monachos, c. 8 ; De Fuga, c. 3 ; Theodoret, L. 2. c. 5.
Socrates, L. 2. c. 15, and Sozomen, L. 3. c. 8, both say that Paul,
after his expulsion on account of the death of Hermogenes, went
to Rome, and procured letters from Julius directing that he
should be restored to his see. Valesius deems this statement
incorrect, and quotes the authority of Theodoret against it.

COUNCIL OF NIC^EA. 83

the instigator of the tumult in which Hermogenes
lost his life, and deal with him in consequence as
an offender against his authority.

One of the first objects which occupied the at
tention of the three sons of Constantino, among
whom the empire was divided at his death, was the
restoration of peace to the Church. l They met in
Pannonia, and agreed that the exiled bishops should
be allowed to return to their sees. Athanasius, there
fore, after a 2 sojourn of two years and four months at
Treves, returned to Alexandria, bearing a letter from
the younger Constantine to the lay members of the
Church, in which he told them, that in sending
back Athanasius he was only fulfilling his father s
intention. Both the clergy and laity received their
bishop with 3 every demonstration of joy; but he
was not allowed a long respite from the attacks of
his enemies.

The 4 Eusebians appear to have been able to make
no impression on Constantine and Constans by their

1 Ad Monachos, c. 8 ; Apologia contra Arianos, c. 87 ;
Socrates, L. 2. c. 3 ; Sozomen, L. 3. c. 2.

2 This is the statement of Theodoret, L. 2. c. 1. The Bene
dictine editor places the return of Athanasius in 338. See Philo-
storgius, L. 2. c. 18.

3 Such is the statement of the Alexandrian Synod. Apologia
contra Arianos, c. 7. The Arians appear to have given a very
different representation of his reception.

4 Ad Monachos, c. 9.

G 2

LIBRARY ST. MARY S COLLEGE

84 COUNCIL OF NIC^EA.

representations; but the case was different with
Constantius. ] Socrates gives a lively description of
the manner in which the presbyter, through whose
influence Constantine was induced to recal Arius
from banishment, and 2 in whose hands he placed
his will, with directions to deliver it only to Con
stantius, gained over first the eunuchs, and after
wards the wife of Constantius, to the Arian party.
Confident, therefore, that they should find the Em
peror disposed readily to receive any accusations
which they might bring against Athanasius, 3 the
Eusebians charged him with having acted with
great violence on his return to Alexandria. They
represented him also as guilty of 4 great contumacy

1 L. 2. c. 2. Sozomen, L. 3. c. 18. Theodoret, L. 2. c. 3.
Socrates represents the rage for theological disputation as per
vading not only the palace, but all private houses throughout the
East. According to Sozomen, Constantius embraced the Homce-
ousian doctrine under the impression that the word homoousius
implied something corporeal.

2 See the improbable account given by Philostorgius, L. 2.
c. 16.

3 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 5. The ^Egyptian bishops re
tort the charge, and accuse the Arians of being guilty of great
outrages, when the commissioners, sent by the Synod of Tyre to
inquire into the affair of Macarius, went to Alexandria, ac
companied by Philagrius and Ischyras. C. 15. The probability
is, that there was truth in the statements of both parties. The
people of Alexandria, were always noted for their turbulence ;
and in the exasperated frame of mind in which both parties were,
it was not to be expected that either, when it got the upper
hand, would use its power with moderation.

4 Socrates, L. 2. c. 8.

COUNCIL OF NIC^A. 85

in returning before the sentence pronounced against
him by the Synod of Tyre had been reversed by the
decision of another synod ; they renewed the old
charges respecting the broken cup and the mutilation
of Arsenius ; and further l accused him of diverting
to his own use the corn intended for the support of
the widows of Alexandria.

Both parties were naturally 2 desirous to secure
the support of the bishop of Rome. The Eusebians
sent the presbyter Macarius and the deacons Mar-
tyrius and Hesychius on an embassy to Julius, in
order to persuade him that the charges preferred
against Athanasius at the Synod of Tyre were well
founded. They appear, however, to have been com
pletely 3 confuted by the presbyters whom Atha
nasius had sent from Alexandria to defend his
cause. Macarius in consequence quitted Rome se
cretly, leaving his two companions there, who called
upon Julius to summon a synod for the settlement
of all the points in dispute. They made this demand,
according to Athanasius, in the expectation that he
would not appear at Rome.

In the mean time he, in order to add strength to

1 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 18. The Egyptian bishops
say, that the Arians wished to transfer it to their own use.

2 Ammianus Marcellinus mentions the anxiety shown by
Constantius to gain over Liberius to the Arian cause.

3 Apologia contra Arianos, cc. 22. 24.

86 COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

his cause, had assembled a * synod at Alexandria,
to whose letter, which is inserted in his apology
against the Arians, reference has already been
made; and with a similar view the Eusebians as
sembled at 2 Antioch, in the presence of Constantius,
the synod which was called the Synod of the Dedi
cation, because the alleged plea for convening it
was the dedication of a church which had been left
unfinished by Constantine. Socrates, however, says
that the real object was to set aside the confession
of faith agreed upon at Nicasa. This, as we have
seen, the Eusebians despaired of effecting so long as
8 Constantine lived : but as they had persuaded

1 In the year 340. Eusebius of Caesarea died in the pre
ceding year, and was succeeded by Acacius. Socrates, L. 2.
c. 4. Sozomen, L. 3. c. 2, who places the death of the younger
Constantine shortly after.

2 In the year 341. Socrates, L. 2. c. 8. Sozomen, L. 3. c. 5.
It was held in the fifth year after the death of Constantine,
Flacillus, who succeeded Euphronius, being bishop of Antioch.
Ninety bishops (Sozomen says ninety-seven) attended; but
neither Maximus of Jerusalem nor Julius of Rome, either in
person or by deputy ; although, Socrates adds, it was contrary to
ecclesiastical rule to promulge canons without the sanction of the
Bishop of Rome.

3 Sozomen, L. 3. c. 1 ; L. 3. c. 18. In c. 13, Sozomen gives an
account of the state of theological opinion in the Eastern Churches.
He says that the Western adhered, almost without exception, to
the Nicene Creed. He thought also, that the great majority of
the Eastern concurred in believing that the Son is of the essence
of the Father, IK Trjz TOV Trarpoe ovo-me, but that many having at
first objected to the word bfj.oovffiog, were prevented by false
shame from afterwards adopting it.

COUNCIL OF NIC^EA. 87

Constantius that the word o/uoou&lt;w&gt;c necessarily
implied something corporeal, they felt assured that
they should now be able to expunge it from the
creed.

1 Four creeds were set forth at this Council. In
the first, as if conscious that they laboured under
the suspicion of Arianism, the framers began with
saying that they were not followers of Arius, for
how could bishops follow a presbyter? but that
they had received Arius into communion, finding,
on examination, that his faith was correct. They
then put forth a profession of faith, in which, as
Sozomen justly observes, they appeared designedly
to omit every expression which could be objected to
by either party, and did not even state whether the
Son is co-eternal and co-essential with the Father,
or not.

Of the second creed Sozomen says, that it ap
peared to him to agree in all points with the Nicene
faith, excepting that it omitted the word ofioou&lt;noc.
This creed they professed 2 to possess in the hand
writing of Lucian, who suffered martyrdom at Nico-

1 De Synodis, c. 22. Socrates, L. 2. c. 10. Sozomen, L. 3.
c. 5. He remarks that they did not object to any thing in the
Nicene creed.

2 Sozomen appears to doubt the truth of this statement. For
the different opinions of learned men on the point, see the note
of the Oxford annotator De Synodis, c. 23.

88 COUNCIL OF NIC^EA.

media, and was, as we have seen, the master of
Eusebius, Arius, and others of that party. The
Oxford annotator calls it semi-Arian ; ] Hilary pro
nounces it orthodox.

The 2 third creed was put forth by Theophronius,
Bishop of Tyana ; and the 3 fourth was the creed
with which 4 Narcissus, 5 Maris, 6 Theodorus, and

1 De Synodis, c. 28. Hilary speaks favourably of the council.

2 De Synodis, c. 24. Nothing is known of Theophronius. The
Benedictine editor says that there is nothing censurable in the
creed excepting the omission of the word ujj,oovfftoQ. He says
the same of the fourth creed.

3 De Synodis, c. 25. Socrates, L. 2. c. 18. Sozomen,L. 3.c. 10.

4 Narcissus was Bishop of Neronias, in Cilicia, and was one of
the early supporters of Arius. De Synodis, c. 17. He appears
to have been personally hostile to Athanasius, and to have joined
in the calumnies thrown out against him in consequence of his
flight. De Fuga, c. 1. He was deposed at the Council of
Sardica. Apologia contra Arianos, cc. 36. 48, 49. Ad Ep.
jEgypt. et Lib. c. 7, where Athanasius speaks of him as one
Trpoc TTciffav acrt(3eiar TO\fj.r)poTa-og. See also De Fuga, c. 26,
where he is said to have been deposed in three different Synods.
Hilary ad Const. L. I.e. 5. Ad Monachos, c. 17.

5 Maris was Bishop of Chalcedon. We have seen that he
took an active part in support of Arius at the Nicene Council,
and refused to subscribe the confession of faith ; but that, ac
cording to Philostorgius, he afterwards abandoned the Homce-
ousian doctrine. He was one of the commissioners sent into
the Mareotis to inquire into the case of Macarius. He was
present at the Council of Constantinople, at which the third
Sirmian confession was altered by the Acacian party. Socrates,
L. 2. c. 41. Socrates records a conversation between him and
Julian, in which he boldly upbraided Julian with his apostacy,
L. 3. c. 12.

5 We have seen that Theodorus was one of the commissioners
sent into the Mareotis. Athanasius says that the Arians made

COUNCIL OF NIOEA. 89

1 Mark were 2 sent to Constans, in Gaul, in the hope
of attaching him to the Eusebian party. Neither
of these creeds contains the word o^uooucnoe. We
have seen that when, at the command of Constan-
tine, Eusebius of Caesarea inserted the word in the
creed which he drew up at Nicsea, he added an
explanation of the sense in which it was to be
understood : it was to be understood, not in the
sense of any bodily affection, as implying subsistence
by division or abscission from the Father, but in a
divine and ineffable sense ; since that which is
immaterial and the object of the intellect and in
corporeal, cannot be subject to any bodily affection.
By adding this explanation, he meant to anticipate
the objection which the Eusebians made to the
word. They objected to it on the ground that it is
applicable only to things corporeal, to men, and
animals, and trees, and plants, which are generated

him Bishop of Heraclea. Ad Ep. ^Egypt. et Lib. c. 7. He was
deposed at the Council of Sardica. Apologia contra Arianos,
cc. 36. 49. Ad Monachos, cc. 17. 28. He was an Homceousian.
Philostorgius, L. 8. c. 17. He died before the banishment of
Liberius. Theodoret, L. 2. c. 16. Hilary ad Const. L. 1. c. 5.

1 Mark was Bishop of Arethusa in Syria. Socrates, L. 2.
c. 18. He composed one of the professions of faith set forth at
Sirmium, L. 2. c. 30, and having destroyed a heathen temple at
Arethusa, in the reign of Julian, was commanded by the Emperor
either to rebuild, or to defray the cost of rebuilding it. As he could
do neither, the heathen population of the place murdered him,
after they had compelled him to undergo the most excruciating
torments. Sozomen, L. 5. c. 10. The Oxford annotator calls
him a semi-Arian. De Synodis, note on c. 25.

2 According to the Benedictine editor this mission took place
A.D. 341.

90 COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

from that which is like to them, and participate of
it; and they contended that the word o^oioutrtoc is
the proper word to be used with reference to in
corporeal beings, as God and angels, of each of
whom we form a notion separately, according to his
proper essence. By these subtleties they induced
Constantius to adopt the Homoeousian doctrine, or
perhaps we should rather say, language ; for Sozomen
states, that Constantius really agreed in opinion
with his father and his brother Constans; but was
1 afraid to use the term O/UOOVGIOQ, lest he should con
found things corporeal and incorporeal a vain fear,
Sozomen very justly adds ; since when we speak of
the objects of the intellect, we must borrow our
language from the objects of sense ; and so long as
the meaning which we attach to them is correct, the
words are of little consequence. This statement of
Sozomen accounts for the determination of the Eu-
sebians to exclude the word o/uooutrioe from the creeds
which they put forth : I have already explained
why Athanasius insisted so pertinaciously on its
insertion.

To return to the proceedings of the synod of An-
tioch, it confirmed 2 the sentence of deposition pro
nounced against Athanasius at Tyre, and sent Gre
gory of Cappadocia to take possession of the see of

1 See the explanation of the bishops assembled at Antioch in
the reign of Jovian. Socrates, L. 3. c. 25.

2 Sozomen, L. 3. c. 5. Theodoret, L. 2. c. 4.

COUNCIL OF NIC.EA. 91

Alexandria. Although Athanasius had been banished
to Treves, yet as he had not been convicted, nor even
accused of holding heretical doctrine, l Constantine
does not appear to have sent any one to occupy his
place.

After the death of Constantine 2 the Eusebians
endeavoured to prevail upon Julius, while Atha
nasius was still at Alexandria, to recognize as bishop
Pistus, who had been expelled by Alexander for
Arianism, and had been consecrated by Secundus.
They failed in their attempt: and the Synod of
Antioch then offered the bishopric to 3 Eusebius
Emisenus, who declined it, knowing the attachment
of the Alexandrians to Athanasius, and fearing their
turbulent temper. Gregory, therefore, was sent ; and
his arrival was the signal for the 4 commencement of
a series of violent proceedings against the Catholics
who manifested their dislike of his intrusion. Vir
gins were insulted and scourged ; monks were trod
den under foot ; the holy temple was profaned ; the
sacred books thrown into the flames ; a church and
baptistery were burned. Sarapammon, who had been
a confessor, was banished; and Potamo, whose re-

1 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 29. See the remarks of the
Benedictine editor.

2 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 24. See also the Encyclical
Letter, c. 6.

3 Socrates, L. 2. c. 9. Sozomen, L. 3. c. 6.

4 See the Encyclical Letter, cc. 3.5. Apologia contra Arianos,
c. 30. Ad Monachos, cc. 10. 12.

92 COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

buke of Eusebius of Caesarea at the Synod of Tyre
has been already noticed, was so severely beaten
that he died in consequence of the injuries which he
received. These outrages were committed by Phila-
grius, the prefect, and the military, at the instigation
of Gregory. They went at last in search of Atha-
nasius to the church at which he chiefly resided,
with the intent to put him to death ; but he secretly
withdrew, and escaped their fury. He ] appears
about this time to have received from Julius a sum
mons to attend the synod which was to meet at
Rome, and in consequence to have repaired thither;
having first addressed a 2 letter to Constans, in
which he defended himself against the charges of the
Eusebians. He sent with it the volumes of the Scrip
tures which Constans had ordered him to prepare.

Although the Eusebians had urged Julius to sum
mon a synod, yet when he informed them, through
the presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus, that he was
ready to hold it, and that 3 Athanasius had been

1 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 29. His language, Ad Mona-
chos, c. 11, seems to imply that he left Alexandria before the
violent proceedings of Philagrius took place. The Benedictine
editor endeavours to reconcile the apparent contradiction by sup
posing that he fled on receiving the report of the outrages com
mitted at the church of Cyrinus, and remained for some days
concealed in the neighbourhood of Alexandria, and wrote the
Encyclical Letter. Compare Sozomen, L. 3. c. 6. Theodoret,
L. 2. c. 4.

2 Ad Constantium, c. 4.

3 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 29.

COUNCIL OF NIC^A. 93

residing eighteen months at Rome, instead of attend
ing to his summons, l they detained his messengers
and made various excuses for not repairing thither.
They complained of the shortness of the notice, and
of the impediments thrown in the way of travelling
by the Persian war. 2 A synod, however, was held,
and attended by fifty bishops, who received Atha-
nasius and 3 Marcellus into communion. At their
request Julius addressed a 4 letter to the heads of the
Eusebian party, who were present at the Synod of
the Dedication, in which he complained that, having
urged him to summon a synod, Eusebius had, when
invited, refused in uncivil terms to attend it.
Nothing, he goes on to say, had been proved
against Athanasius at Tyre; nor was Athanasius
present in the Mareotis when the investigation
of the charges against him took place. Julius
mentions, as we have already seen, the attempt
made by the messengers of Eusebius to induce him
to recognize Pistus, and a similar attempt made

1 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 25. Ad Monachos, c. 11. See
an account of their letter to Julius. Socrates, L. 2. c. 15. Sozo-
men, L. 3. c. 8.

2 In the year 342. Apologia contra Arianos, cc. 20. 27. Ad
Monachos, c. 15.

3 According to Sozomen, Asclepas of Gaza accompanied them
to Rome, L. 3. c. 8.

4 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 21. It is addressed to Danius
(query Diognius or Theognius), Flacillus, Narcissus, Eusebius,
Maris, Macedonius, Theodorus, and their colleagues, who wrote
to him from Antioch.

94 COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

through the mission of } Carponas to induce him to
recognize Gregory. He states his refusal to accede
to their requests ; and adds that more credit was to
be given to the 2 Egyptian bishops who were on
the spot than to those assembled at Antioch, who
were at a distance when the transactions in the
Mareotis occurred. Gregory, moreover, had taken
possession of the see by violence, through the inter
vention of an armed force, had committed various
enormities, and persecuted all who opposed the
Arians. He alleges the long interval during which
the see of Alexandria had remained vacant as a
proof that Athanasius had not been convicted of
any offence at Tyre ; and concludes his letter with
3 complaining that the bishops at Antioch had pro
ceeded to pronounce sentence without previous com
munication with the Church of Rome, and with
exhorting them to follow his example and to receive
Athanasius and Marcellus into communion. All
the bishops of Italy appear to have concurred in the
sentiments expressed in this letter.

1 Carponas has been mentioned as one of the early supporters
of Arius.

2 In their Synodical Letter. Apologia contra Arianos, c. 3.

* el f.iv ovv TI TOIOVTOV i]v vTTOTrrevOei eig TOV tiriaKOTrov TOV
Ki. C)L ?rpoc TYJV irravda kK\r)alav ypo0?/vat. Apologia contra
Arianos, c. 35. Compare Sozomen, L. 3. c. 8. He represents
the Oriental bishops as confessing the greatness and orthodoxy of
the Church of Rome, but denying to it any pre-eminence over
their own Churches.

COUNCIL OF NICJEA. 95

Matters were in this state when Constans, who
was then at Milan, ] at the request of some of
the bishops who had met at Rome, suggested to
Constantius that, in order to put an end to the dis
putes which troubled and disgraced the Church, a
general council should be summoned to Sardica.
But before it met, the Eusebians called a synod at
Antioch, in which they agreed upon the 2 con
fession of faith known by the name of the Ma-
crostich, on account of its length, and sent it into
Italy by the hands of 3 Eudoxius, Martyrius, and

1 Ad Monaclios, cc. 15, 16, 17. Apologia contra Arianos, cc.
36, 37. Ad Constantium, c. 4.

2 A.D. 344. De Synodis, c. 26. The Oxford annotator calls
it semi-Arian, but of the higher kind. The framers object to
the use of the terms evdiaQeroQ and Trpo^optKoe Xoyoe as applied
to Christ ; and interpret Proverbs viii. 22, not of the incarnation,
with Athanasius, but of the generation of the Son from the
Father.

3 Socrates, L. 2. c. 19. Sozomen, L. 3. c. 11. Eudoxius
was Bishop of Germanicia, in Syria. De Synodis, c. 1. Socrates,
L. 2. c. 19. Sozomen, L. 3. c. 5. Eustathius, Bishop of An
tioch, refused to ordain him on account of his heretical opinions,
but the Arians advanced him to the episcopate. Ad Monachos,
c. 4. Ad Ep. ^Egypt. et Lib. c. 7. Socrates, L. 2. c. 40. He
was deposed at the Synod of Seleucia, De Synodis, c. 12, or of
Ariminum. Ad Afros, c. 3. Theodoret, L. ii. c. 23. He after
wards became Bishop of Antioch, De Synodis, c. 12. Socrates,
L. 2. c. 37. Theodoret, L. 2. c. 25. Sozomen, L. 4. c. 12, and
of Constantinople on the expulsion of Macedonius : Socrates,
L. 2. c. 43; L. 4. c. 1. Philostorgius, L. 4. c. 4, where it is
said that he baptized the Emperor Valens. Theodoret, L. 2. c.
27. Philostorgius, L. 5. c. 1. Socrates mentions his death, L t
4. c. 14. He seems to have indulged in profane jests. Socrates
tells us that, immediately after his advancement to the see of
Constantinople, he publicly said that the Father was a&lt;r/3)e,
because He worshipped no one ; and the Son was fvo-c/3)c, be-

96 COUNCIL OF NIC^EA.

1 M acedonius, by whom it 2 was presented to Con-
stans and to the bishops whom he had assembled at
Milan, and who refused to receive it on the ground
that they were satisfied with the Nicene faith 3 . The
Eusebians also drew up 4 a letter in reply to that
which Julius had addressed to them. They denied
that they were bound to refer the case of Athanasius
to Rome, and contended that Julius had been guilty
of a breach of ecclesiastical rule in annulling their
sentence and restoring him to communion. They
said that the Eastern Churches had not interfered
when Novatian was ejected by the Church of Rome ;
and that they would maintain peace and communion
with Julius, if he would concur in the deposition of
the bishops whom they had expelled, and in the
appointment of those who had been substituted in
their place.

5 About one hundred and severity Eastern and

cause He worshipped the Father, L. 2. c. 43. See Theodoret,
L. 2. c. 29. Hilary, De Synodis, c. 13.

1 Macedonius was Bishop of Mopsuestia, in Cilicia. So
crates, L. 2. c. 19. He was one of the commissioners sent into
the Mareotis. Apologia contra Arianos, cc. 13. 72. Hilary
mentions also Demophilus ; and says that when they were asked
to condemn the doctrine of Arius, they quitted the synod in
anger. Athanasius was present at it. P. 1331.

2 A.D. 345.

3 Socrates, L. 2. c. 20. Sozomen, L. 3. c. 11. Ad Constan-
tium, c. 4. Hilary, Frag. V. c. 4.

4 Socrates, L. 2. c. 15. Sozomen, L. 3. c. 8. A.D. 347.

5 Ad Monachos, cc. 15, 16, 17. In the beginning of the
Apology against the Arians Athanasius says that more than 300
bishops subscribed ; and there are 284 signatures to the En-

COUNCIL OF NIC^A. 97

Western bishops met at Sardica : the Western
having Hosius at their head ; the Eastern being ac
companied by the Count Musonianus and an officer
of the palace named Hesychius. The Eusebians, how
ever, finding that some of the ! bishops who had
accompanied them to Sardica had seceded from
them, and that they could not carry matters with
the same high hand as at Tyre and Antioch, quitted
Rome under the pretence that they had 2 received
letters from the Emperor in which he announced
his victory over the Persians. Hosius, having in
vain summoned them to return, proceeded with the
other bishops to receive Athanasius, Marcellus, and
Asclepas into communion, and sent letters into
jEgypt and Libya declaring them free from all blame.
The bishops at the same time deposed 3 Stephanus,

cyclical Letter of the Synod, c. 50. Socrates, L. 2. c. 20.
Theodoret says that 250 bishops met at Sardica, L. 2. c. 7 ; and
Athanasius, Ad Monachos, c. 28, that more than 400 had declared
that he was in communion with them. 170 might be the number
of those who actually met, and others might afterwards subscribe
the decree. Socrates quotes Sabinus as saying that only seventy-
six of the Eastern bishops were present, and among them Ischyras,
as Bishop of the Mareotis, L. 2. c. 20. The synod was held in
the year 347.

1 Asterius and Arius (in the Synodal Letter of the Council he
is called Macarius, Apologia contra Arianos, c. 48) are named ;
the latter is supposed to be the Arius mentioned among the early
supporters of the heretic. Asterius signs himself Bishop of
Petra, Tom. ad Antioch. c. 10.

2 This seems to imply that Constantius recalled them to cele
brate the eirti /cm.

3 Stephanus was Bishop of Antioch, Ad Monachos, c. 17;

98 COUNCIL OF NIC^A.

Menophantus, Acacius, George of Laodicea, Ursacius,
Valens, Theoclorus, and Narcissus. With respect to
Gregory, who had been sent to Alexandria, they
pronounced that he had never been consecrated.
They addressed also a } letter to Julius, in which
they gave a brief account of what had been done in
the Council, and requested him to make it known to
the brethren in Sicily, Sardinia, and Italy.

The Eusebians, after they quitted Sardica, held a
Council at Philippopolis, and put forth a 2 decree,
which has been preserved by Hilary, and which they
insidiously represented as the decree of the Council
of Sardica. From it we learn the reasons which
they assigned in justification of their refusal to act
with the bishops of the Western Church. It is one
of the few documents put forth by the Eusebians in
their defence which has reached our time, and may
be considered as their manifesto against Athanasius
and his party.

They begin with assailing Marcellus, whom they

Menophantus of Epbesus. Acacius succeeded Eusebius at
Csesarea. Ursacius was Bishop of Singidunum ; Valens of
Myrsa in Pannonia. Apologia contra Arianos, c. 36. Theodoret,
L. 2. c. 8. Hilary, Fragm. ii. In the Epistle ad Ep. ^Egypt.
et Lib. c. 7, are mentioned also Patrophilus, Eustathius, after
wards Bishop of Sebaste, Demophilus, Germinius, Eudoxius,
Basil.

1 Hilary, Fragm. ii. c. 9.

2 Ex opere historico Fragm. iii.

COUNCIL OF NICJEA. 99

accuse of mixing together the errors of Sabellius,
Paul of Samosata, and Montanus. A Council was
held at Constantinople by order of Constantino to
inquire into his tenets, which were condemned ; and
a record of the condemnation was deposited in the
archives of the Church. Notwithstanding this con
demnation, he had been received into communion at
Sardica, with the consent of Protogenes, the bishop
of that see, who had been a party to the sentence
pronounced against him at Constantinople.

They then proceed to repeat the old charges
against Athanasius of breaking the mystic cup, of
overturning the altar and the priests throne, of
destroying the church, and committing the presbyter,
whom they call Narchus, to military custody. They
accuse him of various acts of oppression and cruelty,
of scourging and even killing bishops. The accu
sations are, indeed, the counterpart of those which
Athanasius brought against Gregory and the prefect
Philagrius, when the former took possession of the
see of Alexandria. They ascribe similar acts of
violence to Paul, Marcellus, 1 Asclepas, and Lucius
of Adrianople, when they were restored to their re
spective sees after the death of Constantine.

1 They say, c. 13, that Athanasius had himself condemned
Asclepas ; but this is very improbable, since Asclepas is men
tioned by Athanasius as one of those who supported him at
Nicaea.

100 COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

They state that a Council was first summoned to
Csesarea to investigate these charges, but that Atha-
nasius did not appear; that another Council was
summoned in the following year to Tyre, and that
certain Bishops were sent to the Mareotis to inquire
into the truth of the accusations on the spot, who
on their return reported that the charges were well
founded ; that Athanasius, being l present, was con
demned, and in consequence repaired to the Emperor
at Constantinople ; that the inquiry was then re
opened, and that he was again condemned and
banished by Constant ine.

They go on to state that, when he returned from
Gaul after the death of Constantine,in his way to Alex
andria, he interfered irregularly with the Churches in
the places through which he passed, restoring bishops
who had been condemned by Councils, and ejecting
those actually in possession ; that on his arrival at
Alexandria he acted in the most arbitrary and
tyrannical manner ; that being convicted of all these
charges he was deposed by the Synod of Antioch,
and Gregory, a holy and blameless man, sent to fill
his place ; and that, having in vain endeavoured to
induce the Eastern bishops to espouse his cause, he
at last came to Julius at Rome, in the hope that he

1 They should rather have said that he quitted Tyre before
the sentence was pronounced, because he foresaw that it would
be unfavourable to him. See Theodoret, L. 2. c. 16. p. 93 B.

COUNCIL OF NIOEA. 101

might easily impose on those who, on account of
their distance from Alexandria, could not be cogni
zant of the real state of facts.

They further state, that on their arrival at Sardica,
in compliance with the summons of Julius, they
found that he and Maximin of Treves, and Hosius,
had received Athanasius and Marcellus into com
munion, and had allowed them to take their seats
at the Council ; that they to the number of eighty
remonstrated and insisted on their expulsion, on the
ground that they had been condemned by a Council,
but that no attention was paid to the remonstrance ;
that five of the bishops who had been employed on
the mission to the Mareotis then proposed that
other bishops should be united with them, and an
other investigation take place ; but that Protogenes
and Hosius would not entertain the proposition.
They add, that a number of men of the most profli
gate and desperate character had flocked from Alex
andria and Constantinople to Sardica, and committed
many acts of violence against the Eastern bishops,
who, in consequence, determined to retire from the
place, having first drawn up this synodical letter.

They conclude with exhorting their brethren not to
communicate with l Hosius, Protogenes, Athanasius,

1 They charge Hosius with having persecuted Mark of Are-
thusa, and having patronized men of infamous lives. C. 27.

102 COUNCIL OF NIO&A.

Marcellus, Asclepas, Paulus, and Julius ! ; with com
plaining that aged and infirm bishops were dragged
from their churches and their homes on account of some
few worthless persons who were disturbing the peace
of the Church ; with affirming that it was contrary
to 2 all ecclesiastical rule, and reason, and justice, that
the Western Churches should take upon them to
undo what the Eastern Churches had done ; and
with alleging, in proof of the statement, that the
decree pronounced against Novatus at Rome had
been confirmed by the Eastern Church, and that
against Paul of Samosata at Antioch by the Western.
It appears that the Eastern Churches were already
beginning to be jealous of the superiority assumed
over them by the Church of Rome.

The bishops who met at Philippopolis are said by
3 Socrates to have anathematized the word o^uooucnoc,
and to have asserted the Anomoean doctrine ; but as
Valesius observes, this charge is not borne out by
the profession of faith annexed to the decree, which

1 They afterwards add Gaudentius of Ariminum and Maximin
of Treves ; the latter because he refused to receive the Arian
bishops who were sent to Treves after the Council of An
tioch.

2 To the statement that Julius was not competent to reopen a
question decided by the Council of Antioch, he replies by deny
ing the competency of that Council to open the question decided
at Nicaea. Apologia contra Arianos, cc. 22. 24.

3 L. 2. c. 20.

COUNCIL OF NIC^IA. 103

1 Hilary pronounces orthodox. 2 It appears to have
been brought forward at the Council of Sardica, and
to have been rejected on the ground that the Nicene
profession was sufficient, and that no other ought to
be allowed.

According to 3 Athanasius, the seceding bishops
acted with great violence after they quitted Sardica.
They caused, through the agency of the Count
Philagrius, ten laymen who refused to communicate
with them to be put to death at Adrianople;
two presbyters and three deacons to be banished
into Armenia; and Arius and Asterius, who had
quitted their party at Sardica, to be banished into
Libya. They procured also an order from Con-
stantius, authorizing the magistrates to put Atha-
nasius and certain of his followers to death, if they
should attempt to enter Alexandria. In some cases
they endeavoured to accomplish their purposes by
less open means. 4 The bishops assembled at
Sardica sent Vincentius of Capua and Euphratas of

1 De Synodis, cc. 34, 35, 36, 37.

2 Tom. ad Antiochanos, c. 5.

3 Ad Monachos, cc. 18, 19. They caused Lucius also, Bishop
of Adrianople, to be bound in chains, and in that state to be
carried into exile, in which he died. They also caused a bishop
named Diodorus, and Olympius, Bishop of CEni, and Theodulus
of Trajanopolis in Thrace, to be banished.

4 Ad Monachos, c. 20. Athanasius calls Capua the metro
polis of Campania, and Agrippina of Upper Gaul. Theodoret,
L. 2. c. 9.

104 COUNCIL OF NIOEA.

Agrippina to Constantius, to obtain his sanction to
their decision, and to prevail upon him to restore
the exiled bishops to their churches. When the
two bishops arrived at Antioch, the bishop l Ste-
phanus laid a plot to involve Euphratas in a charge
of incontinence: the plot, however, was detected,
Stephanus deposed, and Leontius substituted in his
place.

It is probable that the solicitations of the Council
would have made little impression on Constantius, if
2 Constans had not written to the same effect. He
now permitted the bishops to return ; and on the
death of 3 Gregory, which happened shortly after, he
invited Athanasius to Alexandria, at the same time
telling Constans that he had been expecting the
bishop for a year, and had kept the see open for
him. Not content with writing 4 three letters to
Athanasius, he wrote also to the bishops and clergy
of Alexandria, commending Athanasius to them.
5 He commanded also that all the documents in-

1 Stephanus, as we have seen, was deposed by the Council :
he had been appointed to Antioch by the Arians. Ad Monachos,
c. 4. Ad Ep. ^Egypt. et Lib. c. 7.

8 Ad Monachos, c. 20. Socrates, L. 2. c. 22.

3 tlra /uerc? pijvag TTOV SEKO. TfXevriiaai TOQ Fp^yoptou, jutra-
Tre/JTrercu KCII Adai dffiov. Ad Monachos, c. 21.

4 Apologia contra Arianos, cc. 51. 55. Ad Monachos, c. 23.
Socrates, L. 2. c. 23. Sozomen, L. 3. cc. 20, 21. Theodoret,
L. 2. cc. 10, 11, 12.

5 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 56.

COUNCIL OF NIOEA. 105

jurious to the character of Athanasius should be
destroyed. ] Having remained at Rome three years,
Athanasius had gone to Milan at the command of
Constans, and was present among the bishops to whom
the Macrostic profession of faith was presented by
the delegates from the Council of Antioch. From
Milan, at the summons of Constans, he went with
Hosius into Gaul, and they travelled together to
Sardica. After the Council at Sardica he went to
Naissus, where he again received letters from Con
stans, and thence to Aquileia, where he received
the 2 letters from Constantius. He then went to
Constans in Gaul, and afterwards met Constantius
at Antioch. Leaving Antioch, he passed through
Syria, and was congratulated by the bishops of
Palestine, assembled in council at Jerusalem, on his
restoration to his see. 8 They addressed also a con
gratulatory epistle to the Church of Alexandria,

1 Ad Constantium, c. 4. According to Sozomen, L. 3. c. 20,
Constantius wished Athanasius to allow one church at Alex
andria to be assigned to the Arians, and Athanasius consented,
on the understanding that one should be given to the Catholics
at Antioch. The Emperor considered this fair ; but the Arians
thought that the arrangement would not be for their advantage.
Theodoret gives the same account, L. 2. c. 12.

2 In further proof of the friendly feeling of Constantius towards
him at this time, Athanasius produces the letter addressed to
him by the Emperor, on the occasion of the death of Constans.
Ad Monachos, c. 24. Ad Constantium, c. 23.

3 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 57. Ad Monachos, c. 25.
Socrates, L. 2. c. 24. Sozomen, L. 3. c. 22. Compare Philo-
storgius, L. 3. c. 12.

106 COUNCIL OF NIOEA.

which received him with every demonstration of joy
and affection. About this time also, l Ursacius and
Valens, who were deposed by the Council of Sardica,
wrote letters to Julius and Athanasius; in that to
the former they acknowledged the charges brought
against Athanasius to be false, and condemned Arius
and his heresy: the letter to Athanasius contains

1 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 58. Ad Monachos, c. 26. Ad
Constantium, c. 1. Hilary, ex historico opere Fragm. ii. c. 20.
Sozomen, L. 3. c. 23. There is a difference of opinion re
specting the date of their letters ; they say themselves that
they made the profession of their penitence at Milan: some
think in 347, at the Council assembled to condemn the errors of
Photinus ; others refer the event to 349. The Benedictine
editor adopts the later date on the authority of Hilary, Frag-
mentum ii. c. 19, who says that Ursacius and Valens applied to
Julius to be received into communion, two years after the con
demnation of Photinus at Milan ; and of Socrates, L. 2. c. 24,
who says that they were induced to take this step when they
learned that the Council at Jerusalem had addressed letters to the
Church of Alexandria in favour of Athanasius. The statement
of Athanasius himself, contra Arianos, c. 58, is in favour of the
later date. See the note of the Benedictine editor of Hilary.
Gibbon, from the different tone of the two letters, questions the
genuineness of that to Julius. Athanasius says that the letter to
himself was written without any previous communication on his
part, was in Latin, and sent to him by Paulinus, Bishop of Tibur.
See the note of the Benedictine editor, ad Constantium, c. 9.
Athanasius says of Ursacius and Valens, that they were instructed
(Ka.Tr)yj]Qri(jav} in the Christian faith by Arius, were degraded
from the presbyterate, and nevertheless advanced to the episco
pate by the Arians. Ad Ep. ./Egypt, et Lib. c. 7. He speaks
of them also as vtuTtpoi. Apologia contra Arianos, c. 13. Im-
peritis atque improbis duobus adolescentibus. Hilary ad Const.
L. 1. c. 5. The Benedictine editor places the return of Athana
sius A.D. 349.

COUNCIL OF NIOEA. 107

only the expression of their good wishes, and of
their desire to be in communion with him.

1 Eusebius of Nicomedia died soon after the
Council of Rome. And about this time, by the
death of Constans, Athanasius was deprived of his
most stedfast and powerful friend. 2 Leontius, Bishop
of Antioch, appears then to have become the head

1 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 36. Socrates, L. 2. c. 12. After
he quitted the see of Nicomedia, Constantius appears to have
translated Cecropius to it from Laodicea. Ad Monachos, c. 74.
He is mentioned, Ep. ad Ep. ^Egypt. et Lib. c. 7. The Bene
dictine editor places the death of Eusebius A.D. 342.

2 Leontius, as we have seen, succeeded Stephanus in the
bishopric of Antioch. Athanasius generally calls him 6 CLTTOKOTTOC,
because he mutilated himself in order that he might live with a
female named Eustolium. Though he had been degraded from
the presbyterate he was made a bishop by Constantius. De
Fuga, c. 2&lt;&gt;. Socrates, L. 2. c. 26. Ad Monachos, cc. 4. 28.
Theodoret says that he was of a crafty, dissembling character,
and compares him to a rock concealed under the water, L. 2. c.
10, adducing in proof of the charge the artifice which he used in
reciting the Doxology. Though the churches at Antioch were
in the hands of the Arians, the congregations did not agree in
their manner of repeating the Doxology, some saying, " Glory
be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost,"
others, " to the Father, through the Son in the Holy Ghost." But
Leontius pronounced the words in so low a tone as to be in
audible, and thus concealed his mode of repeating it. Sozomen,
however, ascribes to him a better motive, that of preventing the
peace of the Church from being disturbed ; and says that, placing
his hand upon his head, which was white from age, he said,
" When this snow shall be dissolved, there will be much mud :"
thereby intimating that there would be great confusion after his
death, if his successors should refuse to tolerate the Athanasian
mode of repeating the Doxology, L. 3. c. 20. Theodoret says
also that Leontius, being himself an Anomoean, was fearful of

108 COUNCIL OF NIC^A.

of the Arian party, and to have associated to him
self ] George of Laodicea, 2 Acacius, Theodorus, and
Narcissus.

provoking the anger of Constantius, who was an Homoeousian,
and strongly opposed to the Anomoeans. He adds that Leontius
admitted Aetius, the master of Eunomius, to the diaconate ; but
being alarmed by the threats of Flavianus and Diodorus, two
ascetics, that they would go to the Western Churches and expose
his proceedings, he forbade Aetius to exercise the ministerial
functions. Compare de Synodis, c. 38. Aetius is there called
the master of Eudoxius, and it is doubtful whether Athanasius
meant to say that Leontius ordained Aetius or Eudoxius deacon.

