Skip to main content

Full text of "Select treatises of S. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, in controversy with the Arians, translated, with notes and indices"

See other formats 


Pek wpe ie 
ay tebe wove 
4G Ge dd 


Wiese 
yi ted 
6 


of he 

ἀν ang τε ek 

bye eee 
Ὡς 


ea 


Ἐν 
ets ho 
rea) 


‘ Luz 


ἘΜΌΝ 
δι f° Mie) jabs 
fieteatiy hs i 


oe 


Tene 
aes ne 
ini 
eel $ 


ἢ 


ΣῊ 


τ 
τ 


ΓΗ 
δὰ γὴν he De 
7 ees 


“ἢ: 
Tales 


its a 
i * 


τῆς 


ἢ 
τῶν τ Gal Ἂν ) 

Ἃ ΠΥ κα σα ἐπ ἀν ε Pete. Emer 
ἘΝ ΠΝ ΝΗ Η Tt 

a dolby. i δ ον, 

: 


ad a πὰ- φὶ 


~teiwetistin~ owes 


wibeese 


<9 


/ 


= 


LIBRARY OF FATHERS 
HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH, 


ANTERIOR TO THE DIVISION OF THE EAST AND WEST. 


TRANSLATED BY MEMBERS OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 


YET SHALL NOT THY TEACHERS BE REMOVED INTO A CORNER ANY MORE, BUT 
THINE EYES SHALL SEE THY TEACHERS. Isaiah xxx. 20. 


OXFORD: 
JAMES PARKER & CO. 


AND RIVINGTONS, 
LONDON, OXFORD, AND CAMBRIDGE. 


_ TO THE 


MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD 
WILLIAM 
LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, 


PRIMATE OF ALL ENGLAND, 


FORMERLY REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, 


THIS LIBRARY 
OF 


| 


ANCIENT BISHOPS, FATHERS, DOCTORS, MARTYRS, CONFESSORS, 
OF CHRIST’S HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH, 


15 
WITH HIS GRACE’S PERMISSION 


RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED, 


IN TOKEN OF 


REVERENCE FOR HIS PERSON AND SACRED OFFICE, 


AND OF 


. 


GRATITUDE FOR HIS EPISCOPAL KINDNESS. 


ὦ 


Digitized by the Internet Αγοηΐνθ 
in 2008 with funding from 
~ Microsoft Corporation 


ae > ol ὅν ἡ OG yd rere a Ἐξ ΩΝ δὰ ΓΝ 


SELECT TREATISES 


OF 


S ATHANASIUS, | (a 
ARCHBISHOP ΟΕ ALEXANDRIA, 


IN CONTROVERSY WITH THE ARIANS. al 


SELECT TREATISES 


OF 


5. ATHANASIUS, 


ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, 


IN CONTROVERSY WITH THE ARIANS, 


TRANSLATED, 


WITH NOTES AND INDICES. 


OXFORD: 

JAMES PARKER AND CO. 
AND RIVINGTONS, 
LONDON, OXFORD, AND CAMBRIDGE. 
1877. 


CORRIGENDA. 


ee ee σο 


Page 287 note g fin. for h read i 

343 line 10 for . B read : Ὁ 

397 heading for second Each read The 

413 note col. 2 init for singly read simply 

440 three times for drift read scope 

453 note col. 1 line 25 for but read hardly more than 

486 note g col. 2 lines 3 & 6 for as speak . . . si read 
which speak .. . si non 


CorRrigENDA in InpEX or Texts. 


Page 557 add Exodus iii. 16..... 154. 
558 col. 1 for Jobi. 2 Sept . . 287 read Job i. 2 Sept . . 262, 287 
& cancel line following 


col. 2 for Ixxxvil. 1... . 255 read Ixaxyu. 2.255. 
Cs Dl τς 199'7-end xen ei 199. 
550 col; 2 for Avail. V2). ..4...'- 207 read lvili. 11 .. . . 207. 
Jer xvii. 12 ... 207 read Jer. xvii, 12,13... 207. 


560 col. 1 for Mic. vii. 18 . . . 377 read Mic. vii. 18 .. . 149, 377. 
561 col. 1 in S. John i. 1, 2 dele 28 and 
in ὃ. John i. 1—3 add ref. 28. 
fori. 9 .. 149, 535 read 1.9... 149, 242, 535. . 
col. 2 in S. John x. 29 dele 144 & inS. John x. 30 add ref. 144 
add §. John xiv.9..... 192. 
562 col. 1 add ὃ. John xiv. 28,29 . . 109 
dele S. John xv. 16. 149 & to 5. John xvi. 15 add ref. 149. 
for S. John xvii. 19 . . 247 read S. John xvii. 18, 19 . . 247. 
col. 2 in Rom. i. 20, add ref. 149 


dele Rom. i. 26..... 149 
for Rom. iii. 29 ... . 122 read Rom. iii. 29, 30. . . 122. 
563 col. 1 add 2 Cor. vi. 16..... 204. 


col. 2 for 2 Tim. ii. 17 . . 258 read 2 Tim. ii. 17,18... 258. 
in Heb. i. 3 add ref. 259. 
in Heb. i. 4 add ref. 259. 


ae a dl 


PRINTED BY THE SOCIETY OF THE HOLY TRINITY, 
HOLY ROOD, OXFORD. 


zs i eae ἊΝ 
τ ere | 
ἌΡΑ ἀν" ; ᾿ 
: 
hil 
SELECT TREATISES 
*< ae 


oe. 8. ATHANASIUS, 


ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, - 


- IN CONTROVERSY WITH THE ARIANS. 


ΕΣ 
. 
‘ 
Φ.. τα 
- . 
7 
o 
Ὁ Ὁ «4, 
<ue ΟΝ 
Ὕ 7 Φ 
. * 


SELECT TREATISES 


OF 


5. ATHANASIUS, 


ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, 


IN CONTROVERSY WITH THE ARIANS, 
TRANSLATED, 


WITH NOTES AND INDICES. 
Parr II. 


SOLD BY JAMES PARKER & CO., OXFORD, 
AND 377, STRAND, LONDON; 
RIVINGTONS, WATERLOO PLACE, LONDON, 
HIGH STREET, OXFORD, AND TRINITY STREET, CAMBRIDGE. 


MDCCCLXIX. 


“ VE Aa i Py 


- 


4 ay ᾿ 


CONTENTS. 


EPISTLE OF 5. ATHANASIUS 
IN DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION. 


CHAPTER I. 


INTRODUCTION. 


PAGE 


The complaint of the Arians against the Nicene Council; their fickle- 
ness ; they are like Jews; their employment of force instead of 
reason 


CHAPTER II. 


CONDUCT OF THE ARIANS TOWARDS THE NICENE COUNCIL. 


Ignorant as well as irreligious to attempt to reverse an Ecumenical 
Council; proceedings at Nica; Eusebians then signed what they 
now complain of ; on the unanimity of true teachers, and the pro- 
cess of tradition ; changes of the Arians 


CHAPTER III. 


THE MEANING OF THE WORD “ SON” AS APPLIED TO OUR LORD. 


Two senses of the word, 1. adoptive, 2. substantial. Attempts of 
Arians to find a third meaning between these; e.g. that our Lord 
alone was created immediately by God; Asterius’s view; or that 
our Lord alone partakes the Father. The second and true sense; 
God begets as He makes, really; though His creation and gene- 
ration not like man’s; His generation independent of time; gene- 
ration implies an internal, and therefore an eternal, act in God; 
explanation of Prov. viii. 22. 


b 


10 


li CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER IV. 


PROOF OF THE CATHOLIC SENSE OF THE WORD “SON.” 
PAGE 
Power, Word or Reason, and Wisdom, the names of the Son, imply 
eternity ; as well as the Father’s title of Fountain. The Arians 
reply that these do not formally belong to the essence of the Son, 
but are names given Him; that God has many words, powers, &c. 
Why there is but one Son, Word, &c. All the titles of the Son 
coincide in Him Ξ 5 : : . 24 


CHAPTER V. 


DEFENCE OF THE COUNCIL'S PHRASES, “FROM THE SUBSTANCE,” 
AND “ONE IN SUBSTANCE.” 


Objection that the phrases are not scriptural; we ought to look at 
the sense more than the wording. Evasion of the Eusebians as to 
the phrase “ of God,” which is in Scripture; their evasion of all 
explanations but those which the Council selected ; which were in- 
tended to negative the Arian formule. Protest against their con- 
veying any material sense . ; : - - oO 


CHAPTER VI. 
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE COUNCIL. 


Theognostus; Dionysius of Alexandria; Dionysius of Rome ; 
Origen : : Α : é : : . Ad 


CHAPTER VII. 
ON THE ARIAN SYMBOL “ INGENERATE.” 


This term afterwards adopted by the Arians; and why; three senses 
of it. A fourth sense. Ingenerate denotes God in contrast to His 
‘creatures, not to His Son; Father the scriptural title instead ; 
Conclusion Ἶ : - : 


51 
APPENDIX. 


Letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to the People of his Diocese. » 89 


Note on Pace 61. 


On the meaning of the phrase ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας in the 
Nicene Anathema . ; : : A Σ . 66 


, --.- 


CONTENTS. i ill 


EPISTLE OF 5. ATHANASIUS 


᾿ς CONCERNING THE COUNCILS HELD AT ARIMINUM IN 
ὶ ITALY AND AT SELEUCIA IN ISAURIA. 


CHAPTER I. 


HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 
PAGE 


Reasons why two Councils were called. Inconsistency and folly of 
calling any; and of the style of the Arian formularies ; occasion of 
the Nicene Councils. Proceedings at Ariminum; Letter of the 
Council to Constantius ; its decree. Proceedings at Seleucia; re- 
flections on the conduct of the Arians : : : : 7.9 


CHAPTER II. 
HISTORY OF ARIAN OPINIONS. 


Arius’s own sentiments; his Thalia and Letter toS. Alexander. Cor- 
rections by Eusebius and others; extracts from the works of 
Asterius. Letter of the Council of Jerusalem. First Creed of 
Arians at the Dedication at Antioch; second, Lucian’s on the same 
oceasion; third, by Theophronius; fourth, sent into Gaul to Con- 
stans; fifth, the Macrostich sent into Italy ; sixth, at Sirmium ; 
seventh, at the same place; and eighth also, as introduced above 
in Chapter I.; ninth, at Seleucia; tenth, at Constantinople; 
eleventh, at Antioch ; Loge ᾿ , : . 93 


CHAPTER III. 


ON THE SYMBOLS “OF THE SUBSTANCE” AND “ ONE IN 
SUBSTANCE.” 


We must look at the sense, not the wording. The offence excited is 
at the sense; meaning of the Symbols; the question of their not 
being in Scripture. Those who hesitate only at the latter of the 
two, are not to be considered Arians. Reasons why “One in sub- 
stance” better than “ Like in substance,” yet the latter may be in- 
terpreted in a good sense. Explanation of the rejection of ‘“ One 
in substance” by the Council which condemned Samosatene; use 
of the word by Dionysius of Alexandria. Parallel variation in the 
use of “ Ingenerate;” quotation from S. Ignatius and another. 
Reasons for using “ One in substance ;” objections to it ; examina- 
tion of the word itself. Further documents of the Council of 


Ariminum . ὃ : Ἢ ‘ : 2 . 129 


Note on CHaApTer II. 


Concerning the Confessions at Sirmium : ἕ ᾿ 160 


Nore on Pace 147. 


On the alleged Confession of Antioch against Paul of Samosata . 165 


b2 


1V CONTENTS. 


FOUR DISCOURSES 
OF S. ATHANASIUS AGAINST THE ARIANS. 


DISCOURSE I. 


CHAPTER I. 


INTRODUCTION. 
PAGE 
Reason for writing; certain persons indifferent about Arianism ; 
Arians are not Christians, because sectaries always take the name 
of their founder. : ‘ : : : Ἔ177 


CHAPTER II. 
EXTRACTS FROM THE THALIA OF ARIUS. 


Arius maintains that God became a Father, and the Son was not 
always ; the Son out of nothing ; once He was not ; He was not before 
His generation; He was created; named Wisdom and Word after 
God’s attributes; made that He might make us; one out of many 
powers of God; alterable; exalted on God’s foreknowledge of what 
He was to be; not very God; but called so, as others, by partici- 
pation; foreign in substance from the Father; does not know or 
see the Father; does not know Himself . ; ; . 18 


CHAPTER III. 
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. 


The Arians affect Scripture language, but their doctrine is new, as 
well as unseriptural. Statement of the Catholic doctrine, that the 
Son is proper to the Father’s Substance, and eternal. Restatement 
of Arianism in contrast, that He is a creature with a beginning. 
The controversy comes to this issue, whether one whom we are to 
believe in as God, can be so in name only, and is merely a creature. 
What pretence then is there for being indifferent in the contro- 
versy? The Arians rely on state patronage, and dare not avow 

_ their tenets “ - ; : : Ὥς . 189 


CHAPTER IV. 
THAT THE SON IS ETERNAL AND INCREATE. 


These attributes, being the points in dispute, are first proved by direct 
texts of Scripture. Concerning the ‘“ Eternal Power” of God in 
Rom. i. 20. which is shewn to mean the Son. Remarks on the 
Arian formula, “ Once the Son was not,” its supporters not daring 
to speak of “a time when the Son was not” : } . 195 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER V. 


SUBJECT CONTINUED. 


PAGE 


The objection, that the Son’s eternity makes Him co-ordinate with 
the Father, introduces the subject of His Divine Sonship, as a second 
proof of His eternity. The word Son is used in a transcendent, but 
is to be understood in a real sense. Since all things partake of the 
Father in partaking of the Son, He is the whole participation of the 
Father, that is, He is the Son oh nature ; for to be seal: par- 
ticipated is to beget ; 


CHAPTER VI. 
SUBJECT CONTINUED. 


Third proof of the Son’s eternity, viz. from other titles indicative of 
His consubstantiality; as the Creator; as One of the Blessed 
Trinity; as Wisdom; as Word; as Image. But if the Son bea 
perfect Image of the Father, why is He not a Father also? “Because 
God, being perfect, is not the origin of a race. The Father only a 
Father, because the Only Father ; the Son only a Son, because the 
Only Son. Men are not really fathers and really sons, but shadows 
of the True. The Son does not become a Father, because He has 
received from the Father, to be immutable and ever the same 


CHAPTER VII. 
OBJECTIONS TO THE FOREGOING PROOF. 


Whether, in the generation of the Son, God made One that was 
already, or One that was not : : : 


CHAPTER VIII. 
OBJECTIONS CONTINUED. 


Whether we may decide the question by the parallel of human sons, 
which are born later than their parents. No, for the force of the 
analogy lies in the idea of connaturality. Time is not involved 
in the idea of Son, but is adventitious to it, and does not attach 
to God, because He is without parts and passions. The titles 
Word and Wisdom guard our thoughts of Him and His Son from 
this misconception. God not a Father, as a Creator, in posse from 
eternity, because creation does not relate to the Substance of God, 
as generation does 


. 200 


. 205 


. 213 


vl CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER IX. 


OBJECTIONS CONTINUED. 
PAGE 


Whether is the Ingenerate one or two? Inconsistent in Arians to 
use an unscriptural word; necessary to define its meaning. Dif- 
ferent senses of the word. If it means “ without Father,” there is 
but One Ingenerate ; if “without beginning or creation,” there are 
Two. Inconsistency of Asterius. “ Ingenerate” is a title of God, 
not in contrast with the Son, but with creatures, as is “ Almighty,” 
or “Lord of powers.” ‘ Father” is the truer title, not only as 


Scriptural, but as implying a Son, and our adoption as sons . 224 
CHAPTER X. 
OBJECTIONS CONTINUED. 
How the Word has free-will, yet without being alterable. He is un- 
alterable because the Image of the Father; proved from texts . 230 


CHAPTER XI. 
TEXTS EXPLAINED; AND FIRST, PHIL. 11. 9, 10. 


Various texts which are alleged against the Catholic doctrine; e. g. 
Phil. ii. 9,10. Whether the words “ Wherefore God hath highly 
exalted” prove moral probation and advancement. Argued against, 
first, from the force of the word “Son,” according to the Regula 
Fidei ; which is inconsistent with such an interpretation. Next, 
the passage examined. Ecclesiastical sense of “ highly exalted,” 
and “ gave,” and “ wherefore ;” viz. as being spoken with reference 
to our Lord’s manhood. Secondary sense ; viz. as implying the 
Word’s “ exaltation” through the Resurrection in the same sense 
in which Scripture speaks of His descent in the Incarnation ; 
how the phrase does not derogate from the Nature of the Word . 233 


CHAPTER XII. 
TEXTS EXPLAINED; SECONDLY, PSALM xlv. 7,8. 


Whether the words “ therefore,’ “anointed,” &c., imply that the 
Word has been rewarded. Argued against, first, from the word 
“ fellows” i.e. “ partakers.” He is anointed with the Spirit in His 
manhood to sanctify human nature. Therefore the Spirit de- 
scended on Him in Jordan, when in the flesh. And for us He is 
said to sanctify Himself, and in order to give us the glory He has 
received. The word “ wherefore,’ implies His divinity. ‘ Thou 
hast loved righteousness,” &c., do not imply trial or choice . 246 


CONTENTS. Vil 


CHAPTER XIII. 


TEXTS EXPLAINED; THIRDLY, HEBREWS i. 4. 
PAGE 


Additional texts brought as objections; e.g. Heb. i. 4. vii. 22. 
Whether the word “better” implies likeness to the angels; and 
“made” or “ become” implies creation. Necessary to consider the 
circumstances under which Scripture speaks. Difference between 
“ better” and “ greater ;” texts in proof. ‘ Made” or “" become” is 
a general word. Contrast in Heb. 1. 4. between the Son and the 
Works, in point of nature. The difference of the punishments 
under the two Covenants shews the difference of the natures of the 
Son and the Angels. ‘‘ Become” relates, not to the Nature of the 
Word, but to His manhood and office and relation towards us. 
Parallel passages in which the term is applied to the Eternal 
Father : ; : ς Ξ : ; . 2567 


Note on Pace 214. 


On the meaning of the formula πρὶνγεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, in the Nicene 
Anathema . : : : : , : . 272 


DISCOURSE II. 


CHAPTER XIV. 
TEXTS EXPLAINED; FOURTHLY, HEBREWS iii. 2. 


Introduction ; the Regula Fidei counter to an Arian sense of the 
text; which is not supported by the word “servant,” nor by 
“made” which occurs in it; (how can the Judge be among the 
“works” which “ God will bring into judgment ?”) nor by “ faith- 
ful;” and is confuted by the immediate context, which is about 
Priesthood ; and by the foregoing passage, which explains the word 
“faithful” to mean trustworthy, as do 1 Pet. iv. fin. and other 
texts. On the whole “made” may safely be understood either of 
the divine generation or the human creation . 281 


CHAPTER XV. 


TEXTS EXPLAINED; FIFTHLY, ACTS il. 36. 


The Regula Fidei must be observed; “made” applies to our Lord’s 
manhood ; and to His manifestation; and to His office relative to 
us ; and is relative to the Jews. Parallel instance in Gen. xxvii. 29, 
37. Thecontext contradicts the Arian interpretation . 297 


Vill CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER XVI. 


INTRODUCTORY TO PROVERBS vill. 22. THAT THE SON IS NOT 
A CREATURE. 


PAGE 


Arian formula, “A creature but not as one of the creatures ;” but 
each creature is unlike all other creatures; and no creature can create. 
The Word then differs from all creatures in that in which they, 
though otherwise differing, all agree together, as creatures; viz. 
in being an efficient Cause; in being the one Divine Medium or 
Agent in creation; moreover in being the Revealer of the Father; 
and in being the Object of worship . 


CHAPTER XVII. 
INTRODUCTION TO PROVERBS vill. 22. CONTINUED. 


Absurdity of supposing a Son or Word created in order to the crea- 
tion of other creatures; as to the creation being unable to bear 
God’s immediate hand, God condescends to the lowest. Moreover, 
if the Son a creature, He too could not bear God’s hand, and an in- 
finite series of media will be necessary. Objected, that, as Moses 
who led out the Israelites was a man, so our Lord; but Moses was 
not the Agent in creation:—objected again, that unity is found in 
created ministrations ; but all such ministrations are defective and 
dependent :—again, that He learned to create, yet could God’s 
Wisdom need teaching P’and why should He learn, if the Father 
“worketh hitherto”? If the Son was created to create us, He is 
for our sake, not we for His 


CHAPTER XVIII, 


INTRODUCTION TO PROVERBS Vill. 22. CONTINUED. 
Contrast between the Father’s operations immediately and naturally 
in the Son, instrumentally by the creatures; Scripture terms illustra- 
tive of this. Explanation of these illustrations; which should be 
interpreted by the doctrine of the Church; perverse sense put on 
them by the Arians, refuted. Mystery of Divine Generation. Con- 
trast between God’s Word and man’s word drawn out at length. 
Asterius betrayed into holding two Ingenerates ; his inconsistency. 
Baptism how by the Son as well as by the Father. On the Baptism 
of heretics. Why Arian worse than other heresies : P 


. 306 


. 315 


CONTENTS. 1x 


CHAPTER XIX. 


TEXTS EXPLAINED; SIXTHLY, PROVERBS viii. 22. 
PAGE 


Proverbs are of a figurative nature, and must be interpreted as such. 
We must interpret them, and in particular this passage, by the 
Regula Fidei. “He created Me” not equivalent to “I am a 
creature.” Wisdom a creature so far forth as Its human body. 
Again, If He is a creature, it is as “a Beginning of ways,” an 
office which, though not an attribute, is a consequence, of a higher 
and divine nature. And it is “for the works,” which implies that 
the works existed, and therefore much more He, before He was 
created. Also “the Lord” not the Father “created” Him, 
which implies the creation was that ofa servant . ἔ » 342 


CHAPTER XX. 


TEXTS EXPLAINED; SIXTHLY, PROVERBS Vill. 22. CONTINUED. 


Our Lord is said to be created “ for the works,” i.e. with a par- 
ticular purpose, which no mere creatures are ever said to be. 
Parallel of Isai. 49, 5. &c. When His manhood is spoken of, a 
reason for it is added; not so when His Divine Nature; texts in 
proof : : : Ῥ : : : . 969 


CHAPTER ΧΧΙ. 
TEXTS EXPLAINED; SIXTHLY, PROVERBS Vili. 22. CONTINUED. 


Our Lord not said in Scripture to be “created,” nor the works to be 
“begotten.” “Τὴ the beginning” means, in the case of the works, 
“from the beginning.” Scripture passages explained. We are 
made by God first, begotten next; creatures by nature, sons by 
grace. Christ begotten first, made or created afterwards. Sense 
of “ First-born of the dead ;” of “ First-born among many brethren;” 
of “ First-born of all creation,” contrasted with ‘“ Only-begotten.” 
Further interpretation of “Beginning of ways,’ and “for the 
works.” Why a creature could not redeem; why redemption was 
necessary at all. Texts which contrast the Word andthe works . 36 


bo 


CHAPTER XXII. 


TEXTS EXPLAINED; SIXTHLY, THE CONTEXT OF PROVERBS Vili. 22. 
viz. 22—30. 

It is right to interpret this passage by the Regula Fidei. “ Founded” 
is used in contrast to superstructure; and it implies, as in the 
case of stones in building, previous existence. “ Before the world” 
signifies the divine intention and purpose. Recurrence to Prov. 
viii. 22. and application of it to created Wisdom as seen in the 
works. The Son reveals the Father, first by the works, then by 
the Incarnation : ‘ J : : 


CONTENTS. 


DISCOURSE III. 


CHAPTER XXIII. 


TEXTS EXPLAINED; SEVENTHLY, JOHN xiv. 10. 
. PAGE 
Introduction. The doctrine of the Coinherence. The Father and the 
Son Each whole and perfect God. They are in Each Other, 
because their Substance is One and the Same. They are Each 
Perfect and have One Substance, because the Second Person is the 
Son of the First. Asterius’s evasive explanation of the text under 
review ; refuted. Since the Son has all that the Father has, He 
is His Image; and the Father is the One Only God, because, the 
Son is in the Father : : : if . 398 


CHAPTER XXIV. 


TEXTS EXPLAINED; EIGHTHLY, JOHN xvii. 3. AND THE LIKE. 


Our Lord’s divinity cannot interfere with His Father's prerogatives, 
as the One God, which were so earnestly upheld by the Son. 
“One” is used in contrast with false gods and idols, not with the 
Son, through whom the Father spoke. Our Lord adds His Name 
to the Father’s, as being included in Him. The Father the First, 
not as if the Son were not First too, but as Origin. Ὰ . 409 


CHAPTER ΧΧν. 


TEXTS EXPLAINED; NINTHLY, JOHN x. 30. xvii. 11, &c. 


Arian explanation, that the Son is one with the Father in will and 
judgment; but so are all good men, nay things inanimate; contrast 
of the Son. Oneness between Them is in nature, because there is 
oneness in operation. Angels not objects of prayer, because they do 
not work together with God, but the Son; texts quoted. Seeing an 
Angel, is not seeing God. Arians in fact hold two Gods, and tend 
to Gentile polytheism. Arian explanation that “The Father and 
Son are one, as we are one with Christ,’ is put aside by the Regula 
Fidei, and shewn invalid by the usage of Scripture in illustrations ; 
the true force of the comparison; force of the terms used. Force 
of “in us;” force of ‘‘as;” confirmed by S. John. In what sense 
we are “in God” and His “sons” . eis Soa marek aeece 


CONTENTS. ΧΙ 


CHAPTER XXVI. 


INTRODUCTORY TO TEXTS FROM THE GOSPELS ON THE INCARNATION. 
PAGE 


Enumeration of texts still to be explained. Arians compared to the 
Jews. We must recur to the Regula Fidei. Our Lord did not 
come into, but became, man, and therefore had the acts and affec- 
tions of the flesh. The same works divine and human. Thus the 
flesh was purified, and men were made immortal. Reference to 
1 Pet. iv. 1. : ae : : : : . 436 


CHAPTER XXVII. 
TEXTS EXPLAINED ; TENTHLY, MATTHEW xxviii. 18. JOHN iil. 35. ἄο. 


These texts intended to preclude the Sabellian notion of the Son; 
they fall in with the Catholic doctrine concerning the Son; they 
are explained by “so” in John v. 26. (Anticipation of the next 
chapter.) Again, they are used with reference to our Lord’s human 
nature; and for our sake, that we might receive and not lose, as 
receiving in Him. And consistently with other parts of Scripture, 
which shew that He had the power, &c., before He received it. 
He was God and man, and His actions are often at once divine 
and human . 5 : : : : : . 451 


CHAPTER XXVIII. 
TEXTS EXPLAINED; ELEVENTHLY, MARK ΧΗ]. 32. AND LUKE ii. 52. 


Arian explanation of the former text contradicts the Regula Fidei ; 
and the context. Our Lord said that He was ignorant of the Day, 
by reason of His human nature; from sympathy with man. If the 
Holy Spirit knows the Day, therefore the Son knows; if the Son 
knows the Father, therefore He knows the Day; if He has all that 
is the Father’s, therefore knowledge of the Day; if in the Father, 
He knows the Day in the Father; if the Father’s Image, He knows 
the Day; if He created and upholds all things, He knows the Day 
when they will cease to be. He knows not, as representing us, 
argued from Matt. xxiv. 42. As He asked about Lazarus’s grave, &c. 
yet knew, so He knows; as S. Paul said, “whether in the body I know 
not,” &c. yet knew, so He knows. He said He knew not, for our 
profit, that we be not curious, (asin Acts i. 7. where on the contrary 
He did not say He knew not;) that we be not secure and slothful. 
As the Almighty asks of Adam and of Cain, yet knew, so the Son 
knows. Again, He also advanced in Wisdom as man; else He made 
Angels perfect before Himself. He advanced, in that the Godhead 
was manifested in Him more fully as time went on ; . 459 


ΧΙ CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER XXIX. 