1 George of Laodicea had been a presbyter of Alexandria, and
before the Nicene Council had written a letter to Alexander from
Antioch in defence of the Arian tenet that there was a time
when the Son was not. He seems to have suggested to the
Arians that they should not quarrel with Alexander for saying
that the Son is from the Father, inasmuch as all things are from
the Father. He was degraded by Alexander, but afterwards
made Bishop of Laodicea by the Arians. De Synodis, c. 17.
Apologia contra Arianos, c. 8. Ad Ep. JEgypt. et Lib. c. 7.
He was degraded from the bishopric at the Council of Sardica,
at which, however, he did not venture to appear. Apologia
contra Arianos, cc. 36. 49. Ad Monachos, c. 17. He appears
to have been a man of an intemperate and sensual life. De
Fuga, c, 26. Philostorgius says that he had originally studied
philosophy, and was an Homoeousian, L. 8. c. 17. Sozomen says
that he was present at the Council of Antioch, L. 2. c. 5. So
crates, L. 3. c. 9 ; and wrote a letter condemning Eudoxius for
favouring Aetius, L. 4. c. 13. He wrote also a panegyric on
Eusebius Emisenus. Socrates, L. 1. c. 24; L. 2. c. 9.

2 Acacius was a disciple of Eusebius of Csesarea, and suc
ceeded him in that see. Socrates, L. 2. c. 4. Athanasius, there
fore, charges him with inconsistency and dissimulation, inasmuch
as he rejected the Nicene Faith, although he knew that his master
Eusebius had subscribed it. De Dec. Syn. Nic. c. 3. De Synodis,
cc. 12, 13. He was guilty also of the inconsistency of objecting
to the Nicene Creed on the ground that it contained expressions

COUNCIL OF NIC^EA. 109

Athanasius, therefore, was not allowed to remain
long in quiet at Alexandria. Ursacius and Valens
were ! persuaded to retract their confession, and to
say that it was made under fear of the displeasure of
Constans ; and 2 the Emperor was at last prevailed
upon, notwithstanding the promise which he had made
to Athanasius never again to listen to the accusations
of the Eusebians, to commence a persecution of the
Catholic bishops. He was then on his march against
Magnentius ; and he afterwards, both from Aries and

not found in Scripture, though he himself used similar expressions.
De Synodis, cc. 36, 37. He was deposed at Sardica, Apologia
contra Arianos, c. 49 ; and again at Seleucia, De Synodis, c. 12.
He was one of those who joined in inducing Constantius to call
the Council of Rimini. De Synodis, c. 1. In the fourth Epistle
to Serapion, c. 7, he is charged with using profane language
respecting the Holy Spirit. Athanasius speaks of him as vrpoe
Trdaai aaefitiav ToX^rjporarog. Ad Ep. ^gypt. et Lib. C. 7. It
appears from Socrates, L. 2. c. 40, that Acacius produced a
confession of faith in which neither the words opoovatoQ nor
opotovffios appeared. He said, however, that the Son is like to the
Father, and condemned the Anomoeans, L. 4. cc. 40, 41. Com
pare Sozomen, L. 4. cc. 22, 23. In the latter passage the histo
rian speaks highly of his talents. Philostorgius confirms this
character of him, and says that at the Council of Seleucia he
joined the Anomoean party in order to vex Basil of Ancyra, who
had supported Cyril of Jerusalem after he had been deposed by
Acacius, L. 4. c. 12. He lost the favour of Constantius by
bringing a charge against Eunomius which he was unable to sub
stantiate, L. 6. c. 4.

1 Ad Monachos, c. 29. Socrates says that they always sided
with the stronger party, L. 1. c. 37. p. 109 D. See the account
given by Sulpicius Severus, L. 2. p. 400, of the intrigues of the
Arian party, and of the manner in which Valens obtained un
limited influence over the mind of Constantius by pretending to
predict the result of the battle of Myrsa.

2 Ad Monachos, cc. 30, 31, 32.

110 COUNCIL OF NIC^EA.

Milan, issued decrees favourable to the Arians. The
portion of corn hitherto given to Athanasius was
transferred to the Arians; and commissioners were
sent in different directions to compel both the magis
trates and the bishops to renounce communion with
him. The bishops were threatened with deprivation ;
some, however, refused to obey the Emperor s com
mands, and even remonstrated with him on the
iniquity of his proceedings. ] They were in conse-

1 Athanasius mentions Paulinus of Treves, the Metropolitan of
Gaul ; Lucifer of Cagliari, the Metropolitan of Sardinia ; Euse-
bius of Vercelli ; Dionysius of Milan, the Metropolitan of Italy.
Ad Monachos, c. 33. De Fuga, c. 4. They refused to sub
scribe to the condemnation of Athanasius, and to give credit to
the testimony of Ursacius and Valens ; Constantius then declared
himself the accuser of Athanasius ; but they still refused to sub
scribe, and were in consequence banished. Ad Monachos, c. 76.
This, according to Socrates, took place at the synod assembled
by Constantius at Milan, L. 2. cc. 34. 36. Sozomen, L. 4.
c. 9. Sulpicius Severus mentions a synod held at Aries after the
defeat of Magnentius. The Catholic bishops who met there were
required by an edict of the Emperor to subscribe the condemna
tion of Athanasius ; but they refused, on the ground that the
question of doctrine should be settled before they proceeded to
decide upon the cases of individuals. Paulinus was in conse
quence banished. A council was then called at Milan, at which
Constantius was present ; the same demand was made by him,
and Lucifer of Cagliari and Eusebius of Vercelli were, upon their
refusal to comply, banished. Dionysius of Milan appears to
have said that he would subscribe the condemnation of Athana
sius, provided that the question of doctrine was discussed. The
Council then put forth a letter in the name of the Emperor full
of heretical pravity, which Dionysius refused to subscribe, and
was in consequence banished. Such is the statement of Sul
picius, who places the banishment of Liberius and Hilary at this
time. L. 2. p. 400. The account of Hilary himself is some
what different. According to him a synod had been summoned

COUNCIL OF NIC^A. Ill

quence banished ; but, according to l Athanasius,
this severity operated to the disadvantage of the
Arian cause; for the exiles, in their way to their
several places of banishment, took every opportunity
of preaching the true doctrine and exposing the in
justice and cruelty of their opponents. He hence
takes occasion to observe that attempts to suppress
truth by violence always contribute to its wider
diffusion. In the mean time Julius, Bishop of Rome,
2 died, and Constantius lost no time in endeavouring

to meet at Aquileia. Liberius, therefore, did not go to Aries,
but sent Vincentius of Capua and Marcellus a bishop of Campania
in his place. Vincentius took with him letters from the Eastern
bishops and from eighty ^Egyptian bishops in favour of Athana
sius ; he also required that the question of doctrine should in
the first instance be considered ; but terrified at length by the
threats of Constantius, subscribed the condemnation. Liberius
himself says, that Vincentius offered to subscribe the condemna
tion if the Arians were also condemned ; a strange sort of com
promise. Hilary, Fragm. p. 1332. According to Hilary, 300
of the Western bishops met at Milan. Eusebius of Vercelli and
Lucifer of Cagliari were the defenders of the Nicene faith ; and
in consequence of their refusal to subscribe the condemnation of
Athanasius were banished. Hilary appears to have been pre
viously deposed at Aries by Saturninus, the bishop, whom Sulpi-
cius calls homo impotens et factiosus. Athanasius seems to have
been but imperfectly acquainted with what passed at Aries and
Milan. The Benedictine editor assigns 354 as the date of the
former, 355 of the latter synod.

1 Ad Monachos, c. 34.

2 Socrates, L. 2. c. 34. Sozomen, L. 4. c. 8. Theodoret, L.
2. c. 15. Athanasius calls Rome the metropolis of Romania.
Ad Monachos, c. 38. By Romania the Benedictine editor under
stands the whole Roman Empire. Epiphanius uses the word in
this sense. Haer. Ixvi. c. 1 ; Ixix. c. 2.

112 COUNCIL OF NIC2EA.

to gain over Liberius, who succeeded him, to the
Arian cause. ] The eunuch Eusebius was sent to
him with large presents, and Athanasius gives a
lively account of the conversation which passed be
tween them. It ended in the refusal of Liberius to
receive the presents and to condemn Athanasius.
Eusebius then offered the presents at the shrine
erected in memory of the martyrdom of St. Peter ;
but Liberius indignantly ordered them to be re
moved. Constantius was greatly incensed at the
failure of the mission of Eusebius, and commenced
a 2 persecution of the Catholics, which Athanasius
describes as more cruel even than that of Maximian,
since he separated those whom he banished ; whereas
Maximian allowed them the consolation of each
other s society in their exile. The Emperor ordered
3 Liberius to be brought by force from Rome. His

1 Ad Monachos, cc. 35, 36, 37. We have seen that the Euse-
bians had gained over the eunuchs, who possessed great influence at
the court of Constantius. Ammianus Marcellinus mentions the
eunuch Eusebius: L. 14. c. 11. 1441 D ; L. 15. c. 3. He was
put to death by Julian : L. 22. c. 4. Hilary gives some letters
of Liberius : one to Constantius, calling upon him to convene a
synod, Fragment, v. ; one to Lucifer and Eusebius of Vercelli ;
and one respecting the fall of Vincentius, Fragm. vi., written
before his banishment.

2 Ad Monachos, c. 40. Constantius ordered Eutropius a
presbyter and Hilary a deacon, who were the bearers of a letter
to him from Liberius, the former to be banished, the latter
scourged : c. 41.

3 Compare Ammianus Marcellinus, L. 15. 1450 C. He re
presents Athanasius as interfering in matters beyond his province,

COUNCIL OF NIOEA. 113

severity, however, was unavailing; the bishop still
refused to join the Arian party, and even ] rebuked
him sharply for his persecution of the Catholics.
The result was the banishment of Liberius, 2 whose
firmness gave way after he had remained in exile
two years, and had been threatened with death.
He subscribed the Creed put forth by the Council
of Sirmium, which condemned Photinus, and was
restored to his bishopric.

Nearly a similar course was pursued with the

and as foretelling future events by the casting of lots and the
flight of birds. He mentions also the anxiety of Constantius to
obtain the sanction of Liberius to his proceedings against Atha-
nasius ; and the strong attachment of the people to their bishop,
whom the Emperor did not dare to remove from Rome in the
face of day.

1 Theodoret gives a graphic account of what passed at the
interview between the Emperor and Liberius ; and says that
Liberius was banished to Bercea, in Thrace, and Felix substituted
in his place: L. 2. cc. 16, 17. De Fuga, c. 4. Socrates, L.
2. c. 37. p. 116 A. Sozomen, L. 4. c. 11. Ad Monachos,
c. 75.

8 Ad Monachos, c. 41. Socrates, L. 2. c. 37. p. 116. Sozo
men, L. 4. c. 15, says that Felix died shortly after the return of
Liberius. Sozomen says, also, that Liberius produced a creed
at Sirmium, in which all were condemned who said that the Son
is not in substance and in all respects like the Father. I incline,
therefore, to the opinion of the Benedictine editor of Hilary,
Ex opere historico Fragm. vi. c. 6, that the confession which
Liberius subscribed was the first Sirmian ; though I feel the
difficulty of reconciling Hilary s approval of this Creed, De
Synodis, c. 38, with the harsh terms in which he speaks of Libe
rius in the Fragment. The letter of Liberius to Ursacius and
Valens does him little credit.

COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

aged J Hosius. Constantius urgently solicited him
to condemn Athanasius. He not only refused, but
wrote a letter to the Emperor, in which he contrasted
the conduct of Athanasius at the Council of Sardica
with that of the Arian bishops; and, referring to
the confession of Ursacius and Valens, reminded
the Emperor of the account which he must one day
render, and warned him against lending his coun
tenance to men who, having once confessed the
innocence of Athanasius, afterwards retracted their
confession. With such men no communion ought
to be held. Hosius, however, after he had been
detained a whole year at Sirmium, and treated 2 with
great severity, being broken down with 3 age and
suffering, consented to communicate with Ursacius
and Valens, but still refused to subscribe the con
demnation of Athanasius.

As Constantius had himself invited Athanasius to
return to Alexandria, it was necessary for him, before
he again took hostile measures against the bishop, to
assign some reason for his change of conduct ; and
we find that he charged Athanasius with having

1 Ad Monachos, c. 4246. De Fuga, c. 5.

2 Socrates says that he was actually tortured, and that in con
sequence he signed the second Sirmian Confession, A.D. 357:
L. 2. c. 31. Sozomen, L. 4. c. 6. Hilary speaks of Hosius in
very bitter terms. De Synodis, cc. 11. 63. He calls the Con
fession blasphemia. See Athanasius, de Synodis, c. 28.

3 He was then 100 years old.

COUNCIL OF NICJEA. 115

1 endeavoured to alienate bis brother Constans from
him, and with having favoured the cause of Magnen-
tius. In his reply to the former of these accusations,
Athanasius affirms that he had never conversed with
Constans, excepting in the presence of other bishops,
who might, if there had been any truth in the
charge, have been produced as witnesses against
him ; and that he had never written to Constans,
excepting in his own defence, or on the affairs of the
Church. He refers particularly to one occasion, on
which he had spoken in praise of the piety of Con
stantius to Constans in the presence of 2 Thalassius,
who, at the suggestion of Constantius, had written
to encourage him to return to Alexandria.

Athanasius 3 treats the second charge as too mon
strous to deserve a serious answer. Was it probable
that he should assist or hold intercourse with one
who had murdered his benefactor? He had, on the
contrary, directed prayers to be offered up in the
churches of Alexandria for the success of the arms
of Constantius. His enemies appear to have asserted
that they had in their possession letters in his hand
writing addressed to Magnentius. He answered

1 This charge appeared to receive some countenance from the
fact hinted at by Theodoret, that Constans had threatened to
commence hostilities against Constantius if he did not restore
Athanasius: L. 2. cc. 4. 13.

2 Ad Constantium, cc. 2, 3. Compare Ad Monachos, c. 22.

3 Ad Constantium, c. 6 14.

116 COUNCIL OF NIC^A.

that if any such letters existed they were forgeries ;
and asked whether the ambassadors who came from
Magnen tius to Constantius brought any letters ad
dressed to him.

Two other charges were brought against him :
1 one that he had performed service in the Great
Church before it was completed. He admits the
fact, and defends it on the ground of necessity;
none of the churches in Alexandria being of suffi
cient magnitude to receive the crowds who assem
bled to celebrate the festival of Easter. He appeals
also to the example of his predecessor Alexander,
who had used the church called Theonas before it
was finished ; and of the Bishops of Treves and
Aquileia, who had followed the same course; the
latter when Constans himself was present.

The other charge was, 2 that Athanasius had dis
regarded the command of Constantius to leave
Alexandria and repair to the court. To this charge
he replied, that Montanus, 3 the Palatine, brought

1 Ad Constantium, c. 14. The church was in the Caesareum,
the royal quarter of Alexandria : Ad Monachos, cc. 56. 74 ;
Epiphanius, Haeresis, Ixix. c. 2 ; and was built at the expense
of Constantius. Ad Constantium, c. 17. Athanasius appears to
have been charged with consecrating the church ; this he denies,
admitting that it would have been unlawful to consecrate it
without previously obtaining the Emperor s consent: c. 14.

2 Ad Constantium, c. 19. Sozomen, L. 4. c. 9. A.D. 353.

3 See Suicer in v.

COUNCIL OF NIO3SA. 117

him a letter from Constantius, purporting to be an
answer to one in which he had asked permission to
go to Italy in order to obtain a supply of what was
wanting to the churches of Alexandria. Knowing
that he had written no such letter, he concluded
that it had been forged by his enemies, like those
which they had accused him of writing to Mag-
nentius. As, therefore, the Emperor s letter had
been obtained by misrepresentation, he acted as if
he had received no such summons. He would,
moreover, have been guilty of a breach of duty in
quitting his churches ; especially as the Emperor had
always been ready to supply any wants, which he
made known by letter. l Twenty-six months after
wards, Diogenes and Hilary the notary came, but
brought no letter from the Emperor. When, there
fore, Syrianus gave out that the churches, 2 in vio
lation of the promise made by Constantius to Atha-
nasius, were to be placed at the disposal of the
Arians, Athanasius demanded a sight of his in
structions. He admitted the justice of the demand,
and promised to put an end to the disturbances
created by the Arians. Instead, however, of keeping
his promise, he himself broke into the Great Church
while the people were assembled, and committed
many outrages.

1 Ad Constantium, c. 22. Ad Monachos, cc. 50. 52.

2 Athanasius refers to the letters written to him by Constan
tius after the death of Constans. C. 23.

118 COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

Such were the charges by which the enemies of
Athanasius succeeded in exasperating Constantius
against him, and by which the Emperor justified his
own departure from the promise contained in his
letter written after the death of Constans. l He pro
fessed also, that nothing but respect for his brother s
memory had induced him to allow Athanasius to
remain so long at Alexandria. Finding, at length,
that the peace of the Church could not be restored
by any other means, he had determined, 2 in imi
tation of his father s example, not only to banish
Athanasius, but also to deprive him of his bishopric.
With this view, George of Cappadocia was sent to
Alexandria; and, as the people showed a disposition
to support their bishop, he was accompanied by an
armed force under the orders of the Count Heraclius.
Athanasius gives an account of the 3 violence used
by Heraclius in taking possession of the churches in
order to transfer them to the Arians : and says that
the persecution of the Catholics by the Arians was
worse than that of the Christians by the Heathens.

1 Ad Monachos, c. 50. Athanasius refers to the letters of
Constantius in proof of the falsehood of this statement, cc. 51,
52.

2 Athanasius observes that, although Constantine banished him,
no person was sent to take possession of his bishopric. C. 50.

3 Ad Monachos, c. 65. De Fuga, cc. 6, 7. Athanasius alleges
the cruelties of the Arians as proofs of the badness of their cause ;
and says, that to employ force in the propagation of religion, is
contrary to the spirit of the Gospel, c. 67; see note 1. p. 52.
Compare Hilary contra Constantium, c. 8 12.

COUNCIL OF NIOEA. 119

It extended throughout JEgypt, under the directions
of Secundus of Pentapolis, one of the original sup
porters of Arius, and Stephanus, who had been
ejected from Antioch. The orthodox bishops were
expelled and banished, and Arians substituted in
their place, many of whom are represented by Atha-
nasius to have been men of bad morals.

2 Athanasius himself with difficulty escaped, when,
at the instigation of Heraclius, the rabble broke into
the Great Church, where the people were holding a
vigil, and committed every species of enormity,
taking out the seats, the holy table, the curtains, the
throne, and burning them in the streets; treating
the women with every kind of insult, tearing the
veils from the heads of the virgins, assailing their
ears with the most obscene expressions, and even

1 Athanasius mentions by name Secundus, Euzoius, Julius ;
Ammon, Marcus, Irenaeus, Zosimus, Serapion called Pelycon,
Sisinnius. C. 71. Germinius was transferred from Cyzicus to
Sirmium ; Cecropius from Laodicea to Nicomedia ; Auxentius
from Cappadocia to Milan, whence Dionysius had been expelled.
Cc. 74, 75.

2 At the end of the Tract ad Monachos, is given the protest of
the Alexandrians, in which they describe these outrages : they
say that Athanasius fainted away, and that they knew not how
he had escaped with his life. See also de Fuga, c. 24, where
Athanasius represents himself as having refused to leave the
church, and having been dragged away by the monks and clergy.
He ascribes his escape to divine interposition. See Sozomen,
L. 4. c. 10, who says that Athanasius frequently received warn
ing from heaven of the dangers which awaited him.

120 COUNCIL OF NIC^A.

stoning some to death. After his escape from the
church, l Athanasius remained in concealment in the
desert, and prepared his Apology to Constantius,
with the intention of presenting it in person. Re
ceiving, however, intelligence of the banishment of
Liberius, Hosius, Paulinus, Dionysius, Eusebius of
Vercelli, Lucifer, and many other bishops, priests,
and deacons, and of the persecution to which Vin-
centius of Capua, Fortunatianus of Aquileia, He-
remius of Thessalonica, as well as other Western
bishops, and nearly ninety bishops of ^gypt and
Libya, had been subjected : hearing also that Con-
stantius had 2 sent orders to seize Frumentius, Bishop
of Axume, and to make strict search for himself, he
returned to the desert. 3 His enemies, as was to be
expected, made his flight a ground of accusation
against him, imputing it to the fear of death. He,
in consequence, wrote the apology for his flight, in
which he justified himself by appealing to the ex
amples of Jacob, Moses, David, and Elias under the
Old Testament, and to the precepts and example of
our Blessed Lord, and to the conduct of St. Paul
and the other apostles. He fled, not because he
feared death, but 5 in obedience to Christ s injunc-

1 Ad Constantium, cc. 25, 26, 27.
a Ad Constantium, cc. 29, 30, 31, 32.

3 Athanasius names Leontius, Narcissus, and George of Lao-
dicea. De Fuga, c. 1.

4 De Fuga, cc. 10, 11, 12.

b De Fuga, c. 22. Ad Constantium, c. 32. Athanasius urges

COUNCIL OF NICJEA. 121

tions, that men should know their appointed time,
and not rashly tempt the Lord : he was at all times
ready to encounter death, rather than renounce the
orthodox faith.

In the mean time, the Arian bishops had sug
gested to Constantius, that a council should be
held at Nicsea, for the final settlement of the
disputes which agitated Christendom ; their real
object being, according to Athanasius, to supersede
the decrees of the Nicene Council in the minds of
men. 2 Basil, however, of Ancyra, objected to Nicsea
as the place of meeting, on the ground that any
decrees which might be made there, would be con
founded with those of the former Council; and
Nicomedia was then named. The intention of
meeting there was frustrated by the occurrence of a
severe 3 earthquake ; and Nicsea was again named, at

as another reason for flight in persecution, that you thereby save
the persecutors from the guilt of committing murder. The
Oxford annotator, in the short preface to the translation of the
Apology de Fuga, says that the real reason why Athanasius fled,
was, that if he had been cut off, there was no one to take his
place. If Athanasius himself assigns this reason, the passage
has escaped my notice.

1 De Synodis, cc. 1. 7. He mentions Ursacius, Valens,
Germinius, Acacius, Eudoxius, and Patrophilus, as the prime
movers in the business. Germinius had been made Bishop of
Sirmium after the removal of Photinus, A.D. 351, having been
translated from Cyzicus. Ad Monachos, c. 74.

2 Sozomen, L. 4. c. 16.

3 In this earthquake, the bishop Cecropius lost his life. So-

122 COUNCIL OF NIOffiA.

the suggestion of l Basil. Ultimately it was deter
mined that the Western bishops should meet at
Rimini, the Eastern at Seleucia.

zomen, ubi supra : he gives a particular account of the damage
done by it. Theodoret, L. 2. c. 26. Philostorgius says that
fifteen bishops were killed, L. 4. c. 10.

1 Sozomen says that, as the bishops could not be brought to
any agreement respecting the place of meeting, Basil went to the
Emperor at Sirmium, where Mark of Arethusa, George of
Cappadocia, and Valens still were; and that Valens proposed
the drawing up of a confession of faith for the signature of the
bishops present, from which the word essence was carefully
excluded. Seleucia was then fixed as the place for the meeting
of the Council ; but Eudoxius, Acacius, Ursacius, and Valens,
knowing that of the bishops, some adhered to the Nicene con
fession, others preferred that of the Council of the Dedication at
Antioch, in both which the word essence occurred, and the
Son is declared to be in all respects like to the Father ; and
fearing that Aetius, whose opinions they favoured, would be con
demned, proposed the division of the council, in the hope that
one at least of the two would decide in their favour. Constantius,
in consequence, ordered one to meet at Rimini, the other at
Seleucia. The Arians, according to Sozomen, affirmed that
Constantine having learned from Eusebius and Theognius the
grounds on which they objected to the word 6/ioovo-ioe, had de
termined to call another general council ; but being attacked,
before he could fulfil his resolution, by the disease which ter
minated his life, he enjoined Constantius to carry it into execu
tion, telling him, that the empire would profit him nothing unless
all his subjects agreed in their worship of the Deity. Constan
tius, in obedience to this injunction, called the Council of Rimini.
Sozomen exposes the falsehood of the latter part of this story,
and says that the controversy about the opinions of Aetius was
the real occasion of the summoning of the council. L. 3. c. 19.
Compare de Synodis, c. 8. Socrates, L. 2. c. 37. Hilary, de
Synodis, c. 8, also mentions a synod held at Ancyra for the pur
pose of counteracting the effect of the proceedings at Sirmium.
See cc. 3. 12. 27. 90. Sozomen, L. 4. c. 13.

COUNCIL OF NICJEA. 123

1 Four hundred bishops met at Rimini. A pro
fession of faith drawn up at Sirmium was presented,
and the Council was pressed to adopt it, on the
ground that, if the word oua/a, which is no where
applied in Scripture to the Father, and gave offence
to many, were omitted, peace would be restored to
the Church. This profession represented the on as
like in all respects, 2 Kara iravra ojuoiov, to the Father.

1 A.D. 359. De Synodis, cc. 8, 9. This appears to have been
the third Sirmian confession given by Athanasius. De Synodis,
cc. 8. See also c. 29. It is given also by Socrates, L. 2. c. 37, who
expressly calls it the third, though in c. 30 his remarks respect
ing the wish on the part of the framers to keep it secret, appear
to apply to the second. Sozomen, L. 4. c. 17. Theodoret, L. 2.
c. 18. Jerome adv. Luciferianos, p. 98 C. From the letter of
Germinius to Rufinianus, it appears to have been drawn up by
Mark of Arethusa. Hilary, ex opere historico Fragment, xv.
c. 3. Epiphanius, Haer. Ixxiii. c. 22. This creed Jerome calls
"infidelitas." Adv. Lucif. p. 98 C.

2 This, according to Epiphanius, Hseresis, Ixxiii. cc. 22, 23,
was the language of the semi-Arians, who understood the ex
pression Kara ircivTa o^otov to include similarity in essence.
Valens, in subscribing, wished to omit the words Kara wavTa, but
was compelled by Constantius to add them. Epiphanius says
that the Arians were divided into three parties : that of the semi-
Arians, whose leaders were Basil of Ancyra and George of Lao-
dicea ; that of the Anomoeans, of whose number were Valens,
Eudoxius, George of Cappadocia ; and that of Acacius, who
seems to have held an intermediate opinion, but attached himself
to the Anomoean party through dislike of Cyril of Jerusalem,
who, though placed, according to Socrates, L. 2. c. 38, in the
see of Jerusalem by Acacius himself and Patrophilus of Scy-
thopolis, afterwards quarrelled with Acacius respecting the metro-
political rights of the see of Csesarea. Cyril calls Christ Kara
Trat To. 6f.wtoi to the Father, but appears to have avoided the use
of the word o/doovaivQ. Catechesis, iv. 5.

124 COUNCIL OF NIOEA.

The orthodox bishops objected to its reception, on
the ground that the Nicene Confession was sufficient.
1 They suspected also, that some fraud was intended,
and that the creed, though apparently orthodox in
terms, might admit an Arian construction : in con
sequence, they required the 2 bishops who presented
it, to subscribe the condemnation of the Arian tenets
in the terms prescribed at the end of the Nicene
Creed. On their refusal to subscribe they were
deposed. The Council then addressed a 3 letter to
Constantius, in which it expressed its determination
to adhere to the Nicene Creed, which had been
settled after due deliberation in the presence of his
father Constantine. This, it proceeded to say, was
the true mode of preserving the peace of the Church ;
which must, on the contrary, be disturbed, if atten
tion were paid to the representations of Ursacius
and Valens, who had been suspended from com
munion on account of their leaning to Arianism;
and though they had been restored at Milan on their

1 See Jerome s lively account of the conduct of Valens at the
Council. Adv. Luciferianos, p. 98 E. The orthodox bishops
are stated in the Epistle ad Afros, c. 3, to have been about two
hundred.

2 Germinius, Valens, Ursacius, Demophilus, Gaius, Auxentius.
See ad Afros, cc. 3. 10. Hilary contra Auxentium, c. 8. Ad
Ep. jflEgypt. et Lib. c. 7. Ad Monachos, c. 75.

3 De Synodis, c. 10. Socrates, L. 2. c. 37. Sozomen, L. 4.
c. 18. Theodoret, L. 2. cc. 19, 20. Hilary, ex opere historico
Fragm. vii. 4 ; viii. The Benedictine editor, instead of trans
lating the Greek as it is given by Athanasius, inserts the Latin
from Hilary.

COUNCIL OF NIC^EA. 125

retractation of their errors, were yet continually
putting forth new formulas of faith. The Council
concluded with urging the Emperor to allow the
bishops detained at Rimini, many of whom were
broken with age and poverty, to return home, lest
the spiritual interests of their Churches should
suffer. The Council also sent its decree to the
Emperor, in which it states that Ursacius, Valens,
Germinius, and Gains had been condemned.

2 The letters and the decree were sent to the Em
peror by ten bishops, in obedience to his original
direction. Valens, however, anticipated them : he
repaired to the court, where he succeeded so com
pletely in gaining over the Emperor to his views,
that the delegates of the Council could not obtain
admission to the royal presence. At last, 3 Con-
stantius wrote to the Council, alleging in excuse of
his refusal to receive their delegates, that he was
wholly occupied with the Persian war, and stating

1 Hilary says, on the motion of Grecianus, Episcopus a Celle.
Socrates adds the names of Auxentius and Demophilus. L. 2.
c. 37. Germinius appears afterwards to have seceded from the
Anomoean party, and to have adopted or returned to the Homce-
ousian expression, ojuotov Kara TrcWa. Hilary, Fragm. xiii.

2 Socrates, L. 2. c. 37. Sozomen, L. 4. c. 19 ; see also c. 16.
p. 456 D. Theodoret, L. 2. c. 19. Hilary, ex opere historico
Fragm. viii. He gives the letters of Constantius, Fragm. vii.
c. 1.

3 De Synodis, c. 55. Socrates, L. 2. c. 37. Sozomen, L. 4.
c. 19.

126 COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

that he had ordered them to meet him at Hadrian-
ople on his return from the campaign. In answer
to this letter, the Council expressed its determina
tion to adhere to its decree, and again entreated
Constantius to allow the bishops to return to their
dioceses before the setting-in of winter. It is
certain, however, that a creed of a character similar
to that which had been rejected, was at last put
forth as the profession of faith agreed upon at
Rimini ; and we learn from * Sozomen, that two
different accounts were given of the mode in which
this was effected. One was, that the bishops at
Rimini, having waited some time for an answer to
their last letter to the Emperor and received none,
broke up the Council and returned to their dioceses ;
that Constantius resented their departure without
his previous permission as a contempt of his au
thority, and gave Valens full power to arrange the
affairs of the Western Church according to his
discretion ; to promulgate the profession of faith
which he had caused to be read at Rimini; to expel
from their bishoprics all who refused to subscribe,
and to substitute others in their places ; that Valens,
acting upon the authority thus given him, expelled
several 2 bishops, and having constrained the Western
Churches to adopt the creed, proceeded to the East.

1 L. 4. c. 19.

2 Sozomen mentions Liberius ; but this could not be, as Liberius
had already subscribed the Sirmian creed, and been restored to
his bishopric.

COUNCIL OF NICJEA. 127

Passing through Thrace, he caused a synod to be
called at Nice, at which he published the creed,
having first translated it into Greek, and, availing
himself of the similarity of names, pretended that it
was the creed set forth at Nica?a in Bithynia. The
other account is, that the delegates from Rimini
were detained at Nice, under the pretence that the
season of the year rendered travelling almost im
practicable ; that Valens and his associates took the
opportunity of 2 representing to them, that the peace
of the Church ought not to be disturbed on account
of a single word ; that the Eastern bishops would
never 3 consent to the introduction of the word oua/o,
but that they would adopt the creed set forth by
Valens ; and that the delegates ought consequently,
for the sake of peace, to subscribe it.

In the mean time, the 4 Eastern bishops had met

1 Compare Socrates, L. 2. c. 37, sub fine. Theodoret, L. 2.
c. 21, where the creed is given. Hilary, Fragment, viii. c. 5,
from which it appears that Restitutus, Bishop of Carthage, pre
sided, and that all the proceedings at Rimini were pronounced
null. Ad Afros, cc. 3, 4. Theodoret, L. 2. c. 26.

2 According to Sulpicius, the delegates sent by the Council
were young, unlearned, incautious men ; while Valens and his
associates were crafty, able, and unscrupulous. L. 2. p. 422.
Hilary, Fragm. viii. c. 4, note h.

3 Sozomen denies the truth of this statement, and says that the
Oriental bishops, with few exceptions, contended that the Son is
like KUT ovviav to the Father, though some preferred the use of
the word ojuoiovcrioe to that of 6/uoovo-ioc. L. 4. c. 37, sub fine.

4 A.D. 359. De Synodis, c. 12. Socrates, L. 2. c. 39. He

128 COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

at Seleucia to the number of about one hundred
and sixty. According to Athanasius, Acacius, with
his friends, in order to ward off the condemnation
which they apprehended, having associated to them
selves certain Arian bishops who had been conse
crated by Secundus, the same who was deposed at
the Nicene Council, Stephanus, Seras, and Pollux,
bishops of Libya, Pancratius and a Meletian bishop
named Ptolemy, openly rejected the Nicene creed.
A great majority, however, confirmed it, with the
exception of the word opooumoc, which they omitted
on account of its ambiguity. After much angry
discussion, Acacius, Patrophilus, Uranius of Tyre,
George of Cappadocia, Leontius, Theodotus, Ev-
agrius, and Theodulus, were deposed ; Asterius,
Eusebius, Abgarus, Basilicus, Phoebus, Fidelius,
Eutychius, Eustathius, and Magnus, were excom
municated, because they had not appeared when
called upon to answer the accusations against
them.

refers his readers to the collection of Sabinus. The number of
those who attached themselves to Acacius was thirty-two. George
of Laodicea, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis, and Eleusius of Cyzicus,
were the leaders of the majority. Sozomen, L. 4. c. 22. The
Oxford annotator de Synodis, c. 12, note o, says that Basil of
Ancyra was not present ; but Socrates says that on the third day,
both he and Macedonius of Constantinople were present, c. 40.
Sozomen says the same. Hilary was present : and it has been
inferred from the manner in which Athanasius expresses him
self, that he was also present ; but the Benedictine editor shows
this to be highly improbable. De Synod, sub in.

COUNCIL OF NIC-ffiA. 129

Having communicated the decree to their several
dioceses, the bishops returned home, with the ex
ception of those who were deputed to render Con-
stantius an account of their proceedings.

According to ] Socrates and 2 Sozomen, the ques
tion was first debated among the bishops, whether
they should, before they entered into the discussion
of points of doctrine, enquire into certain charges
affecting the moral character of some of their
number. It was determined, however, to proceed
to the points of doctrine. 3 The majority were in
favour of the Creed of the Dedication ; the others of
the creed set forth by Mark of Arethusa at Sirmium.
Acacius joined the latter party, though he had not
long before written a letter to Macedonius, in which
he professed to believe that the Son is in all
respects like the Father, and of the same substance.
Leonas, an officer of the palace, who had been sent
by Constantius to be present at the discussions, took
part with Acacius, and caused the profession of faith
which he had drawn up to be read to the Synod.
He and his party were, nevertheless, as we have
seen, condemned. After the Synod was dissolved,

1 L. 2. c. 40. 2 L. 4. c. 19.

3 Hilary, contra Constantium, c. 12, says that one hundred and
five maintained the Homceousian doctrine, nineteen the Ano-
moaan. The minority, in their letter to Constantius, represent
themselves as having subscribed the true doctrine, omitting the
word ovffia. Hilary, Fragm. ix. c. 2.

130 COUNCIL OF NTC^A.

the l Acacians proceeded to the Emperor at Constan
tinople, where they met the delegates both from
Rimini and Seleucia; and Constantius directed the
united body, in conjunction with other bishops who
happened to be in the place, to examine into the
tenets of 2 Aetius, which were condemned. He then

1 Hilary, contra Constantium, c. 15, Fragm. x.

2 See the lively account given by Theodoret of what passed
at Constantinople, L. 2. c. 27. Aetius was the leader of the
Anomoean party. He was ordained by Leontius, was the friend
of Acacius, and indoctrinated Eudoxius in Arianism. De Synodis,
c. 38. Socrates, L. 3. c. 10. Sozomen, L. 3. c. 15, says that he
practised medicine at Antioch (Philostorgius also states this),
and devoted himself to the study of the Scriptures and to phi
losophy. He, in consequence, became intimate with the Ceesar,
Gallus : an intimacy which, according to Philostorgius, L. 4. c. 8,
through the malicious representations of Basil of Ancyra to Con
stantius, occasioned his banishment. Basil had previously tried
to injure him in the estimation of Gallus. Philostorgius says
that he was born in Coele-Syria, that his father s property was
confiscated, and that in order to support his mother, he took up
the trade of a goldsmith ; that after her death he applied himself
to the study of logic, and became a hearer of Paulinus, Bishop of
Antioch ; that Eulalius, the successor of Paulinus, drove him
away from Antioch ; that he then went to Anazarbus, where he
was patronized by Athanasius, who had been a disciple of Lucian;
that he afterwards went to Tarsus, whence he returned to An
tioch, and was there ordained by Leontius ; that he excited the
implacable hatred of Basil of Ancyra and Eustathius of Sebastia
by defeating them in a disputation respecting the Homoousian
doctrine ; that he went to Alexandria for the purpose of counter
acting the effect of the teaching of Athanasius ; that when Se-
cundus and Seras wished to consecrate him bishop, he refused
on account of their connexion with the Homoousians (he appears
afterwards to have consented, L. 7. c. 6) ; and that Eunomius
became his disciple. L. 3. cc. 15, 16, 17. 19, 20. At c. 27,

COUNCIL OF NICJEA. 131

commanded the delegates from Seleucia to subscribe
the profession of faith which Valens had succeeded
in persuading the delegates from Rirnini to sign.
Such was the result of the Synods of Rimini and
Seleucia. Constantius, who professed, according to
Sozomen s statement, to believe that the Son is in
all respects, /car ou&lt;nav, like the Father, employed his
imperial power in forcing upon the Christian world
a creed in which the Son is said generally to be like
the Father, and the word ] ov&lt;ria is purposely omitted.
It is to the publication of this creed that the me-

Philostorgius says that Gallus, when Julian first showed a dis
position to renounce Christianity, sent Aetius to him in the hope
of preventing his apostasy. Athanasius, de Synodis, c. 6, says
that he was called aOeog b Qpv\\ov/jievoQ At rtoe, 6 TrtK\i]deiQ aOeog.
Socrates says of him, that he was better acquainted with the logic
of Aristotle than with the Scriptures ; and that Eunomius was
his amanuensis. L. 2. c. 35 ; L. 4. c. 7. Compare Sozomen,
L. 4. c. 12. Eunomius appears to have attached himself in
separably to Aetius. Philostorgius, L. 6. c. 3 ; L. 7. cc. 5, 6 ;
L. 8. c. 2 ; L. 9. cc. 4. 6, where he is said to have closed the
eyes of his dying master, and to have done honour by a splendid
funeral to his remains.

1 In the third Sirmian Creed, which was first produced at
Rimini, the word ovala is omitted, but the Son is said to be like
the Father, Kara iravrn. De Synodis, c. 8. In the creed pro
duced at Seleucia, the terms opoovtrio^ and bpotovatog are rejected
as unscriptural, the Anomoeans are condemned, and the likeness
of the Son to the Father is recognized. De Synodis, c. 29.
Hilary, contra Constantium, c. 14. In the confession agreed to
at Nice and confirmed at Constantinople, the word ovaia is
omitted, and the Son is said to be like to the Father : this like
ness the Arians would interpret according to their own views.
C. 30. This is the creed given by Theodoret, L. 2. c. 21, and
Socrates, L. 2. c. 41. See Hilary, Fragm. xiii.

K 2

132 COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

movable remark of 1 Jerome applies : " Ingemuit
totus orbis et se Ariammi esse miratus est." Atha-
nasius 2 had applauded the Synod at Rimini for their
firmness in rejecting the creed proposed by Valens ;
3 great, therefore, was his surprise and grief, when he
learned that they had been induced by the threats
of Constantius to subscribe the creed put forth by
Valens at Nice. He states further, that the Arian
bishops met together afterwards at Antioch, and
there put forth a purely Anomoean creed, in which
the Son was said to be in no manner like the Father,
reverting, as he says, to the original principles of
Arius, the founder of their sect.

Having completed his narrative of what passed at
Constantinople, and made his way, to use his own
expression, through the labyrinth of confessions of
faith, 4 Socrates says that he will pause to enumerate
them.

He first mentions the Nicene, of which the dis
tinguishing feature was the word o^uooucrioc, insisted
upon by Athanasius as that which best expressed the
essential divinity of the Son, 5 the oneness of His

1 Adv. Luciferianos, p. 98.

2 De Synodis, c. 13.

3 De Synodis, cc. 30, 31. Theodoret, L. 2. c. 31.

4 L. 2. c. 41.

5 c/noiovaioQ or ofjLoiog Kar ovaiav implies rather a separation of

Likeness implies two distinct things or beings. The

COUNCIL OF NIOEA. 133

essence with the Father s, and admitted of no
evasion.

He next mentions J two creeds set forth at
Antioch, of which the former does not bear on the
points in dispute, but is another version of the
Apostles creed : the latter is known by the name of
the Formulary of the Dedication, and 2 was attributed
to Lucian by the Eusebians, who said that they
had found a copy in his own handwriting. It does
not contain the word ouooutrtoc, but it calls the Son

Tc orrjroc ovaaQ re rou Trarpoc aajoaa/CToc t/ca)v.

3 Hilary deemed it orthodox.

Socrates next mentions the 4 confession which was

generation of the Son s essence from the Father s establishes
the distinction between the Generans and the Genitum, while it
maintains the co-essentiality. According to the decree of the
fourth Lateran Council, " Essentia divina nee est generans,
nee genita, nee procedens ;" on which Bingham remarks, that
it cometh nearest to Tritheism. Sermon on the Divinity of
Christ. Cudworth had before observed, after stating that the
Trinity of Gregory of Nyssa and Cyril of Alexandria came to be
deemed Tritheistic, that in the room thereof started there up that
other Trinity of persons numerically the same, as having all one
and the same singular existent essence; a doctrine which seem-
eth not to have been owned by any public authority in the Chris
tian Church, save that of the Lateran Council only. Intellectual
System, fol. ed. p. 604.

1 De Synodis, cc. 22, 23. 2 Sozomen, L. 3. c. 5.

3 De Synodis, cc. 28. 33. He says that it was put forth, not
against those who held that the Father and the Son were of dis
similar essence, but against those who held a nominal Trinity.
Compare ad Constantium, c. 23.

4 De Synodis, c. 25.

134 COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

delivered by Narcissus and his associates to Constans,
in Gaul ; and omits the word

The ] next is the confession known by the name
of the Macrostic ; in it the Son is said to be in
every respect like to the Father, ojuocov /caret Travra ;
an expression which admitted of evasion, since it
might or might not be construed to include likeness
in essence.

Socrates then mentions the three confessions
drawn up at Sirmium ; the 2 first, that of the synod
summoned for the condemnation of Photinus, which
Hilary deemed orthodox ; the 3 second, from which
the words owrta, o^uoovcrtoc, djuotoucrtoc are excluded,
and to which Hilary gives the title of "blasphemia;"
the 4 third, which has prefixed to it the consulate in
which it was published, and was composed by Mark
of Arethusa. It was, with some alteration, proposed
to the Synod of Rimini, but rejected.

1 De Synodis, c. 26.

2 A.D. 351. De Synodis, c. 27. Hilary, de Synodis, c. 38.
In his book against Constantius, he says that the Arians wished
to alter the first anathema of this creed, c. 23. p. 1255 A. Ac
cording to the Benedictine editor, Photinus was four times con
demned: at Milan, in 347; again in 349; at Sirmium in 354.
Fragm. ii. cc. 21. 24. 29.

3 A.D. 357. De Synodis, c. 28. Hilary, de Synodis, cc. 2.
10, 11. According to Hilary, this was the creed subscribed by
Hosius, c. 63. Hilary, Fragm. ii. c. 21.

4 De Synodis, cc. 8. 29. Hilary, ex opere historico Fragm,
xv. c. 3. A.D. 359.

COUNCIL OF NIOflEA. 135

The eighth, the creed produced at Seleucia by the
Arians; the ninth, that which Constantius forced
upon the synods of Rimini and Seleucia. Socrates
adds that Ulphilas, the Bishop of the Goths, then
joined the Arian party. This long list of confessions
is not complete, for Athanasius l says that ten or
more were put forth ; among them 2 one, as we have
seen, by the bishops who seceded from Sardica to
Philippopolis.

To return to Athanasius, who, as has been stated,
took refuge from the violence of his enemies in the
desert. 3 George of Cappadocia then took possession
of the see of Alexandria, and held it about six years.
According to Athanasius, he was a man of bad
character and not really a Christian ; and according

1 Ad Afros, c. 3.

2 Hilary, Fragm. iii. c. 29.

3 TheBenedictine editor places this event A.D. 356. DeSynodis,
c. 37. Socrates, L. 2. c. 45. Sozomen, L. 4. c. 30. Athanasius
calls him TOV airb vTroSeKrtii , De Synodis, c. 12, and VTTO^IKTTJV
kv KbivaravTivovTroXet TUIV rapiaKwy ; and adds that, having been
guilty of peculation, he was obliged to fly. Ad Monachos, c. 74.
Athanasius calls him also rbv Tap.eiotyd yov : c. 51. See also ad
Ep. wiEgypt. et Lib. c. 7. Suicer interprets i&gt;7roce n-7?e a receiver
of taxes. Gregory of Nazianzen says that he supplied the army
with pork. Oratio xxi. c. 16. In his letter to the Alexandrians
Constantius calls him 6 aepvoraToc. Ad Constantium, c. 30.
Athanasius speaks of him as ignorant ; but, as Gibbon observes,
he collected a valuable library, which Julian ordered to be pre
served for his own use : c. 23. Gibbon considers it to be ex
tremely probable that George of Cappadocia is no other than
St. George, the patron saint of England.

136 COUNCIL OF NIGVEA.

to Epiphanius, he resorted to the most disgraceful
as well as violent proceedings in order to gratify his
avarice. He deprived many of the inheritance left
them by their parents ; he monopolized the nitre of
jEgypt, the beds of papyrus, and the salt lakes,
fanning them for his own profit ; he caused a num
ber of biers to be made, and would allow no others
to be used for carrying out the bodies of the dead,
thus making a profit even out of funerals. We
might feel some distrust of the accounts given of his
avarice and cruelty by the supporters of Athanasius,
if they were not confirmed by the testimony of
2 Ammianus Marcellinus, who speaks of his appoint
ment to the bishopric of Alexandria as a public
calamity, and says that he tried to persuade Con-
stantius that the soil on which Alexandria stood
belonged to him, as the successor of the founder of
the city, and consequently all the houses built upon
it. The people had long regarded him with bitter
hatred ; but the immediate cause of his death ap
pears to have been 3 a casual exclamation which he
uttered as he passed the Temple of Genius, a temple
remarkable for its beauty. "How long," he said,

1 Hseresis, Ixxvi. c. 1.

2 L. 22. p 1626 C. Ammianus says that he was born at
Epiphania in Cilicia.

3 Socrates, L. 3. c. 2, and Sozomen, L. 5. c. 7, agree in stating
that the tumult arose from an attempt to purify a spot of ground
on which the heathen had been accustomed to celebrate the
mysteries of Mithras, and which Constantius had granted for the
site of a church.

COUNCIL OF NICJEA. 137

"shall this sepulchre stand?" The people inferring
that he intended to destroy the temple, broke out
into insurrection, tore him, together with Dracontius,
the master of the mint, and the Count Diodorus, to
pieces, and treated their dead bodies with every species
of indignity. This event took place shortly after the
death of Constantius; his successor Julian, on hearing
it, was at first disposed to inflict very severe punish
ment on the offenders, but, in the end, contented
himself with threatening any one who should in
future disturb the public tranquillity. 2 The friends
of Athanasius were naturally charged by his enemies
with instigating the tumult, but the letter of Julian
gives no countenance to the charge. Julian, on his
accession to the empire, permitted all the bishops who
had been banished by Constantius to 3 return home ;
among them Eusebius of Vercelli and Lucifer of
Cagliari, who had been banished to the Thebais. Atha
nasius in consequence returned to Alexandria; and

1 A.D. 362. Constantius was baptized shortly before his death by
Euzoius. DeSynodis, c. 31. Socrates, L. 2. c. 47. Sozomen,L. 5.
c. 1. Philostorgius, L. 6. c. 5. Gibbon says that Athanasius spoke
of Constantius in opposite terms at the same time ; the Oxford an-
notator calls this statement unfair, De Synodis, c. 12; it must,
however, be admitted that the transition from the language of
praise to that of vituperation was rapid. Compare ad Ep. ^Egypt.
et Lib. c. 23. Ad Constantium, c. 27, with De Fuga, c. 26. Ad
Monachos, c. 69.

2 Socrates, L. 3. c. 3. Sozomen, L. 5. c. 7. Philostorgius, L. 7. c. 2.

3 Hilary, ad Const. L. 1. c. 8. Socrates, L. 3. cc. 4,5. Sozomen,
L. 5. c. 12. Philostorgius, L. 6. c. 7. Theodoret, L, 3. c. 4.
Jerome adv. Luciferianos, p. 99 A.

138 COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

as the death of George had removed all obstacle to
his l resumption of the see, he resumed it amidst the
joy and acclamations of the people.

In recording the events which occurred after the
reinstatement of Athanasius in his see, we derive
little assistance from his own works. We learn
from 2 Socrates that, shortly after his return, he and
Eusebius of Vercelli determined to hold a synod at
Alexandria, at which Lucifer was not present, though
he sent 3 his deacon and promised to abide by all
which the synod might decree. 4 The immediate
object of the synod appears to have been to reunite
the orthodox who had been scattered during the
episcopate of George, and to settle the terms of
union. These were, that all should condemn the

1 The Arians appointed Lucius in the place of George. So
crates, L. 4. c. 1. Sozomen, L. 6. c. 19.

2 L. 3. cc. 6, 7. 9. Socrates appears to have fallen into an
error respecting the decision of the synod upon the use of the
words ovffia and vTrooraaic, which he states to have been that they
were not to be used with reference to the Deity, but only in
opposition to the error of Sabellius. Athanasius, in his letter to
the Church at Antioch, makes no mention of any such decision.
Sozomen, however, agrees with Socrates, L. 5. c. 12. The
remarks of Socrates on the word i/Troorao-ie deserve attention ;
Athanasius understood by the word an individual subsistence.
See Introduction to Bingham s Sermons, vol. viii.

3 It appears from the Tomus ad Antiochenos that he sent two
deacons, Herennius and Agapetus : c. 9.

4 Tomus ad Antiochenos, c. 3. It seems that some who pro
fessed the Nicene faith denied the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.
See the letter of Basil of Csesarea, 204 or 75.

COUNCIL OF NIC^A. 139

heresy of Arius and accept the Nicene confession ;
that they should condemn, also, those who said that
the Holy Spirit was a creature,, and distinct from
the essence of Christ ; and l that they should hold
the perfect humanity of Christ that He had a
human soul as well as body. It appears that there
were 2 some who spoke of three virvaTaatiQ in the
Deity, and some only of one uTro draatc, the former
using the word in the sense of person, in opposition
to the notion of a nominal Trinity; the other as
synonymous with ovaia, in opposition to Arianism:
both parties were pronounced orthodox. The pro
ceedings of the synod were conducted with so much
wisdom and in so conciliatory a spirit as to command
the approval of 3 Gibbon.

After the synod 4 Eusebius was sent to Antioch,
where he found the Church in a state of great con
fusion, occasioned principally by the precipitancy of
Lucifer. When 5 Eustathius was deposed, though the

1 c. 7. 2 cc. 5, 6.

3 c. 23. He refers to the Epistle to Rufinianus, from which
it appears that the course pursued at Alexandria had been fol
lowed by other Churches. See the letter of Liberius. Hilary,
Fragm. xii.

4 Socrates, L. 3. c. 9. Sozomen, L. 5. c. 13. Asterius,
who quitted the Arians at Sardica, accompanied him. Tomus,
cc. 1, 2.

5 Socrates, L. 2. c. 44. Sozomen, L. 5. c. 13. According
to the lively description of Theodoret, the Emperor, being at
Antioch when Meletius was elected bishop, ordered him and

140 COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

Arians became the prevailing party at Antioch, the
orthodox continued to hold their assemblies. On
the translation of Eudoxius to Constantinople, the
Arians appointed Meletlus to succeed him. Mele-
tius had been Bishop of Sebastia, whence he was
translated to Beroea, and, as Bishop of Beroea, at
tended the Council of Seleucia, where he subscribed
the creed set forth by Acacius. The Arians, there
fore, conceiving him to hold their tenets, appointed

others to expound Proverbs viii. 22. George of Laodicea first
poured forth his heretical version ; then Acacius of Caesarea took
a middle course, avoiding the blasphemy of George, but not
setting forth the pure apostolical doctrine ; lastly, Meletius de
clared the true faith, amidst the applause of the people, who
besought him to set it before them in a compendious form ; upon
which he first held up three fingers, and then closing two of them,
held up one ; saying at the same time, there are three objects of the
understanding, roov/ievct, but we address them as one. L. 2. c. 31.
We find his name subscribed to the decree of the Synod of
Antioch held in the reign of Jovian, which declared its adhesion
to the Nicene faith. Socrates, L. 3. c. 25. See Philostorgius,
L. 5. c. 1. Basil speaks of him in terms of high eulogium, as pure
in faith and life ; and strongly expresses his wish that the ortho
dox congregations at Antioch may be united under his episcopacy.
Ep. 67 or 50. It appears that when Athanasius went to Antioch,
Meletius declined to hold communion with him, influenced by
the suggestions of some ill-disposed advisers. Athanasius, there
fore, on his return to Alexandria, wrote to Paulinus, whose
supporters took advantage of the circumstance in order to create
the impression that Athanasius regarded him, not Meletius, as the
orthodox bishop of Antioch. Basil professed his determination
to adhere to Meletius, who seems afterwards to have wished to
be received into communion by Athanasius ; Basil tells him that,
after what had passed, Athanasius could not make the first over
ture. Ep. 89 or 27-3, 214 or 349, 258 or 325.

COUNCIL OF NIC^A. 141

him to Antioch : at first he treated only of questions
of morals, avoiding all doctrinal points ; but by de
grees he began to teach the Nicene doctrine, and
was in consequence removed by Constantius, who
appointed Euzoius in his place. Many, however, of
his hearers still followed him; but the members
of the congregation who had adhered originally to
Eustathius regarded him with suspicion, because he
had been appointed by the Arians and his followers
had received Arian baptism ; they refused, therefore,
to hold communion with him : thus, as Socrates
observes, the Church was divided into two parties,
agreeing with each other in point of doctrine. One
object of the mission of Eusebius and Asterius was
to heal this division ; l but on their arrival they
found that Lucifer had already consecrated Paulinus
bishop of the church which derived its succession
from Eustathius. All the efforts of Eusebius to form
a junction of the two parties were unavailing ;
Paulinus performed divine service in a small church
which Euzoius from feelings of personal respect
allowed him to retain ; Eustathius held his meetings
without the walls of the city. The precipitancy and
obstinacy of Lucifer multiplied the causes of dis
sension. Finding that Eusebius refused to recognize
Paulinus, he treated the refusal as an insult to him
self, broke off communion with Eusebius, and, in his

1 Socrates, L. 3. c. 9; L. 4. c. 1. Sozomen, L. 5. c. 13.
Theodoret, L. 3. c. 5. Philostorgius, L. 3. c. 18.

142 COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

anger, l began to object to the easy terms on which
the clergy, who had joined the Arians during their
ascendancy under Constantius, had been restored by
the synod at Alexandria to their position in the
Church. Thus he formed a sect, which bore his
name, and continued to exist in the time of So
crates ; he himself returned to Sardinia.

If Athanasius had been allowed to remain in peace
at Alexandria, he might have effected much towards
the restoration of harmony, not only in that city,
but throughout the Christian world. As, however,
he had been driven from his bishopric by one Em
peror on account of his uncompromising defence of
the Catholic faith, 2 he was now again to be driven
from it by that Emperor s successor on account of
his active zeal in the maintenance of Christianity
itself. Julian, having himself renounced it, was de
termined, by appealing to the fears or the interests
of his subjects, to induce them to join him in his
apostacy. Having learned, therefore, from the pre
fect of jEgypt that all the attempts to re-establish

1 He had, as we have seen, promised to abide by the decision
of the synod. That decision was, that those of the clergy who
had taken an active and prominent part on the Arian side should
not be allowed to resume their ministerial functions ; but that in
dulgence should be extended to those who had temporized through
fear, and acted otKorofuKMc. Epistle to Rufinianus. Lucifer ap
pears to have received those who had been baptized among the
Arians. Jerome adv. Luciferianos, p. 99 F.

2 Socrates, L. 3. cc. 13, 14. Sozomen, L, 5. c. 15.

COUNCIL OF NIC^A. 143

the Gentile worship at Alexandria were frustrated
by the preaching of Athanasius, and that converts
were even made from heathenism to Christianity,
he l ordered the bishop to quit the city, threatening
him with the severest punishment if he hesitated to
obey the order. Athanasius resolved to obey ; and
said to his friends, who were weeping around him,
" Be of good courage ; this is a little cloud, which
will soon pass away :" he then went on board a vessel
in the Nile, with the view of escaping into Upper
jEgypt. 2 A story in connexion with his flight has
been preserved, which the person who records it
states himself to have heard from his mouth. He
was advised to take refuge with Theodorus, the head
of the monastery at Tabenne. In company with
him in the vessel were Theodorus and the Abbot
Pammo, and the wind proving contrary, in the dis
quietude of his heart he had recourse to prayer.
The abbot began to console him, but he replied :
"Believe me, I never feel the same confidence in
time of peace which I feel in time of persecution.

1 He pretended that although he had on his accession given
the bishops permission to return from banishment, he had not
given them permission to resume their bishoprics.

2 Narratio ad Ammonium, torn. ii. p. 868. Socrates appears
not to have heard this story ; but he gives an account of a clever
artifice by which Athanasius escaped the pursuit of his enemies.
It is also recounted by Theodoret, L. 3. c. 9. Sozomen says
that the revelation of the death of Julian was made to Didymus,
a Christian philosopher of Alexandria, \vho communicated the
event to Athanasius: L. G. c. 2.

144 COUNCIL OF NICJEA.

For I take courage from the assurance that suffering
for Christ and being strengthened by his mercy,
I shall, even if I am slain, find still greater mercy
from Him." While he was yet uttering these words,
Theodoras, fixing his eyes on the abbot, smiled, and
the abbot nearly laughed. Athanasius then inquired
why they smiled, and whether they suspected him
of cowardice. Theodoras answered : " At this very
moment Julian is slain in Persia ; and will be suc
ceeded by an Emperor illustrious, indeed, but short
lived. Instead, therefore, of pursuing your route to
the Thebais, go secretly to the court; you will meet
him by the way, and will be well received by him ;
but he will quickly be removed from the world."

Athanasius would not be unwilling to give ere-
dence to the intelligence of the death of Julian, from
whatsoever source derived ; but he does not appear
to have adopted the advice of Theodoras : he did
not repair to the court, but ] went to Alexandria
immediately after Julian s death. One of Jovian s
earliest acts, however, appears to have been to ad
dress a 2 letter to Athanasius, inviting him to return
to Alexandria. He afterwards wrote another letter,
in which he requested the opinion of the bishop

1 Socrates, L. 3. c. 24. Sozomen, L. 6. c. 5. Theodoret, L. 4.
c. 2. Philostorgius, L. 8. c. 5.

2 See the letter, torn. ii. p. 779. Epiphanius refers to it,
Haeres. Ixviii. c. 11.

COUNCIL OF NIOEA. 145

upon the points of doctrine on which the Church
was divided. Athanasius thought it advisable, before
he answered the letter, to l assemble some of the
more eminent bishops, and by obtaining their con
currence to give greater authority to his reply. It
contains, however, little more than a statement that
the Catholic Church agreed in holding the Nicene
faith.

In the mean time, 2 the Arians were not idle.
They went to the Emperor, who was then at Antioch,
and petitioned him to give them a bishop, but not
Athanasius, in the hope perhaps, that he would
confirm the appointment of Lucius, whom they had
chosen after the death of George of Cappadocia.

1 Theodoret, L. 4. cc. 2, 3. Athanasii Opera, torn. ii. p. 780.
It appears that the character of the controversy had undergone
a change : Athanasius now speaks of those who, while they
adopted the word O/JOOIKTIOG, attached to it an heretical meaning,
and said the Holy Spirit is a creature. Ep. 1. ad Serapionem,
c. 1. The Emperor s letter was occasioned by the attempts
made at his accession by the leaders of the different parties, to
gain him over to their side. Basil of Ancyra and his party,
whom Socrates calls Macedonians, petitioned Jovian to expel the
Anomceans. He answered, that he hated contention, and was
anxious to promote concord. Seeing, therefore, that Meletius
was much esteemed by him, the Acacians, from whom Meletius
had seceded, joined in a confession, in which they declared their
adhesion to the Nicene Faith, with an explanation of the word
o/joovaioQ, which they interpreted to mean that the Son was of
the essence of the Father, and like Him in essence. Socrates,
L. 3. c. 25. Sozomen, L. 6. c. 4.

2 Athanasii Opera, torn. ii. p. 782. Compare Sozomen, L. 6.
c. 5. See also Philostorgius, L. 8. c. 6.

146 COUNCIL OF NICLEA.

They alleged against Athanasius, that he had been
banished both by Constantine and Constantius, that
he had been guilty of various acts of oppression, and
would not allow them to hold their religious assem
blies. Athanasius appears to have been then at
Antioch, either in consequence of a summons from
Jovian, or having thought it advisable to go thither
in order to answer in person the charges of his
enemies. The result was altogether in his favour.
The Emperor repelled the Arian delegates with
strong expressions of anger and dislike, and uttered
a somewhat uncharitable imprecation against Lucius.

1 The premature death of Jovian gave occasion to
the renewal of the dissensions of the Church, and of
the troubles of Athanasius. He was succeeded by
Valentinian, who, immediately after his accession,
associated his brother Valens to himself in the
empire : 2 both \vere sincere in the profession of
Christianity ; both had run the risk of incurring the
displeasure of Julian by refusing to take part in the
heathen rites ; but 3 Valentinian upheld the Homo-

1 A.D. 364.

2 Socrates, L. 4. c. 1. He says that the Catholics were so few
in number at Constantinople, that a very small building was suf
ficient to hold them.

3 Theodoret gives the letter of a synod held in Illyricum by
the command of Valentinian, in which the Homoousian doctrine
is expressly set forth ; as well as the Emperor s letter in ex
planation of it. L. 4. cc. 7, 8.

COUNCIL OF NIOEA. 147

ousian creed, while Valens, who had been baptized
by Eudoxius, was an Arian, and not content with
favouring his own party, persecuted those whose
belief differed from his own. l Sozomen says that he
gave orders for the expulsion from their bishoprics
of all the bishops who, having been deposed by Con-
stantius, had returned at the accession of Julian ;
but that when the Prsefect of Mgypt proceeded to
carry this order into effect at Alexandria, the people
showed so strong a determination to prevent the
expulsion of Athanasius, that he thought it better
to desist. Athanasius, however, left the city secretly,
and so effectually 2 concealed himself, as to baffle
the pursuit of the Prsefect ; and Valens, after a short
interval, allowed him to return and to resume his
bishopric.

3 Valens, shortly after his accession to the empire,
had been urged by the Macedonians 4 to call a synod,
and supposing them to agree in opinion with Acacius

1 L. 6. c. 12. Socrates, L. 4. c. 13.

2 Sozomen says that he lay hid in his father s monument.

3 Socrates, L. 4. cc. 2. 4. Sozomen, L. 6. c. 7, says that the
request for a synod was made also to Valentinian.

4 We have seen that Paul succeeded Alexander in the bishopric
of Constantinople ; that he was ejected by Eusebius of Nicome-
dia, but replaced in the bishopric on the death of that prelate.
The Eusebians, however, appointed Macedonius, who, as well as
Paul, had been named by Alexander as well qualified to succeed
him ; and who, after the final expulsion of Paul, remained in the
sole, though not quiet, possession of the see. He joined Basil

L 2

148 COUNCIL OF NKLEA.

and Eudoxius, had consented. It met at Lampsacus,
and having confirmed the profession of the Council
of Antioch which they had subscribed at Seleucia,
condemned that of ] Rimini. Valens was extremely
incensed at the proceedings of the synod, and on
his return after the defeat of Procopius, assembled
2 a council of Arian bishops, who deposed Eleusius,
the head of the Macedonian party, and substituted
Eunomius in his place. 3 The Macedonians deter
mined to send delegates to Valentinian, and to
Liberius, Bishop of Rome. The former was then
occupied with the Sarmatian war, and could not,
therefore, receive them ; and Liberius at first hesi-

of Ancyra at the Council of Seleucia, and acquired such influence
among the semi-Arians that, as we have seen, Socrates calls
them Macedonians. His opposition to the Arian or Anomoean
party was so deeply resented by them, that they succeeded at
the Synod of Constantinople (A.D. 360) in depriving him of his
bishopric. Philostorgius, L. 4. c. 9. He appears to have been
of the number of those whom Athanasius describes, in his Epistles
to Serapion on the Holy Spirit, as having renounced the Arian
doctrine as far as it related to the Second, but having retained
it as far as it related to the Third, Person of the Holy Trinity ;
denying His Personality, and considering Him as a Divine Energy.
The publication of his opinions occasioned the calling of the
Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, by which they were con
demned.

1 The creed forced upon the bishops by Valens. Socrates,
L. 4. c. 12. p. 181 B.

2 Socrates, L. 4. c. 6. Sozomen, L, 6. c. 8. Eleusius was
offered the alternative of subscribing the profession put forth by
the Council or of being banished ; he at first subscribed, but
afterwards repented of his subscription, and was deprived.

3 Socrates, L. 4. c. 12. Sozomen, L. 6. cc. 10, 11, 12.

COUNCIL OF NIC^A. 149

tated, saying that they belonged to the Arian party.
Being afterwards satisfied that they had abjured
their error, and having obtained from them a sub
scription to an Homoousian creed, he addressed a
letter to them, in which he bore testimony to their
orthodoxy. This letter they caused to be circulated
among all who held the Homoousian doctrine ; and
an attempt was made to convene a synod at Tarsus
for its confirmation, but frustrated by the influence
of Eudoxius with Valens.

Damasus had now succeeded Liberius in the
bishopric of Rome ; and 2 Theodoret has preserved a
letter, addressed by him and ninety bishops from
Italy and Gaul, assembled at Rome, to the bishops
of Illyricum, in which the proceedings of Valens at
Nice are condemned, and the 3 subscriptions of the
bishops are said to have been obtained by fraud.

The last public act of Athanasius appears to have
been the calling together of a * synod at Alexandria,
by which a letter was addressed to the bishops of
Africa for the purpose of exhorting them to adhere
to the Nicene Confession, and not to be shaken in
their minds by that which the Arians put forth as
the confession of Rimini, but which was really that

1 A.D. 366.

2 L. 2. c. 22. Compare ad Afros, cc. 1. 20.

3 Hilary, Fragra. xii. c. 3. * Ad Afros.

150 COUNCIL OF NIC2EA.

imposed upon the bishops at Nice. In this letter,
reference is made to the council held by l Damasus
at Rome. But though no public act of Athanasius
is recorded during the remaining years of his life,
he still continued to watch over the purity of
Christian doctrine; and finding that the errors of
Apollinarius were widely circulated, he wrote in
confutation of them the 2 two tracts which purport
to be expressly directed against that heretic, and the
Epistle to Epictetus.

The Benedictine editor places his death, A.D. 373.
His character has been drawn with a masterly hand
by Gibbon, who was fully competent to appreciate
his intellectual and moral qualities : his quickness
and clearness of perception ; his patience of labour ;
his unflinching, yet well-regulated, courage ; his
stedfastness of purpose; his knowledge of human
nature ; and that which is the surest mark of a
great mind, his power of swaying the wills and the
affections of all who came within the sphere of his

1 The Benedictine editor supposes two councils to have been
held by Damasus ; the former, A.D. 368. Athanasius, on re
ceiving from him an account of what had passed in it, assembled
the synod at Alexandria A.D. 369, which addressed a letter to
Damasus, calling upon him to condemn Auxentius, who had ob
tained possession of the see of Milan. See p. 119. note 1. Da
masus held a second council for the purpose, A. D. 370, and then
wrote the letter preserved by Theodoret.

2 The Benedictine editor thinks that the title to the tracts was
added bv a transcriber.

COUNCIL OF NIOffiA. 151

influence. But Gibbon, himself an unbeliever, and
regarding the questions on which the life of Atha-
nasius was employed as scarcely worthy to occupy
the thoughts and talents of a rational being,
could not appreciate, for he could not understand,
the feeling which was the main-spring of the whole
conduct of Athanasius, which prompted his exertions
and supported him amidst all the vicissitudes of his
chequered career, amidst the persecutions, the priva
tions, the dangers to which he was subjected the
intensity of his zeal for the preservation of the inte
grity and purity of the Christian faith. That zeal
in the eye of the sceptical historian assumed the
character of fanaticism. In order, therefore, to fill
up what is defective in the portrait which he has
drawn, I will add the estimate formed by a Christian
philosopher of the services which Athanasius was
appointed to render to the cause of Christianity.
1 " Of whom (Athanasius) we can think no otherwise
than as a person highly instrumental and serviceable
to Divine Providence for the preserving of the
Christian Church from lapsing, by Arianism, into a
kind of Paganick and idolatrous Christianity, in re
ligiously worshipping of those whom themselves con
cluded to be creatures ; and by means of whom
especially the doctrine of the Trinity, which before
fluctuated in some loose uncertainty, came to be
more punctually stated and settled."

1 Cudworth, Intellectual System, p. 620. ed. fol.

SOME ACCOUNT

OF THE

FOUR ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

THE ARIANS.

MY design in the following chapter is to place before
the reader on the one hand the objections urged
by the Arians against the Homoousian doctrine,
and, on the other, the reasonings by which Atha-
nasius, its great defender, replied to them ; and thus
to give him a just notion of the character of the
Arian controversy. I must, however, exhort those
of my readers who are conversant with the Greek
language to read the treatises in the original.
The style of Athanasius is both perspicuous and
forcible: and in consequence of the flexibility and
copiousness of the language in which he writes, he
is enabled to render the nice and subtle questions
on which he treats clearer and more intelligible than
they can be rendered by an English translation ; our
language, to use the words of Gibbon, frequently
not supplying just equivalents to the Greek terms.

ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS. 153

1 We have seen that the anathema attached to the
profession of faith put forth by the Nicene Council,
was directed against those who said that there was a
time when the Word did not exist ; that He did
not exist before He was begotten; that He was
made of things which were not; that the Son of
God was of another essence or substance, as liable
to change or variation.

That the opinions here condemned were those
really held by Arius and his followers, is evident
from 2 a profession of faith which they addressed to
Alexander. In it they state that God begat His
only-begotten Son before eternal times, and by
Him made the ages and the universe; that God
begat Him, 3 not in appearance, but in truth; un
changeable and unalterable, 4 because He so willed
(i. e. not by nature, but by the exercise of His free
will) ; perfect creature of God, but 5 not as one of
the creatures ; offspring of God, but not as one of

1 Compare de Dec. Syn. Nic. c. 6. Ad Ep. ^Egypt. et Lib.
c. 12. De Synodis, c. 15. Ad Jovianum, p. 780.

2 De Synodis, c. 16. This profession of faith has been already
given in p. 14, but I think that I consult the reader s convenience
in repeating it here.

4 ISlo) deXiipart. TW iciy avr^ovffly. Ad Ep. ^Egypt. et Lib.
c. 12. avre^ovffiurrjTi KUKICIG KUI aptTrjg faiCTUCOV rov viov TOV
Qeov. Seethe Synodical Epistle. Socrates, L. 1. c. 9. Sozomen,
L. 1. c. 15.

5 oi&gt;x we iv TU&gt;V KTiff^urui . Oratio contra Arianos, ii. c. 19.

154 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

things generated. They then reject the notions of
Valentinus, Manichseus, Sabellius, and Hieracas;
and a notion, which they state to have been con
demned publicly by Alexander himself: that the
Son, having previously existed, was generated or
newly created into a Son. They proceed to state
their own belief to be, that the Son was created by
the will of God, before times and ages; that He
received life and being from the Father, the Father
substantially communicating to Him His own glory ;
not that the Father, in giving Him the inheritance
of all things, deprived Himself of that which He has
2 without generation or uningenerately in Himself,
inasmuch as He is the fountain of all things.
There are, therefore, three 3 Subsistences : God the
cause of all things, alone unoriginate ; the Son, be
gotten, 4 not in time, by the Father, but created and
founded before the ages, was not before He was
begotten; but begotten, not in time, before all
things, alone 5 subsisted by the Father ; for He is
neither eternal, nor co-eternal, nor 6 co-ingenerate
with the Father; nor has He existence together
with the Father, according to the language of some

1 This seems to refer to the opinion certainly expressed by
some of the ante-Nicene Fathers, that the Word, existing from
eternity in intimate union with God, was generated to create the
universe, and then was called the Son ; the distinction between
the \6yoQ tvdtadeTOQ and TrpotyopiKog.

2 aytri jyrwc. 3 vTroararrtte.

5 UTTO rov Trarpoe

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 155

who, in speaking of their relation to each other,
introduce two ingenerate principles ; but as God is
the One and l the origin of all things, He is before all
things, and therefore before the Son. As then the
Son has being from the Father, and glory, and life,
and all things are delivered to Him, God is His
origin, and being His God and before Him, has
dominion over Him. Those who interpret the ex
pressions from Him, and from the 2 womb, and I came
forth from the Father, and I am come, as implying a
part of the same substance or an emission (TT^O-
|3oXrJ), make the Father compounded, divisible, liable
to alteration, corporeal ; and, as far as in them lies,
subject the incorporeal God to the accidents of the
body.

3 Athanasius, in his confutation of the Arians,
begins with the two propositions which are first
anathematized : 4 that there was a time when the Son

1 They appeal, in support of this statement, to the teaching
of Alexander himself. The persons here condemned, perhaps,
like Cyril of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa, spoke of the
essence of the Godhead as a numerical, not as a generical essence.
See Cudworth, Intellectual System, p. 602.

3 We have seen that in the letter addressed by Alexander to his
namesake the Bishop of Constantinople, he alleges Psalm ex. 3,
EK yaorpoe ""po ewffyopov iyervrjaa ae, to prove that Christ is by
nature, not by growth in holiness, the Son of God ; or as he
expresses himself, rrJQ TrarpiKfjz nauvaeug tyvautriv |yfc
vloTrjrci, ov rpoTTtov i-mpeXelg. /ecu Trpo/coTrijfe avKi ifftt, aAAa
t Tavrrjv XU-^OVTOQ. Theodoret, L. 1. c. 4. p. 14 D.

3 Oratio i. contra Arianos, c. 11.

1 on i)v TTOTS, ore OVK i\v 6 vtof.

156 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

was not ; and that J the Son was not before He was
begotten. The Arians argued that the relation be
tween God and the Word is represented in Scrip
ture as that of Father and Son ; that this relation
implies a priority of existence in the Father, and,
consequently, a time when the Son was not. They
2 contended also, that this relation is irreconcilable
to the notion that the Son existed co-eternally with
the Father. If they were co-eternal, the relation
between them would be that of brothers, not of
Father and Son. The Arians appear also to have
endeavoured to cast ridicule upon the doctrine of
the eternal generation of the Son, by illustrations
drawn from the generation of human beings. They
asked a woman for instance : 3 " Had you a son,
before you bore him ? you had not : in like manner
the Son of God was not, before He was begotten."

Athanasius answers 4 generally, that the error of
the Arians lay in reasoning from created things to
that which is increate, and supposing that expres
sions applicable to the case of human, were appli
cable to that of Divine generation. He 5 challenges
them also to produce any passages from Scripture
which countenance the statement, that there was a

1 OVK &gt; /i&gt; o vlog TTpiv yerrrjdrj. 2 Oratio i. C. 14.

3 (.1 e!)f viov, irpiv TEKTJQ ; wcnrep de OVK tl^g, OVTW KOI o TOV
Qtoit vioQ OVK i\v, irpiv ytvvrjdrj. Oratio i. c. 22.

4 See c. 29.

5 cc. 11, 12.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 157

time when the Son was not. Scripture, on the con
trary, speaks of the Son as always existing together
with the Father ; for instance, John i. 1. Apocalypse i.
4. Rom. ix. 5; i. 20. Isaiah xl. 28. 2 Hebrews i. 3.
Psalm xc. 17; xxxv. 9 ; cxlv. 13. Athanasius draws
the same conclusion from the passages in which
Christ, speaking of Himself, uses the expression /
am, not / was made, the Truth, the Light, the Lord,
the Shepherd, a mode of speaking which implies
eternal existence. John xiv. 6; viii. 12; xiii. 13;
x. 14. 3 On the other hand, it is with reference to
created things that Scripture speaks of a time prior

1 TO. yap aopara Q.VTOV rnro KriffewQ KOff^ov ro7g Trotr]fj,affi vo-

a Kadoparni, r\ re aidiOQ avrov $vva/ut Kal Oeorrjg. That the
Apostle meant in this verse to say, that man may discern in the
contemplation of the visible works of creation, the power and
Godhead of their invisible Creator, and that he used the word
Godhead absolutely, without any reference to a distinction of
persons, seems scarcely to admit of a question; and so Asterius
the Arian appears to have interpreted the text. Oratio ii. c. 37.
But Athanasius argues, that the Father is known, not through the
works of creation, but through the Son (Matt. xi. 27), by whom
all things were created ; and that consequently, f/ aiSiog IVVU^JHQ
Kal dtorrjQ must be understood of the Son. Christ is called in
1 Cor. i. 24, the power of God, and the wisdom of God. The
Oxford annotator does not express a direct approval of this in
terpretation, but indirectly sanctions it, by speaking of it as a re
ceived interpretation, or as one adduced at Nicaea. See also
Oratio ii. cc. 78. 81.

2 Athanasius lays particular stress on this text, oe wv cnrav-
yaapa ri/c of/e KCti %apaKTt)p rfjg vTrooTao-ewe avrov. The
brightness or radiance, aTravyao-jua, is inseparable from the
light ; so the Son from the Father.

LIBRARY ST. MARY S COLLEGE

158 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

to their existence, of a time when they were not :
thus, in Genesis ii. 5. Deuteron. xxxii. 8. Proverbs
viii. 23. John viii. 58. Jeremiah i. 5. Psalm xc. 1,
the different language in which Scripture speaks of
the Son and of created things, shows that He is not
of the number of created things, but existed from
eternity. l How can there ever have been a time
when He who made the ages, rovg m^vac, did not
exist ?

To the argument, that the co-eternity of the
Word is irreconcilable to the relation of Father
and Son, Athanasius 2 answers, that both these
truths are clearly recorded in Scripture. Christ is
represented as the Son of God, and as co-eternal
with the Father. They are not represented as be
gotten from some pre-existent principle, Vx^ ^ u ^
the Father is represented as the principle, and be
getter of the Son. The Son must, consequently,
be the eternal offspring of the Father : the essence
of the Father would be imperfect, if that which is
proper to it, ffiiov aurifc, were added as an accident,
3 7ri(TUju|3a/vp, to it. The error arises from reasoning
from human generation to divine. Man begets in
time, on account of the imperfection of his nature ;

1 Athanasius points out the inconsistency and disingenuousness
of the Arians, who said that the Son existed before time, irpo
Xpoyaii , and yet that there was a time when He did not exist, c. 14.