TEXTS EXPLAINED; TWELFTHLY, MATTHEW xxvi. 39; 
JOHN xi. 27. &e. 
; PAGE 


Arian inferences are against the Regula Fidei, as before. He wept. 
and the like, as man. Other texts prove Him God. God could 
not fear. He feared because His flesh feared : 5 . 476 


CHAPTER XXX. 
OBJECTIONS CONTINUED, AS IN CHAPTERS Vil.—x. 


Whether the Son is begotten at the Father’s will? This virtually the 
same as whether Once He was not? and used by the Arians to 
introduce the latter question. The Regula Fidei answers it at once 
in the negative by contrary texts. The Arians follow the Valen- 
tinians in maintaining a precedent will; which really is only 
exercised by God towards creatures. Instances from Scripture. 
Inconsistency of Asterius. If the Son by will, there must be 
another Word before Him. If God is good, or exist, by His will, 
then is the Son by His will. If He willed to have reason or 
wisdom, then is His Word and Wisdom at His will. The Son is 
the Living Will, and has all titles which denote connaturality. 
That will which the Father has to the Son, the Son has to the 
Father. The Father wills the Son and the Son wills the Father . 484 


DISCOURSE IV. 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ; : F Ὰ Β . 497 


Subject I. 


The doctrine of the Monarchia implies or requires, not negatives, 
the substantial existence of the Word and Son. 


§§. 1—5. 

The substantiality of the Word proved from Scripture. If the One 
Origin be substantial, Its Word is substantial. Unless the Word 
and Son be a second Origin, or a work, or an attribute (and so God 
be compounded), or at the same time Father, or involve a second 
nature in God, He is from God’s Substance and distinct from Him. 
Illustration of John x. 30. drawn from Deut. iv. 4. : 9 


Ww 


CONTENTS. ΧΗ 


Subject IT. 


Texts explained against the Arians, viz. Matt. xxviii. 18. 
Phil. ii. 9. Eph. i. 20. 


§§. 6, 7. 
PAGE 


When the Word and Son hungered, wept, and was wearied, He acted 
as our Mediator, taking on Him what was ours, that He might 


impart to us what was His . . 520 
Subject III. 
Comparison of Photinians with Arians. 
§. 8. 
Arians date the Son’s beginning earlier than the Photinians . . 521 


Subject IV. 


(Being Subject 1. continued.) 
§§...9, 10. 


Unless Father and Son are two in name only, or as parts and so 
each imperfect, or two gods, they are consubstantial, one in Godhead, 
and the Son from the Father ; 3 : : . 522 


Subject V. 


(Being Subject 3. continued.) 
§§. 11, 12. 


Photinians, like Arians, say that the Word was, not indeed created, 
but developed, to create us ; as if the Divine silence were a state of 
inaction, and when God spake by the Word, He acted; or as if there 
were a going forth and return of the Word; a doctrine which 
implies change and imperfection in Father and Son : . 525 


Subject VI. 


The Sabellian doctrine of dilatation and contraction. 
§§. 13, 14. 


Such a doctrine precludes all real distinctions of personality in the 
Divine Nature. Illustration of the Scripture doctrine from 2 Cor. 


vi, 11. &e. . . 622 


X1V CONTENTS. 


Subject VII. 


On the Identity of the Word with the Son, against Photinians 
and Samosatenes. 


§§. 15—24. 
PAGE 


Since the Word is from God, He must be Son. Since the Son is 
from everlasting, He must be the Word; else either He is 
superior to the Word, or the Word is the Father. Texts of the New 
Testament which state the unity of the Son with the Father ; 
therefore the Son is the Word. Three heretical hypotheses—1. 
That the Man is the Son; refuted. 2, That the Word and 
Man together are the Son; refuted. 3. That the Word became 
Son on His incarnation ; refuted. Texts of the Old Testament 
which speak of the Son. If they are merely ey, 
then those concerning the Word may be such also . . O31 


Subject VIII. 


(Being Subject 4. continued.) 
§. 25. 
Heretical illustration from 1 Cor. xii. 4. refuted : : . 543 


Subject IX. 
(Being Subject 7. continued.) 


That the Son is the Co-existing Word, argued from the New Testa- 
ment. Texts from Old Testament continued; especially Ps. ex. 3. 
Besides, the Word in Old Testament may be Son in New, as Spirit 
in Old Testament is Paraclete in New. Objection from Acts x. 

36. urged by the Samosatenes ; answered by parallels, such as 1 Cor. 
i. 5. Lev. ix. 7. &e. Necessity of the Word’s taking flesh, viz. to 
sanctify, yet without destroying, the flesh . : ον ΡΥ Ὁ 


CORRIGENDA. 


. line 14. for for read from 
. ποία d. vid. p. 311, note i. 
. line 19. for the Word, read a word, 


note i. line 11. for there be read He be 


. line 8. for which read whom 

. heading. for Synod read Symbol 

. line 18. from fin. for does read does not 
. note r. col. 2. and 191. heading. for Father read fathers 
. note t. circ. fin. for repeats read repents twice 

. and 122. read Germinius 

. line 8. for those read whom 

. note. col. 2. for Ariorum read Arianorum 

. fin. for of Him . . . being read that He . . . was 
. note i. for interpretators read interpreters 

. note ἢ. col. 1. line 18. for the Father’s read a father’s 
. note y. fin. for Anomoean read the Anomceon 

. note col. 1. fin. for the read that 

. line 4. insert been after have 

. line 13. for is read in 

. note i. col. 2. for mentioned read mentions 

. line 12. from fin. after Grat. 30. add and passim. 

δ. line 10. omit certainly 

. line 1. for who read whom 

. ref, 4. for povds read μονάς 

. note. col. 2. line 2. for statement read implication 
. line 6. for as to all such speculations concerning read in attri- 


buting such things to 


. cire. fin. for Son ... He read son... he 

3. note. for did so read He did so 

. note k. line 6. for to come read it comes 

. note fin. for λόγον read κύριον 

. note fin. for as read in 

. line 10. for . B read ; Ὁ 

. heading. for Each read The 

3. note. col. 2. init. for singly read simply 

. three times. for drift read scope 

. note. col. 1. line 25. for bat read hardly more than 
}. note g. col. 2. lines $ and 6. for as... si read which ... si non 


bigs a Bare a Dad Dag 0 


OF 


a Ae Te FE AS ΝΑ SU GPS) 


ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, 


IN DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION. 


CHAP.” EF: 
INTRODUCTION. 


The complaint of the Arians against the Nicene Council; their fickleness ; 
they are like Jews ; their employment of force instead of reason. 


1. Tov hast done well, in signifying to me the discussion 
thou hast had with the advocates of Arianism, among whom 
were certain of the friends of Eusebius, as well as very many 
of the brethren who hold the doctrine of the Church. I 
hailed thy vigilance for the love of Christ, which excellently 
exposed the irreligion? of their heresy ; while I marvelled 
at the effrontery which led the Arians, after all the past de- 
tection of unsoundness and futility in their arguments, nay, 
after the general conviction of their extreme perverseness, 
still to complain like the Jews, “ Why did the Fathers at 
Niceea use terms not in Scripture ", ‘ Of the substance’ and 


8 εὐσέβεια, ἀσέβεια, &c. here trans- 
lated “religion, irreligion, religious, 
&c. &e.” are technical words through- 
out, being taken from S. Paul’s text, 
“ Great is the mystery of godliness,” 
εὐσεβείας, i.e. orthodoxy. Such too 
seems to be the meaning of * godly ad- 
monitions,”’ and “ godly judgments,” 
and “this godly and well-learned 
man,” in our Ordination Seryices. The 
Latin translation is ‘‘pius,’’ *‘ pietas.’’ 
It might be in some respects suitably 
rendered by ‘‘ devout ” and its deriva- 
tives. On its familiar use in the con- 
troversy depends the blasphemous jest 
of Eudoxius, Arian Bishop of Constan- 
tinople, which was received with loud 
laughter in the Cathedral, and remain- 
ed in esteem down to Socrates’s day, 
“ The Father is ἀσεβὴς, as being with- 


out devotion, the Son εὐσεβὴς devout, 
as paying devotion to the Father.” 
Socr. Hist. ii. 43. Hence Arius ends 
his Letter to Eusebius with ἀληθῶς 
εὐσέβιε. Theod. Hist. i. 4. 

> It appears that the Arians did not 
venture to speak disrespectfully of the 
definition of the Council till the date 
(A.D. 350.) ofthis work ; when Acacius 
headed them. Yet the plea here used, 
the unscriptural character of its sym- 
bol, had been suggested to Constan- 
tius on his accession, A.D. 337, by 
the Arian priest, the favourite of Con- 
stantia, to whom Constantine had 
entrusted his will, Theod. Hist. ii. 3 ; 
and Eusebius of Cesarea glances at it, 
at the time of the Council, in the letter 
to his Church, which is subjoined to 
this Treatise. 


NICEN 
Der. 


ὁμοού- 


σιον 


Ps, 2,1. 


John 6, 
30. 


Tb. 11, 
47. 


Ib. 10, 
33. 


2 The Arians, like the Jews, unwilling to believe, 


‘One in substance ?’?”? ‘Thou then, as a man of learning, 
in spite of their subterfuges, didst convict them of talking 
to no purpose ; and they in devising them were but acting 
suitably to their own evil disposition. For they are as 
variable and fickle in their sentiments, as chameleons in 
their colours ; and when exposed they look confused ; and 
when questioned they hesitate, and then they lose shame, 
and betake themselves to evasions. And then, when detected 
in these, they do not rest till they invent fresh matters which 
are not, and, according to the Scripture, imagine a vain 
thing ; and that they may be constant to their irreligion. 
2. Now such endeavours ἢ are nothing else than an obvious 
token of their defect of reason °, and a copying, as I have said, 
of Jewish malignity. Forthe Jews too, when convicted by the 
Truth, and unable to confront it, used evasions, such as What 
sign doest Thou, that we may see and believe Thee ? What dost 
Thou work ὃ though so many signs were given, that they said 
themselves, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. 
Intruth, dead men wereraised, lame walked, blind saw afresh, 
lepers were cleansed, and the water became wine, and five 
loaves satisfied five thousand, and all wondered and wor- 
shipped’ the Lord, confessing that in Him were fulfilled the 
prophecies, and that He was God the Son of God; all but 
the Pharisees, who, though the signs shone brighter than the 
sun, yet complained still, as ignorant men, Why dost Thou, 
being a man, make Thyself God? Insensate, and verily 
blind in understanding! they ought contrariwise to have 
said, “ Why hast Thou, being God, become man?” for His 
works proved Him God, that they might both worship the 


¢ Alexander also calls them chame- 
leons, Secr. i. 6. p. 12, Athanasius 
so calls the Meletians, Hist. Arian. 
§ 79. Cyril compares them to “ the 
leopard which cannot change his 
spots.” Dial. ii. init. t. v. i. Aub., Naz. 
Or. 28. 2. On the fickleness of the 
Arians, vid. infra, ὃ 4. &c. Orat. ii. 40. 
He says, ad Ep. 4g. 6. that they con- 
sidered Creeds as yearly covenants ; 
and de Synod. § 3. 4. as State Edicts. 
vid. also ὃ 14. and passim. ‘‘ What 
wonder that they fight against their 
fathers, when they fight against them- 
selves ?” § 37. [infra p. 195] 


4 ἐπιχείρημα. and so Orat. i. ὃ 44. 
init. but infra, ὃ 25. ἐπιχειρήματα 
means more definitely reasonings or 
argumentations. 

© ἀλογίας ; an allusion, frequent in 
Athanasius, to the judicial consequence 
of their denying the Word of God. 
Thus, just below, n. 3. “ Denying the 
Word” or Reason “οἵ God, reason 
have they none.” Also Orat. i. § 35. 
fin. § 40. init, § 62. Orat. ii. § 7. init. 
Hence he so often calls the Arians 
“mad” and “ deranged ;’’-e. g. “not 
aware how mad their reason is.”’ Orat, 
i. § 37. 


and fertile in exceptions. 3 


goodness of the Father, and admire the Son’s economy for παρ. 
I. 


our sakes. However, this they did not say; no, nor liked to 
witness what He was doing; or they witnessed indeed, for 
this they could not help, but they changed their ground of 
complaint again, ‘‘ Why healest Thou the paralytic, why 
makest Thou the born-blind to see, on the sabbath day ? ἢ 
But this too was an excuse, and mere murmuring; for on 


other days as well did the Lord heal all manner of sickness, mee 4, 


and all manner of disease, but they complained still accor τ 
ing to their wont, and by calling Him Beelzebub, preferred 
the suspicion of Atheism ‘, to a recantation of their own 


wickedness. 