2 c. 14. 3 See c. 20.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 159

the son is posterior to his father. But the off
spring of God, being the proper Son of the eternal
God, His word, His wisdom, His radiance, exists
eternally ; if He did not, there would be a time
when God was without l His word and wisdom, the
Light without splendour, the Fountain dry, and
sending forth no stream. The Arians rejoined that,
according to this representation, the 2 Son being the
proper offspring of the essence of the Father, the
Divine essence is divisible into parts. This, as we
have seen, was the 3 principal objection taken by
them to the word ojuoou^toc, and that which, in the
opinion of Eusebius of Csesarea, rendered it neces
sary for him, when, at the command of Constan-
tine, he subscribed the Nicene Decree, to explain
the sense in which he understood it. But here

1 Hence the Arians were sometimes called Alogians. See
cc. 19, 20. 24; Oratio ii. c. 32.

2 C. 15. Trjg ovffiag rov irarpOQ ifitor ytrvrma. This objection
is further considered in Oratio ii. cc. 32, 33, where Athanasius
especially refers to Hebrews i. 3, and says that the radiance or
splendour is of the substance of the Son, yet not a part. The Oxford
translator renders xapafcrji/p rfJQ vTrooraVewc aurou, the expression of
his subsistence ; yet the reasoning of Athanasius seems to imply
that he here understood by the word vTroorao-ie, substance. In a
note on c. 33, we find the following remark : " Thus there are
two Persons in each other ineffably, each being wholly one and
the same Divine Substance, yet not being merely aspects of the
same ; each being God as absolutely as if there were no other
Divine Person but Himself." The annotator adds that this
statement is not only a contradiction in the terms used, but in
our ideas.

3 p. 89.

160 ORATIONS OF ATHANASTUS

again they reasoned from their own imperfect na
ture to the perfect nature of the Father; from
things corporeal to things incorporeal.

If the objections were well-founded, the Father
could not have a Son, notwithstanding the ex
press declaration of Scripture that He has. For
a son must be of the same essence as his father;
and the Father s essence not being divisible, He
cannot, on the Arian supposition, have a Son. Ac
cording to the Arians, the Son was made of things
which were not, and was not before He was be
gotten ; He must, therefore, be called Son, and
God, and Wisdom, by participation ; since it is by
participation that all created things subsist, and are
carried on through sanctification to glory. They
partake of the Spirit ; but of what does the Son
partake? Not of the Spirit, l for the Spirit re
ceives of the Son : it is absurd, therefore, to say
that He is sanctified by the Spirit. Not of any
thing intermediate and external to the Father ; for
then He would be called Son with reference to that
external thing. He can only, therefore, partake of
the essence of the Father.

To say that the essence of the Father is partaken
of is to say that He begets ; yet no one would say
that to be partaken of is an affection or division of

1 John xvi. 14.

AGAINST THE AR1ANS. 161

God s essence ; neither, therefore, is the generation
of the Son such an affection or division. All
things partake of the Son through the grace of the
Spirit given by Him : and when we partake of the
Son, we l are said to partake of the Father ; when
we see the Son, we see the Father ; for the 2 notion
and comprehension of the Son is knowledge con
cerning the Father, because the Son is His proper
offspring from His essence. The Son partakes of
nothing, but is Himself that which is partaken of
from the Father.

Athanasius proceeds to point out the absurd con
sequences which flow from the Arian tenets. 3 If
God is Maker and Creator, and creates by His Son,
and nothing is made but that which is made by the
Son, to say that there was a time when His creative
Word and Wisdom were not, is equivalent to say
ing that God is not Maker and Creator. Again,
if the Word was not with the Father from eternity,
the Trinity is not eternal : there was first a Monad,
which, by addition, became a Trinity, and this a
Trinity 4 composed of foreign and alien natures and
essences. Since, if the Son is not the proper off
spring of the Father s essence, but made from things

1 c. 16, Athanasius refers to 2 Pet. i. 4. 1 Cor. iii. 16.
Compare c. 46.

iTdXr)\^tQ. 3 cc. 17j 18.

KCI\ a XXorpuuc (j&gt;v(Tt.ffi re Kal ralg ovoriatg

162 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

that were not, that which is created is numbered
with the Creator, and that which was not is deified
and glorified with that which always existed ; and
the Trinity is 1 dissimilar to itself.

Such being the consequences flowing from the
assertion, that there was a time when the Son was
not, and that He was made of things which were
not, we must conclude that, as the Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal. 2 God is called, and is, the
Fountain of Wisdom and Life, and Christ calls
Himself 3 Wisdom and 4 Life. As, therefore, Wis
dom and Life are of the essence of the Fountain,
Christ is of the essence of God. The Fountain
being eternal, Wisdom and Life must be eternal.
5 God made all things in Wisdom, and this Wisdom
is the Word G by whom all things were made. He
who calls Him, by whom all things were made, one
of those things, will be led on to say the same of
God, 7 from whom are all things. But he who re
jects this notion as absurd, and distinguishes God
from created things, will also distinguish the only

1 Athanasius has elsewhere said that Arius and his first sup
porters were Anomceans.

2 Athanasius refers to Jeremiah ii. 13 ; xvii. 10.

3 Proverbs viii. 12. * John xiv. 6.

5 Psalm civ. 24. Proverbs iii. 19.

6 John i. 3. On the reading of this verse see the note on
Oratio ii. c. 39.

7 1 Cor. viii. 6.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 163

begotten Son, who is proper to His Father s essence,
from created things : he will not say that there was
a time when the Son was not, and that He was not
before He was begotten, such expressions being ap
plicable only to created things. Such as the Father
is, such is the Son, being the proper offspring of His
essence, His Word and Wisdom. The Father and
Son, therefore, are mutually proper to each other, so
that God was never without the Word, aAoyoc, nor
was the Son ever non-subsistent, avvirapKros. For
why is He a Son, unless from God ? or why Word
and Wisdom, unless eternally proper to Him ?

1 The Son is the image and brightness or ra
diance of the Father, the 2 expression, the Truth ;
where there is light there is its image, the bright
ness; where there is a 3 substance, there is its full
expression ; where there is the Father, there is the
truth. It is impious, therefore, to limit the Image
and 4 Form of the Godhead by time. If the Son
was not before He was begotten, Truth was not
always in God ; but the Son says of Himself, " 5 1
am the Truth." The Image of God is not delineated
externally to Himself; He is the begetter of it, and
He delights to see Himself in it, that is, in the Son,
who says: " 6 I was His delight." To say, therefore,

c. 20. Heb. i. 3. 2

4 TO tidoQ. 5 John xiv. 6.

6 Proverbs viii. 30. According to this representation, the

M 2

164 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

that the Son was not before He was begotten, is to
say that there was a time when the Father did not
see Himself in Him and had no delight. The
Creator cannot see Himself in a created Essence;
such as is the Father of the Image, such must be
the Image.

1 If the Son is the Image of the Father, all the
attributes of the Father must be in Him, so that he
2 who truly sees the Son may see the Father. But
if the Son is created, and not eternal, He cannot be
the Image of the Father ; unless we are prepared to
say that the Image is not of a 3 similar Essence to
the Father. The Arians appear to have made one
very strange objection to the Homoousian doctrine.
If, they said, the Son is the offspring and image of
the Father, and in all respects like Him, He ought
to be like in respect of generation, and as He was
Himself begotten, in turn to beget; so that there
would be an infinite succession of offspring. This

happiness of God, if I may use the expression, consists in the
contemplation of Himself in His perfect Image, the Son ; not of
the works of creation. See Oratio ii. c. 82.

3 c. 21. 2 Johnxiv. 9.

3 ov^ ufjioiag ovaias. Compare c. 20. Oratio iii. c. 26. The
Oxford annotator observes that Athanasius, in the tracts against
the Arians, is sparing of the use of the word o/zoovcrioc. See p.
57, note 2 . He might wish to conciliate those who, though they
objected to the word, were ready to say that the Son is O^OLOQ
Kara Travra, Kar ovaiav. His own expression is : tdioc rfjg TOV
ovaicig : C. 58.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 1G5

objection, Atbanasius replies, is another instance of
erroneous reasoning from the imperfection of human
to the perfection of Divine nature. Succession im
plies imperfection. A human father begets a son,
who in turn begets another, and thus becomes him
self a father; so that the title father is not peculiar
to any one individual of a generation, but passing
from one to another, is in perpetual flux. But the
Son is begotten of the Father, who is Himself un-
begotten ; He, therefore, is not subject to the con
dition of human sons, that of begetting in turn ;
there being no succession in the Godhead, the Father
is always Father, the Son always Son. To ask why
the Son does not beget a son is as absurd as to ask
why the Father had not a father.

We have noticed the attempts of the Arians to
turn the doctrine of their opponents into ridicule by
putting perplexing or ludicrous questions. ! They
asked, for instance: Did the Self-Existent, o wv 9
make from that which existed Him who is not,

c. 22. o &v TOV pr) OVTO. EK TOV ovTog TTETroirjKei , rj TOV ovrn :
OVTO. ovv avrov TreiroirjKev, r) p.fj OVTCL . nai Tra Xir, ei TO ayervrjrov,
} dvo : Kfn avTt,ov(noQ eari Kal idiq. Trpoaipefret ov rp7Tfra,

S)V (f&gt;Vff(i)Q I OV yjO Wf \ldoQ effTlV a0 SCIVTOV UCVWV Cl

This is an instance of the justice of the remark made at the com
mencement of the chapter, that to one conversant with the Greek
language the questions discussed are often more intelligible in the
original than they can be made by a translation. Athanasius states
that Eusebius of Nicomedia and his followers went about putting
these questions to women and children.

166 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

or Him who is? Did He make Him already ex
isting or not existing ? Again : Is there one In-
generate, or two? Has He freedom of will and
though of a changeable nature, does not change by
His own choice ? For He is not like a stone, which
has in itself no power of motion.

1 Athanasius says of these questions that they are
so senseless and foolish as scarcely to deserve an
answer. It were as reasonable to argue that, because
an architect cannot build a house without materials,
God required matter out of which to frame the
universe ; or that, because man can only exist in a
place, God must also be limited to a place; as to
contend that the manner of Divine generation
must be the same as of human. Still, he will pro
ceed to answer them in detail, lest they should be
deemed unanswerable by those to whom they were
addressed.

2 With respect to the first question, the Arians
should specify whom they mean 3 by Him who is and
Him who is not. There is no doubt, if the question
were put with reference to the works of creation,
God o wv can cause to be that which was not, and
can form that which was into that which was not;
He formed the dust from the earth into a man, who

1 c. 23. c. 24. l! (&gt; &gt;r and ror {^ orra.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 167

was not before, having previously caused by His
Word the earth, which was not, to be. But if the
question were put with reference to God and His
Word, then the objectors should alter its form, and
ask whether God, who is o u)v, was ever without the
Word or Reason, aXoyogl or being Light, was
ever without radiance ? or was always Father of the
Word? Or again: did the Self-Existent Father
make the Word who was not, or had He always with
Him the Word, the proper offspring of His Essence ?
Put in this form, the questions would carry with
them their own refutation ; for who would tolerate
the assertion, that God was ever l without the Word,
or was not always Father. 2 Athanasius goes on to
say that the same questions might with equal reason
be put with reference to the Father, as to the Word
who is 3 His radiance ; not extrinsical to Him, but
ever in Him, as the radiance in the sun. Still, in
one sense, the Father, o wV, may be said to have
made the Son, rov 6 vra; for the Word was made
flesh, and in the consummation of ages God made
the Son of God also Son of man.

4 The Arians said that God made the Son from
that which was not, that He might use Him as an
instrument in making all things. Thus they repre
sented God as unable to make all things without

1 See c. 14. 2 c. 25.

3 Compare Oratio ii. c. 33. 4 c. 26.

168 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

the aid of an instrument made out of that which
was not, and consequently dependent upon it.

We have noticed the question put by them to
women, in order to turn the doctrine of the co-
eternity of the Son into ridicule, " whether they had
a son before they bare him ? " This question Atha-
nasius converts into an argument for the co-essen
tiality. Ask the mother whence is the child who is
born to her? Did she obtain him from without,
like a house, or any other possession ? ] She will

1 On this passage the Oxford annotator remarks : " It is from
expressions such as this, that the Greek Fathers have been ac
cused of Tritheism. The truth is, every illustration, as being in
complete on one or other side of it, taken by itself tends to
heresy. The title Son by itself suggests a second God, as the
title Word, a mere attribute, and the title Instrument, a creature.
All heresies are partial views of the truth, and are wrong, not
so much in what they say, as in what they deny. The truth, on
the other hand, is a positive and comprehensive doctrine, and, in
consequence, necessarily mysterious and open to misconception."
The object of this remark is to defend from the charge of Tri
theism Cyril of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa, who, accord
ing to Cudworth (p. 604), held that the three hypostases of the
Trinity have no otherwise one and the same essence of the God
head in them, nor are one God, than three individual men have
one common specifical essence of manhood in them, and are all
one man. I doubt not that, if Cyril and Gregory had been
charged with affirming that there are three Gods, they would
indignantly have denied the charge. I think, however, that we
may draw two very useful practical inferences from the anno-
tator s remark, that we ought to be cautious in using illustrations
on points connected with the relation of the three Persons in the
Holy Trinity, lest we should unconsciously be betrayed into

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 169

reply, No; he is from myself; proper to my own
essence, born from myself; wherefore I am wholly in
him, remaining myself what I am. So the Word is
from the Father, and of the same essence. So far
the reasoning from human to Divine generation holds
good. But we must not infer that because human
generation takes place in time, and by division, the
case is the same with Divine generation. ] We
observe in nature, instances of things generated,
which always exist in union with that which gene
rates them, as the brightness or radiance with the
sun, the stream with the fountain ; why then may
not the Word, by whom the sun and the fountain
were made, co-exist eternally with the Father, by
whom He was begotten ?

2 Athanasius returns to the objection, that the
doctrine of the co-essentiality makes the Son a part
of God, and His generation an affection. He says
that man is subject to affection when he begets, his
nature being in continual flux ; and, on account of
his imperfection, he is dependent on time. But
God is not composed of parts : He is without affec
tion and uncompounded, and consequently Father
of the Son, without affection and without division of

heresy ; and that we should not, in theological controversy,
ascribe to our adversaries conclusions, which to us appear to flow
logically from their statements, but which they themselves dis
avow.

1 c. 27. 2 c. 28.

170 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

parts. This is plain from Scripture, which calls the
Word of God His Son, and His Son the Word and
Wisdom of the Father, uniting both in the Son, in
order to show that He is by nature and in truth
the offspring of His essence, without affection or
division of parts. As the Arians appealed to woman
respecting the Son, let them appeal to man respect
ing the Word. Is the word which he utters an
affection or part of his understanding ? Why then
should they ascribe affection or division into parts
to the generation of the Word of the incorporeal and
indivisible God. So also with respect to wisdom :
men become wise by receiving or partaking of
wisdom ; God partakes of nothing ; but is the Father
of His own Wisdom, who is not an affection nor
a part, but His proper offspring.

1 The Arians further objected that, if God was
always Creator, the things created always existed,
and it could not be said of them, that they were not
before they were generated. Athanasius insists in
answer on the distinction between things created
and things generated, 7roiV a an( l y^vrjua : that which
is created or made is external to the Creator, and
does not necessarily exist : the Creator makes it
when He thinks fit; but the Son is the proper
offspring (yew^ia) of the Father s essence, and is not
subject to the Creator s will ; He is proper to His

1 c. 29.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 171

essence. God might be called Creator, though
nothing had been created : He had always the power
to create : the non-existence of created things would
be no diminution of His perfection. But He could
not be called a Father, unless He had a Son. If
the Son did not always subsist with the Father,
there would be a diminution of the perfection
of the Father s essence. In other words, the Son
is necessarily existent in the same sense in which
we say that the Father is necessarily existent.

Athanasius now proceeds to another of the cavil
ling questions of the Arians : " Is there one Ingene-
rate or two?" ] By this question they meant to
place their opponents in a dilemma. If the answer
was, one, then they rejoined, the Son is one of
things generate, and we are right in asserting that
He was not before He was begotten. Athanasius
replies, " We must consider the different meanings
of the word ingenerate. 2 It is sometimes used to
signify that which is not yet, but may be made : as
the wood which is not yet a vessel may be made
one. Sometimes to signify that which is not, and

1 c. 30.

2 Athanasius appears to employ indifferently the words

and dyeVi /jroe, increate and ingenerate or unbegotten.
The signification added by Asterius applies to the former. See
c. 56, and the note of the Oxford annotator. De Dec. Syn. Nic.
c. 28, and the notice prefixed to the Tract by the Benedictine
editor, de Synodis, c. 48. Epiphanius, Haer. Ixxvi.

172 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

never can be made : as a triangle can never become
a square, nor even odd. Sometimes to signify that
which is, but was not generated from any, nor
had any father ; i. e. unbegotten. l Asterius added
another signification : that which was not made, but
always is.

2 Athanasius says that the Arians ought to explain
in which of these senses they understand the word.
If in that of Asterius, then the Son is aykvr\roq 9
increate ; but if in the sense of that which is, but
was not generate from any, nor had any father, then
the Son is not a -ycwijroc, ingenerate. The Father
alone is ingenerate. Such as the Father is, such
must be the Son in essence, increate ; but He is the
offspring of the Father, consequently, not ingenerate.

3 It appears, however, from a quotation made by
Athanasius from the works of Asterius, that he held
the Wisdom of God to be 4 increate and unoriginate.
For with reference to 1 Cor. i. 24, he observes,
"The blessed Paul did not say that he preached
Christ the Power of God or the Wisdom of God,
but without the article, Power of God, and Wis
dom of God ; thus preaching that there is another

1 The same, to whose interpretation of Rom. i. 20, reference
has already been made.

2 c. 31. 3 c. 32.

4 ayltffrov KCLI a r

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 173

Power of God, proper to Him, innate in Him,
and co-existent with Him, and increate." And
again, l " Although His eternal power and wisdom,
which right reason declares to be without origin and
increate, must be one and the same." The error of
Asterius consisted in misinterpreting the Apostle s
words, by supposing that there are two Wisdoms
(one ever co-existing with God, the other Christ) ;
yet by speaking of an increate Wisdom co-existing
with Him, he has admitted that there is not only
one Increate, but another Increate co-existent with
Him ; since that which co-exists, co-exists not with
itself, but with something else. The Arians, there
fore, must not appeal to the authority of Asterius :
he confutes their cavilling question, by saying that
there are two Increate. Athanasius charges them
with introducing questions whether the ayt vrjrov or
dyiwriTov is one or two, in order to insinuate in
directly that Christ is of the number of created
beings. They were afraid to say directly that He
was made from things that were not, or that He
was not before He was begotten ; these expressions
having been condemned by the Council.

2 The title of dyfvrjroc, Increate, is applied to God
with reference to created things. The Arians, there
fore, in confining this title to the Father, wished to

1 This is in reference to Rom. i. 20.

2 c. 33. Compare de Dec. Syn. Nic. c. 30.

174 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

insinuate that the Son is of the number of created
things. But the title applied to God in Scripture
with reference to the Son, is that of Father, who
made all things by Him : He, therefore, cannot be
numbered among the things which He made. In
like manner God is called Almighty, and Lord of
Hosts, not with reference to the Son, but to the
things over which as the Word and Image of the
Father, the Son has dominion.

It bespoke, Athanasius contended, a want of
piety and reverence on the part of the Arians to
attempt to substitute the word ayevrjro^ increate,
a word borrowed from the Greeks, for that of
Father, the title which Christ Himself always used
in speaking of His relation to God, by which He
taught His disciples to address God, and which He
commanded them to use when they received converts
into the Church by baptism. 2 Athanasius proceeds
to another of the Arian questions : whether the Word
is liable to change, r^irrog. If He is not, then He
is holy not by choice, but by necessity ; He possesses
not freedom of will. Athanasius shows that the
supposition that the Son is liable to change cannot
be reconciled to the representations given in Scrip
ture of His relation to the Father. How can He
who is changeable be like the Father who is un-

1 c. 34. a c. 35.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 175

changeable ? How can the Father be seen in Him ?
How can He be the Image of the Father, who is
always the same ? How can He who has a variable
will, and is advancing towards perfection, being not
yet perfect, be one with the Father? The Essence
of the Father being unchangeable, the proper off
spring of that Essence must be unchangeable also.

ir The Apostle, in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
says : " Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to-day, and
for ever." And 2 Christ says of Himself, "I am
the Truth." But the Truth is unchangeable. The
3 Psalmist, also, after declaring the changeable and
perishable nature of all created things, says to the
Son : " Thou art the same, and thy years shall not
fail." How can the Son be the Word, if He is liable
to change ? How Wisdom, if He is liable to altera
tion ; unless we suppose that a certain grace or habit
of virtue has been accidentally infused into Him
(as an accident in a substance), and that this is
called Word, and Son, and Wisdom, being liable to
diminution and increase ?

4 But the Arians also appealed to Scripture, and

1 c. 36. Heb. xiii. 8. 2 John xiv. 6. 3 Ps. cli. 26.

* c. 37. " Wherefore God has highly exalted Him, and given,
e^aptVaro, Him a name above every name," &c. ; and, " There
fore God, thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness
above thy fellows." Athanasius says that these passages were
alleged by Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia. See Theodoret,
L. 1. c. 5.

176 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

quoted Philippians ii. 9, and Psalm xlv. 7. From
these passages they argued that Christ received His
exaltation and His anointing as the reward of His
choice ; but to act by choice is indicative of an alter
able nature. Athanasius answers this argument by
pointing to the consequences which would flow from
it. If Christ received the name above every name
as a reward, on account of ] His virtue and advance
ment in goodness, He received it as men, who par
take of the Spirit of God, receive the title of the
sons of God, and may lose it if the Spirit is with
drawn from them. 2 Christ, therefore, not being
Son from the beginning nor by nature, must have
received the name when He was made man and took
the form of a servant, inasmuch as He then became
subject to death. What then was He before He
received the name 1 Will the Arians say with Paul
of Samosata that He did not exist before He became
man? or that He was something else than God, Son,
Word ? If either He was not at all, or if He was
and afterwards advanced in goodness, how can the
Scripture declarations be true, that 3 all things were
made by Him t how, if He was not perfect, that He
was the delight of His Father, rejoicing before Him ?
how, if He became entitled to adoration only after
His death, that 4 Abraham worshipped Him in the

1 e aperijc; KUI j3e\Tiw a ew. 2 c. 38.

3 John i. 3.

4 Gen. xviii. VTTO ^iv TWI&gt; irarptupx&v TrpoaexvvtiTO. c. 40.
Oratio ii. c. 13.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 177

tent, and ] Moses in the bush, and that 2 thousands
and tens of thousands ministered unto Him ? What
is the meaning of His address to the Father:
" 3 Father, glorify Me with the glory which I had with
Thee before the world was ?" Christ came down not
in order Himself to advance in goodness, but to en
able those to advance who needed advancement. He
did not, therefore, receive the titles of Son and God
as a reward, but rather made us sons to His Father,
and, being Himself made man, made men gods.
4 Christ, being man, was not afterwards made God ;
but, being God, was afterwards made man, in order
that He might 5 make men gods. Yet the Scripture
tells us that God 6 made Moses a god to Pharaoh,
and says that 7 God stood in the congregation of the
gods. If, therefore, Christ was called Son and God
after He became man, it is plain that He was so
called after the title had been given to Him. How,
then, could all things be made by Him 1 or how
could He be before all things, and the first-born of
all creatures ? 8 But, continues Athanasius, the very

1 Exod. iii. 2 Dan. vii. 10. 3 John xvii. 5. * c. 39.

8 OtoTToifiar). See c. 42, and the interpretation of 1 Cor. xiv.
25 in c. 43. They " report that God is in you of a truth." God
is in us through our relationship to His human body, and by His
Spirit which He has given us. Compare c. 47. Oratio ii. c. 70 ;
ii. c. 23.

6 Exod. vii. 1. 7 Psalm Ixxxii. 1.

* c. 40. In the beginning of this chapter Athanasius opposes
the word eWota to eTaVoia, the former to express true, the latter
false conceptions respecting the Son : rate Trepl TOV viov ivvoiaiQ

178 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

passage alleged by the Arians proves that Christ did
not receive His exaltation as a reward. Christ is
therein described as being in the form of God, and
humbling Himself by taking the form of a servant.
His exaltation, then, was not a reward, but a re
sumption on His part of the glory which He had
with the Father before the world was, and which He
voluntarily laid aside in order to save man. He who
is in the Father, and ! in all things like the Father,
cannot be exalted.

2 The true interpretation of the passage is to be
sought in the mystery of the incarnation. " In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God." This Word after
wards for our sakes was made flesh. The exaltation,
therefore, of which the Apostle speaks, was not the
exaltation of the Essence of the Word, for in that
He was always equal to God ; but of the human
nature. Being the Image of God and immortal, He
took the form of a servant, in order that He might by
His death offer Himself to the Father for us; as,
therefore, He died for us, so He was highly exalted
for us ; by His death we all died in Christ, and we
are highly exalted in Christ, being raised from the

TrpoQ TO.Q aXoyovQ CLVTWV iirivoiaQ a.TrrjrTrja ap.EV. Com
pare Oratio ii. c. 37, where the Oxford translator renders Kar
nationally.

Kara TTOLVTO. TOV Trctrpof. 2 c. 41.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 179

dead to ascend into heaven, whither our Forerunner,
Jesus, has entered for us.

1 So also, when it is said that God " gave Him a
name above every name," we must understand the
words to mean that He received, as man, a name
which He had always possessed, as God. He re
ceived exaltation, as man, in order that He might
communicate it to us, of whose flesh He became
partaker. If He had not become partaker of our
flesh, He could not have redeemed us from sin, nor
raised us from the dead, nor exalted us into heaven.

2 Athanasius calls the foregoing interpretation of
the passage a very ecclesiastical interpretation, in
accordance with the teaching of the Church : but he
gives another, in which he refers the exaltation to
Christ s resurrection. His argument is : All men

1 cc. 42, 43. The Oxford annotator, in his note on c. 43, refers
to Hooker, L. 5. c. 52: "It pleased not the Word or Wisdom
of God to take to itself some one person among men, for then
should that one have been advanced which was assumed, and no
more ; but Wisdom, to the end that she might save many, built
her house of that nature which is common unto all ; she made
not this or that man her habitation, but dwelt in us." The
Arians seem to have laid some stress on the word 3to, as imply
ing that Christ had received exaltation because He had humbled
Himself as the reward of His self-humiliation.

2 cc. 44, 45. In c. 44 is the following passage : o-uy^wpr/trae
/iXP l favdrev (ftddaat TO idiov o-w^ta, &a TO dvai O.VTO fieKTiKov
Qavdrov. On this passage the Oxford annotator refers to the
question, whether Christ s body was naturally subject to death.
See Oratio ii. c. 66 ; iii. c. 31.

180 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

derive their descent from Adam, and therefore die,
and death hath dominion over them : but the second
Adam is from heaven ; they, therefore, who are His
sons, cannot, as He cannot, be held in the bonds of
death. He died in the flesh, in order that He might
quicken us by His power. The Arians seem to
have contended that to be exalted necessarily implied
1 a previous depression or affection of the essence
of the Word ; but Athanasius repeats that the ex
pression applies to the body of Christ, which, having
assumed it on earth, He bore with Him to heaven.
It is doubtless wonderful, and calculated to strike
with astonishment, that the Son should, as if He
were Himself exalted, be said to receive the exalt
ation which He gains from the Father; but He
receives it as the Son of man, since the body which
He assumed is His own, and by nature capable of
receiving exaltation,

2 Athanasius proceeds to the consideration of
Psalm xlv., in which God is said "to have anointed
Christ with the oil of gladness 3 above His fellows."
From these words the Arians inferred that the
anointing was a reward or a promotion (/SeAr/owic)
conferred for superior virtue; and that Christ was

tlvai T) iraBoq rfje TOV \6yov ovalag. See the note
of the Oxford annotator, respecting the sense in which the word
ovffia is used. It seems to be synonymous with tyvvts, which is
applied to the human body towards the end of the chapter.
2 cc. 40, 47, 48. 3 Tropct TOVG /.lero^ovc aov.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 181

anointed to become God. Atbanasius replies, that
in the preceding verses Christ is addressed as God,
and His throne is said to be for all ages, and we
all are said to partake of Him. If then we all
partake of Him, He cannot be, as we are, one of the
things made. He was anointed, therefore, not to
become God or King, since He always was both
God and King; nor to receive the Spirit, since He
is Himself the Giver of the Spirit; but He was
anointed with the Spirit as man, in order that He
might make us the habitation of the Spirit. He is
not sanctified, but the Sanctifier ; He sanctified
Himself, in order that we might be sanctified
through the truth. The 2 Spirit descended upon
Him in the Jordan, not for His improvement,
but for our sakes ; for inasmuch as He bore our
body we are all baptized in Him, and have the
3 origin or beginning of receiving improvement

1 John xvii. 19.

2 Athanasius interprets Isaiah Ixi. 1 and Acts x. 38, of Christ s
baptism.

3 Of dpyj]v t^ojTfg TOV \apfiaytw iv uvru&gt; xai St" avrov. c. 48.
The Oxford annotator says, " The word origin, ap^?), implies the
doctrine more fully brought out in other passages of the Fathers,
that our Lord has deigned to become an instrumental cause, as it
may be called, of the life of each individual Christian." He
quotes passages from Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory
of Nyssa, and a remarkable passage from Paulinus, " Decocta
quasi per ollam carnis nostrae cruditate, sanctiiicavit in aeternum
nobis cibum carnem suam." He then adds, " Of course in such
statements nothing material is implied ; or, as Hooker says,
the mixture of His bodily substance with ours is a thing
which the ancient Fathers disclaim. Yet the mixture of His

182 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

in and through Him. Christ, therefore, was
anointed, not in His divine, but in His human
nature. ] He alone, who is the Image of the
Father, in whose likeness man was in the be
ginning made, He alone, whose is the Spirit, could
unite men to the Spirit, and thus effect our re
demption. All this He effected by taking upon Him
our nature. 2 In like manner, when Christ, in answer
to the assertion of the Jews that He cast out
devils by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils, said
that He cast them out in the Spirit of God, and
that blasphemy against Himself is remissible, but
not that against the Holy Ghost, the dependence
upon and inferiority to the Holy Spirit, implied in
both the passages, is to be understood of His human

flesh with ours they speak of to signify what our very bodies,
through mystical conjunction, receive from that vital efficacy
which we know to be in His : and from bodily mixtures they
borrow Divine similitudes, rather to declare the truth, than the
manner, of coherence between His sacred and the sanctified
bodies of Saints." L. 5. c. 56. Our Lord has deigned to be
come a cause of life generally to the Church by the sending of
the Holy Spirit, and an instrumental cause of life to each indi
vidual Christian by becoming one with us in the Eucharist
through the Holy Spirit. But if we construe the passages quoted
from the Fathers in their natural sense, they certainly imply a
bodily, and therefore a material, union.

1 c. 49.

2 c. 50. Matt. xii. 24. 32. Athanasius expressly says that
the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost consisted in ascribing
His miracles to daemoniacal agency ; and alleges, Matt. xiii. 55,
" Is not this the carpenter s Son ?" as an instance of speaking
against the Son of man. See on this subject the 4th Epistle to
Serapion, c. 8, where the opinions of Origen and Theognostus
are discussed.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 183

nature : He could not, as man, cast out devils, nor
was blasphemy against Him, as man, irremissible.

1 But the Arians discovered in the reason assigned
for the anointing of Christ, "because Thou hast
loved righteousness and hated iniquity," a proof
that He was of a changeable nature. The words
implied that He might not have loved righteousness
and hated iniquity. Athanasius answers, that the
words must be understood in the same sense in
which the Father is said to love righteousness and
hate iniquity, through the essential righteousness
and holiness of His nature. They express, therefore,
not the mutability, but the immutability of Christ s
nature. Adam s nature was mutable, and the ser
pent took advantage of its mutability to seduce him
into sin ; and thus sin was transmitted to all man
kind. It was necessary, therefore, that 2 He who
came to deliver man should be of an unchangeable
nature, in order that, although He took upon Him
changeable flesh, He might always remain the same,
and thus condemn sin in the flesh, and render it
free to fulfil the righteousness of the law.

3 Athanasius proceeds to consider the texts from
which the Arians inferred that Christ was created or
made, Proverbs viii. 22. Heb. i. 4 and iii. 2. Acts
ii. 3b* ; and having observed in general that they are

1 cc. 51, 52. 2 Compare Oratio ii. c. 68. 3 c. 53.

184 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

to be understood with reference to the appearance
of Christ in the flesh, l he first considers Heb. i. 4 :
" Being made so much better than the angels, as He
hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name
than they." 2 He observes, that God is said to have
spoken to us in the last days by His Son, having
before spoken to the Fathers by the prophets. It
is clear, therefore, that the passage relates to the
Gospel dispensation, in which the Son by Himself
purged our sins. In this respect Christ was made
better than the angels, that the Gospel of which
He was the Bearer, is better than the law which was
given by the dispensation of angels. The Apostle
does not say greater or more honourable, words
which imply a comparison between things of the
same kind, but 3 better, which implies a superiority
of kind or nature. The passage, rightly understood,
therefore, proves that the Son is by nature more
excellent than angels, who are ministering spirits to
Him who sitteth at the right hand of God. 4 If the

c. 54. TOffovro) Kpeirrwv ytiopevog T&r a yyeXwy, OGM fita-
0oparepov Trap avroug KeK\r)por6nr)KV ova^ta.

2 c. 55.

3 Athanasius endeavours to show, by reference to various
passages of Scripture, Psalm Ixxiv. 10. Proverbs viii. 10. Isaiah
Ivi. 4, that this meaning is conveyed by the word Kpt irrwv, better.
He pursues this argument in c. 57 ; and in c. 58 observes that,
if Christ had said (John xiv. 28), my Father is better not is
greater than I, it might have been supposed that they are of a
different nature ; whereas the word greater proved that they
are of the same. Athanasius refers also to Hebrews vii. 19. 22;
viii. 6 ; ix. 23. Compare Oratio ii. c. 20.

4 c. 56.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 185

Apostle had simply said, being made, the Arian
argument might have carried with it some show of
reason ; but the words are, being made better, show
ing that they are not to be understood with reference
to the manner of His generation ; that had already
been declared by giving Him the title of Son.

1 Comparisons are between things of the same
kind : we do not compare God to man, nor man to
irrational animals, nor wood to stone ; but man to
man, wood to wood. But with respect to things of
a different kind, we say that one is better than the
other : the very expression, therefore, made better,
shows that the Son is of a superior nature to angels.
This is also evident from the Apostle s question. To
which of the angels said He at any time, " Thou art
my son; this day have I begotten theeT 2 The
same inference is to be drawn also from the manner
in which, in the third verse, the Apostle speaks of
the perishable nature of created things, and of the
ever-enduring existence of the Son ; 3 and from the
severer punishment denounced, in the following
chapter, against the violation of the commandment
given by the Son than against the violation of the
law given by the ministry of angels.

4 In the seventh chapter of the Epistle, Christ is

1 C. 57. KCll OVK O.V Tig 7Tt TOVTtoV ftTTOl TO KQtHTTOV, CtXXa TO

f*a\\ov KOI TO ir\ioi&gt;.

2 c. 58. 3 Hebrews ii. 1.

1 c, 60. Hebrews vii. 22, eyyvoe KpeirTovos dta6jttfc

186 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

said to be made the Sponsor of a better covenant ;
but it is evident that the word made is not to be
referred to His generation, but to the time when
He assumed the office of Sponsor, that is, when He
was made flesh. 1 Athanasius, in pursuing this ar
gument, produces 2 passages in which the Father
Himself is spoken of as made a Protector or Refuge,
and in the same sense the Son is said to be made
Sponsor. All such expressions are to be understood,
not with reference to the generation of the Son, but
to His assumption of the flesh in order to confer on
us salvation.

3 Athanasius next considers Hebrews iii. 2 : "Who
was faithful to Him that made Him." He begins
by saying, that if the Son is, as the Arians assert,
a Created Being, let Him no longer be called Son :
nor the Father Father, but Creator. Yet if, as the
Scriptures declare, all 4 things were created by the
Word and in Wisdom, the title of Creator is impro
perly ascribed to the Father ; unless He has that by
which and in which He can create ; unless He has
the Word. According to them, the Divine Essence
is not generative, but barren, a light which does
not lighten, a dry fountain. They suppose God to
have created all things by His will, but deprive

1 cc. 61, 62, 63, 64. 2 Psalm xxxi. 2 ; ix. 9.

3 Oratio ii. c. 2, TTIOTOV OVTO. ry Trotfjffavrt avrov. Our trans
lators, by rendering raj iroiijaavTL awroi , to Him who appointed
Him, have deprived the Arians of the argument founded on this text.

4 Compare c. 5, sub fin.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 187

Him of that which is superior to His will, His
generative power. His will is creative, and He
has His creative Word ; not external, but proper to
Himself, by whom He creates. The Word, there
fore, is creative, and is the Living Will or Council
of the Father, and His essential Energy, and true
Word. It is impossible to separate the l creative
from the generative power of God. The Father
generates the Son, and by the Son creates all
things.

2 Since, then, Christ is the Son of God, the word
ytwrma is that which * property expresses His rela
tion to the Father ; and if the words tTrotVe, yiyove
are applied to Him, they must be interpreted, with
reference, riot to His generation, but in an improper
sense ; as when Eve said, on the birth of Cain, " I
have 4 gotten a man from the Lord," she did not
mean that she had purchased, but that she had

1 To explain the meaning of Athanasius, the Oxford annotator
quotes a passage from Thomassin, in which he says, that the na
ture and essence of Deity, in its fountain or source, is the ful
ness of all existence. But this must necessarily overflow from
its native fecundity. According to Athanasius, it overflows into
a perfect Image of Deity ; in other words, generates the Son.
The essence of the Father cannot be otherwise than generative.

2 cc. 3, 4, 5, 6. In c. 4, Athanasius says of the Arians, TTWC
ov TToXXctog aTroAwAfVcu HKCUOI tlaiv ; on which the Oxford
annotator has a remarkable note, showing how gradually from de
claring heretics worthy of punishment, those in power proceeded
actually to inflict it.

3 Kvpiwc. * In the Septuagint, i

188 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

borne a Son. The words ] ETroiVe, Tro/^a apply, pro
perly, to created things; and the Arians, unfairly
inferring that they were to be understood properly,
when used in Scripture with reference to the Son,
wrest those passages in which He is spoken of as
the Begotten, the Word, and Wisdom, in order
to accommodate them to their own views, and to
prove that He is a created Being. This 2 is the
more inexcusable in them, because they might see
that the expressions are to be understood of the
appearance of Christ in the flesh. He is, in the pas
sage quoted, first called the Apostle and High Priest
of our Profession. He became the Apostle when
He put on our flesh, and High Priest of our Pro
fession when, having offered Himself for us, He
raised His body from the dead, in order that He
may Himself bring men, and offer to the Father

1 In order to prove that Christ is not a created Being, Atha-
nasius quotes Ecclesiastes xii. 14, on vvfjurav TO Trot ij/ia aci 6
0oe eiQ Kpiffiv, and argues that, as Christ is to judge the world,
He cannot be 7ro/i/jLta, one of the things judged ; but according to
our translation, " God shall bring every work into judgment,"
the passage is wholly inapplicable. Athanasius says, c. 11, that
if cTTo/qcrc is used with reference to the Word Himself, it must be
understood to be equivalent to eyei vyae.

2 cc. 7 8, Athanasius says of the Incarnation of Christ, auVoc
\a/3e TYIV aVo yrjq adpKa, Mapiav dvri TTJQ di epyaffrov yijg iff^rj-
ATWC pr}Tpa TOV ffupciTos. Had Hooker this passage in view when
he said that Christ took to Himself, in the Virgin s womb, the very
first original element of our nature? L. 5. c. 52. Christ became
High Priest by putting on our flesh, as Aaron became high priest by
putting on the coat, iroMjpr] ; as, therefore, no change took place
in Adam, but he still remained a man ; so no change took place

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 189

those who in faith approach Him. l In like manner,
when He is said to be faithful to Him who made
Him, we must understand by the word faithful, not
that He partakes of the gift of faith, or believes in
any one, but that He is worthy to be trusted, in
the same sense in which God is Himself said to be
faithful, i. e. faithful to His promises. He is a
faithful Priest also in this respect, that, while the
Aaronic Priests remained for a time only, and passed
away, He is a Priest for ever. It is to be observed,
too, that the Apostle, having introduced the men
tion of His humanity through His Priesthood, im
mediately adds expressions which indicate His Di
vinity. Moses was faithful, as a servant, in all his
house ; but Christ, as a Son, over His own house,
which He Himself prepared, of which He is Lord
and Master, and which as God He sanctifies.

2 Christ, therefore, is not a creature, iro/q/ia, but

in Christ in consequence of the assumption of our flesh He still
remains the Word. The Oxford annotator calls this illustration,
a protest, by anticipation, against Nestorianism ; but liable to be
abused to the purposes of the opposite heresy. He takes occa
sion also from this passage to refer to the question, whether our
Lord s Priesthood belongeth to His Divine or human nature ;
and states the Catholic doctrine to be, that the Divine Word is
Priest, in and according to His manhood. He seems, however,
to admit that there is not a Catholic consensus in favour of this
view. In a note on c. 16, he says that the priesthood is the office
of God in the form of man ; it could not, therefore, be exercised
previously to the Incarnation.

1 cc. 9, 10. 2 c. 11.

190 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

being in His essence the offspring of His Father,
, was, in the dispensation of the Gospel, ot/co-
iq, according to the good pleasure of His Father,
made man for us.

1 Athanasius reasons nearly in the same manner
respecting another text alleged by the Arians, Acts
ii. 36: "He hath made both Lord and Christ this
same Jesus whom ye crucified." He was from eter
nity Lord and King; but that which He always
was, He was made after the flesh, that He might
redeem all and be Lord of all, both quick and
dead; that He might have dominion over all, and,
being made Christ, sanctify all by His unction.

2 He now goes on to Proverbs viii. 22 : /cu poc

KTt(i ^UE apyjqv o&ov avrov c epya avrov. The Al ians

confidently alleged this text in proof that Christ is
KTittyia, a creature. Having briefly referred to the
different Arian objections, which he had already
answered, he says that by proving that Christ was
not Troika, He was proved not to be /cr/d/xa. He
then exposes their disingenuousness in endeavouring
to conceal their real belief, 3 by saying that Christ

1 cc. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. In cc. 15, 16, Athanasius
gives his view of St. Peter s reasoning against the Jews in Acts ii.

2 c. 18. In our translation : "The Lord possessed me (em/-
o-aro) in the beginning of His way, before His works of old."

3 c. 19. KTiff^a, dXX oux we ev rwv moptcfrcw* jro/q/za, dXX
ovx &C ey T&V Troity/zcmoi * yeVi ty/ua, dXX ov)( WQ ev ruv

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 191

was a creature, but not as one of the creatures ; an
offspring, but not as one of the offsprings. One
creature differs from another creature the sun from
a star ; but both are creatures : the distinction, there
fore, which the Arians attempt to draw has no
foundation : Christ, according to them, is a creature.
1 But Scripture distinctly says that all things were
created by Him 2 as an efficient cause ; if then He is
a creature, He must be His own Creator. He is
described also 3 as working the things of the Father ;
He cannot, therefore, be a work.

4 How are the declarations of Christ that He is
in the Father and the Father in Him, that He
that hath seen Him hath seen the Father, that He
alone knows and reveals the Father, reconcilable
to the notion that He is a creature 1 These declara
tions could be true only of Him who is proper to the
Father His true Son.

5 Again : to God alone appertains worship ; this
the angels knew, and refused to receive worship.

He observes that in speaking of yewj/juara, they in fact
denied that Christ was /uoj/oytvj/e,

1 cc. 20, 21. 2 TroirjTiKov airtov.

3 John v. 17. 4 c. 22. John xiv. 9, 10.

5 c. 23. The Oxford annotator says that, according to Augus
tine, the characteristic of Divine worship consists in sacrifice ; are
we, therefore, to infer that worship, unaccompanied by sacrifice,
may be paid to created beings ?

192 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

But the 1 angels ministered to Christ, and 2 are
directed to worship Him ; and when 3 Thomas said
to Him, "My Lord and my God," Christ accepted
the titles, as belonging to Him. This He would not
have done if He were not the proper offspring of the
Essence of God His Son by nature.

4 Asterius contended that God, willing to create
generate nature, when He saw that it could not
endure the untempered hand of the Father, made
and created, being first Himself alone, one only, and
called Him Son and Word, that through Him, as a
medium, all things might be brought to be. Atha-
nasius answers, that God by His mere will and com
mand might have created all things, by the same
will and command by which, according to Asterius,
He created the Son. If the Son is a creature, as the
Arians say, why was He more capable of enduring the
untempered hand of the Father than the rest of gene
rate nature ? 5 Asterius also said, that the Son, though
a creature and one of things generate, yet learned
from God to create, and thus ministered to God who
taught Him. But how could He, who is the Wisdom
of God, need teaching? If the power of framing
accrues by teaching, why is it confined to the Word ?
He became Framer not by teaching, but being the
Image and Wisdom ; He works the works of the

1 Matt. iii. 17- 2 Heb. i. 6. 3 John xx. 28.

4 cc. 24, 25, 26, 27. See c. 64. 5 cc. 28, 29.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 193

Father. l Another absurd consequence which flowed
from this notion of Asterius was, that Christ was
rather created for our sakes than for His ; 2 as the
woman was created for the man, not the man for the
woman: so that He was indebted to us for His
creation. He is placed in the scale of creation
below man. Man is the Image of God, and created
to His glory; Christ is His Image, and created to
our glory.

3 If God had not willed to create man, the Word
would still have been with God, and the Father in
Him ; but created things could not have been with
out the Word, as nothing can be 4 lightened without
the radiance. Man, when he wishes any work to
be done, commands another to do it, who obeys the
command. But this is not so with God. For the
Word of God, His Son proper to His Essence, being
His 5 Will or Council, is Creator and Framer. God
said, " Let there be light, and there was light ;" His
Will sufficed, and the effect followed. He gave no
command to the Son, since the Son is His will.

6 Having said that the creation is sufficient to make
known the existence and providence of God, Atha-

1 c. 30. See Oratio i. c. 26. 2 1 Cor. xi. 9.

C. 31. 4 OVK a.v TL (f)(*)Ti(rdeiri.

5 fiovXfi. See Oratio iii. c. 63.
- cc. 32, 33, 34.

194 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

nasius contends that it is l sufficient also to confute
the Arian doctrine. The illustration which he brings
forward is that of the sun and its radiance. 2 Who
would say that the sun was ever without radiance?
or that the radiance is not proper to the nature of
the light ? or that being proper, it is a part of the

, which the Oxford translator paraphrases, " contains
abundant matter." In c. 41, it is rendered "all-sufficient."

2 He had before said : " That the radiance from the sun is
proper to it, and the sun s essence is not divided nor impaired ;
but its essence is whole, and its radiance perfect and whole ;
and without impairing the substance of light, is a true offspring
from it." On this the Oxford annotator remarks : " The second
person in the Holy Trinity is not a quality, or attribute, or rela
tion, but the one Eternal Substance ; not a part of the first Per
son, but whole or entire God ; nor does the generation impair the
Father s substance, which is, antecedently to it, whole and entire
God. Thus there are two persons in each other ineffably. Each
being wholly one and the same Divine Substance, yet not being
merely separate aspects of the same, each being God as absolutely
as if there were no other Divine Person but Himself. Such a
statement, indeed, is not only a contradiction in the terms used,
but in our ideas, yet not therefore a contradiction in fact ; unless,
indeed, any one will say that human words can express in one
formula, or human thought embrace in one idea, the unknown and
infinite God." The object of the concluding observation is not
very clear ; it seems to be an assertion of which all must admit
the truth, of the inability of the human mind to comprehend the
mode of the Divine existence, and of the union of three persons
in the Godhead. Why then enter into a statement on the sub
ject, which affects to be an explanation, but is wholly incom
prehensible, inasmuch as it is a contradiction in our ideas ? See
the note on c. 38, where it is said that the Father and Son do in
no way share Divinity between them ; each is O\OQ 0oe : and
the note on O ratio iii. c. 28, where the statement respecting the
contradiction in our ideas is repeated. Also the note on Oratio iii.
c. 36.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 195

light by division 1 Why then do they venture to
say, that God was ever without the Word ? or that
the Word is not proper to the Essence of the
Father? or being proper to His Essence, is a part
of Him by division ? The doctrine sown from the
beginning in every soul is, that God has a Son, the
Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and that these
are His Image and Radiance. Hence naturally
follow, the being from the Father, e /c rov Trarpoc,
the likeness, the eternity of the offspring of His
Essence; no notion of a thing created or made
occurs to the mind ; it naturally rejects the Arian
tenets.

1 We may thus far reason from the relation of a
human son to his father. They are of the same
nature or essence : the Son of God, therefore, is of
the same essence as the Father; but we must not
reason from it with reference to the manner of
generation. Man, being from things which were not,
and begotten in time, begets in time, and his word
(Xo yoc) is not permanent. But God, being self-
existent and always existing, 2 His word is self-
existent, and always exists with the Father, as the
Radiance with Light.

1 c. 35.

2 Athanasius seems to object to the distinction between the
Xoyoe irhddtTOQ and 7rpo0opiKoV 6 SE TOV Qeov Xoyoc ov\ wg av
TIC enroi, 7rpo&lt;^opiKoe iariv. He interprets Heb. iv. 12, of the
Word.

O 2

196 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

1 Having dwelt at some length on the presump
tion of enquiring into the mode of generation of the
Son, and of measuring God and His wisdom by our
weakness, as well as on the duty of acquiescing in that
which is plainly declared in Scripture, although it
may be above our comprehension, 2 Athanasius pro
ceeds to consider an Arian notion, to which 3 refer
ence has been already made : that the Son is not
the proper Word and Wisdom of the Father, 4 but
one of many words made by the proper Word who
co-exists with the Father, and called Word as He
is called the Vine, and the Way, and the Door, and
the Tree of Life ; and called Wisdom, because He par
takes of the wisdom co-existing eternally with God.
The only respect in which the Son is distinguished
from the other words is, that He is the first-born
and only-begotten. Asterius went so far as to say,
that the expression Power of God, when applied to
Christ, is to be understood in the same sense in
which the Prophet calls the 5 locust, not merely the
power, but the great power of God.

1 c. 36. 2 c. 37. * p. 10.

4 Athanasius refers to the Thalia of Arius, and to a work of
Asterius. The latter alleged in support of this notion 1 Cor.
i. 24, where the Apostle calls Christ Qeov lvvap.iv KCU Qeou
(ro&lt;j)iui&gt;, without the article, a Power and a Wisdom of God, as if
there were other powers and wisdoms.

Joel ii. 25, ov tivvapiv poi ov, d\\d KCI\ /zeyct Xt/j/. Here,
however, our version again deprives the Arians of their argument,
by translating Ivvufjav^ army : " my great army which I sent
among you."

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 197

1 If the Son is only the Word or Reason for the
sake of things rational, Wisdom for the sake of
things receiving wisdom, Power for the sake of
things receiving power, then is He the Son only for
the sake of those who receive the adoption of sons ;
and He exists only 2 notionally for the sake of
things existing : He is reduced to a mere name.

Asterius accused the Catholics of holding that
there were two 3 Increate ; yet he himself held that
the Increate Wisdom co-existent with God is God
Himself. " How," asks Athanasius, " can this be ?
a thing cannot co-exist with itself, it must co-exist
with something else." Either, therefore, according
to Asterius, the Divine nature is compound, or there
are two Increate. 4 Athanasius challenges the Arians
to produce from Scripture passages in which any
other word or wisdom than the Son is mentioned.
The Fathers also all concurred in stating, that the
Wisdom which co- existed, being increate, with the
Father, being proper to Him, and the Framer of the

1 c. 38. Asterius seems to have made the proper Word or
Wisdom an attribute by which the Son was created, and after
which He was named ; and thus to have approached to Sabel-
lianism.

2 K ar iirivoiav.

3 In the text, dylrrjra, which the editor translates non facta or
ingenita. The Oxford translator has two ingenerates, reading

4 cc. 39, 40. The word " Fathers" seems here to mean the
tradition of the Church.

198 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

universe, is the Son, who ever, according to them,
co-exists eternally with the Father. And Asterius
elsewhere says : " There is one God, the Word or
Reason but many things endowed with reason;
one Essence and Nature of Wisdom, but many wise
and excellent things ;" thus contradicting himself.

1 The Catholics maintained against the Mani-
chseans that the Father of Christ is one, the Lord
of the universe, and its Maker by His proper Word :
against the Arians, that the Word of God is one, the
only proper and genuine Son, being of His essence,
inseparably united to the Father in the oneness of
the Godhead. Thus it is that the Son is joined
with the Father in the formula of Baptism. This
would be absurd if the Son were a creature ; we
should then be baptized into a profession of faith in
one Creator and one Creature. A creature, far
from conferring grace, needs it from the Creator.
The grace of the Father must be given in the Son,
because the Son is in the Father, as the radiance in
the light.

2 Athanasius now enters upon the consideration of
the text itself, Proverbs viii. 22. He begins with
saying, that passages in the Book of Proverbs are

1 cc. 41, 42, 43. Athanasius dwells at considerable length
on the invalidity and inefficacy of Arian baptism, and says that
they who receive it are polluted rather than redeemed.

2 c. 44.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 199

not to be understood literally, but as containing a
hidden meaning ; and that this passage must be in
terpreted with reference to ix. 1 : " Wisdom hath
builded her house," where by " her house," the
sacred writer evidently meant our body, which the
Wisdom of God assumed. ] The word IKTUJZ does
not indicate essence or generation, but signifies
that something different has taken place with re
spect to that which is the subject of discussion, not
that what is said to be created is a created thing
by nature and essence. The words "The Lord
created me," are equivalent to "The Lord hath
prepared for me a body, and hath created me unto
men for the salvation of men." The passage is to
be understood of the 2 Incarnation of Christ.

1 cc. 45, 46, 47.

2 Epiphanius, Haeres. Ixix. cc. 20 25, in commenting on this
verse, first says that, as none of the Evangelists or Apostles have
quoted this passage with reference to Christ, doubts may be enter
tained whether it is applicable to Him at all. He says also that
the passage is mistranslated, that the Hebrew word nip should
be rendered KT//o-aro, not em&lt;rc, a rendering fatal to the inference
drawn by the Arians from the verse. He adds, however, that
many ancient Fathers understood it of the Incarnation, and that
this is a pious interpretation. In the tract De Incarnatione et
contra Arianos, it is interpreted of the Church, irepl rrjg eKKXrjtriaG
Xeyoi Tes iv avry Krt^operrjQ. C. 6. See also C. 12, where it is
connected with v. 25 : -n-po Travruv rwv fiovr&v yevvy. ps. Com
pare Epiphanius, c. 24. It is certain that the ante-Nicene Fathers,
in general, understood it of the generation of the Son before all ages.
The Oxford annotator, in a note on c. 45, introduces the ques
tion, whether the manhood of Christ can be called a creature ?
We hear much about reverence : the wanton discussion of such a

200 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

1 He is no where in Scripture called Kria/na, but
jiwrj/ua, and ^uovoyEvrJc with reference to His gene
ration from the Father ; the expressions Kria/ua and
%**v 9 therefore, contrasted as they are with
and /uovoyevifc, show that the passage is to be
understood, not of His generation, but of His as
sumption of the flesh. The beginning of ways
necessarily implies that He is the first among others
who are to follow Him in the ways, and is incon
sistent with the title /uovoyEi i}?, only-begotten. 2 The
expression EKTKTE /me was fulfilled in Him when He
put on created flesh. The expression 3 also, for his
works, tic ra f/oya, proves that the Son did not
intend to indicate His essence when He said, " The
Lord created me," but spake with reference to the
dispensation which He was to administer. Created
things are not primarily created for any work, but
simply in order that they may exist : the work is a
secondary or after-consideration. Christ, in saying
that He was created for the works of the Lord,
manifestly declared that He was not a creature.
He was in the beginning, and afterwards was sent
forth to conduct the dispensation. 4 He was not

question appears to me the height of irreverence. Surely those
who raise it require to be reminded of the rebuke administered
to the professors of dialectics by the Confessor at Nicaea. See
p. 33.

1 cc. 48, 49.

2 c. 50. on riji KriffTijt ivediHraro at ipxa.

5 c. 51. 4 c. 52.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 201

formed as created things are, in order that He
might exist, but that He might ] collect the tribes
which existed before He was formed. The words
CICTKTE and 7rAa&lt;T relate to a time posterior to His
existence as the Word, and to the purpose for which
He came in the flesh, the renovation of the human
race. 2 Athanasius observes generally, that when
ever the sacred writer speaks of the birth (yweaiv) of
the Word in the flesh, the purpose for which He
became man is stated ; but when of His divinity,
then the fact is stated simply and absolutely, without
any mention of causes or purposes. Thus, in Phi-
lippians ii. 6, it is said absolutely of Christ, that
" He was in the form of God ;" but the Apostle
goes on to say, that " He took the form of a servant,"
and then adds the purpose, in order that He might
humble Himself unto death, even the death of the
cross.

3 Christ is the offspring and only-begotten Wisdom
of the Father, but became man. The purpose,
therefore, for which He became man must precede
the fact : that purpose was the restoration of fallen
man. If man had not stood in need of His assist
ance, He would not have put on flesh. 4 Unless

1 Isaiah xlix. 5. 2 c. 53.

3 c. 54. See c. 56.

4 c. 55. Athanasius here uses a comparison, which seems at
first sight at variance with the reality of Christ s body. " For
as," he says, " Christ taking our infirmities, atrOeveiai, is said

202 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

death had been brought in, there could have been
no resurrection; and death could not have been
brought in, unless He who died had possessed a
body. Christ, therefore, took our body, in order
that He might overcome death in it.

1 If, as the Arians assert, the essence of the Word
is created, Christ was not created for our sakes, nor
have we been created in Him, nor have we Him
within us, but He is external to us, and we receive
instruction from Him as from a master. Sin is not
expelled from our flesh, but still reigns in it. All
this is directly at variance with the teaching of St.
Paul, who 2 says that we are His workmanship,
created in Christ Jesus. Christ, " having been made
man for our sakes," applies to Himself expressions
properly belonging to humanity, and says, " The
Lord created me." He does not say, " in the be
ginning I was man."

Himself to be weak, da6tt&gt;~u , though He is not weak, inasmuch
as He is the Power, Ivva^tc^ of God : so He became sin and a
curse for us, although He did not Himself sin, but bore our sins
and curse." The Oxford annotator is aware of this, and ac
counts or apologizes for it by saying, " That nothing is more
common in theology, than comparisons which are only parallel to
a certain point as regards the matter in hand ; especially since
many doctrines do not admit of exact illustrations." Would not
the safer course then be to abstain from such illustrations, which
certainly tend to mislead ?

1 c. 56.

2 Ephes. ii. 10.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 203

1 Moses, when speaking of created things, does
not say that they were in the beginning, iv pXV&gt; but
that God made them in the beginning; but of the
Word it is said, that He was, not He was made in
the beginning. They have a beginning of existence,
He has none, but exists eternally, having His ex
istence in no other beginning than the Father, whom
the Arians themselves admit to be 2 unoriginate.
The Word, therefore, exists unoriginately in the
Father, being His offspring, not a creature.

3 The Arians appear to have contended, that the
sacred writers did not always observe this distinction
between the words begat and created, iyiwriaE and
7roirj&lt;76 or /cri(T8. Thus, in Deuteronomy xxxii. 6 we
find, "Hath He not made, tTrotVf, and established
thee?" but in ver. 18, "Thou art unmindful of the
Rock that begat thee," rov ytwrjaavra &lt;yt, where
the two words appear to be used indifferently.
Athanasius observes that the word made occurs in
the former passage, which refers to the first creation
of man ; the word begat in the latter, which refers to
the new creation of man under the Gospel. 4 Such
is the loving-kindness of God, that He becomes the
Father of those of whom He is the Creator or
Maker; and this takes place when men, being

1 c. 57. Athanasius here quotes Psalm xlv. 1, with reference
to the generation of the Son.

3 C. 58. 4 c. 59.

204 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

already created, receive into their hearts the Spirit
of His Son, crying Abba, Father. These are they,
who, having received the Word, receive l power
from Him to become the children of God ; a power
which, being by nature creatures, they cannot re
ceive, unless they receive the Spirit of Him who is
by nature the true Son. To this end He was made
flesh, in order that He might make man capable of
receiving Deity. We are not sons by nature, but
the Son who is in us is : nor is God our Father by
nature, but of the Son in us, in whom, and through
whom, we cry, Abba, Father.

The conclusion at which Athanasius arrives is,
that the expression rov ytvi^ravrci ae in Deuteronomy
must be understood of the sons whom God begets
through His Spirit under the Gospel. Man is first
made, and then begotten ; 2 on the contrary, the Son
was first begotten, then made or created when He
assumed our human body. Hence He is called
first-born, TT^WTOTO/COC, among many brethren, because
all men being lost through the transgression of
Adam, His flesh was first saved and redeemed, in
asmuch as it is the body of the very Word ; and we
afterwards, being of the same body, are saved
through it. He is the beginning of the Lord s ways

1 John i. 12. $&KV avrolq ifyvaiav TiKva QEOV yevtadat.
Compare de Dec. Syn. Nic. c. 31.

2 cc. 60, 61.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 205

for His works, for ] He is the Way and the Door
through which we must all enter. He is the first
born from the dead, because He first rose, that we
might in our order rise by and through Him.

2 The Arians seem to have contended that, as
Christ is called the first-born of all creation, He
must be numbered among things created. Atha-
nasius answers, that the expression must be under
stood with reference, not to His generation, but to
His condescension to the creation, With respect
to His generation from the Father, He is called the
only-begotten, ^ovo-yevric, absolutely ; but He is called
first-born with reference to the purpose for which
He came down, 3 that all things might be created
in Him. If the Apostle had called Christ first-born

of all Creatures, TT^WTOTOKOQ TTdvrwv 4 run&gt; KTia/nuTwr, the

Arians might have some ground for saying, that He
was one of those creatures : but the expression is
7rtt&lt;rrjc jcriffEwc, which clearly proves Him to

1 John x. 9.

2 c. 62. trpwTOTOKOG irdarjg KritreuQ. Coloss. i. 15. The Ox
ford annotator says that we should render the words, " first-born
to, not of, all creation."

3 ori if avToi eKriffOrj TO. iravra. According to the context, this
verse rather relates to the creation of the world, and so far
favours Bull s interpretation of the word o-vyfcara /Gao-te, the going
forth of the Son to create the world. But see the note of the
Oxford annotator, c. 62 and c. 81.

* c. 63.

206 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

be different from creation, otherwise He would be
first-born of Himself. He is called " first-born
among many brethren," on account of His relation
ship to them in the flesh ; " first-born from the
dead," because the resurrection of the dead was of
Him and after Him ; " first-born of all creation,"
on account of the love of the Father to men, be
cause not only all things consist in His Word, but
because the l creature, expecting the revelation of
the Son of God, will be delivered from the bondage
of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the
children of God.

2 If the expression that He is first-born of all
creation, implied a similarity of essence with the
creation, then would He be like irrational and in
animate things, which are parts of creation. But
this is too absurd even for the Arians to maintain.
On two occasions the Word condescended to created
things; first, when He gave them the capacity of
being created, since if He had not condescended,
they could not have endured the unmixed brightness
which He has with the Father. Secondly, He con-

1 Romans viii. 19. Athanasius quotes Hebrews i. 6, " When
he bringeth in the first-born into the world," to prove that
He is called first-born, TrpwroT-o/coc, with reference to His as
sumption of our flesh. Our translators, by rendering
first-begotten, have rather weakened this argument.

2 c. 64.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 207

descended, in that the creature is ] adopted as a son
through Him.

Athanasius next goes on to explain in what sense
Christ is the 2 beginning of ways. The first way
was lost through the transgression of Adam; but
the Word of God, through love to man and by the
will of the Father, put on created flesh, that He
might, in the blood of His own body, quicken that
which the first man had subjected to death by trans
gression, and 3 consecrate for us a new and living
way through the veil, that is, His flesh. It was
necessary that some one should be first of the new
creation : but a mere man from the earth, earthy,
could not be: there was need of some one who
should renew the old, and preserve the new creation.
The Lord took upon Himself this office, and being
the beginning of the new creation, was created to
be the Way which man was thenceforward to follow,
renouncing his former conversation after the old
creation. 4 Man stood in need of immortality and

1 The Oxford annotator remarks, " As God created Him in
that He created human nature in Him, so is Tie first-born in that
human nature is adopted in Him." This is the right meaning of
vtoTToitlrui, but the translator renders it "is made." The anno
tator quotes also a passage from Leo : " Human nature has been
taken into so close an union by the Son of God, that not only in
that man who is the first-born of the whole creation, but even in
all His saints is one and the same Christ ;" he means, I suppose,
by His Spirit. See de Dec. Syn. Nic. c. 31.

2 c. 65. 3 Heb. x. 20. * c. 66.

208 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

of a way to Paradise. The perfect Word of God,
therefore, took an imperfect body, and is said to be
created for His works, inasmuch as by paying our
debt He supplied what was wanting to man. ] The
expression for His works must be understood, not
of the creation of all things out of nothing, nor of
the time which preceded Christ s assumption of the
flesh, but of the time when He was made flesh, and
created anew and perfected the works which had
been made imperfect and maimed by transgression.
If, being a creature, He had been made man, men
would have remained in their former state, not
united to God. 2 Being Himself in want of assist
ance, He could have afforded none, nor could He
have annulled the 3 sentence of God nor remitted
sin ; since God alone can remit sins. But He, as
the proper Word and Image of the Father s essence,
was made man, and gave man liberty and released
him from condemnation.

4 The Arians argued that, even if the Saviour
were a creature, God might, by merely speaking the
word, have undone the curse. Athanasius answers,
that we are to consider, not what God can do, but
what He has done. In all that He does, He con-

1 c. 67. 2 Compare c. 72.

3 Genesis iii. 19 : " Dust thou art, and to dust shalt thou re
turn."

4 c. 68.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 209

suits the good of man. If He had undone the curse
by a word, His power would have been displayed,
but man would have been what Adam was before
the transgression, l receiving grace from without, and
not having it connected with his body. Being such
he would have been placed in Paradise, and would
quickly have become worse, because he had learned
to sin. God must, therefore, have again interposed,
and removed the curse ; and there would have
been an endless succession of transgression, curse,
and pardon.

God, therefore, sent His own Son, that He might
take created flesh, and offer His 2 body to death, and,
we all dying in Him, the letter of the sentence
might be fulfilled ; for we all died in Christ, to the
end that, being free from sin, and the curse on ac
count of sin, we might all truly remain for ever,
having risen from the dead, and put on immortality
and incorruption. Christ was manifested that He
might destroy the works of the Devil ; and 3 thus,

1 The Oxford annotator observes, " Athanasius here seems to
say that Adam, in a state of innocence, had but an external di
vine assistance, not an habitual grace ; this, however, is contrary
to his own statement already referred to and the general doctrine
of the fathers." It appears to me that the translator has mis
understood the passage ; roiovrog yap &v KOL tore redeiro iv raj
Trapa^eio-w does not relate to Adam, but to man, when, by the
undoing of the curse, he would be replaced in Paradise.

2 c. 69.

3 Athanasius seems to admit that the carnal motions still re-

210 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

being destroyed in the flesh, we are all delivered by
the relationship to His flesh, and are henceforward
united to the Word. Thus united to God, we no
longer remain on earth ; but where He is, there we
shall be: we are a new creation in Him. ] This
could not have been effected if Christ had been a
creature. But the Word took a created and
human body, that, creating it anew, He might
2 render it Divine in Himself, and thus introduce
us all in His likeness into the kingdom of Heaven.
We could not have been delivered from sin and the
curse, unless the Word had put on naturally human
flesh, 3 from Mary the ever Virgin : so neither could
man have been made divine, if the Word of the
Father, c /c TOU Trarjooc, by nature His true and
proper Word, had not become flesh.

4 Athanasius points out the peculiar force of the
expression, for His works, as it proves that Christ
must be by nature different from His works : it is

main ; but says that they are cut out, and with them is destroyed
death, the consequence of sin, ei TL IK T&V aapKiK&v Ktvrjfjid-
TUV avc.&lt;pvTO KdKov i^KOTTTETO Ko.1 avvav^^CiTO rovTOtg o TJJQ ajbiap-
TIO.Q aKoXovQoq Qdrarog. This seems equivalent to saying that
the infection of nature remains, but is not imputed to us unto
condemnation and death.

1 C. 70. 2 kv tavT(j) deoTTOirjffr).

3 K Mapiag rrjQ deurapOevov. See Pearson on the Creed,
Art. iii.

4 c. 71. He says of the Word, vpfovptvoc KOI 7rpoffKvyovfj.e-

KO.I OeoXoyovf-ttroc, declared to be God.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 211

equivalent to saying, the Father created me for the
flesh, that I might be made man.

1 He goes on to the consideration of the next
verse, " He founded me before the world" which
the Arians interpreted of the generation of the
Son. It is written, he says, 2 " The Lord by
wisdom hath founded the earth." If, therefore,
the former words are to be understood of the gene
ration of the Son, we must say that the Son, the
Wisdom of God, was founded by Himself. We
must first ascertain whether Christ is in Scripture
called the Son of God, and then what meaning is to
be attached to the expression ; on neither point can
there be any doubt, since, when Christ said that He
was the Son of God, the Jews accused Him of
making Himself equal to God. Christ does not say
He founded me as Word or Son, but simply me, to
show that He says this, not for His own sake, but
8 after the way of proverbs for the sake of those
who are built upon Him. The foundation must
be such as are the things built upon it. Christ,
who is the foundation, has not, as the Word, any
who are such as He is to be compacted with Him ;

1 cc. 72, 73, 74. Trpo rov alUJvoq idspeXiuMrf. /LIE. In our
version, "I was setup from everlasting."

2 Proverbs iii. 19.

3 7rapoi/Kw2we eirotKo^ofjLovfJievovQ. Athanasius refers to 1 Cor.^
iii. 11, " for other foundation can no man lay than that is laid,
which is Jesus Christ."

p 2

212 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

for He is the only-begotten. But being made man,
He has those who are like Him, the likeness of
whose flesh He put on. ] The verse must, there
fore, be understood with reference to His Incarna
tion, to the time when He put on our body, which
he took 2 being cut from Mary.

3 In like manner, when He is said to be founded
from everlasting, before the earth was, before the
mountains were settled, we must refer the expressions
to the economy of His appearance in the flesh. The
grace 4 of God that bringeth salvation then appeared
to all men, but it had been prepared before we were
created, or rather before the foundation of the world.
For the God of the universe, having created us by
His proper Word, knowing what we are better than
we know ourselves, foreknowing that being born
innocent we should afterwards transgress the com
mandment, and be expelled from Paradise for our
transgression ; being good and loving mankind, pre
pared the dispensation of our salvation in His pro
per Word, by whom He created us, to the end
that, though being deceived by the Serpent we
should fall, we should not remain altogether dead,

1 Athanasius, in c. 74, says, that when Christ compares Him
self to a vine, and His disciples to branches, the comparison
must be understood with reference to His human nature, since
the vine and the branches must be like, and the disciples are like
Him as to the flesh.

2 rjJiriBev ; the Oxford translator renders it severed.

3 cc. 75, 76, 77. Proverbs viii. 23. 25. 4 Titus ii. 11.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 213

but, having in the Word redemption and salvation
prepared for us, should rise again and remain im
mortal, when He should be created for our sake the
beginning of ways and the first-born of Creation
should be made the first-born of brethren, and He
should rise again the first-fruits of the dead. If,
then, before men were created, the Son pre-ordained
them to the adoption of sons, He must have been
founded from everlasting, and have taken upon Him
the dispensation for our sakes. The grace which
was to extend to us was * laid up in Christ. If the
hope of life and salvation had not been prepared for
us from everlasting in Christ, we, who are from the
earth, could not have been 2 capable of everlasting
life; but the Word entering into our flesh, and
being in it created the beginning of ways to His
works, is founded, inasmuch as the will of the Father
is in Him from everlasting, before the earth was,
before the mountains were settled and the springs
flowed ; that, although created things should pass
away in the consummation of the present age, we
may still live, having the life and spiritual blessing
prepared for us, according to election, in the Word
before created things were. Before we existed, the

1 r ir

2 See the note of the Oxford annotator : " The Catholic doc
trine seems to be, that Adam was mortal, yet would not in fact
have died ; that he had no principle of eternal life within him,
but was sustained continually by Divine power, till such time as
immortality should have been given him." See Oratio i. c. 44.

214 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

renewal of our salvation is founded in Christ, that
we may be also new-created in Him. The counsel
and purpose were prepared before ] the age or
world ; but it became an act, when the need re
quired, and the Saviour came among us ; for the
Lord Himself will be to us in the place of all things
in the Heavens, taking us to Him into everlasting
life. This suffices to show, then, that the Word of
God is not a creation : the Word has not said that
He is by nature a creature ; but as in a proverb, the
Lord created man, a beginning of ways for His
works ; and this proverb must be so interpreted as
to be brought into accordance with those passages in
which Wisdom is said to exist, and the Word is
called the only-begotten Son.

The Only-begotten and 2 very Wisdom of God
is the Creator and Framer of all things; but in
order that the created things might not only exist,
but 3 exist well, God was pleased that His Wisdom
should 4 condescend to the creatures, in order to
impress on all in common, and on each a sort of type
and semblance of its Image, and to make the
created works appear wise and worthy of God. For
as our word is the Image of the Word who is the
Son of God, so the wisdom which is in us, is the

7T|OO TOV a/WJ OC. 2 C. 78. &gt;/

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 215

image of the Word who is His Wisdom ; in which
we, being capable of knowing and understanding,
become capable of receiving the Wisdom of the
Creator, and through it we are enabled to ] know its
Father. The true and creative Wisdom, therefore,
taking to itself that which belongs to its type, says,
" The Lord created me the beginning of ways for
His works," with reference to the image of itself
created in the works, not as if, being as it is the
Creator, it were itself created.

2 The sacred writers speak of a wisdom in man
and in the world, which is the type of the true and
creative Wisdom. The wisdom in the world is not
the creative Wisdom, but is created in the works ;
but men, if they possess it in themselves, will attain
to the knowledge of the true wisdom of God, and
will know that they are really made after the 3 image
of God. To those then who admire the wisdom in
the creature, the true Wisdom says, God created
me for His works, for my type is in them, and thus
I 4 condescended to the work of creation.

1 Athanasius afterwards says, that the type of wisdom was
made in the works, that the world in it might know the Word its
Creator, and through Him, the Father ; and quotes in support
of his statement Romans i. 19. See the note on Oratio i. cc.
11, 12.

2 c. 79.

3 Athanasius seems here to make the image of God in which
man was created, consist in the type of the true Wisdom im
pressed upon him.

216 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

1 The Son speaks of His type in us as of Himself :
as He asks Saul, when persecuting the Church in
which is His type and image, "Why persecutest
thou me?" When, therefore Wisdom says, "The
Lord created me for His works," we must not under
stand the words of the essence of the very 2 Wis
dom which creates, but of its type created in the
works. This type is called also the beginning of
ways, because it is, as it were, a beginning or 3 ele
mentary principle of the knowledge of God : for he
who enters upon this way and keeps it in the
fear of God, which, according to Solomon, is the
beginning of wisdom, then, going forward in thought
and recognizing the creative Wisdom in the creation,
will recognize also its Father in it, as Christ Him
self says : " He who has seen me, has seen the
Father." But that we may not transfer what is
said of the type to the very Wisdom, and suppose
the very Wisdom to be a creature, it is added, " He
begat me before the mountains, and the earth,
before all created things," in order to show that the
very Wisdom, as to its essence, was not created with
the works, and is not a creature, but an offspring.
4 Wisdom is also represented as saying, " When
He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him."
This, Athanasius says, does not mean that the

1 C. 80. 2 TT

4 CC. 81, 82. tn iKa ?/7"O/jUtte TQV ovpavov
Prov. viii. 27. In our version, "When He prepared the heavens,
I was there."

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 217

Father did not prepare the heaven through Wisdom,
it being certain that all things were made in Wisdom;
but it being necessary that Wisdom should be cre
ated in the works, I, it says, was as to my essence
with the Father, but in my condescension to created
things, 1 1 was fitting the type in me to the works,
that the universe, being in one body, might not be
disturbed by dissension, but might be in accordance
with itself. But under the New, it is not as under
the Old Testament : God was then known through
the image and shadow of Wisdom which was in the
creature ; but now He has caused the true Wisdom
to take flesh, and to become man, and to suffer the
death of the cross, to the end that through faith in
Him, all who should thenceforward believe should
be capable of salvation. It is the same Wisdom of
God which before manifested itself, and through
itself, its Father, by its image in the creatures, on
which account it is said to be created ; and which
afterwards, being itself the Word, was made flesh,
and after having destroyed death and saved our race,
still further revealed itself and through itself its
Father, saying: 2 "Give them to know thee the
only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast
sent." Again, Wisdom says : 3 " I was daily His
delight, rejoicing daily before Him." Was there
ever a time when God was not delighted ? If then

Trj t) Trpoe ra yej/j/rct &lt;rvycara/3a&lt;ri ijfj.rjv ap/j.6ovaa TOV Trap

ol TVTTOV ro7c fjOyOlC.

2 John xvii. 3. 3 Proverbs viii. 30.

218 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

He was always delighted, He in whom He was
delighted must have always existed. His delight
consisted in seeing Himself in His own image, which
is His Word ; and if He is said to rejoice in the
sons of men, He rejoices because He sees the works
made according to His image. Athanasius concludes
with saying, that Proverbs viii. 22 lends no support
to the Arian doctrine.

1 The next text considered is John xiv. 10 : "I in
the Father, and the Father in me." The Arians
asked, " How can the Father, who is greater, be con
tained in the Son, who is less?" 2 Athanasius

1 Oratio iii. c. 1.

2 Art. xvii. 28. Here the Oxford annotator takes occasion to
remark, that the doctrine of the Perichoresis, which this objec
tion introduces, is the test of orthodoxy opposed to Arianism.
The doctrine is, " That the Son is literally and numerically one
with the Father, and therefore His person dwells in the Father s
person by an ineffable union." The Athanasian Creed says that
there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son : notwith
standing, therefore, this ineffable union, the persons are distinct.
The annotator then quotes a passage from Jerome, on Ezekiel
iii. 12 : " Filius locus est Patris, sicut et Pater locus est Filii ;"
and adds, that at first sight it is inconsistent with what Athana
sius says respecting the illustration taken from vessels, and the
filling one from the other : but it is not so in reality. He thus
reconciles the two statements : The Father is the TOTTOC or locus
of the Son, because when we contemplate the Son in His fulness
or 6 \o&lt;; 0foe, we do not view the Father as that person in whom
God the Son is ; our mind abstracts His substance, which is the
Son, for a moment from Him, and regards Him merely as Father.
It is, however, but an operation of the mind, and not a real
emptying of Godhead from the Father, if such words may be

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 219

replies, that there is nothing more surprising in the
statement that the Son is in the Father, than in
the statement that " we live, and move, and are in
Him." But the objection arises out of the gross
carnal notions of the Arians, who think that God is
a body, and understand neither what is true Father
and true Son, nor what is invisible, eternal light,
and its invisible radiance, nor what is an invisible
substance and incorporeal expression (^apa:r&gt;)p) and
image. They, in consequence, interpret the text as
if, like vessels, they were mutually poured into each
other, the Son filling up the emptiness of the Father,
and the Father that of the Son, and as if neither
of them were full and perfect; whereas the Father
is full and perfect, and the Son is the fulness of
the Godhead. The Father is not, however, in the
Son as He is in the saints, to whom He gives power ;

used. Father and Son are both the same God, though really
and eternally distinct from each other : and each is full of the
other ; that is, their substance is one and the same. He had be
fore observed of a statement respecting the ineffable union of the
two persons, that it was not only a contradiction in the terms
used, but in our ideas, yet not, therefore, a contradiction in fact.
See note on Oratio ii. c. 33. In a note on c. 3 he says, that the
Father and the Son are the numerically one God ; and in another
note he quotes Thomassin, to the effect that, by the mutual in
dwelling or co-inherence of the three Persons is meant, not a
commingling as of material liquids, nor as of soul with body, nor
as the union of our Lord s Godhead and humanity, but it is such,
that the whole power, life, substance, wisdom, essence, of the
Father, should be the very essence, substance, wisdom, life, and
power of the Son.