And though in such sundry times and diverse 


manners the Saviour shewed His Godhead and preached the 


f or ungodliness, ἀθεότητος. Thus 
Aetius was called ὁ ἄθεος, the ungodly. 
de Synod. § 6; and Arius complains 
that Alexanderhad expelled himandhis 
from Alexandria, ὧς ἀνθρώπους ἀθέους. 
Theodor. Hist.i.4. ‘‘ Atheism” and 
“Atheist ” imply intention, system, 
and profession, and are so far too 
strong a rendering of the Greek. 
Since Christ was God, to deny Him 
was to deny God. The force of the 
term, however, seems to be, that, 
whereas the Son had revealed the ‘‘un- 
known God,” and destroyed the reign 
of idols, the denial of the Son was 
bringing back idolatry and its atten- 
dant spiritual ignorance. Thus in the 
Orat. contr. Gent. § 29. fin. written be- 
fore the Arian controversy, he speaks 
of ‘the Greek idolatry as full of all 
Atheism” or ungodliness, and contrasts 
with it the knowledge of ‘‘ the Guide 
and Framer of the Universe, the Fa- 
ther’s Word,” “ that through Him we 
may discern His Father,and the Greeks 
may know how far they haveseparated 
themselves fromthetruth.” And Orat. 
ii. 43. [infra p. 840] heclasses Arians 
with the Greeks, who ‘‘ though they 
have the name of God in their mouths, 
incur the charge of Atheism, because 
they know not the real and true God, 
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 
(vid. also Basil in Eunom., ii. 22.) 
Shortly afterwards he gives a further 
reason for the title, observing that 
Arianism was worse than previous he- 
resies, such as Manicheism, inasmuch 
as the latter denied the Incarnation, 
but it tore from God’s substance His 


connatural Word, and, as far as its 
words went, infringed upon the per- 
fections and being of the first Cause. 
And so ad Ep. 2g. § 17. fin. he says, 
that it alone, beyond other heresies, 
“has been bold against the Godhead 
Itselfin a mad way, (μανικώτερον, vid. 
foregoing note) denying that there isa 
Word, and that the Father was always 
Father. [Hist. tracts p. 146 O.T.]” 
Elsewhere, he speaks more generally, 
as if Arianism introduced ‘anAtheism 
or rather Judaism against the Scrip- 
tures, being next door to Heathenism, 
sothatits disciple cannot beeven named 
Christian ; for all such tenets are con- 
trary to the Scriptures ;” andhemakes 
this the reason why the Nicene Fathers 
stopped their ears and condemned it. 
ad Ep. Aig. ὃ 13. For the same reason 
he calls the heathen ἄθεοι, atheistical 
or ungodly, ‘‘who are arraigned of ir- 
religion by Divine Scripture.’”’ Orat. 
contr. Gent. § 14. vid. εἰδώλων ἀθεό- 
τητα. § 46. init. Moreover, he calls 
the Arian persecution worse than the 
pagan eruelties,and therefore “ a Ba- 
bylonian Atheism,” Ep. Encyel. § 5. 
{ Hist. tracts p.9.0.T.] as not allowing 
the Catholics the use of prayer and 
baptism, with a reference to Dan. yi. 
11, &c. Thus too he calls Constantius 
atheist, for his treatment of Hosius ; 
οὔτε τὸν θεὸν φοβηθεὶς ὃ ἄθεος. Hist. 
Arian. 45. [Hist. tracts p. 260 O.T.] 
Another reason for the title seems to 
haye lain in the idolatrous character ef 
Arian worship on its own shewing, 
viz. as worshipping One whom they 
yet maintained to be a creature. 


B2 


NICEN. 


DEF. 


6 Ὁ, 


John 18, 
12. 


4. And, like the Jews, have recourse to violence. 


Father to all men, nevertheless, as kicking against the pricks, 
they contradicted in the language of folly, and this they did, 
according to the divine proverb, that by finding occasions, 
they might separate themselves from the truth &. 

3. As then the Jews of that day, for acting thus wickedly 
and denying the Lord, were with justice deprived of their 
laws and of the promise made to their fathers, so the Arians, 
Judaizing now, are, in my judgment, in circumstances like 
those of Caiaphas and the contemporary Pharisees. For, 
perceiving that their heresy is utterly unreasonable, they in- 
vent excuses, “ Why was this defined, and not that?” Yet 
wonder not if now they practise thus; for in no long time 
they will turn to outrage, and next will threaten the band 
and the captain*. Forsooth in these their heterodoxy has 
such consistence as we see; for denying the Word of God, 
reason have they none at all, as is equitable. Aware then of 
this, I would have made no reply to their interrogations ; 
but, since thy friendliness! has asked to know the transac- 
tions of the Council, I have without any delay related at once 
what then took place, shewing in few words, how destitute 
Arianism is of a religious spirit, and how its very business 
is to frame evasions. 


ΒΑ reference to Proy. xviii. 1. duced us instead of the deacons of the 


which runs in the Septuagint, “a man 
seeketh occasions, when desirous of 
separating himself from friends.” 

h Apparently an allusion to the text 
in the margin. Elsewhere, he speaks 
of *‘ the chief captain” and ‘‘ the go- 
yernor,” with an allusion to Acts xxiii, 
2224. &c. &c. Hist. Arian. § 66. fin. 
[Hist. tracts. p.278 O.T.] vid. also § 2. 
Speaking of the Council of Tyre, A. D. 
335. he asks, Apol. contr. Arian. § 8. 
{Ib. p. 25] ‘‘ How venture they to 
call that a Council in which a Count 
presided, and an executioner was pre- 
sent, and a registrar [or jailer] intro- 


Church ?” yid. also § 10. and 45. Orat. 
ii. § 43. Ep. Encycl. § 5. Against 
the use of violence in religion, vid. 
Hist. Arian. ὃ 33. 67. (Hil. ad Const. 
i.2.) On the other hand, he observes, 
that at Nicwa, “it was not necessity 
which drove the judges to” their deci- 
sion, ‘‘ but all vindicated the Truth from 
deliberate purpose.’ ad Ep. #g. 13. 

i διάθεσις. vid. also Hist. Arian. ὃ 45. 
Orat. ii. § 4. where Parker maintains 
without reason that it should be trans- 
lated, ““ external condition.” yid. also 
Theod. Hist. i. 4. init. 


CHAP. If 
CONDUCT OF THE ARIANS TOWARDS THE NICENE COUNCIL. 


Ignorant as well as irreligious to attempt to reverse an Ecumenical Council ; 
proceedings at Niczea; Eusebians then signed what they now complain of ; 
on the unanimity of true teachers and the process of tradition; changes 
of the Arians. 


1. Anp do thou, beloved, consider whether it be not so. 1, 
the devil having sowed their hearts with this perverseness *, 
they feel confidence in their bad inventions, let them defend 
themselves against the proofs of heresy which have been ad- 
vanced, and then will be the time to find fault, if they can, 
with the definition framed against them'. For no one, on 
being convicted of murder or adultery, is at liberty after 
the trial to arraign the sentence of the judge, why he spoke 
in this way and not inthat™. For this does not exculpate 
the convict, but rather increases the crime on the score of 
petulance and audacity. In like manner, let these either 
prove that their sentiments are religious, (for they were then 
accused and convicted, and their complaints are since, and 


Kk ἐπισπείραντος τοῦ διαβόλου, the 
allusion is to Matt. xiii. 25, and is very 
frequent in Athan. chiefly with a refer- 
ence to Arianism. He draws it out at 
length, Orat. ii. ὃ 34. Elsewhere, he 
uses the image for the evil influences 
introduced into the soul upon Adam’s 
fall, contr. Apoll. i. § 15. as does S. 
Ireneus, Her. iy. 40. n. 3. [p. 443 
O.T.] using it of such as lead to back- 
sliding in Christians, ibid. ν. 10. n. 1. 
[Ρ. 470 O.T.], Gregory Nyssen, of the 
natural passions and of false reason 
misleading them, de An. et Resurr. p. 
640. vid. also Leon. Ep. 156. ας. 2. 

' The Council did two things, ana- 
thematize the Arian positions, (at the 
end of the Creed,) and establish the 
true doctrine by the insertion of the 
phrases, ‘of the substance ” and ‘‘one 
in substance,” Athan. says that the 
Arians must not criticise the latter be- 
fore they had cleared themselves of the 
former. Thus he says presently, that 
they were at once irreligious in their 


faith and ignorant in their criticism ; 
and speaks of the Council negativing 
their formule, and substituting those 
which were “‘sound and ecclesiastical.”’ 
vid. also n. 4. 

m And so S. Leo passim concerning 
the Council of Chalcedon, “ Concord 
will be easily established, if the hearts 
of all concur in that faith which &c, 
no discussion being allowed whatever 
concerning any retractation,” Ep. 94. 
He ealls such an act a “magnum sacri- 
legium,” Ep. 157. ¢.3. “Τὸ be seeking 
for what has been disclosed, to retract 
what has been perfected, to tear up 
what has been laid down (definita), 
what is this but to be unthankful for 
what we gained?” Ep. 162. vid. the 
whole of it. He says that the attempt 
is ‘no mark of a peace-maker but a 
rebel.” Ep. 164. c. 1. fin. yid. also Epp. 
145, and 156, where he says, none can 
assail what is once determined, but 
“aut antichristus aut diabolus.” c. 2. 


Cuap. 
II. 


6 Hquiwocations and variations of the Arians. 


Nicey. it is just that those who are under a charge should confine 


PF: _ themselves to their own defence,) or if they have an unclean 
conscience, and are aware of their own irreligion, let them not 
complain of what they do not understand, or they will bring 
on them a double imputation, of irreligion and of ignorance. 

on Rather let them investigate the matter in a docile spirit, and 


Orat. iii, learning what hitherto they have not known, cleanse their 
- τὰ irreligious ears with the spring of truth and the doctrines of 
aa religion !. 

§ 3. 2. Now it happened to the Eusebians in the Nicene Council 
as follows :—while they stood ont in their irreligion, and at- 
tempted their fight against God", the terms they used were 
replete with irreligion; but the assembled Bishops who were 
more than three hundred, mildly and charitably required of 
them to explain and defend themselves on religious grounds. 
Scarcely, however, did they begin to speak, when they were 
convicted°®, andone differed from another; then perceiving the 
straits in which their heresy lay, they remained dumb, and by 
their silence confessed the disgrace which came upon their 
heterodoxy. Onthisthe Bishops, having negatived the terms 
they had invented, published against them the sound and ec- 
clesiastical faith ; and, whereas all subscribed it, the Euse- 
bians subscribed it also inthose very words, of which they are 
now complaining, I mean, “of the substance” and “one in 
substance,” and that “the Son of God is neither creature or 

* γενητῶν work, nor in the number of things generated *, but that the 
Wordis an offspring from the substance of the Father.” And 
what is strange indeed, Eusebius of Czesarea in Palestine, who 

* πρὸ μιᾶς had denied the day before®, but afterwards subscribed, sent to 
his Church a letter, saying that this was the Church’s faith, 
andthe tradition of the Fathers; and made a public profession 
that they were before in error, and were rashly contending 
against the truth. For though he was ashamed at that time to 

" θεομαχεῖν. θεομάχοι. vid. Acts y. Eunom. ii. 27. fin. χριστομάχων. Ep. 
39. xxiii. 9. are of very frequent use in 236. init. vid. also Cyril (Thesaurus 
Athan. as is χριστομάχοι, in speaking p. 19 6. p. 24 e.). θεομάχοι is used of 
of the Arians, vid. infra passim. also other heretics, 6. g. the Manichees, by 
ἀντιμαχόμενοι τῷ σωτῆρι Ep. Encycl. Greg. Naz. Orat. 45. § 8. 
§ 5. (Hist. tracts p. 8 O.T.] And in ° i. e. * convicted themselves,” infr. 
the beginning of the controversy, § 18. init. ἑαυτῶν ἀεὶ κατήγοροι, ad 
Alexander ap. Socr. i. 6. p. 10. b. ὁ. Ep. Aig. § 6. i. e. by their variations, 


p- 12. p. 13. Theod. Hist. i. 38. p. 729, vid. Tit. iii. 11. αὐτοκατάκριτος. 
And so θεομάχος γλῶσσα, Basil. contr. 


An ecumenical Council cannot be reversed. @ 
adopt these phrases, and excused himself to the Church in 
his own way, yet he certainly means to imply all this in his 
Hpistle, by his not denying the “ one in substance,” and “of 
the substance.”’ And in this way he got into a difficulty ; for 
while he was excusing himself, he went on to attack the 
Arians, as stating that “the Son was not before His gene- 
ration,” and thereby hinting at a denial of His existence 
before His birth in the flesh. And this Acacius is aware 
of also, though he too through fear may pretend otherwise 
because of the times and deny the fact. Accordingly I have 
subjoined at the end of these remarks the letter of Husebius, 
that thou mayest know from it the inconsiderateness towards 
their own doctors, shewn by Christ’s enemies, and singularly 
by Acacius himself?. 

3. Are they not then committing a crime, in their very 
thought to gainsay so great and ecumenical a Council? are 
they not in transgression, when they dare to confront that 
good definition against Arianism, acknowledged, as it is, by 
those who had in the first instance taught them irreligion? 
And supposing, even after subscription, the Eusebians did 
change again, and return like dogs to their own vomit of’ 


Cuap. 
11: 


ὃ 4. 


προπί- 


VOVTES 


irreligion, do not the present gainsayers deserve still greater via. 


detestation, because they thus sacrifice’ their souls’ liberty 
to others; and are willing to take these persons, as masters 


de rie 


of their heresy, who are, as James has said, double-minded James 1, 


men, and unstable in all their ways, not having one opinion, 
but changing to and fro, and now recommending certain 
statements, but soon dishonouring them, and in turn recom- 
mending what just now they were blaming? But this, as 
the Shepherd has said, is “the child of the devil4,” and 


He 


P The party he is writing against is 
the Acacian, of whom he does not seem 
to have had much distinct knowledge. 
He contrasts them again and again in 
the passages which follow with the 
Eusebians of the Nicene Council, and 
says that he is sure that the ground 
they take when examined will be found 
substantially the same as the Eusebian. 
vid. § 6. init. et alib. § 7. init. § 9. cir. 
Sin. § 10. cir. fin. § 18. init. τότε καὶ 
νῦν. § 18. eire. fin. § 28. fin. Acacius 
was a pupil of Eusebius’s, whom he 


succeeded in the see of Cesarea. 
attempted to defend Arianism neither 
under the cloak of Semiarianism, nor 
with the bold logic of the Anomeeans, 
but by a pretended adherence to Serip- 
ture. His formula was the ὅμοιον 
(like), as the Semiarian was the 
ὁμοιούσιον (like in substance), and the 
Anomeean, as the word signifies, the 
ἀνόμοιον, or unlike. 

4 Hermas, Pastor. ii. 9. whois speak- 
ing immediately, as S. James, of wa- 
vering in prayer. 


NIcEn. 


DEF. 


§ 5. 


vid. 


1 John 2, 
7. 


1 Tim. 3, 
8. 


Gal. 1, 
9. 8. 


8 Mutual agreement the note of doctors of the Church. 


the note of dealers rather than of doctors. For, what our 
Fathers have delivered, this is truly doctrine; and this is 
truly the token of doctors, to confess the same thing with 
each other, and to vary neither from themselves nor from 
their fathers; whereas they who have not this character, 
are not to be called true doctors but evil. Thus the Greeks, 
as not witnessing to the same doctrines, but quarrelling 
one with another, have no truth of teaching; but the holy 
and veritable heralds of the truth agree together, not differ. 
For though they lived in different times, yet they one and 
all tend the same way, being prophets of the one God, and 
preaching the same Word harmoniously '. 

4, And thus what Moses taught, that Abraham observed ; 
and what Abraham observed, that Noe and Enoch acknow- 
ledged, discriminating pure from impure, and becoming ac- 
ceptable to God. For Abel too in this way witnessed, having 
knowledge in the truths which he had learned from Adam, 
who himself had learned from that Lord, who said, when He 
came at the end of the ages for the abolishment of sin, “I 
give no new commandment unto you, but an old command- 
ment, which ye have heard from the beginning.” Where- 
fore also the blessed Apostle Paul, who had learned it from 
Him, when describing ecclesiastical functions, forbade that 
deacons, not to say bishops, should be double-tongued ; and 
in his rebuke of the Galatians, he made a broad declaration, 
If any one preach any other Gospel unto you than that ye 
have received, tet him be anathema, as I have said, so say I 
again. ΠΡ even an Angel from heaven should preach unto 
you any other Gospel than that ye have received, let him be 
anathema. Since then the Apostle thus speaks, let these 


_ men either anathematize the party of Husebians, at least as 


changing round and professing what is contrary to their sub- 
scriptions ; or, if they acknowledge that their subscriptions 
were good, let them not utter complaints against so great a 
Council. But if they do neither the one nor the other, they 
are themselves too plainly at the sport of every wind and 
surge, and are influenced by opinions, not their own, but 

* Thus S. Basil says the same of the Hexaem. i. 2. vid. also Theod. Gree. 
Grecian Sects, ‘‘ We have not the task Affect. i. p. 707. &e. August. Ciy. Dei, 


of refuting their tenets, for they suf- xviii. 41. and Vincentius’s celebrated 
fice for the overthrow of each other.” Commonitorium passim. 


Occasion of the present Epistle. 9 


of others, and being such, are as little worthy of deference Cuap. 
now as before, in what they allege. Rather let them cease we 
to carp at what they understand not; lest so it be that not 
knowing to discriminate, they at hazard call evil good and 
good evil, and think that bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter. 
Doubtless, they desire that doctrines which have been judged 
wrong and have been reprobated should gain the ascend- 
ancy, and they make violent efforts to prejudice what was 
rightly defined. Nor is there reason on our part for any 
further explanation, or answer to their excuses, or for further 
resistance on theirs, but for an acquiescence in what the 
leaders of their heresy subscribed; for though the subse- 
quent change of those Eusebians was suspicious and immoral, 
their subscription, when they had the opportunity of at least 
some little defence of themselves, is a certain proof of the 
irreligion of their doctrine. For they did not subscribe with- 
out thereby condemning the heresy, nor did they condemn 
it, without being encompassed with difficulty and shame; so 
that to change back again is a proof of their contentious zeal 
for irreligion. There is reason then, as I have said, that the 
present men should keep quiet; but since from an extra- 
ordinary want of modesty, they hope perhaps to be able to 
advocate this diabolical’ irreligion better than the others, 
therefore, though in my former letter written to thee, I have 
already argued at length against them, notwithstanding, 
come let us now also examine them, in each of their separate 
statements, as their predecessors ; for now not less than then 
their heresy shall be shewn to have no soundness in it, but 
to be from evil spirits. 


5 This is Athan.’s deliberate judg- 


ment. vid. de Sent. Dion. fin, where he 
says, ‘‘ Who then will continue to call 
these men Christians, whose leader is 
the devil, and not rather diabolical Ὁ ἢ 
and he adds, ‘‘ not only Christ’s foes, 
χριστομάχοι, but diabolical also.” In 
§ 24. he speaks of Arius’s ‘‘ hatred of 
the truth.” Again, ‘‘ though the dia- 
bolical men rave.” Orat. iii. § 8. [infra 
p- 410] “ friends of the devil, and his 
spirits.” Ad Ep. Ag. 5. Another 


reason of his so accounting them, 
was their atrocious cruelty towards 
Catholics; this leads him elsewhere to 
break out. ‘*O new heresy, that has 
put on the whole deyil in irreligious 
doctrine and conduct !”’ Hist. Arian. 
§ 66. [Hist. tracts p. 277 O.T.] also 
Alexander, ‘diabolical,’ ap. Theod. 
Hist. i. 3. p. 731. ‘ satanical,”’ ibid. p. 
741. vid. also Socr.i. 9. p. 90 fin. Hilar. 
contr. Const. 17. 


NIcEn. 
DEF. 


§ 6. 


CHAP. III. 
THE MEANING OF THE WORD SON AS APPLIED TO OUR LORD. 


Two senses of the word, 1. adoptive ; 2. substantial ; attempts of Arians to 
find a third meaning between these ; e.g. that our Lord only was created 
immediately by God; Asterius’s view ; or that our Lord alone partakes 
the Father. The second and true sense; God begets as He makes, really ; 
though His creation and generation not like man’s ; His generation inde- 
pendent of time ; generation implies an internal, and therefore an eternal, 
act in God; explanation of Proy. viii. 22. 


1. Tuy say then what the others held and dared to main- 
tain before them ; “ Not always Father, always Son ; for the 
Son was not before His generation, but, as others, came to 
be from nothing; and in consequence God was not always 
Father of the Son; but, when the Son came to be and was 
created, then was God called His Father. For the Word is 
a creature and work, and foreign and unlike the Father in 
substance ; and the Son is neither by nature the Father’s 
true Word, nor His only and true Wisdom; but being a 
creature and one of the works, He is by a strong figure § 
called Word and Wisdom; for by the Word which is in 


God was He made, as were all things. 


is not true God *.”’ 


Wherefore the Son 


2. Now it may serve to make them understand what they 
are saying, to ask them first this, what in fact a son is, and of 


what is that name significant ἃ, 


5 καταχρηστικῶς. This word is no- 
ticed and protested against by Alex- 
ander, Socr. Hist. i. 6. p. 11 a. by the 
Semiarians at Ancyra, Epiph. Her. 73. 
n. 5. by Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 23. 
and by Cyril, Dial. ii. Ὁ. v. i. pp. 432, 3. 

τ vid. ad Ep. Hg. 12. Orat. i. § 5. 


᾿ 6. de Synod. 15, 16. Athanas. seems 


to have had in mind Socr. i. 6. p. 10, 
11. or the like. 

ἃ vid. Orat. i. ὃ 38. The controver- 
sy turned on the question what was 
meant bytheword ‘“Son.”’ Though the 
Arians would not allow with the Catho- 
lics that our Lord was Son by nature, 
and maintained that the word implied 


In truth, Divine Scripture 


a beginning of existence, they did not 
dare to say that He was Son merely 
in the sense in which we are sons, 
though, as Athan. contends, they ne- 
cessarily tended to this conclusion, 
directly they receded from the Catholic 
view. Thus Arius said that He was 
a creature, “‘but not as one of the 
creatures.” Orat. ii. § 19. [infra p. 307] 
Valens at Ariminum said the same. 
Jerom. ady. Lucifer. 18. Hilary says, 
that not daring directly fo deny that 
he was God, the Arians merely asked 
‘whether He was a Son.” de Trin. 
viii. 3. Athanasius remarks upon this 
reluctance to speak out, challenging 


Our Lord’s Sonship is not the reward of virtue. 11 
acquaints us with a double sense of this word :—one which 
Moses sets before us in the Law, When thow shalt hearken 
to the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep all His command- 
ments which I command thee this, day, to do that which is 
right in the eyes of the Lord thy God, ye shall be children 
of the Lord your God; as also in the Gospel, John says, 
But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to 
become the sons of God :—and the other sense, that in which 
Isaac is son of Abraham, and Jacob of Isaac, and the Patri- 
archs of Jacob. Now in which of these two senses do they 
understand the Son of God in such fables as the foregoing ? 
for I feel sure they will issue in the same irreligious tenet 
with the Husebians. 

3. If in the first, which belongs to those who gain the 
mame by grace from moral improvement, and receive power 
to become sons of God, (for this is what their predecessors 
said,) then He would seem to differ from us in nothing ; no, 
nor would He be Only-begotten, as having obtained the title 
of Son as others from His virtue. For granting what they 
say, that, whereas His qualifications were foreknown ', He 
therefore received grace from the first, the name, and the 
glory of the name, from His very first beginning, still there 
will be no difference between Him and those who receive 
the name upon their actions, so long as this is the ground 
on which He as others has the character of son. For Adam 
too, though he received grace from the first, and upon his 
creation was at once placed in paradise, differed in no respect 
either from Enoch, who was translated thither after his 
birth on his pleasing God, or from the Apostle, who likewise 
was caught up to Paradise after his actions; nay, not from 
the thief, who on the ground of his confession, received a 
promise that he should be forthwith in paradise. 


them to present “ the heresy naked,” 
de Sent. Dionys. 2. init. ‘‘ No one,” 
he says elsewhere, ‘puts a light under 
a bushel; let them shew the world 
their heresy naked.’ ad Ep. Aig. 18. 
vid. ibid. 10. In like manner, Basil 
says that (though Arius was really 
like Eunomius, in faith, contr. Eunom. 
i. 4.) Aetius his master was the first to 
teach openly (φανερῶς), that the Fa- 
ther’s substance was unlike, ἀνόμοιος, 


the Son’s. idid.i.1. Epiphanius Her. 
76. p. 949. seems to say that the elder 
Arians held the divine generation in 
a sense in which Aetius did not, that 
is, they were not so consistent and defi- 
niteas he. Athan. goes on to mention 
some of the attempts of the Arians to 
find some theory short of orthodoxy, 
yet short of that extreme heresy, on 
the other hand, which they feltashamed 
to ayow. 


Cuap. 
Til. 


Deut. 13, 
183 14,1. 


John 1, 
12. 


1 Theod. 
Hist. i. 
3. p. 732. 


NIcEN. 
yet 


J / 
γέγονε 


δι ὕπουρ- 


Der. 


you 


Is. 


40, 


28. 


Ib 


. 29. 


12 Nor does it mean that He was created to create others. 


4. When thus pressed, they will perhaps make an answer 
which has brought them into trouble many times already ; 
“ We consider that the Son has this prerogative over others, 
and therefore is called Only-begotten, because He alone was 
brought to be! by God alone, and all other things were created 
by God through the Son ἡ. Now I wonder who it was’ that 
suggested to you so futile and novel an idea as that the 
Father alone wrought with His own hand the Son alone, and 
that all other things were brought to be by the Son as by 
an under-worker’. If for the toil-sake God was content with 
making the Son only, instead of making all things at once, 
this is an irreligious thought, especially in those who know 
the words of Esaias, The everlasting God, the Lord, the 
Creator of the ends of the earth, hungereth not, neither is 
weary ; there is no searching of His understanding. Rather 
it is He who gives strength to the hungry, and through 
His Word refreshes the labouring. Again, it is irreligious 
to suppose that He disdained, as if a humble task, to 
form the creatures Himself which came after the Son; for 
there is no pride in that God, who goes down with Jacob 
into Egypt, and for Abraham’s sake corrects Abimelec 
because of Sara, and speaks face to face with Moses, himself 
a man, and descends upon Mount Sinai, and by His secret 
grace fights for the people against Amalec. However, you 
are false in your fact, for we are told, He made us, and not 
we ourselves. He it is who through His Word made all 
things small and great, and we may not divide the creation, 
and says this is the Father’s, and this the Son’s, but they are 
of one God, who uses His proper® Word as a Hand 2, and in 
Him does all things. As God Himself shews us, when He 


x This is celebrated as an explana- 
tion of the Anomeeans. yid. Basil. 
contr. Eunom. ii. 20,21. though Athan. 
speaks of it as belonging to the elder 
Arians. vid. Socr. Hist. i. 6. p. 11. 

Σ i.e. what is your authority ? is it 
not a novel, and therefore a wrong 
doctrine ἢ vid. infr. § 13. ad Serap. i. 
3. Also Orat. i. §8. [infra pp. 190,191] 
“© Who ever heard such doctrine? or 
whence or from whom did they hear 
it? who, when they were under cate- 
chising, spoke thus to them? If they 
themselves confess that they now hear 
it for the first time, they must grant 


that their heresy is alien, and not from 
the Fathers.” yid. ii. § 84. and Soer, 
5, (0305 11 Ὁ: 

z vid. infr. § 17. Orat. 11. § 31. 71. 
Ireneus calls the Son and Holy Spirit 
the Hands of God. Her. iv. pref. 
[p. 310 O.T. cf. also pp. 452, 458, 460, 
517] vid. also Hilar. de Trin. vii. 22. 
This image is in contrast to that of 
instrument, ὄργανον, which the Arians 
would use of the Son, vid. Soer. i. 6. 
p- 11. as implying He was external to 
God, whereas the word Hand implies 
His consubstantiality with the Father. 


Nor that He alone could endwre God’s creative hand. 13 
says, All these things hath My Hand made ; And Paul taught 
us as he had learned®, that There is one God, from whom all 
things ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things. 
Thus He, always as now, speaks to the sun and it rises, 
and commands the clouds and it rains upon one place; and 
where it does not rain, it is dried up. And He bids the 
earth to bear fruit, and fashions Jeremiasinthe womb. But 
if He now does all this, assuredly at the beginning also He 
did not disdain to make all things Himself through the 
Word; for these are but parts of the whole. 