220 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

for He is the power and wisdom of the Father.
Created beings are sanctified by a participation of
Him in the Spirit ; He is the Son, not by participa
tion, but as the proper offspring of the Father. So
again is the Son in the Father, as we live, and move,
and are in Him : for He is the Life from the foun
tain of the Father, in which all things are quickened
and consist. The Life does not live in life, since
then it could not be life ; but rather He gives life
to all things. ] Asterius argued that Christ said
that He was in the Father and the Father in Him,
for this reason, that He said that neither the word
which He delivered was His own, but the Father s,
nor the works which He did His own, but those of
the Father who gave the power. This, Athanasius
answers, is to say, that the Power of God received
power; whence it would follow, that the Son is
made Son in the Son, and the Word received the
power of (uttering) the word ; and the Son did not
speak as Son, but as a learner and on a level with
created beings. Moses, David, and Elias also said,
that they spoke not their own words, but those from
the Father, and that the works which they did were
not their own, but the Father s who gave the power :
they, therefore, according to the interpretation of
Asterius, might also have said that they were in the
Father, and the Father in them.

c. 2.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 221

1 The error of the Arians arises from not ac
knowledging the Lord to be the true Son from the
Father. The Son is in the Father, because the
whole being (TO tlvai) of the Son is proper to the
essence of the Father, as radiance from light, and
the river from the fountain, so that he who sees the
Son sees that which is proper to the essence of the
Father, and understands that the Being of the Son,
inasmuch as it is from the Father, is therefore in
the Father. Again, as the Son is that which is
proper from the Father, the Father is in the Son, as
the Son in the radiance, the understanding in the
Word, the fountain in the river. Having before
said, 2 " I and my Father are one," Christ adds : 3 " I
in the Father, and the Father in me," to show the
identity (rauror^ra) of the Godhead and the unity of
the essence.

4 The Father and the Son are one, ev, not as
one thing divided into two parts, which are still
nothing but one ; nor as one thing under two names,
so that the same is sometimes Father and some
times His own Son, according to the doctrine
of Sabellius, which was pronounced heretical. But

1 c. 3. 2 John x, 30.

3 John xiv. 10. In a note the Oxford annotator observes : " A
Trfpt^wprytrte of persons is implied in the unity of substance: this
is the connexion of the two texts here quoted ; and the cause of
this unity and Trepi^prja^ is the divine

4 c. 4. Compare Oratio iv. cc. 9, 10.

222 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

they are two, inasmuch as the Father is Father,
and the same is not the Son ; and the Son is Son,
and the same is not the Father : but there is l one
nature ; for the offspring cannot be unlike Him who
begat it, for He is His Image ; and all that belongs
to the Father, belongs also to the Son. Wherefore
the Son is not another God ; for He was not
2 imagined from without, since if a Godhead were
imagined foreign from the Father, there would be
many Gods. If the Son is another as offspring, He
is the same as God; and He and the Father are
one by 3 propriety and peculiarity of nature, and the
identity of the one Godhead. Athanasius here
introduces his favourite illustration drawn from light
and its radiance ; and then goes on. The Godhead
of the Son is that of the Father, wherefore it is
indivisible; so that there is one God and none
beside Him. Hence they being one, and the God
head being one, whatever is said of the Father, the
same is said of the Son, save that He is never called
Father : He is called God, and Almighty, and the
Lord and Light, and is said to remit sins.

4 That which is said of the Father could not be
said of the Son, unless the Son were the Father s
offspring, the proper offspring of His essence. Christ

1 (f&gt;vaic, which seems here to be equivalent to

3 TTJ idtoTrjTt Kut oixetOTrjTi TTJQ &lt;pv

4 c. 5.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 223

says, " He who has seen me, has seen the Father,"
because the Godhead of the Father is in the Son.
Athanasius here introduces another 1 illustration
drawn from the image of the Emperor. The face
and form of the Emperor are in the image, and the
face in the image is in the Emperor. The exact
likeness of the Emperor is in the image, so that he
who looks upon the image sees in it the Emperor ;
and he who sees the Emperor, knows that he is in
the image ; and to one who, having seen the image,
wished to see the Emperor, the image would say :
" I and the Emperor are one : I am in him and he

1 It is clear that this illustration is defective, for the Emperor
and his image are certainly not 6/zoovo-iot. The Oxford anno-
tator says, however, that " a mistake as to the meaning of Atha
nasius is impossible, and that the passage affords a good instance
of the imperfect and partial character of all illustrations of the
Divine Mystery. What it is taken to symbolize is the unity of
the Father and Son, for the image is not a second emperor but
the same." In what sense can the image be called an emperor at
all ? The annotator goes on to say : " No one who bowed before
the Emperor s statue can be supposed to have really worshipped
it ; whereas our Lord is the object of supreme worship, which
terminates in Him, as being really one with Him whose image
He is. From the custom of paying honour to the imperial
statue, the * Cultus Imaginum was introduced into the Eastern
Church. The Western Church, not having had the civil custom,
resisted. The Fathers, e. g. S. Jerome on Dan. iii. 18, set
themselves against the civil custom as idolatrous, comparing it to
that paid to Nebuchadnezzar s statue. Incense was burned before
those of the emperors, as afterwards before the images of the
saints." Would the annotator now subscribe to this account of
the origin of the Cultus Imaginum, and of burning incense before
the images of the saints ?

224 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

in me : what you see in me you see in him, and
what you see in him you see in me." He, therefore,
who worships the image, worships the Emperor ; for
the image is his form and face. Since, therefore,
the Son is the image of the Father, we must neces
sarily understand that the Godhead and propriety of
the Father is the Being of the Son; and this is
meant when the Son is said to be in the form of
God, and the Father is said to be in Him.

1 The Being of the Son is not in part the form of
the Godhead, but is the fulness of the Father s
Godhead, and the Son is proper God. Hence, 2 the
Son thought it not robbery to be equal to God : and
God is said to be in Christ, reconciling the world
to Himself; and the works which the Son works
are said to be the works of the Father ; and he who
sees the Son sees the Father. When we call God
Creator, we do thereby indicate the existence of
created things, for the Creator is before them ; but
when we call Him Father, we indicate 3 the subsis
tence of the Son together with Him. He, there
fore, who believes in the Son, believes in the Father;
for he believes in that which is proper to the essence
of the Father, and thus there is one Faith in one
God. He who worships and honours the Son,
worships and honours the Father in the Son; for

c. 6. 2 Philip, ii. 6. 2 Cor. v. 19.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 225

the Godhead is one ; and there is one honour and
worship, that paid to the Father in and through the
Son; so that he who thus worships, worships one
God, and the worship of the Son is not at variance
with the declarations of the Old Testament : * " That
there is one God, and there is no other beside Him."
Athanasius seems to have thought it necessary to
guard against the mistaken inference which might
have been drawn from the illustration of the Em
peror s image in the last chapter.

2 Still the Arians contended that the expressions,
one God, one only God, are at variance with the
doctrine that the Son is God. Athanasius answers
that this objection supposes the Son, by taking the
title of God, to be setting Himself in opposition to
the Father, as Absalom rebelled against David ;
whereas Christ uniformly declares that He came to
reveal His Father, and to do His Father s will.
The declarations respecting the unity of God were
made in exclusion of the gods, falsely so called,
whom men had framed to themselves, not of His
own Son. Athanasius adds, that they may be con
sidered as directed against the folly of the Arians,
to teach them that the God whom they ima
gine to themselves external to the essence of the
Father, is not the true God, nor the Image and

1 Exodus iii. 14. Deut. xxxii. 39. Isaiah xliv. 6.

2 cc. 7, 8.

226 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

Son of the only and first God. l Christ says, " that
they might know Thee the only true God, and Him
whom Thou hast sent, Jesus Christ ;" thus coupling
Himself with God. This He would not have done
if He had been a creature, and not of the 2 nature of
God ; if He had not been the true offspring of the
true Father. Christ is called first-born, not because
He is numbered with the creatures, but to show the
creation and adoption of all things through Him :
for He is first as the Father is 3 first ; and as He is

1 c. 9. John xvii. 3. 2 rfjg tyvaews.

3 The reference is to Isaiah xliv. 6 : " I am the first and I
am the last :" in the Septuagint, eyw TT^WTOS KQI eyw pera ravra.
On this passage the Oxford annotator thus remarks : " It is no
inconsistency to say that the Father is first and the Son first
also ; for comparison in number does not enter into this mystery :
since each is O\OQ feof, each, as contemplated by our finite
reason, at the moment of contemplation excludes the other.
Though we say Three Persons, person hardly denotes one ab
stract idea, certainly not as containing under it three individual
subjects ; but it is a term applied to the one God in three ways.
It is the doctrine of the Fathers that, though we use words ex
pressive of a Trinity, yet that God is beyond number," (what does
this mean that number does not apply to God ? why then talk
at all of Three Persons ?) " and that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
though eternally distinct from each other, can scarcely be viewed
together in common, except as One Substance, as if they could not
be generalized into Three Any whatever; and as if it were, strictly
speaking, incorrect to speak of a person, or otherwise than of the
person, whether of Father, or of Son, or of Spirit. The question
has almost been admitted by St. Austin, whether it is not possible
to say that God is One Person, for He is wholly and entirely Father,
and at the same time wholly and entirely Son, and wholly and
entirely Holy Ghost." It may be possible to say that God is
One Person, but this certainly is not the language of the Atha-

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 227

image of the first, the first being in Him, and He
is the offspring from the Father, and in Him the
whole creation is created and adopted.

1 The Arians contended that the unity implied in
that text, as "I and my Father are one," is an
unity, not of essence, but of will and doctrine and
teaching. If this were so, then the angels and the
Heavenly Powers may be said to be one with the
Father, since they also will what the Father wills.
Even among men we find some, as the martyrs,
apostles, prophets, patriarchs, who have kept the com
mandment of the Saviour, and have been followers
of God, as dear children, and have walked in love,
as Christ also loved us. Yet neither of any angel
nor of any holy man is it ever said that he is
Word, or Wisdom, or Only-begotten Son, or Image ;
nor did any one of them ever venture to say, " I
and the Father are one ; or I in the Father and the
Father in me." We were made indeed in the
image, and are called the image and glory of God ;
but we receive the grace of this name, not on ac
count of ourselves, but on account of the image

nasian Creed : to say that God is One Person, is surely to con
found the Persons. But why raise these subtle questions ? How
Three Persons can each be God, and yet there be only One God,
is a mystery unfathomable by the human intellect, to be received
on the authority of God s Word ; the attempt to explain it only
serves to perplex and bewilder the mind.
1 cc. 10, 11.

Q 2

228 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

and true glory of God indwelling in us, which is
His Word, who for our sakes was afterwards made
flesh. If the likeness to the Father is only a like
ness of doctrine and teaching, He is Father only in
name, and the Son is not the exact Image, or rather
has no propriety nor likeness to the Father. St.
Paul taught as the Saviour taught, yet was not like
Him in essence. The Father and the Son are es
sentially one, so that when the Son comes to the
saints, the Father comes in Him, as He said, l " I and
my Father will come unto Him, and make our abode
in Him." The Father is seen in the Image, and the
Light is in the Radiance,

2 Such language would not be used, if the Son
differed 3 by nature from the Father ; for then it
would be sufficient to say that the Father gave
grace to His disciples ; whereas it is said 4 to be
from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus
Christ. No one, in praying for any blessing, prays
to receive it from 5 God and the angels, but from
the Father and the Son, on account of their unity and

1 John xiv. 23. 2 cc. 12, 13.

3 0uo-ei. 4 Rom. i. 7.

5 The Oxford annotator here refers to passages from Basil,
Theodoret, Origen, in which it is expressly said that we are not
to pray to angels, nor to seek access to God through them, but
through Christ. He adds, however, that they do not contain the
whole doctrine of those Fathers respecting the cultus angelo-
rum, and of course are not inconsistent with 1 Tim. v. 21. He
does not tell us what this doctrine was.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 229

oneness in giving. What is given, is given through
the Son. When Jacob, blessing his grandchildren
Ephraim and Manasseh, said, ] " The God which fed
me all my life long unto this day ; the Angel which
redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads," he did not
mean to couple one of the created angels with God
who created them; but plainly declared that He
who delivered him from all evil was the Word of
God ; the same whom 2 Isaiah calls " the angel of
great counsel ;" the same of whom he said, 3 " I
will not let thee go, except thou bless me," and " I
have seen God face to face." Jacob would not
have prayed, in behalf of his posterity, to any other
than to Him who had fed him from his youth. The
angel, therefore, whom Jacob coupled with God in
his prayer, is no other than the Word of God, who
is called in the Old Testament an angel, because it
is He alone who reveals the Father.

4 It cannot be said of angels, or of any creatures,
that when the Father works they work, nor that
they impart grace when the Father imparts it ; nor
would any one say, when an angel appeared, that

1 Gen. xlviii. 15, 16.

2 Isaiah ix. 6. peyaXriQ fiovXrJQ ayyeXoe, in the Septuagint ;
Counsellor, in our version.

3 Gen. xxxii. 26. 30. Athanasius says that it was the Second
Person in the Holy Trinity who appeared to Laban, xxxi. 24.

4 c. 14.

230 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

he had seen the Father. Angels are ministering
Spirits sent to minister, and they announce the gifts,
given through the Word, to those who receive
them. When an angel appears, he states that he
is sent by the Lord ; as did Gabriel, who appeared
to Zechariah, and to Mary 2 the mother of God.
Manoah, the father of Samson, saw an angel;
Moses saw God. 3 Gideon saw an angel ; God ap
peared to Abraham : and neither did he who saw
God, see an angel; nor he who saw an angel,
think that he saw God. If, on an occasion when an
angel appeared, he who saw the angel heard the
voice of God, as when the angel of the Lord ap
peared in the flame of fire in the bush, and the Lord
spake to Moses from the bush, the God of Abra
ham was not an angel, but God spake in the angel,
as He spake to Moses in the pillar of the cloud in
the Tabernacle. But whenever God speaks, He
speaks through His Word ; and he who hears the
Word, knows that He hears the Father.

4 Athanasius goes on to say, that in holding the

1 Hebrews i. 14. 2 Trjg &EOTOKOV

3 Athanasius seems here to distinguish three cases of appear
ance : those in which an angel appeared, as to Manoah and
Gideon ; those in which the Word appeared, as to Jacob and
Laban ; and those in which an angel was seen, but the Word
spake in him. The Oxford annotator in c. 12, says, that the
doctrine of Athanasius does not differ from that of Augustine.

4 c. 15. See Oration iv. c. 10, where Athanasius is refuting
the Sabellians.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 231

Trinity the Catholics are not guilty of introducing
polytheism : for they do not introduce three Fathers
nor three Principles ; since they do not use the illus
tration of three suns, but of the Sun and Radiance.
They admit only one Principle, they say that the
Creator Word has no other mode of Godhead than
that of the Only God, since l He is by nature from
Him. The Arians are more justly open to the charge
of polytheism or atheism, because they speak of the
Son as a creature external to the Father, and say
that the Spirit is from that which was not. Either
they say that the Word is not God ; or, being com
pelled by the letter of Scripture to admit that He
is God, yet, by asserting that He is not proper to
the Essence of the Father, they give opportunity for
the introduction of many Gods, 2 because of their
difference in kind.

2 3ia ro erfpodc^e avrwv. If the Son is a creature of a differ
ent essence or nature from the Father, and yet is God, why may
not other creatures be Gods? In c. 16 Athanasius says, the
Word is God, and alone has the Father s form, TO
elfioQ. He then refers to John v. 35, ovre eldoQ avrov Iw
where our translators render elZoz shape, and adds, that the Xoyog
is well coupled with the word eloQ, to show that He is the
image, and expression, and tldoe of His Father. He next refers
to Genesis xxxii. 31 in the Septuagint : averetXe Se b rjXiog avVw
jjviica iraprjXde TO fl^oc rov 9tov, in our version, " as He passed
over Penuel;" Penuel meaning the face of God. The Oxford
translator renders lYepoei^ee in this chapter " different in kind :"
he afterwards renders e el^og dtoTrjros "one face or kind of
Godhead :" in c. 16 he renders it face, and in a note says, that
the words form and face, /top^ and flc)o, are rather descriptive

232 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

The Catholics only admit one kind of Godhead,
which is also in the Word. There is one God, the
Father subsisting in Himself, in that He is over
all ; appearing in the Son, in that He pervades all
things : in the Spirit, in that He works in the Spirit
in all through the Word. Thus we confess one God
head in Trinity. * Athanasius enlarges upon the
absurdities which flow from the Arian doctrine.
By making the Son a creature, and yet acknow
ledging Him to be God, they introduce two Gods,
one the Creator, the other a creature ; one increate,
the other created : and they have a twofold faith,
one in the true God, the other in Him whom they
have made and framed, and called God. They are,
therefore, to be numbered with the Gentiles, inas
much as they worship the creature. They charge
the Catholics with saying, that there are two in-
create ; but while they deny that there are two
increate, they introduce two Gods, and these having
different natures, one created, the other inereate.

2 Again, the Arians contended that the Father is

of the Divine substance in the Person of the Son. To render
trfpoet^e " different in face " in this chapter, would convey no in
telligible meaning to an English reader.

1 c. 16.

2 cc. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. The reference is to John xvii. 11.
Epiphanius answers this objection (Hseresis, Ixix. c. 6). He
makes the prayer of Christ to the Father to mean, that the dis
ciples, being sanctified by the relationship to Him through the
flesh by the good pleasure of the Father, might be united in the

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 233

in the Son and the Son in the Father, as we are in
Him. If, then, the Son is proper to and like the
Father s essence, we must be the same. Thus, Atha-
nasius answers, they put that which is given to men
of grace or favour on a level with the Godhead of
the Giver ; just as when they read that men are
called sons, they fancy themselves equal to Him
who is the true Son by nature. The true ex
planation of the text is this: As Christ called
Herod a fox, and exhorted his disciples to be wise
as serpents and innocent as doves ; not meaning
that Herod was by nature a fox, but describing his
moral character; nor meaning that the disciples
were to become serpents and doves, but describing
the wisdom and innocence which they were to try
to acquire: so when He prayed that the disciples
should be one in Him and the Father, as He is one
in the Father, He did not mean that they should be
one in nature and essence, but in union of heart and
spirit. We cannot be indissolubly united to the
Father in essence, as the Son is ; but we can take
their indissoluble union in essence as an example of
the unity of heart which ought to subsist among
believers. If it were possible that we should be as
the Son in the Father, it ought to have been written,
" that they may be one in thee, as the Son is in the

unity of good pleasure and adoption. The union could not have
taken place, if the Divine Word had not partaken of the flesh of
man.

234 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

Father :" whereas our Saviour s words are, " ] as thou,
Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may
be one in us! The words in us, show that He
only is in the Father, being the only Word and Wis
dom; but we are in the Son, and through Him
in the Father. Christ means to say, " that by Our
unity they may be one with each other, as We are
one by nature and in truth ; otherwise they cannot
be one, unless they learn in Us what unity is." The
words in us, do not mean that the disciple is in the
Father, as the Son is ; but are an example and
image, as if it were said, " let them learn of us"
Or, again, the words may be understood to mean
that they by the power of the Father and Son may
be one, speaking the same things ; for without
God this cannot be. In the name of Father and
Son being made one, men may hold firm the bond
of love. The text, therefore, "that they may be
one as we are," does not imply identity, but an
image and example. 2 The Word, therefore, has
really and truly an identity of nature with the Fa
ther : it is our part to imitate Him ; for He adds,
"I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be made
perfect in one." Here the Lord asks something
greater and more perfect on our account. It is plain
that the Word was made, yeyovcv, in us, since He put
on our body. He adds, " Thou in Me," for I am Thy
Word : and since Thou art in Me, because I am Thy

1 John xvii. 21. 2 cc. 22, 23. John xvii. 23.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 235

Word, and I am in them through the body, and the
salvation of men is perfected through Thee in Me ;
I ask that they may be made one according to the
body in Me and its perfection, that they also may be
made perfect, having unity in it, and being made
one in it : so that all being borne by Me, may be
one body and one spirit, and may grow up to the
perfect man. All partaking of the same, are made
one body, having the one Lord in themselves. The
use of the word /caflwc, " ! as Thou, Father, art in Me,
and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us,"
shows that Christ did not mean to express our iden
tity or equality with the Father and Himself, but
merely proposes their unity as an example. The
Son is simply and 2 without complexity in the
Father, for this belongs to Him by nature : but we,
not having this by nature, require an image and ex
ample, that He may say of us, " as thou in Me, and
I in thee." Christ adds, " that they may be made
perfect in Me, and that the world may know that
Thou hast sent Me." As if He had said, If I had

1 John xvii. 21 : KadwQ av t Trarcp, iv epot, fcayw kv &lt;rot, iva KCU
avrol iv i^fjuv tv dffiv. Athanasius observes that Christ, in His
allusion to Jonas, using the word Kadug, KaOiog ?jv Iwrde iv rfj
KoiAtcc, K.T.E., did not mean to say that Jonas was identical or
equal to Himself, but merely meant that his abode for three days
and nights in the whale s belly was a type of His own abode
three days and nights in the heart of the earth. In the received
text, the word is tlWep, not

236 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

not come, bearing their body, no one of them would
have been made perfect, but all would have re
mained corruptible. Work, therefore, in them, O
Father ; and as Thou hast given to Me to bear this
body, so give them Thy Spirit, that they may be
made one in it, and may be perfected in Me. For
their perfection shows the sojourn of Thy Word ;
and the world seeing them perfect and borne by
God, will believe that Thou hast sent Me, and that
I have sojourned among men. For whence could
they have attained perfection, if I, Thy Word, taking
their body, had not been made man and perfected
the work which Thou, O Father, gavest Me ; and the
work is perfected because men, redeemed from sin,
no longer remain dead, but being deified, looking to
us, hold with each other the bond of love.

2 Athanasius produces, in support of his interpre
tation, 1 John iv. 13: "Thereby we know that we
dwell in Him, and He in us, because He hath given
us of His Spirit." We, therefore, are in Him, and
He in us, by the grace of the Spirit given to us ;
and as the Spirit is the Spirit of God, therefore we,
having the Spirit, are reckoned to be in God ; and
thus God is in us. We are not in the Father, as
the Son is in the Father: we are in Him by par
taking of the Spirit: but the Son does not receive
of the Spirit, He supplies the Spirit to all : nor does

2 cc. 24, 25.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 237

the Spirit unite the Word to the Father, but the
Spirit receives from the Word. What then is our
likeness or equality to the Son ? unless the Arians
should venture to say that the Son is in the Father
through participation of the Spirit and improvement
in conversation ? The petition of Christ, " As Thou,
O Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also
may be one in us," is a petition to the Father that,
since the Word is in the Father, and the Spirit is
given from the Word, we may receive the Spirit ;
that when we receive it, then having the Spirit
of the Word who is in the Father, we also may
appear to be one through the Spirit in the Word, and
through Him in the Father. In saying l we rj^uclc,
Christ prays that the grace of the Spirit given to
the disciples, may be unfailing and 2 irrevocable. He
wishes that which belongs by nature to the Word
in the Father to be given to us irrevocably through
the Spirit.

The Arians referred to the 3 texts in which power,
judgment, all things are said to be given to the
Son ; and contended that, if He were Son by nature
and of like essence, He would possess all those

1 John xvii. 1.

2 a/^erajue Xr/roc, which our translators in Rom. xi. 29 render
" without repentance." Athanasius here incidentally says, that
they who have received grace may fall from it finally.

3 c. 26. Matt, xxviii. 18. John v. 22; iii. 35; vi. 37.
Luke x. 22. Compare Oration iv. cc. 6, 7.

238 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

things by nature, and would not need that they
should be given to Him. They quoted those texts
in which * He described the trouble of His soul,
and prayed that the cup might pass from Him ; and
argued, that He would not have been thus fearful if
He had been the power of God, but would rather
have imparted power to others. Nor, if He had
been by nature the true and proper Wisdom of the
Father, would it have been said that z He grew in
wisdom, and stature, and favour with God and man ;
nor would 3 He have asked His disciples whom men
declared Him to be ; 4 nor where Lazarus lay ; nor
5 how many loaves they had ; questions all implying
ignorance. How could He be the proper Word of
the Father, without whom the Father never was,
by whom He makes all things, and yet say upon
the cross, 6 " My God, My God, why hast Thou for
saken Me ?" and pray that 7 the Father would glorify
Him with the glory which He had before the world

1 John xii. 27 ; xiii. 21. Matt. xxvi. 38.

2 Luke ii. 52.

3 Matt. xvi. 13. In c. 46 Athanasius says, that if St. Peter
knew by revelation from the Father that Christ was " the Son of
the Living God," the revelation must have been made through
the Son, since no one knows the Son but the Father, nor the
Father, but the Son, and he to whom the Son is willing to reveal
Him. It is plain, therefore, that Christ intended to show that
He asked the question after the fashion of men, but that He knew
in the Godhead (0iKwe) what answer St. Peter would return.

4 John xi. 34. 5 Mark vi. 38.
6 Matt, xxvii. 46. 7 John xvii. 5.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 239

began ? and l profess ignorance of the day and hour
of the final judgment ? All this is consistent with
the belief that He is a creature and one of created
things; but not with the belief that He is of the
essence of the Father. 2 Athanasius replies, that
the Arians would do better to ask at once, How
could He who is God become man \ or how could
He who is incorporeal bear a body? let them
altogether deny the presence of the Saviour in the
flesh. After briefly noticing one of their cavils,
that the Catholics held 3 two everlasting, he says that
the Arians misinterpret the texts quoted, which
can only be rightly understood by those who take
in the whole scope 4 or bearing of the Christian faith,
and using it as a rule, then apply themselves to the
reading of the divinely-inspired Scriptures.

5 The scope, then, of the scriptural teaching re
specting the Son is this : He was always God and
is the Son, being the Word, and Radiance, and
Wisdom of the Father ; and afterwards taking flesh

1 Mark xiii. 32.

2 cc. 27, 28. In these two chapters Athanasius couples the
Arians with the Jews, and exhorts them in very energetic lan
guage to renounce their error.

3 Svo aUta. He says that the Lord is the true Son of God
by nature, and not simply a c&og, but co-existent with the eter
nity of the Father. There are eternal things of which He is
the Creator : His proper distinction is not that He is ditiioe, but
that He is the Son. Athanasius refers to Psalm xxiv. 7 : apare
TrvXac, 01 ap^ovree vn&v t /cat 7rap0//r TrvXcu alwvioi,

4 See c. 58. 5 cc. 29, 30, 31.

240 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

for our sake from the Virgin, Mary l the mother of
God, He became man. He is throughout the
divinely-inspired Scriptures represented under this
twofold character. Athanasius then 2 refers to par
ticular passages of Scripture in proof of his state
ment, and says that this great truth pervades the
writings both of the Old and New Testament. As
at the creation the Father said to the Son, 3 " Let
there be light," " Let us make man," so in the last
days, STT! avvTtXtia TWV aieJvwv, 4 He sent the Son into
the world, not that He might judge the world, but
that the world might be saved through Him. The
Word was made man : 5 He did not come to an
individual man ; for then it might be supposed that
He now dwells with that man, as He did in the
days of old with each of the saints, sanctifying him
and manifested in him as in others. He being the
Word of God by whom all things were made, sub
mitted to become the Son of man, and humbled
Himself; taking the form of a servant, of old He
came to each of the saints and sanctified those who
truly received Him. He was not made man, when
they were created ; nor is it said that He suffered,
when they suffered ; but once in the last days, when

1 rrje OEOTOKOV Mapiac. So also in c. 33.
* He refers to John i. 1. 14. Philipp. ii. 6. Matt. i. 13.
3 Gen. i. 3. 6. 4 John iii. 17.

5 " It pleased not the Word or Wisdom of God to take to itself
some one person amongst men, etc." Hooker, Book iv. c. 53. 3.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 241

being born of Mary, He came in order to abolish
sin. Our belief, therefore, is, that being always God,
and sanctifying those to whom He came, and ad
ministering all things l according to the will of the
Father, He afterwards was made man, and the God
head dwelt bodily in the flesh; in other words,
being God, He had His proper body, and using it
as an instrument, opyavov, He was. made man for
our sake. Whatever is proper to the flesh, as
hunger, thirst, suffering, weariness, is ascribed to
Him, because He was in it, being the affections of
which the flesh is capable. The works also proper
to the Word Himself, such as the raising of the
dead, the giving of sight to the blind, He performed
through 2 His proper body ; the Word carried also the
infirmities of the flesh as His own, for the flesh was
His ; and the flesh ministered to the works of the
Godhead, for the Godhead was in it, since it was
the body of God. The Prophet with great pro
priety said, He 3 carried, not He healed our infir
mities: least it should be thought that, being ex
ternal to the body, and only healing it as He had

1 Kara TO (3ov\rj^a. The Son was Himself the Will of the
Father.

2 Hence we find names belonging to the Divine nature applied
to the human ; this is what is called avTiSoate rtiv Icivparwi .

3 /3a&lt;rra^f, not idtpdirevaty. Isaiah liii. 4. Matt. vii. 17.
Athanasius here says that the Word received no hurt,

, by bearing our sins in His own body on the tree.

242 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

always done, He left man still subject to death.
1 When therefore the flesh suffered, the Word was
not external to it: on this account the passion is
said to be His ; nor was the flesh external to Him,
when He, in His Divine nature, 0a/cwe, did the
works of the Father. When He healed the mother-
in-law of Peter, He stretched out His hand as man,
but healed the disease as God. The case was the
same when He gave sight to him who was blind
from his birth, and raised Lazarus from the dead.
He did this in order to show that He had a real
body, and was not a phantom. It was fitting that
the Lord, when He put on human flesh, should put
it on entire, oArjv, with its proper affections ; so that
as we say that the body was proper to Him, the
affections of the body may be said to be proper only
to Him, even if they did not touch Him as to the
Godhead.

2 If the works of the Godhead of the Word had
not been done through the body, man would not
have been 3 deified ; and again, if the things proper
to the flesh had not been ascribed to the Word,
man would not have been wholly delivered from
them : if they had ceased for a brief space, sin and
corruption would have remained in man, as in the

1 c. 32. Compare c. 41. Oration iv. c. 7.

2 c. 33.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 243

men who lived before. For ! death reigned from
Adam unto Moses, even over those that had not
sinned after the similitude of Adam s transgression :
but now, the Word having been made man, and
having appropriated to Himself the things of the
flesh, they no longer touch the body, through the
Word who is in it, for they are destroyed by Him ;
and men no longer remain sinners and dead accord
ing to their proper affections, but raised up according
to the power of the Word remain for ever im
mortal and incorruptible. Henceforward our gene
ration, -yV(Twc, and every fleshly infirmity being
transferred to Him, the Word, we are raised from
the earth, the curse through sin being loosed through
Him who is in us, and became a curse for us. For
as being from the earth we all die in Adam; so
being born again from above by water and Spirit,
we are all quickened in Christ; the flesh being
no longer earthly, but being 2 made the Word
through the Word of God who became flesh for our
sake.

1 Rom. v. 14. Athanasius here says that many have been
holy and pure from all sin, that is, have not sinned after the
similitude of Adam s transgression, yet have died. He mentions
Jeremiah and John the Baptist. The Oxford annotator says,
" It is remarkable that no ancient writer (unless indeed we ex
cept St. Austin) refers to the instance of St. Mary, perhaps from
the circumstance of it not being mentioned in Scripture." Is not
this a sufficient reason for being silent on the subject ?
TIJQ aapKOQ Sia rov rov Qtov \6yov.

R 2

244 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

1 The Word is impassible : yet 2 St. Peter says
Christ suffered in the flesh, so that all the affections
of the flesh are ascribed to Him, being proper to the
flesh, and the body being proper to the Saviour ; still
He remains as He is, impassible, not being hurt by
the affections, but rather blotting them out and
destroying them ; while we, our affections having
been transferred to Him who is impassible and
blotted out, we also become impassible and free
from them for ever. If, therefore, any heretic
should ask the flesh, Why it, being by nature
mortal, rises again? or if it rises, why it no longer
hungers, and thirsts, and suffers, and remains mortal \
the flesh would reply, I am from the earth by
nature mortal, but afterwards I became the flesh of
the Word, and He carried my affections although
impassible ; and I was made free from them, being
no longer given up to serve them, through the Lord,
who delivered me from them. Take care, lest in
objecting to the removal of my natural corruption,
you do not object to the Word of God for taking
upon Him my form of servitude. a lt is only by
having regard to the twofold character of Christ,
that we can reconcile those passages in which He is
represented as acting or speaking as God (flc i/cwc),
through the instrument, His proper body, to those
in which He is represented as speaking or suffering

1 c. 34. Oration iv. c. 7. 2 1 Pet. iv. 1. 3 c. 35.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 245

as man ; and thus escape the error either of looking
exclusively at the former and denying the reality of
His body, or of looking exclusively at the latter, and
denying the presence of the Word in the flesh.

The texts in which power, judgment, &c. are
said to be given to the Son, show that He is not the
Father, and thus serve to refute the error of Sabel-
lius. He is not the Father, but the Word and
eternal Son of the Father ; and on account of His
likeness to the Father and because He is Son, He
has from the Father that which He eternally has.
The expressions is given, is delivered, and the like,
do not detract from the Godhead of the Son, but
rather show Him to be truly Son. For if all things
are given to Him, He is different from the things
which He has received ; and if He is Heir of all
things, He is not one of them, but is the only Son
and proper to the Father according to His essence.
Christ Himself 2 says, "As the Father has life in
Himself, so has He given also to the Son to have
life in Himself." The particle so bespeaks His
natural likeness and propriety to the Father : As
the Father has life, so the Son has. There never
was a time when the Son had it not, unless there
was also a time when the Father had it not. What
ever the Son says that He has received, He always
has, yet He has from the Father. The Son has it

1 c. 36. 2 John ii. 26.

246 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

from the Father, the Father from no one. The
Father, having given all things to the Son, has them
again in the Son ; and the Son having them, the
Father ] again has them : for the Godhead of the
Son is the Godhead of the Father.

1 The Oxford annotator here observes on the word again,
iraXiv : " this iteration is not duplicative in respect to God ;
though how this is, is the inscrutable mystery of the Trinity in
Unity. Nothing can be named which the Son is in Himself as
distinct from the Father ; we are but told His relation towards
the Father, and thus the sole meaning which we are able to at
tach to Person, is a relation of the Son towards the Father ; and
distinct from and beyond that relation, He is but the one God,
who is also the Father. In other words, there is an indestructible
essential relation existing in the one indivisible infinitely simple
God, such as to constitute Him, viewed on each side of that re
lation, what (in human language we call) two, yet without the
notion of number really coming in. See note on Oration iv.
c. 2. When we speak of Person, we mean nothing more
than the one God in substance, viewed relatively to Him the
one God, as viewed in that correlative which we therefore call
another Person. These various statements are not here intended
to explain, but to bring home to the mind what it is which faith
receives. We say Father, Son, and Spirit, but when we would
abstract a general idea of them in order to number them, our
abstraction does but really carry us back to the one Substance."
The statements certainly explain nothing, but they appear to me
to destroy the notion of the distinct personality of the Father,
Son, and the Spirit ; and the author of the Athanasian Creed,
according to this view, was ill- employed in introducing so re
peatedly as he has the notion of number. Every one who recites
that Creed, supposes it to assert that there are three distinct
persons, not merely three relations in the Godhead. See the
note on Oration ii. c. 33. Cudworth states the doctrine of the
ancient orthodox Fathers to be, that the essence of the Godhead,
in which three persons or hypostases agree, as each of them
is God, is not one singular and individual, but one common

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 247

1 With respect to the texts, which, according to
the Arians, implied ignorance on the part of Christ,
Athanasius answers, That sometimes, as 2 in the case
of the loaves, Christ put the question, not because
He was ignorant, but in order to prove Philip. The
same answer is applicable to the inquiry respecting
the place where Lazarus was laid, and respecting the
opinion entertained by men of His own origin.
There is no ignorance in the Godhead : to be igno
rant is proper to the flesh. He who asked where
Lazarus was laid, pronounced, 3 while yet afar off,
that Lazarus was dead. He whom the Arians sup
pose to be ignorant, foreknew the reasonings of the
disciples, and knew what was in the heart of each,
and what is in man ; and above all, He alone knows
the Father. As the Word, He could not but know
all things : He knew, therefore, where Lazarus was
laid ; but having endured all things for our sake, He
also 4 carried our ignorance, in order that He might
of free grace give us to know His own, the only true

essence : that there is a sameness, not of singular or numerical,
but of generical essence. Still there are three ovtrtai, three
singular existent essences, as well as three viroaTaatiQ. pp. 601.
608. He states the notion of the Lateran Council to be, that
there is a Trinity of persons, numerically the same, or having
one and the same singular essence, p. 604. Is this the notion
of the annotator ?
1 cc. 37, 38.
John vi. 6. rovro Se. f Xeyc TTftpa^wi avrov avros yap yei ri

3 John xi. 19. * /3aara ae.

248 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

Father, and Himself who was sent for our sakes for
the salvation of all. When, therefore, He speaks of
being ignorant, of power being given to Him, of re
ceiving glory, He must be understood to speak after
the fashion of men in respect to His bod) 7 . He is
said to receive what He received after the fashion of
men, not because He had need of it, but that He
receiving as the Lord, and the gift resting in Him,
the grace might remain sure. For if He received it
as a man, He might have lost it, as Adam lost what
he received. But that the grace may be inadmissible
and sure to man, He appropriates the gift to Him
self, and says that He has received as man the power
which He always had as God ; and He who glorifies
others, asks the Father to glorify Him, in order to
show that He has flesh which needs to be glorified.
Wherefore the flesh, receiving power and glory,
since while it receives them it is in Him, and He
by taking it was made man, He is said Himself to
receive them.

1 If it were otherwise, and the Word became flesh
in order that He might receive that which He had
not before, far from promoting the body, He must
be rather said to be 2 promoted by the body; and
man could derive no benefit from His incarnation.
But if the Word came in order that He might re-

1 cc. 39, 40, 41.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 249

deem the human race, and became flesh in order
that He might sanctify and deify man, it is plain
that He received what He is said to have received
when He became flesh, not on His own account, but
on account of the flesh. Before He said l that all
things were delivered to Him, He was Lord of all,
for all things were made by Him ; and 2 He was one
Lord, by whom are all things ; and before He asked
for glory, 3 He was and is the Lord of glory. So
also with respect to the power which He said that
He received after the resurrection, He had it before
the resurrection ; for 4 He rebuked Satan, and gave
His disciples power over him : He expelled devils,
and forgave sins, and raised the dead. That which
He had being the Word, He, when He was made
man and after His resurrection, states Himself to
have received after the fashion of man ; to the end
that upon earth, through Him, men, as partakers of
the Divine nature, may henceforward have power
over devils ; and in heaven, as being delivered from
corruption, may reign for ever. The Word was
made flesh ; He wrought the works of the Father
through the flesh ; and 5 the affections of the flesh

1 Luke x. 22. 2 1 Cor. viii. 6.

3 1 Cor. ii. 8. * Luke iv. 8.

5 One instance given by Athanasius of the exhibition of human
affections by Christ, is when He chid (eTreVAifrre) His mother,
saying, " Woman, what have I to do with thee ? mine hour is not
yet come." John ii. 4. On this the Oxford annotator observes,
" It is remarkable that Athanasius dwells on these words as im-

250 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

were exhibited in Him. He was true God in the
flesh, and true flesh in the Word : by His works He
made Himself known as the Son of God, and made
known His own Father ; and by the affections of the
flesh He showed that He bore a true body, which
was proper to Him.

1 Athanasius proceeds to Mark xiii. 32, in which

plying our Lord s humanity, i. e. because Christ appeared to
decline a miracle " (he should have added, as Athanasius adds,
" and immediately performed it"), " when one reason assigned for
them by the Fathers is, that He wished, in the words ri yuot KOI
aoi, to remind St. Mary that He was the Son of God, and must
be about His Father s business. Nothing can be argued from
St. Athanasius s particular word here commented on how he
would have taken the passage " (the annotator means, I conclude,
what sense he meant to convey by the word 7rfV/\r;rrf, for it
is certain that he understood the passage of the humanity of our
Lord). " That the tone of our Lord s words is indeed (judging
humanly and speaking humanly) cold and distant, is a simple fact,
but it may be explained variously. It is observable that ETTI-
TrXtjTTEi and 67rir&lt;ju are the words used, for our Lord s treatment
of His own sacred body ; but they are very vague words, and
have a strong meaning or not, as the case may be." The anno
tator refers to a note on c. 55, in which there is a reference to a
comment of Theophylact on John xi. 33, who says that in that
verse He chides and rebukes His human nature by the Spirit.
The words of St. John are i e/3pi/i//craro ra&gt; Tr^euyuart cat erupa^ev
eavrov. I see nothing in the context to justify Theophylact s
interpretation. The words are expressive of the deep sympathy
felt by Christ with Mary and Martha in their grief, and thus give
proof of His human nature. The object of the annotator is suf
ficiently obvious ; he does not wish the authority of Athanasius
to be produced, to show that the blessed Virgin could be the
object of rebuke by her Son ; and he, therefore, endeavours to
explain away the meaning of the word 7T7r\?/rre.
1 cc. 42, 43, 44.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 251

Christ says that the Son knew not of the day and
hour of judgment. It is absurd, he says, to suppose
that He, by whom all things were made, times and
seasons, and night and day, should be ignorant of
His own work. Christ enumerated all the works
which were to precede the day and hour of His se
cond coming : He must, therefore, have known the
day and hour. Why, when He knew them, He did
not reveal them to His disciples, it would be pre
sumptuous to inquire. It is plain that He meant to
say that He was ignorant of them, according to the
flesh, as man. He knew them as Word, but ] was

1 The Oxford annotator here remarks that " the doctrine of the
Church is, that in fact Christ was not ignorant, even in His human
nature, according to its capacity, since it was from the first taken
out of its original and natural condition, and deified by its union
with the Word. Though Christ took on Him a soul which,
left to itself, had been partially ignorant, as other human souls,
yet as ever enjoying the beatific vision from its oneness with
the Word, it never was ignorant really, but knew all things
which human souls can know. However, this view of the sacred
subject was received by the Church after St. Athanasius s day,
and it cannot be denied that he, and others of the most eminent
Fathers, use language which, primd facie, is inconsistent with
it." What is here meant by primd facie, I do not understand ;
the language of Athanasius is as express as language can be : he
asserts distinctly that Christ was ignorant as man ; his answer to
the Arian objection turns entirely upon this supposition. The
annotator adds, " Of course it is not meant that our Lord s soul
has the same perfect knowledge as He has as God." But in
the text under discussion, the Son is placed, with reference to
ignorance of the day and hour, on the same footing with men
and angels. Athanasius makes no allusion to different degrees
of knowledge in Him as man and as God. In the text Christ is
said not to know ; He must know as God ; it is, therefore, as

252 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

ignorant as man. He says, " neither the Son :" not
" neither the Son of God :" lest the Godhead should
appear to be ignorant: the ignorance belonged to
the Son who was born of man. Christ, after saying
that the angels did not know, does not say that the
Holy Spirit was also ignorant. If, therefore, the

man that He is ignorant. I would ask further, when was the
doctrine put forth by the annotator, a doctrine not possessing
the qualification, " quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omni
bus," received as the doctrine of the Church, and why was
the clearly-expressed opinion of Athanasius and others of the
most eminent Fathers not only set aside, in order to make way
for the opinion of later Fathers, but even, according to Petavius,
marked as heresy ? See note on cc. 44. 46. The Benedictine
editor, however, says that the opinion of Athanasius does not
appear to have been condemned anciently, unless it was con
nected with some other error. The later opinion certainly af
fords no answer to the Arian objection : unless we say, with
some of the Fathers, that Christ spoke ceconomically, that He
professed ignorance, though He was not ignorant. This the
annotator feels ; for in a note on c. 45, he adds, " It is a question
to be decided, whether our Lord speaks of actual ignorance in
His human mind, or of the natural ignorance of that mind con
sidered as human ; ignorance in or ex naturd, or which comes to
the same thing, whether He spoke of a real ignorance, or of an
ceconomical or professed ignorance in a certain view of His in
carnation or office." By whom can this question be decided,
excepting by Christ Himself; and is there no presumption in
raising it ? The early Fathers drew a distinction between that
which Christ did or said as God, and as the Conductor of the
Gospel ceconomy or dispensation : and this is equivalent to what
Athanasius says. Theodoret, however, as quoted by the an
notator, was far from approving of the principle of oeconomy :
" If He knew the day, and wishing to conceal it, said He was
ignorant, see what blasphemy is the result : Truth tells an un
truth." But this, according to the annotator, was said in con
troversy.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 253

Holy Spirit was not ignorant, much less could the
Word, in that He is Word, from whom the Spirit
receives, be ignorant : and the silence of Christ, re
specting the Holy Spirit, also shows that when He
said, neither the Son, He spoke of His human mi
nistry, Auroup-yiac- In thus saying that He was
ignorant in His human, He shows that He knew all
things in His Divine nature. Of the Son who
knew not the day, it is written that He alone knows
the Father. } If, therefore, He knows the Father,
He must know the whole of creation, and, conse
quently, the end. If the day and hour are ordained
by the Father, they are ordained by the Son ; for
the Father does every thing by the Son. If what
ever is the Father s is the Son s ; if the Father is in
the Son, and the Son in the Father ; if the Son is the
true image of the Father, He must know what the
Father knows, and, consequently, the day and hour.

2 Athanasius, still pursuing the same train of rea
soning, refers to the parallel passage in St. Matthew s
Gospel, in which Christ, having said that the Father
alone knows the day and the hour, introduces a de
scription of the careless security in which men were

1 This argument is used by Epiphanius, Ixix. c. 43, who says
also, that to suppose Christ to be ignorant of the day of judgment
is to place Him on a level with His disciples, whom He exhorted
to watch because they were ignorant of it. c. 44.

2 c. 45. Matthew xxiv. 36. It is observable that the Son is
not mentioned as ignorant of the day.

254 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

living in the days of Noah, and of their ignorance
of the approach of the deluge until it actually
came. But though they did not know, the Word
did ; for He it was who brought on the deluge, and
1 opened the windows of heaven, and broke up the
fountains of the great deep. It is not easy to see in
what manner this passage bears upon the question.
The only inference from it seems to be, that as the
Son, as Word, before He took flesh, foreknew the
time of the deluge; so, after He took flesh, He
must foreknow the day of judgment. 2 Athanasius
draws his next illustration from the parable of the
wise and foolish virgins, and from the exhortation
with which Christ concludes it. He tells his disci
ples to watch, because they know not the day and
hour of the coming of the Son of man. The
virgins knew not the hour of the coming of the
Bridegroom ; but Christ, who is the Bridegroom,
knew. So the Son, who appointed the day and
hour of His coming, must know them. He said,
neither the Son, according to the flesh, o-ap/a/cwe, on
account of the body, to show that He was ignorant
as man ; for ignorance is proper to man ; but as the
Word He knew. 3 St. Paul, in describing what he

1 Genesis vii. 11.

2 c. 46. Athanasius here says that as Christ, having been
made man, hungered, and thirsted, and suffered with man, so also
with man, He was ignorant as man. If we call in question the
ignorance of Christ in His human nature, are we also to doubt the
reality of His suffering in His human nature ?

3 c. 47. 2 Cor. xii. 2.

AGAINST THE AR1ANS. 255

saw when he was caught up into the third heaven,
says that he knows not whether he was in or out of
the body, but that God knoweth. Either, then, he
knew, or did not know, what happened to him in
the vision. If we say that he did not know, we run
the hazard of falling into the error of Montanus,
who held that the prophets know neither what they
do, nor concerning what they announce. But if we
say that he did know, although he said that he did
not (for he had within himself Christ revealing all
things to him), why will not the Arians allow that
Christ also knew, although He said that He did
not? St. Paul, who was caught up, must have
known how he was caught up ; but he professed
ignorance for two reasons : ! one assigned by him
self, lest, through the abundance of the revelation,
any one should think of him above what he saw in
him : the other, that, as the Saviour had said, /
know not, it was fitting that St. Paul also should
say / know not, lest the servant should appear to
be above his Lord, and the disciple above the
Master.

2 Why, then, did Christ say that He did not
know? Athanasius answers, in so saying He 3 con-

1 It is very difficult to believe that the latter of these reasons
occurred to St. Paul.

2 c. 48.

3 The Oxford annotator here remarks : " This expression, which
repeatedly occurs in this and the following sections, surely im-

256 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

suited our advantage. He foretold the events to pre
cede the end, that we might not think them strange,
nor be troubled when they happened, but might
from them be prepared to expect the end ; and He
chose not to say, according to the Godhead, that He
knew the day and the hour ; but He said, according
to the flesh, for the sake of the flesh which was
ignorant, that He did not know ; that His disciples
might no longer question Him, and He might not
thenceforward, either by not speaking grieve them,
or, by speaking, do that which might be prejudicial
to them and to us all. As He was made flesh for
our sakes, so, for our sakes, He said that He did
not know. After His resurrection He used a dif
ferent language ; and when the disciples questioned
Him, He did not answer, / do not kno2V, but ] " It
is not for you to know the times or the seasons,
which the Father hath put in His own power." The
flesh had risen, and had put off mortality, and was
deified : He was now about to ascend into Heaven ;
it was, therefore, no longer fitting that He should
speak as a man according to the flesh.

plies that there was something ceconomical in our Lord s pro
fession of ignorance. He said with a purpose, not as a mere
plain fact or doctrine." Athanasius himself seems to have felt
that his interpretation of the words neither the Son, laid Christ
open to the charge of saying what was not true ; and he adds,
that Christ did not tell an untruth, because He spoke humanly,
as a man.
1 Acts i. 7-

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 257

1 In saying that no one, neither the angels nor
the Son, knew, Christ has furnished us with a warn
ing not to be misled by deceivers who may arise
and pretend to predict the end. We may reply to
them, You cannot know the end, for the Son knew
it not. It is moreover much for the profit of men
that they should not know the day of the end, lest
they should become careless in the intermediate
time, and defer the work of repentance and amend
ment till its near approach. The uncertainty in
which they are impresses upon them the necessity of
being always in a state of preparation. 2 Athana-
sius produces texts in which God asks questions, as
of Adam, " Where art thou?" of Cain, "Where is
Abel, thy brother?" Unless, therefore, we are pre
pared to say that these questions prove ignorance in
God, why should similar questions prove ignorance
in the Son ?

1 c. 49.

2 c. 50. Genesis iii. 9. iv. 9. But Athanasius adds that
God asked these questions in the Son, 6 v/ oe, f v y TOTE iirvvOdrero
o Qeoe. The Oxford annotator remarks, "But the difficulty
of the passage lies in its signifying that there is a sense in which
the Father knows what the Son knows not." Petavius, after
St. Augustine, meets this by explaining it to mean that our Lord,
as sent from the Father on a mission, was not to reveal all
things, but observed a silence and professed an ignorance on
those points which it was not good for His brethren to know.
"As Mediator and Prophet He was ignorant;" in other words,
as the Conductor of the Gospel dispensation.

258 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

1 Athanasius goes on to the consideration of Luke
ii. 52 : " Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and
in favour with God and man." Christ is God bear
ing flesh, for the Word became flesh. But it is evi
dent that the Word cannot advance ; if He could,
He must have been imperfect before He became
flesh, and the flesh was rather a cause of perfection
to Him, than He to the flesh. But He who
supplies perfection to others, cannot Himself be
imperfect ; nor He who is the Wisdom of God
grow in wisdom ; nor He who supplies grace grow
in grace (favour). 2 Advance belongs to men ; and
the Son of God, since He could not advance, being
perfect in the Father, humbled Himself for us, that in
His humiliation we might be able to increase. His
humiliation consisted in taking our flesh ; our ad
vance in renouncing things sensible and coming to
the Word Himself. The evangelist, by introducing
the word " stature," shows that the text is to be

1 cc. 51, 52, 53. GOC eon capita

a The Oxford annotator here remarks, " It is the doctrine of
the Church that Christ, as man, was perfect in knowledge from
first, as if ignorance were scarcely separable from sin, and were the
direct consequence and accompaniment of original sin." After
quoting St. Austin, he goes on, " as to the limits of Christ s
perfect knowledge as man, Petavius observes, that we must con
sider that the soul of Christ knew all things that are, or ever
will be, or ever have been, but not what are only in part, not in
full." I would fain ask, whence Petavius obtained his know
ledge ?

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 259

understood of the body. l As the body advanced,
the manifestation of the Godhead advanced in it.
The advance was gradual : as a child, Christ was
carried to the Temple ; as a boy, he remained there
and questioned the priests about the law; till at
length the body coming to maturity, and the Word
manifesting Himself in it, He was confessed by St.
Peter first, then by all, to be truly the Son of God.
Thus it was that, as the Godhead was more and more
revealed in Him, Jesus grew in grace before men.

2 Athanasius gives the same answer to the ob-

1 "It is remarkable," the Oxford annotator observes, " that here
Athanasius should resolve our Lord s advance in wisdom merely
to its gradual manifestation through the flesh ; and it increases
the proof that his statements are not to be taken in the letter,
and as if fully brought out and settled." This is an ingenious
mode of setting aside any statements which are at variance with
what the annotator calls the doctrine of the Church. Yet he
admits that some of the Fathers took the same view, though
others spoke of Jesus as growing in wisdom as man. The Bene
dictine editor of Ambrose considers the advancement of know
ledge spoken of to be that of the scientia experimentalis,
alluded to in Heb. v. 8 : "He learned obedience through the
things which He suffered, " which is one of the three kinds of
knowledge possessed by Christ as man. Petavius, however,
omits the consideration of this knowledge, which St. Thomas first
denied in the Lord, and in his Summa ascribes to Him, as lying
beyond his province. " De hac lite neutram in partem pronun-
tiare audeo. Hujusmodi enim qusestiones ad scholas relegandae
sunt, de quibus nihil apud antiques liquidi ac definiti reperitur."
Is not this remark equally applicable to his own speculations
respecting the limits of Christ s perfect knowledge as man ?

2 cc. 54, 55, 56. Athanasius says, in c. 55, that the Word
who performed the miracles, showed that He had a body liable

260 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

jections founded by the Arians on the texts in which
Christ is said to have been troubled, to have wept,
to have prayed that the cup might pass from Him,
to have said that God had forsaken Him. These
texts cannot be understood of the Word, in His own
nature as the Word ; but the Word was in the flesh
which is subject to these affections : they must be
understood, therefore, of His human body. If He
had not taken a corruptible and mortal body, for
the holy Mary, from whom His body was, was mortal,
the affections of His body could not have taken
place in one who was incorporeal. But as they were
proper to the flesh, and He was in the flesh, they
are ascribed to Him, ] although He suffered nothing,
for the Word is impassible,

2 With respect to Christ s prayer that the cup
might pass from Him, Athanasius says that 3 He willed

to affections, TO o-uijua TraOrjTov SttKrug, by permitting it to weep
and hunger. On this the Oxford annotator says, " This our
Lord s suspense or permission at His will of the operations of
His manhood, is a great principle in the doctrine of the Incar
nation." He adds, " The Eutychians perverted this doctrine, as
if it implied that our Lord was not subject to the laws of human
nature." Undoubtedly, the language of Athanasius implies that
He was not subject to them, excepting when He permitted His
body to be subject to them.

1 Kairoi (j.r)$v Trda-^oiroQ aTraOrjg yap i\v 6 \6yoq. c. 56.

2 cc. 57, 58.

3 Athanasius seems here to represent the two wills of Christ
the divine and human, as opposed to each other ; the human, be
cause of the weakness of the flesh, prays against the passion, but

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 261

that which He deprecated, since He came for that
very end : it was His to will, but it belonged to the
flesh to fear. He uttered the prayer, therefore, in
order to show that He was God who willed, but that
having been made man He had flesh which feared,
and for the sake of which He mingled His own will
with human weakness, to the end that, in turn de
stroying l it, He might render man fearless as to
death : hence the boldness of the apostles and mar
tyrs. It was not the Godhead that was fearful ; but
the Saviour was taking away our fearfulness. After
having quoted Psalm xv. 1 0, Athanasius says it was
fitting that the flesh, being corruptible, should not

the divine is willing. The Oxford annotator admits that such
an objection may be drawn from the passage ; and says, " The
whole of our Lord s prayer is offered by Him as man, because
it is a prayer : the first part is not from Him as man, but the
second, which corrects it, is from Him as God : but the former
part is from the sinless infirmity of our nature, the latter from
His human will, expressing its acquiescence in His Father s will,
that is, in the Divine will." I am not sure that I understand
this passage ; but if I do, I concur in the annotator s interpretation
of the prayer. In both parts Christ speaks as man : in the first
part He speaks from the natural infirmity of the flesh : " Let
this cup pass from Me ;" in the second, from the spirit of pious
submission to the Divine will, which in man would be the fruit
of Divine grace : " Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt."
We may conceive a pious man uttering both parts of the prayer.
Compare de Incarnatione et contra Arianos, c. 21. In a sub
sequent note the annotator observes, " It is Catholic doctrine
that our Lord, as man, submitted to death of His free will, and
not as obeying an express command of the Father."

1 TOVTO, which seems to mean the affection rising from the
mingling of His will with human fear.

262 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

continue mortal according to its own nature, but
through the Word which put it on, should remain
permanently, Sia^mv, incorruptible ; for as He, being
in our body, imitated our affections, so we, receiving
Him, partake of immortality from Him. The Word
permitted His proper body to suffer ; for He came
for the very purpose that He might suffer in the flesh,
and the flesh thereby be rendered impassible and im
mortal ; and that the reproach and the other suffer
ings having reached unto Him, they might no longer
touch men, but be entirely blotted out by Him ; and
that man might for ever remain incorruptible, as the
temple of the Word.

1 Having answered the Arian objections founded
on texts of Scripture, Athanasius proceeds to an
objection of a different character. The Arians said,
you must admit that the Son was begotten by the
Father, 2 at His will and pleasure. Athanasius an
swers, this language in the mouth of a Catholic
would excite no suspicion, but in the mouth of an
Arian it means, that there was a time when the Son
was not, and the Son was made from things that
were not, and is a creature. In every part of Scrip-

1 cc. 59, 60.

2 j3ov\iiaEL KO.I dtXrjcrei. Athanasius charges the Arians with
borrowing these words from the Valentinians. The ante-Nicene
Fathers speak of Christ as being the Son of God according to the
will and power of God. See the note of the Oxford annotator.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 263

ture the existence of the Word is affirmed, but no
where is He said to be by will, nor indeed to be
made at all. The words will and pleasure are used
only of created things, since by nature they once
did not exist, and a precedent will and pleasure
were necessary to call them into existence. Asterius,
who appears to have been the chief advocate of the
objection, puts it in the form of a dilemma : " Either
it is unworthy of the Creator to make at will, TO
OtXovra TTotcTv; then let the willing, TO fltAetv, be put
aside in all cases, that His dignity may be preserved
unimpaired ; or it is fitting to God to will : then
let it obtain also in the case of the first offspring.
For it is not possible that it should be fitting for the
one and the same God, with reference to created
things, to will and not to will." Athanasius says
that Asterius has here confounded that which is
begotten with that which is made, yiwrj/na with Trouj/ua,
and has concluded the Son to be one of all things
begotten, because it is fitting to use the terms will
and pleasure with reference to things made.

The Creator deliberated before He made the
things which were not, but were made externally to
Himself; but He did not deliberate before He begat
His proper Word, begotten from Him by nature :
for in Him God the Father makes and frames those

1 c. 61.

264 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

things on which He deliberates. With respect to all
things which are regenerated or at the first made, the
will of God is in His Word, in which He makes or
regenerates that which seems right to Him. If,
therefore, His will is in Him in whom He makes,
and the will of the Father is in Christ, how can
Christ be made at will and pleasure ? If He were,
the will concerning Him must necessarily consist in
some other Word, through whom He Himself was
made. For it has been shown that the will of God
is not in the things made, but in Him through whom
and in whom all things were made.

1 Asterius rejoined, If His Son did not come into
being by will, then God had a Son by necessity, and
against His will. Athanasius answers, that as that
which is beside our mind is opposed to will, so that
which is 2 by nature transcends and precedes de
liberation. That which is prepared by deliberation
has a beginning of existence, and is external to the
Maker : but the Son is the proper offspring of the
Father s essence, and is not external to the Father;
wherefore the Father does not deliberate concerning
Him, lest He should appear to deliberate concerning

1 c. 62.

2 The Oxford annotator observes, " Really nature and will go
together in the Divine Being, but in order, as we regard them,
nature is first, will second, and the generation belongs to nature,
not to will."

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 265

Himself. God is good and pitiful: is He so by
will ? if by will, it is possible that He may cease to
be good and pitiful. But this is absurd. Is He
then good and pitiful of necessity ? It is absurd to
suppose that God is subject to necessity : He is good
and pitiful by nature ; much more is He Father of
the Son by nature, not by will.

J Athanasius goes on to say, that the question
raised by the Arians applies to the Father as well as
to the Son ; and they might as well ask whether
the Father exists, having first deliberated and then
willed, or whether He existed before deliberation \
It is not allowable to put such a question ; for it is
sufficient for us merely to hear God spoken of, and
to know and understand that He is the self-existent.
Nor is the question more allowable with reference
to the Word of God ; since it is sufficient for us
merely to hear the Word of God spoken of, and to
know and understand that God, who exists not by
will, has His proper Word not by will, but by nature.
2 The Son, being the living will or counsel and power
of the Father, and the Maker of that which seems
good to the Father, does not allow us to think of
any will before Himself.

1 c. 63.

2 avTOQ u&gt;f (3ov\ri &aa rov Trarpoc. Athanasius here refers to
Isaiah ix. 6, where the Son is called in the Septuagint,

7&gt;/c

266 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

1 If the Word is the Counsel and Will of the
Father, He cannot Himself come into being by
counsel and will like created things. If He could,
He must come into being by Himself, or by some
other, who must also in turn come to be ; so that
we shall, like Valentinus, introduce a succession of
Words. If will precedes in the Father, then the
Son does not truly say, " I in the Father," or at least
He only holds a second place, since will precedes
Him, in which all things were made, and He Him
self subsisted, according to the Arians.

2 If they say that the Son is by will, or counsel, let
them also say that He is by understanding &lt;/&gt;povr?&lt;ra,
since counsel and understanding are the same. But
instead of acknowledging the Son to be Word and
living Counsel of God, they make understanding,
wisdom, counsel in God, as in man, a habit, 3 which
comes to and departs from Him. The Son of God
is the Word and the Wisdom, the Understanding
and the living Counsel ; in Him is the good pleasure
of the Father : He is Truth, and Light, and Power
of the Father. The Apostle does not say that He
is the proper radiance and expression of the Father s
will, but of the Father s essence. If the Father s
4 Essence and Subsistence be not from will, neither is

1 c. 64. - c. 65,

3 u)Q e&v avpfiairovauv Kat ajroavpfiaivovaai .

which seem here to be synonymous.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 267

that which is proper to the Father s subsistence from
will. The Father does not say of Him, " This is
my Son, whom I have brought into being by my
will, nor whom I had according to my good plea
sure;" but "This is my Son in whom I am well
pleased;" meaning, "This is my Son by nature, and
in Him is deposited my will about those things
which please me."

1 Since then the Son is by nature and not by will,
is He not with the Father s will and pleasure ? He
is ; for as the Father did not begin to be good from
will, and yet is not good without will and pleasure ;
for what is, that is also willed by Him ; so the being
of the Son, though He began not to be from will, is
not without the Father s pleasure. As He is the wilier
of His own subsistence, so also the Son, being proper
to His essence, is by His pleasure. To say that He
came to be of will, implies that once He was not ;
and the possibility that the Father might not even
will the Son. But to say that the Son might not
have been, is to say that what is proper to the
Father might not have been. It is the same as to
say that the Father might not have been good. But

The Oxford annotator remarks, that in these orations the word
{;7rooTct&lt;7ie seldom occurs, excepting as contained in Hebrews
i. 3 ; though rpelg {/TronTaVctg occurs in other works of Atha-
nasius. See Oratio iv. c. 1.
1 c. 66.

268 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

as the Father ] is always good, so is He always gene
rative by nature ; and there is no preceding will in the
generation of the Son, but He is the Father s natural
offspring, and the Father s good pleasure is in Him.

2 Athanasius concludes with saying that the Arians
should not ask women whether they had a child
before they bare him ; but should ask fathers, whether
they by deliberation became fathers, or by nature
and of their will ? or whether their children were
like to them in nature and essence 1 The fathers
would answer, 3 " What we begat is not of will, but
is like to us : nor did we become parents by deli
beration, but it is proper to nature to beget ; for we
are also the image of them who begat us." It is
fitting, Athanasius says, to use these illustrations
drawn from human things, because the Arians reason
from human things to the Godhead.

I concur in the opinion expressed by the Oxford
annotator in the Introduction to the fourth Dis
course, that it cannot be called a Discourse against
the Arians, but is rather a collection of remarks on
different heresies, the Photinian, Sabellian, and that
of Paul of Samosata : a very small portion being

1 ciet yevvriTiKOQ rfj (pveet. See Oration iv. c. 4.

2 c. 67. Athanasius in this chapter also quotes Psalm xlv. 1.

3 This illustration is scarcely applicable : for in the case of
human parents an act of the will precedes begetting : though this
is not the case in the generation of the Son.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 269

directed against the Arians. The annotator thinks
that the remarks are more immediately directed
against Marcellus, whose disciple Photinus was.

The fourth chapter is directed against the Arian
notion, that God has within Himself His proper Wis
dom and proper Word, not Christ, but Him in
whom God made Christ. If this is so, if Christ was
made in that Word, it is plain that it must be the
Word, of whom St. John says, that all things were
made by Him. Christ, therefore, must have spoken
untruly, when He said, " / in the Father" since it
is another who is in the Father. Nor is it true ac
cording to them that the Word was made flesh ; for
if He in whom all things were made, was made flesh,
and Christ is not the Word in the Father, by whom
all things were made, then Christ was not made
flesh. But Christ was perhaps named the Word.
If this be so, then first He is ! some one else beside
the name, He bears the name of another ; and, next,
all things were made, not by Him, but in Him in
whom Christ was also made. Or, perhaps, they will
say that Wisdom in the Father is a quality, or 2 very
Wisdom : but various absurdities will flow from this
supposition; for He will be compounded, and be
His own Father and Son. Let them then acknow
ledge the truth, that the Word is in God, and that

1 aXXog a.v tirj vrapa TO oro/jo. 2 avToao(t&gt;iav.

270 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

it is Christ who says, " I in the Father, and the
Father in Me:" and on this account is called only-
begotten, because no other was begotten from the
Father. He is the one Son, who is Word, Wis
dom, Power : God is not compounded of these, but
is generator, "ycwrjn/coc, of them, since He has the
Word, by nature the offspring of His essence, by
whom He frames, and creates, and administers all
things.

1 Moses, addressing the Israelites, says to them,
" Ye who have attached yourselves to God :" from
this we may collect that the Son is not a creature.
For the Son says, "I and the Father are one ;" and
"I in the Father, and the Father in Me:" but
created things, when they advance, or improve, are
attached to the Lord ; for they are external to Him,
foreign by nature, but attaching themselves by
choice : whereas the Son, being proper to the Fa
ther, is in Him. Again, God is said 2 to draw nigh
to created things, as being foreign to them ; but He
is in the Son, as 3 His own. The Son is not attached
to the Father, but co-exists with Him.

4 Athanasius next notices the objection founded
by the Arians on the texts in which the Lord is said

1 c. 5. Deut. iv. 4 : Trpoantinevoi. " Ye that did cleave," in
r version.

2 eyyt fc &lt; Jer. xxiii. 23. 3
4 c. 6. Oration iii. c. 26, et seq.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 271

to receive, to be exalted, to hunger, to weep, to
be weary. Our Lord, he says, being Word and
Son of God, bore a body, and became the Son of
man, that, becoming the Mediator between God
and man, He might minister the things of God to
us, and our things to God, He received from us
our human affections, in order that He might offer
them to the Father ; interceding for us, that they
might be destroyed in Him. What He received were
gifts given from God to us. He became man, in
order that the gifts, given as to Him, might pass to us.
A mere man would not have been deemed worthy
of them ; the mere Word would not have needed
them: but the Word was united to us, and then
made us partakers of power, and highly exalted us.
As the Word became flesh, so man received the
gifts through the Word ; and the Word is said to
receive whatever man receives. } As He takes our
infirmities, Himself not being infirm, and hungers,
not being hungry, but 2 offers up that which belongs
to us, in order that it may be abolished, so He again
receives, instead of our infirmities, gifts from God,
that man, being united to Him, may be able to par
take of them. Since, therefore, the Word being
united to man, God, looking to the Word, gra
tuitously gave to man to be exalted, to possess all

C. 7. ~CLQ aaQe.vf.iaq i]^ijjv \afj.(3di&gt;tt OVK aaQeviav, Kai
ov TTU.VUV. See Oration iii. cc. 32. 41.

272 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

power, and other such gifts : on this account they
are all referred to the Word, and what we receive
through Him, is as if it were given to Him. We
must, therefore, understand the expression, "God gave
to Him" to mean, gave to us through Him, and " God
highly exalted" to mean highly exalted us in Him.

1 Athanasius says that the Eusebians, while they
ascribed to the Son a beginning of being, affected
not to wish to ascribe a beginning to His reign:
but this, he observes, is ridiculous, since the one
involves the other. They said also that He was not
Word by nature, but only externally.

2 Athanasius notices a notion of the Arians, to
which reference has been already made, that the
Son was created for our sakes, that He might create
us ; as if God had waited till our creation, in order
that He might emit (the Son) according to some, or
create according to others. Thus they ascribed
more to men than to the Son ; for men were not
created for His sake, but He for the sake of men.
Nay, they ascribed more to men than to God : for
men, though silent and merely thinking, frequently
act, inasmuch as their thoughts 3 form themselves

1 Athanasius here opposes the Arians to the Sabellians for the
purpose of exposing the errors of both. Compare Oration iii.
cc. 4, 5.

2 C. 11. 3 twXo7TO(7&lt;700U.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 273

into images ; but God, they say, when silent, is 1 in
active, and only exerts power when He speaks ; for
while He was silent He could not create, but when
He spake He began to create. Again, if the Son
was imperfect while existing in God, but, being
begotten, became perfect, we are the cause of His
perfection, if He was begotten for our sake.

In chap. xv. Athanasius refers to those here
tics who separated the Word from the Son, and
said that the Word first existed, then the Son.
Some said that the man, whom the Saviour took, is
the Son ; in other words, that the human nature
constitutes the Son ; others, that the compound, if
we may so speak, of the man and the Word, became
the Son, when they were united : others, that the
Word Himself became the Son, when He became
man, inasmuch as He then, from being Word, be
came Son, not being previously Son, but only Word.
All these notions agree in this, that He was not
Son previously to the incarnation ; Athanasius calls
them 2 Stoic notions, because they imply that God
has been 3 dilated, and deny the Son ; and lays down
this axiom, 4 " That that which is from any thing, is

2 The doctrine of the Stoics was pantheistic ; they supposed
the Deity to pervade all creation, in other words, denied His
personality ; and consequently, that He could have a Son.

3 TO TE TrXa.TVpeada.1 \eyeiv TOV Qeov KOI apveiadat TOV vlov.

274 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

the son of him from whom it is." On this the
Oxford annotator observes : " In consequence, it is
a very difficult question in theology, why the Holy
Spirit is not called a Son, and His procession, gene
ration. This was an objection of the Arians, and
Athanasius only answers it by denying that we may
speculate. Ad Serap. i. 15. Other writers apply,
as in other cases, the theological language of the
Church to a solution of this question. It is care
fully discussed in Petavius." They who feel a real
reverence for divine things will agree with Atha
nasius ; and they who raise the question require to
be reminded of the layman s rebuke of the dis
putants at Nicsea, " Christ did not come to teach
dialectics." It is enough for us to know that the
Holy Spirit is never called Son in Scripture. Atha
nasius observes that, according to the Arian doc
trine, God was first God, and afterwards Father:
He was not Father till the Son was begotten.

In the twenty-second chapter Athanasius says,
"To this end the Word was made flesh, that, since
the Word is Son, He (God) may be called also our
Father, through the Son indwelling in us ; 1 for He
has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts,
crying Abba, Father. Wherefore the Son in us,
calling upon His proper Father, causes Him to be

1 Galatians iv. 6.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 275

called also our Father ; for certainly God cannot be
called the Father of those in whose hearts the Son
is not." The object of Athanasius is to prove that,
as some under the Old Testament are spoken of as
sons, the Spirit of the Son must have been in their
hearts, and consequently the Son must have pre
existed. I refer to the passage, in order to show
that, according to Athanasius, the indwelling of the
Son in Christians is a spiritual indwelling.

In the twenty-sixth chapter, having said that the
words of St. John, ! " the only-begotten Son, who is
in the bosom of the Father," prove the Son s eternal
existence, Athanasius goes on to say, that He
whom St. John calls the Son, is called by David the
hand, in the following passage : 2 " Why withhold-
est thou thy hand, even thy right hand ? pluck it
out of thy bosom." His reasoning on the text is,
the hand is in the bosom, and the Son is in the
bosom ; the Son, therefore, is the hand, and the
hand the Son, by whom the Father made all things.
They whose opinions Athanasius is here confuting,
affirmed that there is no mention of the Son in the
Old Testament. Without denying the ingenuity

1 Chap. i. 18.

2 Psalm Ixxiv. 11. The Oxford annotator refers to Oration
ii. c. 31, where the Father is said to have wrought all things in
the Word, as by a hand.

T 2

276 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

displayed by Athanasius in converting this text to
his purpose, we may, on looking at it in connexion
with the context, be permitted to express a doubt,
whether the application which he has made of it
ever entered into the mind of the Psalmist himself.

1 It has been observed that Psalm ex. 3 is quoted
by the Fathers in proof of the co-eternity of the
Son. Some, however, appear to have interpreted
the verse literally, understanding it to be prophetic
of the fact that Christ was born of the Virgin by
night, before the rising of the morning star; con
tending also, that the expression s/c yasrpoc could not
be applied to God. Athanasius answers, that the
Scriptures speak of the heart, why not then of the
womb of God? It is usual also with the sacred
writers to speak of superhuman things in the lan
guage of man. If the interpretation of the text thus
put forth is the true one, then there was nothing
more wonderful in the birth of Christ, than of many
others; for many have been born at night, before
the rising of the morning star. If, however, we are
to interpret the text with reference to the body, the
beginning of Christ s generation took place, not when
it was announced to the shepherds, but when the
angel spake to the Virgin, and then it was not night.

1 CC. 27, 28. K yavrpoQ irpo tojrr^opov iyu rrjffd &lt;re. See
p. 12, and c. 24 of this tract.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 277

We must observe also that the words are, not before
the rising of the morning star, but before the morning
star, that is, before its creation : and as the stars
were created before Adam, the body must have ex
isted before Adam. We must look, howeve^ for
the interpretation of the passage to Apocalypse xxii.
16, where Jesus testifies of Himself, "I am the root
and offspring of David, and the bright and morning
star." In the text, therefore, the flesh of the Saviour
is called the morning star, before which the offspring
of God existed ; so that the meaning is, " I begat
Thee from Myself before the manifestation in the
flesh :" before the morning star is equivalent to before
the incarnation of the Word.

1 Athanasius adds that, if the absence of all men
tion of the Son in the Old Testament proves that
He and the Word are not the same, the same reason
might be urged for denying that the Paraclete and
the Holy Spirit are the same, since there is no
mention of the Paraclete in the Old Testament.
2 But Christ Himself calls the Holy Spirit the Para
clete, and St. John calls the Word the only-begotten
Son.

It appears from the foregoing account of the

1 c. 29. Athanasius quotes the Odyssey, to prove that the
word ayoTr^roc is equivalent to fwvoyei Y/c.

2 John xiv. 26 ; i. 24.

278 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

Discourses against the Arians, that the objections
which they urged against the Catholic doctrine may
be classed under two general heads : first, those
founded on inferences drawn from the relation be
tween human parents and their children such as
that He who begets must be prior in time to Him
who is begotten, and that, consequently, there must
have been a time when the Son was not, and God was
not a Father that generation implies an affection in
Him who begets, an emission, an efflux, or a division
into parts ; and that thus the accidents of corporeal
things are attributed to the incorporeal God, while
the Arian doctrine that the Son was made of things
that were not leads to none of these consequences.
To this class of objections Athanasius replies, that
the inference drawn from human generation holds
good as to the nature or essence of the Son, since
every son is from the essence of his father ; but not
as to the mode of generation, since we cannot reason
from the human to the Divine nature, to which the
ideas of time, succession, division are wholly in
applicable. The second class of objections was
founded on those texts of Scripture which imply
an inferiority in the Son to the Father. Athanasius,
as we have seen, enters into a very minute examina
tion of some of the texts, but he gives this general
answer with respect to all that they are to be un
derstood of the state of humiliation in which the
Son voluntarily placed Himself, when He took upon

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 279

Him our nature in order to effect our redemption.
We may think that some of his arguments are
rather specious than convincing ; that some of the
texts which he quotes are inapplicable to the point
at issue : and that his interpretations of others are
fanciful and far-fetched ; but we must, I think, rise
from the perusal of the Discourses with the con
viction, that the doctrine which he maintains is
that which is most in accordance with the natural
sense of the language of Scripture, and best har
monizes its apparent discrepancies. I have quoted
the judgment of Cud worth respecting the service
which Athanasius was appointed to render to the
Church of Christ ; I will conclude this chapter with
a summary of his statement of the doctrine of the
Trinity in Unity, as it was maintained by Atha
nasius.

1 That the Trinity is not a Trinity of independent
principles. There is only one principle or Fountain
of the Godhead, from which the others are derived.

1 p. 616. ed. fol. He had before shown that Athanasius did
not hold the three hypostases of the Trinity to have one and the
same singular essence, that is, to be monoousian or tautoousian.
Epiphanius, Haeresis, Ixxvi. c. 7. He refers to Oratio iv. c. 1.
uxrirfp St juiia apx&gt;), KOI &lt;cara TOVTO etc Qeog. De Syn. c. 45.
TYIV ovffiav TOV Trarpog apxn v /cat pi^av Kcii Trrjyfiv elvai TOV vlov.
De Dec. Syn. Nic. C. 26. ij$r) ical TTJV Oelav rpiaa elg eva, axnrep
te Kopv&lt;j&gt;r]v Ttva, TOV Qe.ov TQV 6 Awy TOV ira.VTOKpd.Topa Xe yw, avyKE-
&lt;l&gt;a\atovadai Kal avva.yt.aQai iraaa ai dyKT), quoted by Athanasius
from a letter of Dionysius of Rome.

280 ORATIONS OF ATHANASIUS

If the three hypostases of the Trinity were three
independent principles, there could not be any
coalescence of them into one ; but they are closely
conjoined into one God.

The ] three Divine hypostases are not separate and
disjoined Beings, ^pepiff^vai KO\ /CEXWQKTJUEVCK, but in-
dimsibly united to one another, d&cu /oerot. This in
divisibility is not to be understood as if there were
not three in it ; but so that neither of them could
be without the other; and that they are so nearly
and intimately conjoined together, that there is a
kind of continuity, cnn s^Eia, between them, which
is not, however, to be understood in the way of cor
poreal things.