5. But let us suppose that the other creatures could not 
endureto be wrought by the absolute Hand of the Ingenerate’, 
and therefore the Son alone was brought into being by the 
Father alone, and other things by the Son as an underworker 
and assistant, for this is what Asterius the sacrificer has 
written, and Arius has transcribed? and bequeathed to his 
own friends, and from that time they use this form of words, 
broken reed as it is, being ignorant, the bewildered men, how 
brittle it is. For if it was impossible for things generated 
to bear the hand of God, and you hold the Son to be one of 
their number, how was He too equal to this formation by 
Godalone ? and if a Mediator became necessary that things 
generated might come to be, and you hold the Son to be 
generate, then must there have been some medium before 
Him, for His creation; and that Mediator himself again being 
a creature, it follows that he too needed another Mediator for 
his own constitution. And though we were to devise another, 
we must first devise his Mediator, so that we shall never come 
toanend. And thus a Mediator being ever in request, never 
will the creation be constituted, because nothing generate, as 
you say, can bear the absolute hand of the Ingenerate*. And 
if, on your perceiving the extravagance of this, you begin to 
say that the Son, though a creature, was made capable of 


ἃ μαθὼν ἐδίδασκεν, implying the tra- 
ditional nature of the teaching. And 
so S. Paul himself, 1 Cor. xv, 3. vid. 
for an illustration, supr. ὃ 5. init. also 
note y. 

b Asterius is one of the most famous 
of the elder Arians, and his work in 
defence of the heresy is frequently 
quoted by Athanasius, vid. infr. 20. 


Orat. i. § 31. ii. § 24. 28. 37. 40. iii. 
§ 2. 60. de Synod. § 18.19. He was 
by profession a Sophist, and a pupil of 
Lucian’s. He lapsed in the persecution 
of Maximian, and sacrificed, as inti- 
mated in the text. 

¢ vid. infr. § 24. Orat. i. § 15. fin. 
ii. § 29. Epiph. Heer. 76. p. 951. 


CHAP. 
ILI. 
Is. 66, 2. 
1 Cor. 8, 

6. 


§ 8. 
ἀκράτου 
ἀγενή- 
του 
1 Orat. ii. 
§ 24. fin. 


2 vid. also 
infr.§ 20. 
de Synod. 
§ 17. 


14 Ifthe Sononly first made, He is not of differentnature from others. 


NICEN. 


Der. 


§ 9. 


Jer. 1, 5. 
Is. 66, 2. 


Ib. 44, 
94. 


Ps. 119, 
76. 


Is. 49, 5. 


being made by the Ingenerate, then it follows that other 
things also, though generated, are capable of being wrought 
immediately by the Ingenerate; for the Son too is but a 
creature in your judgment, as all of them. And accordingly 
the generation of the Word is superfluous, according to your 
irreligious and futile imagination, God being sufficient for the 
immediate formation of all things, and all things generate 
being capable of sustaining His absolute hand. 

6. These irreligious men then having so little mind amid 
their madness, let us see whether this particular sophism be 
not even more irrational than the others. Adam was created 
alone by God alone through the Word ; yet no one would say 
that Adam had any prerogative over other men, or was dif- 
ferent from those who came after him, granting that he alone 
was made and fashioned by God alone, and we all spring 
from Adam, and consist according to succession of the race, 
so long as he was fashioned from the earth as others, and at 
first not being, afterwards came to be. But though we were 
to allow some prerogative to the Protoplast as having been 
vouchsafed the hand of God, still it must be one of honour 
not of nature. For he came of the earth, as other men; and 
the hand which then fashioned Adam, now also and ever is 
fashioning and giving entire consistence to those who come 
after him. And God Himself declares this to Jeremias, as 
I said before; Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew 
thee; and so He says of all, All those things hath My hand 
made; and again by Hsaias, Thus saith the Lord, thy 
redeemer, and He that formed thee from the womb, I am 
the Lord that maketh all things ; that stretcheth forth the 
heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by Myself. 
And David, knowing this, says in the Psalm, Thy hands 
have made me and fashioned me ; and He who says in Hsaias, 
Thus saith the Lord who formed Me from the womb to be 
His servant, signifies the same. Therefore, in respect of 
nature, he differs nothing from us though he precede us in 
time, so long as we all consist and are created by the same 
hand. If then these be your thoughts, O Arians, about 
the Son of God too, that thus He subsists and came to be, 
then in your judgment He will differ nothing on the score of 
nature from others,solong as He too was not, and came tobe, 


His Sonship does not mean that He only partakes the Father. 15 


and the name was by grace united to Him in His creation 
for His virtue’s sake. For He Himself is one of those, from 
what you say, of whom the Spirit says in the Psalms, He Ps. 33, 9. 
spake the word, and they were made; He commanded, and 
they were created. If so, who was it to whom God gave 
command ‘ for the Son’s creation? for a Word there must be 
to whom God gave command, and in whom the works are 
created ; but ye have no other to shew than the Word ye 
deny, unless indeed you should devise again some new 
notion. 

7.“Yes,” they will say, “we have another;” (which indeed 
Ihave formerly heard the Eusebians use), “on this score do 
we consider that the Son of God has a prerogative over 
others, and is called Only-begotten, because He alone par- 
takes the Father, and all other things partake the Son.’ 
Thus they weary themselves in changing and varying their 
professions, like so many hues; however, this shall not save ad 
them from an exposure, as men who speak words to no pur- eee 
pose out of the earth, and wallow as in the mire of their own 
devices. For if He were called God’s Son, and we the § 10. 
Son’s sons, their fiction were plausible; but if we too are said 
to be sons of that God, of whom He is Son, then we too 
partake the Father*, who says, I have begotten and exalted Is. 1, 2. 
children. For if we did not partake Him, He had not 
said, I have begotten ; but if He Himself begat us, no other 
than He is our Father’. And, as before, it matters not, 
whether the Son has something more and was made first, but 


CuHap. 
ΠῚ. 


4 Jn like manner, “ Men were made 
through the Word, when the Father 
Himself willed.” Orat. i. 63. [infra p. 
269] ‘The Word forms matter as in- 
joined by, and ministering to, God.” 
προσταττόμενος καὶ ὑπουργῶν. ibid. ii. 
§ 22. [infra p. 311.] contr. Gent. 46. 
vid. p. 311, note i. 

© His argument is, that if the Son 
but partook the Father in the sense in 
which we partake the Son, then the 
Son would not impart to us the Father, 
but Himself, and would be a separat- 
ing as well as uniting medium between 
the Father and us ; whereas He bring’s 
us so near to the Father, that we are 
the Father’s children, not His, and 
therefore He must be Himself one with 
the Father, or the Father must be in 
Him with an incomprehensible com- 


pleteness. vid. de Synod. § 51. contr. 
Gent. 46. fin. Hence S. Austin says, 
** As the Father has life in Himself, so 
hath He given also to the Son to have 
life in Himself, not by participating, 
but in Himself. For we have not life 
in ourselves, but in our God. But that 
Father, who has life in Himself, begat 
a Son such, as to have life in Himself, 
not to become partaker of life, but to 
be Himself life ; and of that life to 
make us partakers.” Serm. 127. de 
Verb. Evang. 9. [on the N,T. pp. 558, 
559 O.T.] 

f «To say God is wholly par- 
taken, is the same as saying that God 
begets.” Orat. i. § 16. [infra p. 203] 
And in like manner, our inferior par- 
ticipation involves such sonship as is 
vouchsafed to us. 


NICEN. 
DEF. 


Matt. 25, 
94. 
ib. 21,23. 


1 ἄνθρω- 
ποπαθὴς 


16 No sense of Sonship can be maintained but the Catholic. 


we something less, and were made afterwards, as long as we 
all partake, and are called sons, of the same Father’. For 
the more or less does not indicate a different nature ; but 
attaches to each according to the practice of virtue ; and one 
is placed over ten cities, another over five; and some sit on 
twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel; and others 
hear the words, Come, ye blessed of My Father, and, Well 
done, good and faithful servant. With such ideas, how- 
ever, no wonder they imagine that of such a Son God was 
not always Father, and such a Son was not always in being, 
but was generated from nothing as a creature, and was not 
before His generation; for such an one is other than the 
True Son of God. 

8. But to persist in such teaching does not consist with 
piety ", for it is rather the tone of thought of Sadducees and 
Samosatene!; it remains then to say that the Son of God 
is so called according to the other sense, in which Isaac 
was son of Abraham ; for what is naturally begotten from 
any one and does not accrue to him from without, that in 
the nature of things is a son, and that is what the name 


implies *. 


g And so in Orat. ii. § 19—22. 
“Though the Son surpassed other 
things on a comparison, yet He were 
equally a creature with them; for even 
in those things which are of a created 
nature, we may find some things sur- 
passing others. Star, for instance, 
differs from star in glory, yet it does 
not follow that some are sovereign, 
and others serve, &c.” ii. § 20 [infra 
p- 309]. Andso Gregory Nyssen contr. 
Eunom. iii. p. 182 Ὁ. Epiph. Her. 
76. p. 970. 

h j, e. since it is impossible they 
can persist in eyasions so manifest as 
these, nothing is left but to take the 
other sense of the word. 

i Paul of Samosata is called Samo- 
satene, as John of Damascus Damas- 
cene, from the frequent adoption of the 
names Paul and John. Hence also 
John Chrysostom, Peter Chrysologus, 
John Philoponus. Paul was Bishop 
of Antioch in the middle of the third 
century, and was deposed for a sort of 
Sabellianism. He was the friend of 
Lucian, from whose school the principal 
Arians issued. His prominent tenet, 
to which Athan. seems here to allude, 


Is then the Son’s generation one of human! af- 


was that our Lord became the Son by 
προκοπὴ. or growth in holiness, (vid. 
Luke ii, 53. προέκοπτε,) ‘advancing as 
aman,” Orat. iii. § 51 [infra p. 472]. 
Or he may be alluding to his doctrine 
of our Lord’s predestination, referred 
to supr. § 6. cir. fin. for Paul spoke 
of Him as ‘‘ God predestined before 
ages, but from Mary receiving the 
origin of His existence.’’ contr. Apoll. 
i. 20. 

k The force lies in the word φύσει, 
“naturally,” which theCouncilexpress- 
ed still more definitely by “substance.” 
Thus Cyril says, ‘‘ the term ‘Son’ de- 
notes the substantial origin from the 
Father.” Dial.5.p.573. And Gregory 
Nyssen, “ the title ‘ Son’ does not sim- 
ply express the being from another’ 
(vid. infra; ὃ 19.), but relationship ae- 
cording to nature. contr. Eunom. ii. 
p- 91. Again S. Basil says, that Father 
is ‘‘a term of relationship,” οἰκειώσεως. 
contr. Eunom. ii. 24. init. And hence 
he remarks, that we too are properly, 
κυρίως, sons of God, as becoming related 
to Him through works of the Spirit. 
ii. 23. So also Cyril, loc. cit. Else- 
where, S. Basil defines father “one 


Ν 


ee 


17 


Divine generation is not as human. 


fection ? (for this perhaps, as their predecessors}, they too Cuap. 

will be ready to object in their ignorance ;)—in no wise; for —!Il-_ 

God is not as man, nor man as God. Men are created 

of matter, and that passible!; but God is immaterial and ᾿ παθητι- 

incorporeal. And if so be the same terms are used of God ἢ 

and man in divine Scripture, yet the clear-sighted, as Paul 

injoins, will study it, and thereby discriminate, and dispose 

of what is written according to the nature of each subject, 

and avoid any confusion of sense, so as neither to conceive 

of the things of God in a human way, nor to ascribe the 

things of man to God™. For this were to mix wine with 

water *, and to place upon the altar strange fire with that: yia. 

which is divine. eee 
9. For God creates, and to create is also ascribed to men ; ST ile 

and God has being*, and men are said to be, having received 3 ὧν ἐστι. 

from God this gift also. Yet does God create as men do? 

or is His being as man’s being? Perish the thought; we 

understand the terms in one sense of God, and in another of 

men. For God creates, in that He calls what is not into 

being, needing nothing thereunto; but men work some 

existing material, first praying, and so gaining the wit to 

make, from that God who has framed all things by His proper 

Word. And again men, being incapable of self-existence, 

are inclosed in place, and consist in the Word of God; but 


who gives to another the origin of be- 
ing according to a nature like his 
own ;” and ason ‘‘one who possesses 
the origin of being from another by 
generation,” contr. Eun. ii. 22. Onthe 
other hand, the Arians at the first de- 
nied that ‘‘ by nature there was any 
Son of God.” Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 732. 

1 vid. Eusebius, in his Letter sub- 
joined : also Soer. Hist. i. 8. Epiphan. 
Her.69. n. 8. and 15. 

™ One of the characteristic points 
in Athanasius is his constant attention 
to the sense of doctrine, or the mean- 
ing of writers, in preference to the 
words used. Thus he scarcely uses the 
symbol ὁμοούσιον, one in substance, 
throughout his Orations, and in the de 
Synod. acknowledges the Semiarians 
as brethren. Hence infr. ὃ 18. [p. 32] 
he says, that orthodox doctrine “ is 
revered by all, though expressed in 
strange language, provided the speaker 


means religiously, and wishes to con- 
vey by it a religious sense.” vid. also 
§ 2]. Hesays, that Catholics are able 
to ‘‘speak freely,” or to expatiate, 
παῤῥησιαζόμεθα, ** out of Divine Scrip- 
ture.’ Orat. i. § 9. vid. de Sent. 
Dionys. § 20. init. Again: ‘* The devil 
spoke from Scripture, but was silenced 
by the Saviour ; Paul spoke from pro- 
fane writers, yet, being a saint, he has 
a religious meaning.”’ de Syn. ὃ 39. 
also ad Ep. 4g. 8. Again, speaking of 
the apparent contrariety between two 
Councils, ‘* It were unseemly to make 
the one conflict with the other, for all 
their members are fathers; and it 
were profaneto decide that these spoke 
well and those ill, for all of them have 
slept in Christ.” § 43. also § 47. 
Again: ‘Not the phrase, but the 
meaning and the religious life, is the 
recommendation of the faithful.’ ad 


Ep. Aig. § 9. 


NICEN. 
Der. 


1 Gro 


ουσι 


ey 


on 


rn 


18 


As God creates, so He begets, incomprehensibly. 


God is self-existent, inclosing all things, and inclosed by 
none; within all according to His own goodness and power, 
yet without all in His proper nature". As then men create 
not as God creates, as their being is not such as God’s 
being, so men’s generation is in one way, and the Son is 


from the Father in another 9, 


For the offspring of men are 


portions of their fathers, since the very nature of bodies is 
not uncompounded, but transitive ?, and composed of parts ; 
and men lose their substance! in begetting, and again they 
gain substance from the accession of food. And on this 
account men in their time become fathers of many children ; 


n Vid. also Incarn. ὃ 17. This 
contrast is not commonly found in 
ecclesiastical writers, who are used to 
say that God is present every where, 
in substance as well as by energy or 
power. S. Clement, however, expresses 
himself still more strongly in the same 
way, ‘‘In substance far off, (for how 
can the generate come close to the 
Ingenerate?) but most close in power, 
in which the universe is embosomed.” 
Strom. 2. cire. init. but the parenthe- 
sis explains his meaning. vid. Cyril. 
Thesaur. 6. p. 44. The common doc- 
trine of the Fathers is, that God is 


* present every where in substance. vid. 


Petay. de Deo, iii. 8. and 9. It may 
beremarked, that S. Clement continues 
“ neither inclosing nor inclosed.” 

9. In Almighty God is the perfection 
and first pattern of what is seen in sha- 
dow in human nature, according to the 
imperfection of the subject matter; and 
this remark applies, as to creation,so to 
generation, Athanasius is led to state 
this more distinctly in another connec- 
tion in Orat. i. § 21. fin. [infra p. 212] 
“It belongs to the Godhead alone, 
that the Father is properly (κυρίως) 
Father, and the Son properly (κυρίως) 
Son; and in Them and Them only 
does it hold that the Father is ever 
Father, and the Son ever Son.” Ac- 
cordingly he proceeds, shortly after- 
wards, as in the text, to argue, ‘* [The 
heretics] ought in creation also to 
supply Gaod with materials, and so to 
deny him to be Creator ; but ifthe bare 
idea of God transcends such thoughts, 
and a man belieyes that He isin being, 
not as we are, and yet in being, as 
God, and that He creates not as man 
creates, but yet creates as God, there- 
fore He begets also, not as men beget, 
but begets as God. For God does not 


make men His pattern, but rather we 
men, for that God is proper/yand alone 
truly Father of His Son, are also eall- 
ed fathers ef our own children, for ‘ ef 
Him is every father-hood in heayen and 
on earth named.’ ” § 23. [p. 214] The 
Semiarians at Ancyra quote the same 
text forthe same doctrine. Epiphan. 
Heer. 73.5. As do Cyrilin Joan. i. p. 
24. [p. 27 0.1.1, Thesaur. 32. p. 281. 
and Damascene de Fid. Orth. i. 8. 
The same parallel, as existing beween 
creation and generation, is insisted 
on by Isidor. Pel. Ep. iii. 355. Basil 
contr. Eun. iv. p. 280 A., Cyril The- 
saur. 6. p. 43. Epiph. Heer. 69. 36. and 
Gregor. Naz. Orat. 20. 9. who observes 
that God creates witha word, Ps. 148, 
5. which evidently transcends human 
creations. Theodorus Abucara, with 
the same object, draws out the parallel 
of life, (wy, as Athan. that of being, 
εἶναι. Opuse. iii. p. 420—422. 

P vid. de Synod. § 51. Orat.i. ὃ 
15. 16. ῥευστὴ. vid. Orat.i. § 28. Bas. 
in Eun. ii. 28. ῥύσιν. Bas. in Eun. ii. 
6. Greg. Naz. Orat. 28. 22. Vid. contr. 
Gentes, 8 41. where Athan. without re- 
ferenceto the Arian controversy, draws 
out the contrast between the Godhead 
and human nature. “The nature of 
things generated, as having its subsist- 
ence from nothing, is of a transitive 
(ῥευστὴ) and feeble and mortal sort, 
considered by itself ; seeing then that 
it was transitive and dissoluble, lest 
this should take place, and it should be 
resolved into its original nothing, God 
governs and sustains it all by His own 
Word, whois Himself God,” and who, 
as he proceeds, ὃ 42. “remaining Him- 
selfimmoveable with the Father, moves 
all things in His own consistence, as 
each may seem fit to His Father.” 
Joan. i. p. 24 [p. 27 O.T.] 


eT eee 


Divine generation is not material, but spiritual. 19 


but God, being without parts, is Father of the Son without Cnap. 
partition or passion; for there is neither effluence '4 of the soles 
Immaterial, nor accession from without, as among men ; and ee ia 
being uncompounded in nature, He is Father of One Only 
Son. This is why He is Only-begotten, and alone in the 
Father’s bosom, and alone is acknowledged by the Father to 

be from Him, saying, This is My beloved Son, in whom I ain Matt. 3, 
well pleased. And He too is the Father’s Word, from which le 
may be understood the impassible and impartitive nature of 
the Father, in that not even a human word is begotten with 
passion or partition, much less the Word of God?. Where- 
fore also He sits, as Word, at the Father’s right hand: for 
where the Father is, there also is His Word; but we, as His 
works, stand in judgment before Him; and He is adorable, 
because He is Son of the adorable Father, but- we adore, 
confessing Him Lord and God, because we are creatures 
and other than He. 

10. The case being thus, let who will among them consider 
the matter, so that one may abash them by the following ques- 
tion; Is it right to say that what is God’s offspring and proper 
to Him is out of nothing? or is it reasonable in the very idea, 
that what is from God has accrued to Him, that a man should 
dare to say that the Son was not always? For in this again 
the generation of the Son exceeds and transcends the 
thoughts of man, that we become fathers of our own children 
in time, since we ourselves first were not and then came into 
being; but God, in that He ever is, is ever Father of the Son’. 


9 


$l 


4 8. Cyril, Dial. iv. init. p. 505 E. 
speaks of the θρυλλουμένη ἀποῤῥοὴ, 
and disclaims it, Thesaur. 6. p. 48. 
Athan. disclaims it, Expos. § 1. Orat. i. 
§ 21. So does Alexander, ap. Theod. 
Hist. i. 3. p. 743. On the other hand, 
Athanasius quotes it inapassage which 
he adduces from Theognostus, infra, 
§ 25. and from Dionysius, de Sent. D. 
§ 23. and Origen uses it, Periarchon, i. 
2. It is derived from Wisd. vii. 25. 

The title ““ Word” implies the in- 
effable modeof the Son’s generation, as 
distinct from material parallels, vid. 
Gregory Nyssen, contr. Eunom. iii. 
p- 107. Chrysostom in Joan. Hom. 2. 
§ 4. Cyril Alex. Thesaur. 5. p. 37. 
Also it implies that there is but One 
Son. vid. infra, § 16. ** As the Origin 
is one substance, so its Word and Wis- 


C 


dom is one, substantial andsubsisting.”’ 
Athan. Orat. iy. 1. fin. [infra p. 514] 
s «* Man,” says S. Cyril, “ inasmuch 
as he had a beginning of being, also 
has of necessity a beginning of beget- 
ting, as what is from him is a thing 
generate, but... . if God’s substance 
transcend time, or origin, or interval, 
His generation too will transcend 
these; nor does it deprive the Divine 
Nature of the power of generating, 
that it doth not this in time. For 
other than human is the manner of 
diyine generation; and together with 
God’s existing is His generating im- 
plied, and the Son was in Him by 
generation, nor did His generation 
precede His existence, but He was 
always, and that by generation.” 
Thesaur. y. p. 35. 
9 


~ 


pice 


πε τ 
27. 


John 14, 
6. 


waters *, 


20 Asis symbolized by the words Light, Fountain, Life, Sc. 


And the generation of mankind is brought home to us from 
things that are parallel ; but, since no one knoweth the Son but 
the Father, and no one knoweth the Father but the Son, and 
he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him, therefore the sacred 
writers to whom the Son has revealed Him, have given us a 


. certain image from things visible, saying, Who is the bright- 


ness of His glory, and the Kupression of His Person; and again, 
For with Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we 
see light ; and when the Word chides Israel, He says, Thou | 
hast forsaken the Fountain of wisdom; and this Fountain it 
is which says, They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living 
And mean indeed and very dim is the illustration ! 
compared with what we desiderate; but yet it is possible 
from it to understand something above man’s nature, instead 


- of thinking the Son’s generation to be on a level with ours. 


For who can even imagine that the radiance of light ever 
was not, so that he should dare to say that the Son was not 
always, or that the Son was not before His generation? or 
who is capable of separating the radiance from the sun, or to 
conceive of the fountain as ever void of life, that he should 
madly say, “The Son is from nothing,’ who says, 1 am 


τ the life, or “alien to the Father’s substance,” who says, 


Ib. 9. 


Orat. ii. 
through- 
out. 


He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father ? for the sacred 
writers wishing us thus to understand, have given these 
illustrations ; and it is indecent and most irreligious, when 
Scripture contains such images, to form ideas concerning 
our Lord from others which are neither in Scripture, nor 
have any religious bearing. 

11. Thereforelet them tell us, from what teacher or by what 
tradition they derived these notions concerning the Saviour? 
“We have read,” they will say, “in the Proverbs, The Lord 
hath created Me a beginning of His ways unto His works*; 
this the Husebians used to insist on", and you write me word, 


is neither creature, nor part of Him 
whose Word He is, nor an offspring 


τ vid. infra passim. All these titles, 
“Word, Wisdom, Light,” &c. serve 


to guard the title « Son” from any 
notions of parts or dimensions, e. ρ΄. 
** He is not composed of parts, but 
being impassible and single, He is im- 
passibly and indivisibly Father of the 
Son...for...the Word and Wisdom 


NG hs AUS Orat. i. § 28. [infra 
pp. 220, 221] 

ἃ Eusebius of Nicomedia quotes it in 
his Letter to Paulinus, ap. Theodor. 
Hist. i. 5. And Eusebius of Caesarea 
Demonstr. Evang. v. 1. 


Creation is an external act, generation an internal. 21 


that the present men also, though overthrown and confuted (παρ. 
by an abundance of arguments, still were putting about in UE 
every quarter this passage, and saying that the Son was one 

of the creatures, and reckoning Him with things generated |. 1 γενη- 
But they seem to me to havea wrong understanding of this 7° 
passage also; for it has a religious and very orthodox sense, 
which, had they understood, they would have blasphemed 

the Lord of giory. For on comparing what has been above 
stated with this passage, they will find a great difference be- 
tweem them*. For what man of right understanding does 

not perceive, that what are created and made are external 

to the maker; but the Son, as the foregoing argument has 
shewn, exists not externally, but from the Father who begat 

Him? for man too both builds a house and begets a son, and 

no one would mismatch things, and say that the house or the 

ship were begotten by the builder ὅ, but the son was created pa 
and made by him; nor again that the house was animage of ” ~ 


the maker, but the son unlike him who begat him; but 
rather he will confess that the sonis an image of the father, 

but the house a work of art, unless his mind be disordered, 

and he beside himself. Plainly, divine Scripture, which 
knows better than any the nature of everything, says through 
Moses, of the creatures, In the beginning God created the Gen. 1, 
heaven and the earth ; but of the Son it introduces the Father !° 
Himself saying, I have begotten Thee from the womb before Ps. 110, 
the morning star; and again, Thou art My Son, this day a 2,7. 
have I begotten Thee. And the Lord says of Himself in the 
Proverbs, Before all the hills He begets Me ; and concerning Proy. 8, 
things generated and created John speaks, All things were ee L 
made by Him; but preaching of the Lord, he says, The 3. 
Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He 1": 18. 
hath declared Him. If then son, therefore not creature ; 

if creature, not son; for great is the difference between 
them, and son and creature cannot be the same, unless 

his substance be considered to be at once from God, and 
external to God. 


x i.e. “ Granting thatthe primd fa- His creation, that we must interpret 
cie impression of this text is in favour this text by them. [Ὁ cannot mean 
of our Lord’s being a creature, yet 580. that our Lord was simply created, de- 
many arguments have been already cause we have already shewn that He 
brought, and may be added, against is not external to His Father.” 


NIcEN. 
DEF. 


§ 14. 


1 αἰώνων 


Heb. 2, 


~ 


15. 


Prov. 8, 
22. 


22 


The Son was created when He came in our flesh. 