2 But not only are the three hypostases indivisibly
conjoined with one another ; they have also a mu
tual inexistence in each other, called by the Greek
Fathers tunrei^ai^ and to be understood after

1 Hypostasis, according to the sense of the ancient Fathers,
meant a singular essence, p. 605. He refers to Oratio iv. c. 10.
6 \iywv tva Qtov dvo (ppoveiru) irarepa feat viov, v OVTO.Q rfj
KO.L T&lt;5 t avrou ufieptffTOv KOL ddiaiperov /cat d^upurrov
elvat TOV \6yov aVo TOV Trarpoc. De Sententia Dionysii, c. 24.
6 e i^tov Kal ddiaiperov rffg TOV irarpOQ ovaictQ TOY v\6v elvai
i, o c ivT(.v 6 Xoyo Trpog TOV rovv, Kai Trorayuoc; irpog T^V

3 Cudworth refers to a passage in Oratio iii. c. 3 : eori ydn 6
viog iv TU Trarpt, K. T. L, and de Sent. Dionysii, c. 23 : diroppom
yap rov \oyot;, K. r. f.

AGAINST THE ARIANS. 281

a peculiar manner, so as that they are really thereby
One ; and what the Son and Holy Ghost doth, the
Father doth in them.

1 The three Divine hypostases make up one entire
Divinity; and in this sense the whole Trinity is

Said by AthanaSlUS to be ju/a 0eorrjC, jum ^utric, juta

ovaia, U.Q Gfoc. The word Ojuooudiog is taken by him,
not merely for things agreeing in one common and
general essence, as three individual men are co-essen
tial with one another ; but also for such as concur
rently together make up one entire thing, and are
therefore jointly essential thereunto. The three
hypostases, are not only congenerous and co-essential,
as having all the essence of the Godhead alike in
them, but also as concurrently making up one entire
Divinity. Whence Athanasius concludes that they
have not a consent of will only, but essentially one
and the self-same will; and that they also jointly
produce, ad extra, jumv ivtpytiav, one and the self-same
energy, operation, or action, nothing being peculiar to
the Son as such, but only the oeconomy of the in
carnation.

1 Cudworth refers to the first Epistle to Serapion, c. 28 :
Toivvv ayia KOI re\ta eorrtv, K. r. I.

SOME ACCOUNT

OF THE

TRACT
DE INCARNATIONS CHRIST!

THIS was one of the earliest works of Athanasius,
being a sequel to the Discourse against the Gentiles.
There is another tract, entitled De Incarnatione et
Contra Arianos, the genuineness of which has been
questioned. The Benedictine editor, however, deems
it genuine, and supposes it to have been written
about the year 364. Only a very small portion
relates to the doctrine of the Incarnation ; the rest
is occupied in the discussion of the texts alleged
by the Arians to prove the inferiority of the Son to
the Father, and in a defence of the doctrine of
the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.

1 Athanasius begins with stating that he shall,
before he proceeds to treat of the Incarnation of

1 c. 1. In c. 4, Athanasius says that, as he was about to
treat of the appearance of the Saviour in the flesh, it was neces
sary for him to refer to the creation of man : inasmuch as man s
transgression was the cause of the Saviour s Incarnation.

SOME ACCOUNT OF THE TRACT, &C. 283

Christ, speak of the creation of all things, and of
God their Creator, since we shall thus be able better
to discern the l congruity of the dispensation under
which He, who originally created, afterward re
newed them. 2 Having briefly confuted the notions
of the Epicureans, who said that all things came
into being spontaneously and by chance ; of Plato,
who said that they were made out of pre-existent
and increate matter ; and of the heretics, who said
that the Creator was not the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, 3 Athanasius proceeds to deliver the
Scriptural doctrine on the subject. God, by His
proper Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, made the uni
verse out of things which were not : and seeing that
man could not, agreeably to the condition of his proper
nature, endure for ever, did not create men like the
irrational animals, but created them according to
His own image, making them partakers of the power
of His proper Word ; so that, having as it were
some shadows (a/cmc) of the Word (or reason), and
being made rational, they might remain in a state of
blessedness in Paradise. As, however, men were to
be endowed with the power of choice, God 4 made
sure the grace imparted to them by the law which

1 Compare Oration ii. cc. 14. 16. 53.

2 c. 2. In replying to the Epicureans, Athanasius says that
we understand from the marks of design, and the order discern
ible in the works of creation, that there is a God who designs
and orders them. See c. 54.

C. 3. J fff

284 SOME ACCOUNT OF THE TRACT

He gave, and by the place which He assigned them,
He placed them in Paradise, and gave them a law.
If they observed that law they would lead a life
free from grief, and pain, and anxiety, with the pro
mise of incorruption in heaven ; but if they trans
gressed it, they would no longer live in Paradise ;
but, being cast out, would remain l perpetually in
the corruption of death. Men 2 did transgress,
and received the threatened condemnation of
death. As men, when they by nature were not,
by the presence and loving-kindness of the Word
were called into being : so 3 being emptied of the
innate idea of God, and turned back into 4 a state
of non-existence, they would be emptied of eternal
existence, and remain in death and corruption. Man
is by nature mortal, as made out of things which
were not ; but if by constant contemplation he had
preserved his likeness to the Self-Existent he would
have 5 blunted the edge of the natural corruption
in him, and remained incorruptible ; and, being in
corruptible, would have lived thenceforward 6 as God.

1 i v TTJ rov Qavarov Qdopy SiajjiEveiv. So Athanasius interprets
Qa.va.Tw aVo0ayt&lt;70, Gen. xi. 16.

2 c. 4. 3 KevwOivrag rrJQ Trept Qeov ivvoiaq.

4 Athanasius thus explains his own meaning: OVK ovra. yap tan
TO. KaKa, OVTO. fie ret KctAci, tVftf^Trep a7ro rov OVTOQ Qeov yeyovaai.
Goodness is existence, being likeness to the self-existent God :
wickedness non-existence.

5 The reference is to Psalm Ixxii. 6 : iya&gt; ttira, 6toi tan, KUI
viol i/4/toroi;

DE INCARNATIONE CHRISTI. 285

1 God not only created us out of things which
were not, but conferred upon us by the grace of the

Word, the power of living as God (fcara
Through the Word co-existing with us, our natural
corruption would not have touched us ; but through
the envy of the devil sin entered into the world ; and
the natural corruption acquired additional strength
through the threat denounced against the trans
gression of the commandment. Man also, having
once fallen, became continually more corrupt, till
the whole earth was filled with wickedness. 2 The
natural man, created in the image of God, was
3 effaced, and the work made by God was destroyed.
Such then was the strange and unseemly state of
things. It was unfitting that God should fail in the
fulfilment of His word, by not inflicting the punish
ment which He had denounced against transgression.
On the other hand, it was derogatory from His
power and goodness, that the rational creatures which
had once been made and had partaken of His Word,
should be destroyed, and be reduced into a state of
non-existence by corruption. It would have been
better never to have brought them into being. It
was clearly, therefore, unworthy of the goodness of
God to allow corruption to prevail against man, and
death to have dominion over him. What 4 then

1 c. 5. Athanasius appears here to make the original righte
ousness of men to consist in the indwelling of the Word.

2 c. 6. 3 )}0ai fcro. * c. 7.

286 SOME ACCOUNT OF THE TRACT

was necessary in order to save both the truth and
the power of God ? Could He have been satisfied
with requiring repentance from man? No: the
truth of God would not have been saved, because
man could not have been brought under the do
minion of death ; nor could repentance have restored
him to the original condition of his nature ; it could
only cause him to cease from sin. If there had been
only the transgression and corruption had not fol
lowed, repentance might have sufficed ; but the
effect of the transgression was to bring the nature
of man under the dominion of corruption, and to
deprive him of the grace which he had received
when he was created in the image of God. The
Word of God, who had originally made all things
out of things which were not, being above all things,
was alone sufficient to renew all things, to suffer for
all, and to intercede concerning all things with the
Father.

1 The incorporeal, incorruptible, and immaterial
Word of God came down to our earth, 2 condescend-

1 C. 8. 6 dautfiaroQ &v TYIV fyvcriv KCU fit iifidg TW ffiopctTi
0av/e. c. 38. Athanasius here says, that the Word fills all
things through His co-existence with the Father, CFVVWV r kavrov

2 crvy/cara/3atVwj , and shortly afterwards, &lt;rvyA:ara/3ac Trj
r]fjiS)v. See c. 15 : c!ta r&v evTe\effTpu)v avyKaTafiaivMi . Oratio
i. c. 40 : ta TO v^wdfjvai Karaf3ef3r)Kev 6 Xoyoc. ^ta TYIV TOJV
aVOpwTrwv daQivtiav &lt;7vyeara/3a g. c. 46. In all these passages
the word expresses the condescension of Christ in taking upon
Him human nature. See Suicer in v.

DE INCARNATIONE CHRISTI. 287

ing (to us) by His loving-kindness towards us ; and
by His manifestation, gVi^ava, He took to Himself
a body, not foreign to our body, but our body, and
that from a pure and spotless Virgin who knew not
man, the body itself being unmixed with sexual
intercourse. Being powerful and the Creator of all
things, He prepared for l Himself in the Virgin a
temple, the body, and appropriated it to Himself as

1 So in c. 18, &lt;c wapOevov TrXaVrti eavrw ro ffaijua, and in
Oration iv. against the Arians, c. 34, iv rfj TUVT^Q vrfvi 6 \oyoc
lavrw TOV OIKOV ^ifTrXaVaro, ov TQOTTOV e dp^i^g rov Addjj. EK rrjq
yj/c. Athanasius here refers to Proverbs ix. 1, */ oofyici WKOO-
pr)(Tv lavTi] OLKOV. Again, Oration ii. c. 7, ovrwg avroc eXafie
TY\V aVo 7)7? (7ap/ca, Map/ar avrl TTJQ avepyaorov yi]Q lff-%r)KM
fjir)Tpa. TOV o-w/zarog, or as we find it stated in another place,
Christ received from the Virgin all that God originally employed
in the formation of man, sin only excepted ; contra Apollina-
rium, L. 2. c. 5. He made to Himself a body from the Virgin,
not by way of operation (as a newly-made work), but by physical
generation, that it might be by nature a body, and also by nature
inseparable from the divinity of the Word; L. 1. c. 6. In the
first book against Apollinarius, c. 4, we find fj rrje aapKog /iviaaig
rrpoQ TYIV TOV \6yov OeoTrjTct LK pr]TpaQ yiyovtv. In the second
book, c. 2, dopdrwc JJLEV Qtov roovpevov Kal OVTOQ a\r)6u&gt;G o
3e aV0po7TOV ^r)\a(j)OV[Jievov Kal virapyovTOQ dXqdwg OVK
ffii TrpoffWKtov r) drojua rw^, d\\d (j&gt;vfftKrj yevvrjffet Kal
ffei : and c. 10, eyevvrfdrj SK yvvaiKoc, IK Tfjg Trpwrrfg 7r\dff(t)g r&gt;)v
TTOV poptyfiv ev eavTV aVaor/jo-ajufvog, iv iTrideifet crapKog
(TapKiKwv deXrjpaTWV Kal Xoytffjj.it&gt;v dvdpwirivwv iv eiKovi
fj ydp 6sXr)cri t deo-rjTO^ povrjc, eireiSr] Kal rj (pvcriQ oXrj
TOV Xoyov, K. T. e. Here, at first sight, Athanasius appears to
ascribe only one will, the Divine, to Christ. But see the note of
the Benedictine editor, who refers to de Incarnatione et contra
Arianos, c. 21, where the distinction between the divine and
human wills is clearly expressed. See also Oratio iii. c. 57.

288 SOME ACCOUNT OF THE TRACT

an instrument, being made known and dwelling in
it. Thus, having taken to Himself a body like to
our body, because we were all liable to the corrup
tion of death, He delivered it to death in the place
of all, and l offered it to the Father in His loving-
kindness to us all : to the end that, all dying in
Him, the law of corruption might be annulled, its
power having been fulfilled 2 in the Lord s body, and
it no longer having any place against man : to the
end also that He might turn again to incorruption
men who had turned to corruption ; and might
quicken them from death by the appropriation to
Himself of the body, and by the gratuitous gift of
the resurrection ; thus destroying death in them as
straw is destroyed by the fire.

3 The corruption of man could not be destroyed
unless all died. The Word being immortal, the
Son of God could not die : He therefore took unto
Himself a body which could die, in order that this
body, partaking of His Word which is over all, might

TO TTpoff^epo/JLeroy avroc&gt; we p-%iepevg, ECIVTOV
ru irarpi. Oratio ii. c. 7. See De Sent. Dionys.
c. 11.

2 tv TU KvpiaKu (w/mrc. See also cc. 20. 22. 26. 30. We find
6 KVpiciKog cb 0|OW7ro, Expositio Fidci, c. 1 ; arev vvvovaiag
Kvpia.Kov ffwjua, c. 3 ; o EK Map/ae Qtog arflpwTroe, Oratio iv.
c. 36.

3 c. 9. ft /i) Sid TOV Traj rwe aVoGaveTv. It appears to me
that we should read frarrac.

DE INCARNATIONE OHRISTI. 289

be a sufficient satisfaction, i/cavdv, to death for all, and
yet, through the indwelling Word, might remain
incorruptible, and corruption might thenceforth cease
from all, through the gift of the resurrection. Thus
He paid the debt of man in His death, and He, the
incorruptible Son of God, being united to all in the
likeness (of the body), clothed all with incorruption
in the promise of the resurrection. Athanasius here
introduces a not very apposite illustration : As a
great monarch, when he takes up his abode in one
house of a city imparts protection to all the houses
in it ; so the Word, having taken to Himself one
body like that of man, imparts His own incorrupti
bility to all mankind, and the corruption of death
hath no longer any power against them.

1 Having shown by a reference to Hebrews ii.
10 that it was fitting that He, by whom man was
created, should also be the restorer of man from
corruption, and that, in order to effect that restora
tion, He should offer a body like to that of man,
Athanasius goes on to say, that God, 2 in order to
render men capable of attaining to the comprehension
of the Divine nature, made them partakers of His
proper Image, our Lord Jesus Christ, and created
them in His own image and after His likeness, to
the end that, comprehending the image, they might

1 c. 10. See Oration ii. c. 53. 2 c. 11.

290 SOME ACCOUNT OF THE TRACT

through it acquire some l notion of the Father, and
know their Creator. 2 They might also, through
the contemplation of the works of creation, have
attained to that knowledge ; but they corrupted
themselves, and gave themselves up to the worship
of idols and to every kind of impiety. God, there
fore, in consideration of their weakness, gave them a
law, arid sent to them prophets to instruct them in
His knowledge and in His worship, and in the re
gulation of their life and conversation. The law
was not given, nor were the prophets sent to the
Israelites alone, but to the whole human race. They
proved, however, ineffectual to reclaim man from the
error of his ways ; both the Jews and the Gentiles
became continually more corrupt. 3 Still it was not
fitting that man, who had once partaken of the image
of God, should perish. In order, therefore, to renew
that image within him, and to enable him again to
attain to the knowledge of God, it was necessary that
the very image of God, our Saviour Jesus Christ,
should come on earth. He alone could renew the
image in man: and He took a mortal body that
death might be destroyed in Him; and that man,
originally made in the image, might be renewed in
it. 4 He alone could fulfil this office, could 5 regene
rate the soul, and renew it after the image ; could

2 c. 12. 3 c. 13.

4 c. 14.

DE INCARNATIONS G HRISTI. 291

effectually l teach mankind, and 2 by the works which
He did in the body bring them to the knowledge of
the Word of God dwelling in the body, and through
Him to the knowledge of the Father.

3 The Word humbled Himself to appear in the
body, that He might, as man, draw men to Himself,
and turn their senses to Himself; and, by the works
which He did, persuade those who saw Him as a man
that He was not a mere man, but God, and the Word
and Wisdom of the true God. He 4 expanded Him
self, as it were, above, below, in the deep, and 5 in
breadth : above in the creation, below in His incar
nation, in the deep by descending 6 to the place of
departed spirits, in breadth in the world : so that all
things were filled with the knowledge of God.
Himself invisible, He manifested Himself as the
Word of God, and the Ruler and King of the uni
verse by His works. 7 He was not so enclosed in
the body as not to be elsewhere ; nor while He set
it in motion was the universe 8 emptied of His energy

1 In c. 10, Athanasius had said that Christ came, not only to
offer Himself as a sacrifice for sin, but also to correct the careless
conversation of man by His teaching.

2 Athanasius shows in the following chapter how this was
effected.

3 c. 16.

4 ctTrXaxrajToe. So in c. 17, ityctTrXtiv ; in c. 19, 0a7rXw&lt;rae ; in
c. 44, rJTrXwaev ; in c. 45, eirl yfjg r/TrXwjueVtyv TTJV TOV Xdyov /3Xe-

ig TO 7rXa ro. etc TOV q.$r)r. 7 c. 17.

292 SOME ACCOUNT OF THE TRACT

and providence ; and, strange to say, being the Word,
He was not contained by any thing, but Himself
1 contained (held together) all things. Being in the
whole creation, He is external to the whole as to
His essence, but is in all things by His power, ad
ministering all things and expanding His providence
in and to all ; quickening each thing singly and
all things collectively; comprehending all things,
Himself not comprehended, but entire in all respects
in His Father alone. The soul of man may con
template in thought things external 2 to its own
body and distinct from it, but it cannot act upon
them or set them in motion. This was not so with
the Word of God when in man. He was not bound
to the body, but had it under His dominion ; so that
while He was in it and in all things, He was external
to all existing things, and 3 reposed in the Father
alone. When the Virgin bore Him, He suffered
nothing ; nor, though in the body, was He polluted
by it, but, on the contrary, 4 sanctified it ; and, being
incorruptible, quickened and purified that which is
mortal.

5 When, therefore, we read of Him as eating,
and drinking, and being born, we must understand
that His body, as a body, was born, and nourished

2 e^co rov idiov 0-wjuaroe. 3

4 See c. 43. Oration i. c. 60. Oration ii. c. 10.

5 c. 18.

DE INCARNATIONS CHRISTI. 293

with suitable food; but that God the Word, who
administers all things, being united to the body, by
the works which He did in the body manifested
Himself, not as man, but as God the Word. These
things are said of Him, to show that the body, which
ate, and drank, and was born, was the body of the
Lord, and not of another, and that He had a body
in reality, not in appearance. By these acts the
Word was known to be present bodily ; and by the
works which He did through the body, He made Him
self known to be the Son of God. Being invisible,
He is known from the works of creation : having
been made man and not l being seen (as the Word)
in the body, He was known from His works to be,
not a man, but the Power and Word of God. Having
2 remarked that the divinity of our Lord was seen
and conspicuously manifested by the convulsions
which took place in the natural world at the time of
His crucifixion, Athanasius goes on to speak of the
manner of His death.

3 It has been shown that no one but the Saviour,
who made all things in the beginning out of things
which were not, could make that which is corruptible,
incorruptible ; that no one but the Image of the
Father could renew men after the Image ; that no

The Benedictine editor adopts this reading in
preference to p) ^wpoujueyoc, which is found in other editions.

3 c. 20.

294 SOME ACCOUNT OF THE TRACT

one l but the very Life, our Lord Jesus Christ, could
render that which is mortal, immortal ; that no one
but the Word who administers all things, the only-
begotten and true Son of the Father, could instruct
men concerning the Father, and overthrow the
worship of idols. But it is further necessary to show
that He alone could deliver mankind from the sen
tence of death under which they all lay, by paying
the penalty for them. After, therefore, that He had
manifested His divinity by the works which He did,
He gave up His own temple as an offering to death,
in order to deliver mankind from the penalty due to
their ancient transgression ; and He showed Himself
superior to death, by manifesting His own incorrupt
ible body as the first-fruits of the resurrection
of all. His body was of the same essence as all
human bodies ; and being mortal, would, like them,
have died : but by the 2 access of the Word to it, it
was no longer corrupted according to its proper
nature, but through the indwelling Word of God
was placed out of the reach of corruption ; so that,
strange to say, the death of all was fulfilled in the
Lord s body, and death and corruption were destroyed
by the Word who was united to it.

1 rfjg avrow&gt;ye OVGTIQ.

2 TJJ Se rov Xoyov ELQ avro iiriftaffet. Athanasius says elsewhere,
that the body being capable of death naturally, the Word of His
own will allowed it to die : so that it suffered naturally, and was
raised by divine power for our sakes. Contra Apollinarium, L. 1.
c. 7. So in this tract, c. 31, odev airiOave fiev we

ce eta Tn\&gt; avry u/i . See Oration i. c. 44.

DE INCARNATIONE CHRISTI. 295

1 Athanasius thus states the conclusion to be drawn
from the foregoing reasoning : " The common Saviour
of all having died for us, we, the faithful in Christ,
no longer as before, according to the denunciation
of the law, 2 remain in the corruption of death, since
that condemnation has been annulled ; but the cor
ruption being annulled and destroyed 3 in the gra
tuitous gift of the resurrection, we are dissolved as
to our mortal body, at the time which God has ap
pointed to each of us, only that we may obtain a
better resurrection." He then proceeds to answer
objections. It was objected, that if it was neces
sary for Christ to deliver His body to death for all,
it would have been more seemly that He should put
it off 4 privately, in the ordinary course of nature, in
some honourable manner, than that He should sub
mit to an ignominious death on the cross. Atha
nasius replies that the death which comes to all
men comes on account of the weakness of their
nature : being unable to endure long, they are
dissolved by time, through disease and infirmity.
But the Lord is not infirm : He is the Power and
Word of God and very Life. If, therefore, He
had put off the body in His bed after the ordinary
fashion of men, He would have been supposed to

1 c. 21.

2 So, as we have seen, Athanasius interprets Bavdry euro

3 tv rrj TT)Q dvaard.ani)Q
4

?3/*i c

296 SOME ACCOUNT OF THE TRACT

die through the infirmity of nature, and to be in no
respect superior to other men. But since He was
Life and the Word of God, and yet it was necessary
that the debt of death should be paid for all, on this
account, as being Life and Power, He imparted
strength in Himself to the body ; but in paying the
penalty of death, He did not take from Himself, but
made others, the occasion of perfecting the sacrifice.
For it was not fitting that the Lord, who healed the
diseases of others, should l Himself suffer from dis
ease; nor that the body, in which He imparted
strength to others, should 2 itself be infirm. But
why did He not prevent death, as well as disease,
from touching Him? He took the body in order
that He might die : if He had not died, the resur
rection could not have taken place. But it was not
fitting that disease should precede death, lest the
infirmity should be ascribed to Him who was in the
body. But He suffered hunger ? Yes, that was
proper to the body ; but He did not perish through

1 Athanasius here seems to say that the body of Christ was
not subject to disease : and we do not read in Scripture that it
ever was actually so subject. As man, He wept, and was weary,
and hungry, and thirsty. De Sent. Dionysii, c. 9. Ad Ep. ^gypt.
et Lib. c. 17. De Fuga, cc. 12, 13. Oration iii. cc. 31, 32. 34.
46. 53.

2 So in Oratio ii. c. 55 : Aairep yap rae rj/Jiwp affdevdciQ $ex~
fjLEi OQ Xe yerai ai/rog affdeveiv, KCLITOI prj aaQevtov avroc, ^vva^LQ
ya p kaxL TOV Qeov. In c. 43 it is said, that the Word used the
body as an instrument, but partook of none of its affections, but
rather sanctified it.

DE INCARNATIONE CHRISTI. 297

hunger, on account of the Lord who bore the body.
On this account also, if He died as a ransom for all,
He did not see corruption, but rose in His integrity :
since the body belonged to no other, but to the
Life itself.

1 Again, it was said that Christ might, by con
cealing Himself, have avoided the plots of the Jews,
and preserved His body 2 altogether immortal. Atha-
nasius answers, that as it was not fitting that the
Word of God, being Life, should Himself inflict
death on His own body, so neither was it fitting that
He should avoid the death inflicted upon Him by
others. He awaited death in order to destroy it,
and hastened to finish the death inflicted for the
salvation of all. The Saviour came to finish, not
His own death, but the death of mankind ; where
fore, He put off the body, not by His own proper
death, inasmuch, as being Life, He could not so die ;
but He received death from mankind, that He might
entirely destroy it in His own body. 3 It was neces
sary, moreover, that the end of the body of the
Lord should be thus public, in order that, by show
ing that He preserved His own body incorruptible,
He might give mankind a pledge that their bodies
would rise again free from corruption. It was

1 c. 22.

2 tcadoXov, without submitting it at all to death.

3 c. 23.

298 SOME ACCOUNT OF THE TRACT

further necessary that His death should be public,
in order that He might satisfy men of the truth of
His resurrection. If He had died privately in a
corner, they would have said that His death and
resurrection were alike fictions. The proof of His
death must precede that of His resurrection.

1 But if He was to die a public, why was it neces
sary that He should die an ignominious death?
Athanasius answers, that this was one proof of His
complete triumph over the power of death, that He
did not choose the mode of His death, but submitted
to that inflicted by His enemies. 2 There was a
peculiar fitness in His death upon the cross. He
came to bear the curse denounced against us : but
how could He bear it, unless He became a curse for
us by submitting 3 to the death which is declared to
be accursed ? He was, by His death, to break down
the middle wall of partition, and to call the Gentiles.
This He did, when, His arms extended on the cross,
with the one 4 He drew to Himself the Jews, with
the other the Gentiles, uniting both in Himself.

1 c. 24.

2 c. 25. Athanasius mentions another point in which the death
upon the cross was appropriate : the body was preserved entire,
from which we should learn that the Church, His body, ought to
be preserved free from schism, c. 24.

3 " Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." Gal. iii. 13.

4 Athanasius refers to John xii. 31 : " And I, if I be lifted up
from the earth, will draw all men unto me."

DE INCARNATIONE CHRISTI. 299

He was to destroy the power of the l prince of the
air, who deceives men by His illusions, and impedes
them in their ascent to heaven. To this end, there
fore, Christ was suspended on the cross in the air,
that He might purify it from all the mischievous
effects of the agency of daemons, and 2 bearing us
upwards by His own body, which He offered to
death for all, He might open to us the way to
heaven.

3 Christ did not rise immediately from the tomb ;
but allowed an interval of three days to elapse
between His death and His resurrection, in order to
prove the reality of His death, and yet that His
body did not suffer corruption. He did not allow a
longer interval to elapse, in order that He might
show Himself alive while the remembrance of His
death was yet fresh in the minds of men, and they
who put Him to death still on the spot.

4 In proof that Christ had on the cross triumphed

1 Ephes. ii. 2.

2 He ascended as man, and carried up to heaven the flesh
which He bore. Oration iii. c. 48.

3 c. 26. The human body lay in the tomb, but was raised as
the body of God by the Word Himself. De Sent. Dionysii, c. 9.
The soul of Christ was separated from His body at His death,
but the Word remained united to it, to preserve it from corrup
tion. Contra Apollinarium, L. 2. cc. 16, 17-

4 cc. 27, 28, 29. Athanasius says, that both men and women
prepared themselves to encounter death, by submitting to volun
tary hardships and voluntary discipline, c. 27.

300 SOME ACCOUNT OF THE TRACT

over death, Athanasius appeals to the readiness
shown by Christians to encounter it in attestation of
the sincerity of their faith. Before Christ came,
death was formidable even to holy men ; now, even
women and youths disregard it. l In like manner,
the daily conversions of the Gentiles to the truth of
Christ ; the influence exerted over the thoughts and
consciences of men, so that the adulterer, the mur
derer, the unjust, the blasphemer forsake their evil
courses, and submit to the teaching of Christ ; 2 the
expulsion of evil spirits by His very name ; these all
prove that He is not dead, but that He has risen
from the dead, and lives, or, rather, is the Life. He
cannot be dead, who daily performs so many acts ;
drawing men to piety, persuading them to virtue,
teaching them concerning immortality, leading them
to the desire of heavenly things, inspiring them
with power against death, showing Himself to every
one, and destroying the impiety of idolatry. The
works which the Son of God daily works for the
salvation of men are the proof of His resurrection.

3 Athanasius now turns to the confutation of the
Jews, to whom the cross of Christ was a stumbling-
block. They ought to have learned from their own

1 cc. 30, 31, 32. Seec. 37.

2 Athanasius enlarges on this point in c. 52. It is worthy of
remark, that he makes no other appeal to the exercise of super
natural powers.

3 cc. 34, 35, 36, 37.

DE INCARNATIONS CHRISTI. 301

Scriptures that the Messiah * was to be born of a
Virgin, and to assume the nature of man, and to be
Lord of all ; that His birth was to be announced by
the appearance of a star ; that He would be called
out of -#gypt ; that He would suffer every kind of
indignity, and would not only die, but die 2 upon
the Cross ; that 3 He would rule over the Gentiles ;

4 that He would restore sight to the blind, and cause
the lame to walk. All these predictions were ful
filled in Jesus of Nazareth, and in none other.

5 The Jews appear to have admitted that these pro
phecies applied to the Messiah, but to have denied
that they were fulfilled in Jesus, and to have said
that they still looked for the promised Saviour. In
confutation of this objection, Athanasius alleges
Daniel s prophecy of the seventy weeks, and the
prediction of Jacob, from both of which it was clear
that the time appointed for the appearance of the
Messiah had passed.

1 Athanasius refers to Isaiah vii. 14. Numbers xxiv. 5. 17.
Isaiah viii. 4 ; xix. 1. Hosea xi. 1. Isaiah liii. 3. Athanasius
refers Isaiah liii. 7, " Who shall declare His generation ?" to the
birth of Christ from the Virgin, OVK OVTOQ TOV a^^aroQ O.VTOV t
avtipoQ, aXX iic Trapdevov poyvjg. c. 37. He had no Father after
the flesh ; His generation, therefore, could not be declared.

2 In proof of this Athanasius refers to Deut. xxviii. 66. Jer.
xi. 19. Psalm xxii. 16.

3 Isaiah xi. 10. 4 c. 38. Isaiah xxxv. 3.

5 cc. 39, 40. In the latter chapter Athanasius refers to
Psalm cvii. 20 : E^dTreoreiXe TOV \6yov O.VTOV KO.I iaffaro CIVTOVQ,
and interprets TOV \6yov of the Word ; an interpretation to
which the Hebrew lends no countenance.

302 SOME ACCOUNT OF THE TRACT

1 In refuting the Gentiles, Atbanasins has recourse
to the argument ad hominem. They called the
universe a body, and said that the Word or Reason
is in the whole and in every part: why, then,
should they hesitate to admit that the Word may
inhabit a human body, and make use of it as an in
strument to convey to man the knowledge of God
and himself.

2 But it would have been more fitting that the
Word should take up His abode in some of the
more beautiful parts of the universe, in the sun, or
moon, than in man. Athanasius replies, that man
alone had departed from the law given him by God,
while the heavenly bodies and the other parts of the
universe still pursued their appointed course. The
Word, therefore, took up His abode in man, be
cause man alone needed instruction and salvation. As
men could not discern God in His providential ad
ministration of the universe, in order to accommo
date Himself to their weakness the Word united
Himself to a part of the universe, the human body ;
and by the divine works which He performed in it
led them to the knowledge of God.

3 But God might have saved, as He created, man

1 .cc. 41, 42.

2 c. 43. Athanasius alleges the authority of Plato in his
favour, ex Politico.

3 c. 44.

DE INCARNATIONE CHRISTI. 303

by a mere word or command. Athanasius answers
that, as the universe was created out of things which
were not, the mere will of God sufficed for their
creation ; but that, as things which were, not things
which were not, were to be healed and saved, it was
necessary that the Saviour should come to the
things which He was to save ; He used, therefore,
the human body as His instrument in the salvation
of man. The corruption of man also was not ex
ternal to His body, but cleaved to it ; it was neces
sary, therefore, that life should be attached to it
in the place of corruption ; the body which had
once put on corruption could not have put on im
mortality, unless the Word had assumed it. If
death had been prevented from touching the body
only by a command, it would still have remained
mortal and corruptible, according to the condition
of bodies. But now it has put on the incorporeal
Word of God : it, therefore, no longer fears either
death or corruption ; being clothed in life, and cor
ruption being destroyed in it.

1 Athanasius appeals to the visible effect which
Christianity had produced, in order to prove that He
who came on earth to proclaim it was the Divine
Word ; to the conversion of the Gentiles, to their
renunciation of the heathen temples and worship, to
the silence of the oracles, above all to the change

1 cc. 4554.

304 SOME ACCOUNT OF THE TRACT

wrought in the life and conversation of those who
embraced the Gospel. They were seen to be l con
tinent even in their youth, patient in the endurance
of temptations and hardships, forbearing under in
sults, unmoved amidst the loss of their earthly pos
sessions, despising death when required to bear tes
timony to Christ.

2 The Word was made man, in order that we may
be 3 deified ; He manifested Himself through the
body, in order that we may attain to the 4 idea of
the Invisible Father : He suffered contumely from
man, in order that we may inherit immortality.
He sustained no injury, it is true, being 5 impassible,
incorruptible* the very Word, and God ; but He keeps
and preserves suffering mankind, for whom He

1 Athanasius particularly notices the fact, that many young
persons, both male and female, professed chastity : he appeals
also to the expulsion of devils, by naming the name of Christ
and making the sign of the cross, cc. 48. 51.

2 c. 54.

3 Iva rjpe~iQ 6f.OTroLr)6wfjir. Compare c. 4. Oration i. cc. 39.
42. Oratio iii. c. 23. The Word made us capable of receiving
the Godhead, Oration ii. c. 59. Through our kindred to His
body we are made the temple of God, and the sons of God, so that
the Lord is worshipped in us, and they who see us proclaim, in
the words of the Apostle, " Truly God is among them " (1 Cor.
xiv. 25). Oration i. c. 45. See de Dec. Syn. Nic. c. 31.

4 Lva fjpeig rov doparov Trarpog S.VVOLO.V Xa/3o/^&gt; / . So etc
TCLQ Trept 0eov ivvoiae, c. 43. KevwOtvrag TTJQ wept Qeov ivvoiag,
c. 4.

5 Compare Oration iii. cc. 34. 55, 56. Ad Epictetum, cc. 5,
C. Contra Apollinarium, L. 1. c. 11.

DE INCARNATIONE CHRISTI. 305

underwent these sufferings, by His own impassi
bility.

1 Having again referred to the continually in
creasing influence of Christianity and to the cor
responding diminution of the power of idolatry, as
affording conclusive evidence that the Word and
Son of God had come in the flesh to be the Saviour
of mankind, Athanasius 2 goes on to exhort us care
fully to study the divinely-inspired Scriptures, in
which is clearly foretold the second appearance of
Christ ; when He shall come, not in meanness, but
in His proper glory ; not in humiliation, but in His
proper greatness ; not to suffer on the cross, but to
impart to all the fruit of His crucifixion, immor
tality, and incorruption ; not to be judged, but to
be Judge of all, according to the deeds done by
them in the body, whether good or bad ; to admit
the good into His kingdom in Heaven, and to con
sign the wicked to everlasting fire and outer darkness.

3 But in order that our reading of the Scriptures
may profit us, we must purify our hearts and lives
according to the doctrine of Christ, so that our un
derstanding, always 4 walking after that doctrine, may
attain what it desires, and learn all that it is pos
sible for human nature to learn respecting the Word
of God. For no one can attain to the compre-

c. 55. 2 c. 56. 3 c. 57.

306 SOME ACCOUNT OF THE TRACT, &C.

hension of the writings of the saints, who does not
purify his thoughts and imitate the life and con
versation of the saints. When we have washed and
purged the soul, and have become assimilated to the
saints in our practice, then, having our conversation
with them, we shall comprehend what has been re
vealed to them by God, and, being united to them,
shall receive the things which eye hath not seen,
nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of
man, the things reserved for the saints in the king
dom of Heaven.

THE END

GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, ST. JOHN .S SQUARE, LONDON.

BOOKS

PUBLISHED

BY F. & J. RIVINGTON,

ST. PAUL S CHURCH YARD, AND WATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL.

The ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY of the SECOND and
THIRD CENTURIES, illustrated from the WRITINGS of TER-
TULLIAN. By JOHN KAYE, D.D., Lord Bishop of Lincoln. Third
Edition. 8vo. lls. 6d.

II.

SOME ACCOUNT of the WRITINGS and OPINIONS of
JUSTIN MARTYR. By the SAME AUTHOR. Third Edition.
6s. 6d.

III.

SOME ACCOUNT of the WRITINGS of CLEMENT of

ALEXANDRIA. By the SAME AUTHOR. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

IV.

ST. HIPPOLYTUS and the CHURCH of ROME in the

Earlier Part of the THIRD CENTURY ; from the newly-discovered
PHILOSOPHUMENA," or, the Greek Text of those Portions which
relate to that subject ; with an ENGLISH VERSION and NOTES ;
and an Introductory Enquiry into the Authorship of the Treatise,
and on the Life and Works of the Writer. By CHRISTOPHER
WORDSWORTH, D.D., Canon of Westminster. 4to. 8s. 6d.

AN EIGHT WEEKS JOURNAL in NORWAY, &c., in
1852. By Sir CHARLES S. H. ANDERSON, Bart. (With 32
Outlines of Scenery.) In crown 8vo. 6s.

VI.

PRAYERS for the SICK and DYING. By the Author of
" SICKNESS : its TRIALS and BLESSINGS." 2s. 6d.

VII.

SYNTAX of the GREEK LANGUAGE, especially of the
ATTIC DIALECT, for the Use of Schools. By Dr. J, N. MADVIG,
Professor in the University of Copenhagen. Translated from the
German by the Rev. HENRY BROWNE, M.A., and edited by the
late Rev. THOMAS KERCHEVER ARNOLD, M.A. With an
Appendix on the Greek Particles, by the Translator. In square 8vo.
fete

BOOKS PUBLISHED BY F. AND J. KIVINGTON.

VIII.

SERMONS. SECOND SERIES. (Preached at Rome in 1851
and 1852.) By the Rev. FRANCIS B. WOODWARD, M.A., Chap
lain to the English Congregation at Rome. In 12mo. 6s. 6d.

Lately published,
The FIRST SERIES. Price 6s. 6d.

IX.

EARLY INFLUENCES. By the Author of " Truth without
Prejudice." Third Edition. 3s. 6d.

Also, by the same Author,
TRUTH WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Fourth Edition. 3s. 6d.

x.
THE MEDEA of EURIPIDES ; with ENGLISH NOTES

from the German of Witzschel. Edited by the Rev. THOMAS
KERCHEVER ARNOLD, M.A., late Rector of Lyndon, and formerly
Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 3s.

Recently published in this Series, with English Notes :

1. EURIPIDIS BACCH^E, 3s. HIPPOLYTUS, 3s.

2. SOPHOCLTS CEDIPUS COLONEUS, 4s. (EDIPUS TYRANNUS,
4s. PHILOCTETES, 3s. AJAX, 3s. ANTIGONE, 4s.

3. ECLOGUE ARISTOPHANIC^E (CLOUDS), 3s. 6^. (BIRDS),
3s. 6d.

XI.

LECTURES, HISTORICAL, DOCTRINAL, and PRACTI
CAL, on the CATECHISM of the CHURCH of ENGLAND. By
FRANCIS-RUSSELL NIXON, D.D., Lord Bishop of Tasmania.
Fifth Edition. In 8vo. 16s.

XII.

THE DARK AGES ; a Series of Essays in Illustration of the
Religion and Literature of the Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth
Centuries. By the Rev. S. R. MAITLAND, D.D., F.R.S., and F.S.A.,
some time Librarian to the late Archbishop of Canterbury, and Keeper
of the MSS. at Lambeth. Third Edition. In 8vo. 10s. Qd.

XIII.

LECTURES on the APOCALYPSE; Critical, Expository,
and Practical ; delivered before the University of Cambridge. By
CHR. WORDSWORTH, D.D., Canon of Westminster. Third Edition.
In 8vo. I Os. 6d.

Also, by the same Author,

TWO LECTURES on the DOCTRINE of a MILLENNIUM ; from
" LKCTURES ON THE APOCALYPSE." New Edition. In 8vo. 3s. 6d.

LIBRARY ST. MARY S COLLE&lt;

273.4

K182

KAYE, JOHN

122. ,42

273-4 122442

K182

KAYE, JOHN

SOME ACCOUNT OF THE COUNCIL OF

NICEA