12. “ Has then the passage no meaning ?”’ for this, like a 


-swarm of gnats, they are droning about us’. No surely, it is 


not without meaning, but has a very apposite one ; for it is 
true to say that the Son was created too, but this took place 
when He became man; for creation belongs toman. And 
any one may find this sense duly given in the divine oracles, 
who, instead of accounting their study a secondary matter, in- 
vestigates the time and characters 5, and the object, and thus 
studies and ponders what he reads. Now as to the season 
spoken of, he will find for certain that, whereas the Lord 
always 1s, at length in fulness of the ages! He became man ; 
and whereas He is Son of God, He became Son of man.also. 
And as to the object he will understand, that, wishing to 
annul our death, He took on Himselfa body from the Virgin 
Mary; that by offering this unto the Father a sacrifice for 
all, He might deliver us all, who by fear of death were all 
our life through subject to bondage. And as to the character, 
it is indeed the Saviour’s, but is said of Him when He took 
a body and said, The Lord has created Me a beginning of 
iTis ways unto His works. For as it properly belongs to 


_God’s Son to be everlasting, and in the Father’s bosom, so 


2 Sent. D. 
9. Orat. 
3, § 26— 
41. 


on His becoming man, the words befitted Him, The Lord 
created Me. For then it is said of Him, and He hungered, 
and He thirsted, and He asked where Lazarus lay, and 
He suffered, and He rose again*. And as, when we hear 
of Him as Lord and God and true Light, we understand 
Him as being from the Father, so on hearing, The Lord 
created, and Servant, and He suffered, we shall justly ascribe 
this, not to the Godhead, for it is irrelevant, but we must 
interpret it by that flesh which He bore for our sakes ; for to 
it these things are proper, and this flesh was none other’s 
than the Word’s. Andif we wish to know the objectattained 


Υ περιβομβοῦσιν. So in ad Afros. 5. 
init. And Sent. D. § 19. περιέρχονται 
περιβομβοῦντες. And Gregory Nyssen. 
contr. Eun. viii. p. 234 C. ὡς ἂν τοὺς 
ἀπείρους ταῖς πλατωνικαῖς καλλιφωνίαις 
περιβομβήσειεν. vid. also περιέρχονται 
ὡς of κάνθαροι. Orat. iii. fin. 

% πρόσωπα. vid. Orat. i. ὃ 54. 11. § 8. 
Sent. D. 4. not persons, but eharae- 
ters; which must also be considered 


the meaning of the word, contr. Apoll. 
ii. 2. and 10; though it there approxi- 
mates (even in phrase, οὐκ ἐν διαιρέσει 
προσώπων) to its ecclesiastical use, 
which seems to have been later. Yet 
persona occurs in Tertull. in Prax. 27 ; 
it may be questioned, however whe- 
ther in any genuine Greek treatise till 
the Apollinarians. 


By the Word becoming man, men become gods. 23 


by this, we shall find it to be as follows; that the Word was ὕπαρ, 
made flesh in order to offer up this body for all, and that 1: 
we, partaking of His Spirit, might be made gods, a gift which 

we could not otherwise have gained than by His clothing 
Himself in our created body!; for hence we derive our! Orat. 2, 
name of “men of God” and “ men in Christ.” But as we, τ 
by receiving the Spirit, do not lose our own proper sub- 
stance, so the Lord, when made man for us, and bearing a 

body, was no less God; for He was not lessened by the 
envelopment of the body, but rather deified it and rendered 

it immortal *. 


* “remaining Himself aia and not changed by His human economy 
and presence in the flesh.” Orat. ii. 6. [infra p. 289] 


CHAP. IV. 
PROOF OF THE CATHOLIC SENSE OF THE WORD SON. 


Power, Word or Reason, and Wisdom, the names of the Son, imply 
eternity ; as well as the Father’s title of Fountain. The Arians reply that 
these do not formally belong to the essence of the Son, but are names 
given Him; that God has many words, powers, &c. Why there is but 
one Son and Word, ἕο. All the titles of the Son coincide in Him. 


1. Tuts then is quite enough to expose the infamy of the 
Arian heresy ; for, as the Lord has granted, out of their own 
words is irreligion brought home to them”. But come now 
and let us on our part act on the offensive, and call on them 
for an answer ; for now is fair time, when their own ground 
has failed them, to question them on ours; perhaps it may 
abash the perverse, and disclose to them whence they have 
fallen. We have learned from divine Scripture, that the Son 
of God, as was said above, is the very Word and Wisdom of 
the Father. For the Apostle says, Christ the power of God 
and the Wisdom of God; and John after saying, And the Word 
was made flesh, at once adds, And we have seen His glory, 
the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace 
and truth ; so that, the Word being the Only-begotten Son, 
in this Word and in Wisdom heaven and earth and all that is 
therein were made. And of this Wisdom that God is Foun- 
tain we have learned from! Baruch, by Israel’s being charged 
with having forsaken the Fountain of Wisdom. If then they 
deny Scripture, they are at once aliens to their name, and 


1 vid. 
supr. 
§ 12. 


b The main argument of the Arians 
wasthat our Lord was a Son,and there- 


τ fore was not eternal, but of a substance 


which had a beginning. With this 
Arius started in his dispute with Alex- 
ander. ‘* Arius, a man not without 
dialectic skill, thinking that the Bishop 
was introducing the doctrine of Sabel- 
lius the Libyan, out of contention fell 
off into the opinion diametrically oppo- 
site,. ...and he says, ‘Jf the Father 


begot the Son, he that was begotten 
had a beginning of existence; andfrom 
this it is plain that once the Son was 
not; and it follows of necessity that He 
had His subsistence out of nothing.” 
Socr. i. 5. Accordingly Athanasius 
says, “‘Haying argued with them as 
to the meaning of their own selected 
term ‘Son,’ let us go on to others, 
which on the very face make for us, 
such as Word, Wisdom, &c.”’ 


To deny God’s Wisdom, is to deny that God is wise. 25 

may fitly be called of all men atheists!, and Christ’s enemies, Cuap. 
for they have brought upon themselves these names. But if της - 
they agree with us that the sayings of Scripture are divinely supr.p.3. 
inspired, let them dare to say openly what they think in ποθ ἐν 
secret that God was once wordless and wisdomless ὃ; and let 

them in their madness? say, “ There was once when He was ἢ vid. 
not,” and, ‘‘ before His generation, Christ was not‘;” and ape 
again let them declare that the Fountain begat not Wisdom 

from Itself, but acquired It from without, till they have the 

daring to say, “ The’ Son came of nothing ;” whence it will 

follow that there is no longer a Fountain, but a sort of 

pool, as if receiving water from without, and usurping the 

name of Fountain °. 

2. How full of irreligion this is, I consider none can doubt § 16. 
who has ever solittle understanding. Butsince they whisper 
something about Word and Wisdom, being only names of 
the Son‘, we must ask then, If these are only names of the 


© ἄλογος, ἄσοφος. vid. infra, § 26. 
This is a frequent argument in the con- 
troversy, viz. that to deprive the Father 
of His Sonorsubstantial Word,(Adyos,) 
is as great a sacrilege as to deny His 
Reason, Adyos, from which the Son re- 
ceives His name. Thus Orat.i. § 14. fin. 
[infra p. 202] Athan. says, ‘‘ imputing 
to God’s nature an absence of His 
Word, (ἀλογίαν or irrationality, ) they 
are most irreligious.” vid. § 19. fin. 
24. Elsewhere, he says, ‘‘Is a man 
not mad himself, who even entertains 
the thought that God is word-less and 
wisdom-less ? for such illustrations 
and such images Scripture hath pro- 
posed, that, considering the inability of 
human nature to comprehend concern- 
ing God, we might even from these, 
however poorly and dimly, discern as 
far as is attainable.” Orat. ii. 32. 
{infra pp. 325, 826] vid. also iii. 63. 
iv. 14. Serap. ii. 2. 

4 These were among the original 
positions of the Arians; the former is 
mentioned by Socrates, vid. note b. the 
latter is one of those specified in the 
Nicene Anathema. 

ὁ And so πηγὴ ξηρά. Serap. ii. 2. 
Orat. i. § 14 fin. also ii. § 2. [infra 
pp. 283, 284] where Athanasius speaks 
as if those who deny that Almighty 
God is Father, cannot really believe 
in Him as a Creator. ‘‘ If He be not 
a Son, let Him be called a work, and 


let God be ealled, not Father, but 
Framer only and Creator, and not of 
a generative nature. But if the divine 
substance benot fruitful, (καρπογόνος.) 
but barren, as they say, as a light 
which enlightens not, anda dry foun- 
tain, are they not ashamed to main- 
tain that He possesses the creative 
energy ?” vid. also πηγὴ θεότητος. 
Pseudo-Dion. Diy. Nom. ec. 2. πηγὴ ἐκ 
πηγῆπ, οἵ {πὸ Son. Epiphan. Ancor. 19. 
And Cyril, ‘If thou take from God 
His being Father, thou wilt deny the 
generative power (καρπογόνον) of the 
divine nature, so that It no longer is 
perfect. This then is a token of its 
perfection,and the Son who went forth 
from Him apart from time, is a pledge 
(copays) to the Father that He is 
perfect.” Thesaur. p. 37. 

f Arius said, as the Eunomians after 
him, that the Son was not really, but 
only called, Word and Wisdom, which 
were simply attributes of God, and the 
prototypes of the Son. vid. Soer. i. 6. 
p- ΤΙ, Theod. Hist. 1,3. p.731. Athan. 
asks, Is the Son then more than wis- 
dom ? if on the other hand He:be less, 
still He must be so called because of 
some gift or quality in Him, analogous 
to wisdom, or of the nature of wisdom, 
and admitting of improvement and 
growth. But this was the notorious 
doctrine of Christ’s προκοπὴ or ad- 
vancement. “‘laminwonder,” hesays, 


NICEN. 


Der. 


John 10, 
30. 

1 βελτι- 
οὔσθαι 


20 The Arian objection that God had many words. 

Son, He must be something else beside them. And if He 
is higher than the names, it is not lawful from the lesser to 
denote the higher; but if He be less than the names, yet He 
surely must have in Him the principle of this more honour- 
able appellation ; and this implies His advance, which is an 
irreligion equal to any thing that has gone before. For He 
who is in the Father, and in whom also the Father is, who 
says, 1 and the Father are one, whom he that hath seen, hath 
seen the Father, to say that He has been improved ! by any 
thing external, is the extreme of madyess. 

3. However, when they are beaten hence,and like the Kuse- 
bians are in these great straits, then they have this remaining 
plea, which Arius too in ballads, and in his own Thalia’, 
fabléd, as a new difficulty: “ Many words speaketh God ; 
which then of these are we to call Son and Word, Only- 
begotten of the Fathers?’ Insensate, and any thing but 


Orat. ii. § 37. [infra pp. 331, 332] 
“ how, whereas God is one, these 
men introduce after their private no- 
tions, many images, and wisdoms, and 
words, and say that the Father’s proper 
and natural Word is other than the 
Son, by whom He even made the Son, 
and that the real Son is but notionally 
called Word, as vine, and way, and 
door, and tree of life; and Wisdom 
also only in name,—the proper and 
true Wisdom of the Father, which co- 
exists with Him without generation 
being other than the Son, by which He 
even made the Son, and named Him 
Wisdom as partaking of it.” He goes 
on to observe in ὃ 38. [ib. 999] that to 
be consistent they should explain away 
not only word, wisdom, &c. but the 
title of being as applied to Him ; ‘‘ and 
then what is He? for He is none of 
these Himself, if they are but His 
names, and He has but a semblance of 
being, and is decorated with these 
names by us.” 

5. As the Arians took the title Son in 
that part of its earthly sense in which 
it did not apply to our Lord, so they 
misinterpreted the title Word also ; 
which denoted the Son’s immateriality 
and indivisible presence in the Father, 
but did not express His perfection. 
vid. Orat. ii. § 34-36. which precedes 
the passage quoted in the last note. 
“< As our word is proper to us and from 
us, and not a work external to us, so 
also the word of God is proper to Him 


and from Him,and is not made, yet not 
as the word of man, else one must con- 
sider God as man. Men have many 
words, and after those many, not any 
one of them all; for the speaker has 
ceased, and thereupon his word fails. 
But God’s Word is one and the same, 
and as it is written, ‘remaineth for 
ever, not changed, not first one and 
then another, but existing the same 
always. For it behoved that God being 
one, one should be His Image, one His 
Word, one His Wisdom,” § 86. [infra 
p- 331] vid. contr. Gent. 41. ad Ep. 
fig. 16. Epiph. Her. 65. 3. Nyss. in 
Eun. xii. p. 349. Origen,(in a passage, 
however, of questionable doctrine,) 
says, “ As there are gods many, but to 
usone Godthe Father, and many lords, 
but to us one Lord Jesus Christ, so 
there are many words, but we pray 
that in us may exist the Word that 
was in the beginning, with God, and 
God.” in Joan. tom. ii. 3. ‘Many 
things, it is acknowledged, does the 
Father speak to the Son,” say the 
Semiarians at Ancyra, ‘‘ but the words 
which God speaks to the Son, are not 
sons. They are not substances of God, 
but vocal energies; but the Son,though 
a Word, is not such, but, being a Son, 
is a substance.” Epiph. Her. 738. 12. 
The Semiarians are speaking against 
Sabellianism, which took the same 
ground bere as Arianism; so did the 
heresyof Samosatene, whoaccording to 
Epiphanius, considered our Lord, the 


Tf our Lord is the Word, He is the Son and the Image. 27 


Christians"! for first,on using such language about God, they 
conceive of Him almost as a man, speaking and reversing His 
first words by His second, just as if one Word from God were 
not sufficient for the framing of all things at the Father’s 
will, and for His providential care of all. For His speaking 
many words would argue a feebleness in them all, each need- 
ing the service of the other. But that God should have one 
Word, which is the true doctrine, both shews the power of 
God, and the perfection of the Word that is from Him, and 
the religious understanding of them who thus believe. 

4, O that they would consent to confess the truth from 
this their own statement! for if they once grant that God 
produces words, they plainly know Him to be a Father; and 
acknowledging this, let them consider that, while they are 
loth to ascribe one Word to God, they are imagining that 
He is Father of many ; and while they are loth to say that 
there is no Word of God at all, yet they do not confess that 
Heis the Son of God,—which is ignorance of the truth, and 
inexperience in divine Scripture. For if God is altogether 
Father of a word, wherefore is not He a Son that is be- 
gotten? And again, Son of God who should be, but His 
Word? For there are not many words, or each would be 
imperfect, but one is the Word, that He only may be per- 
fect, and because, God being one, His image too must be 
one, whichis the Son. For the Son of God, as may be learnt 
from the divine oracles themselves, is Himself the Word of 
God, and the Wisdom, and the Image, and the Hand, and 
the Power; for God’s offspring is one, and of the generation 
from the Father these titles are tokens‘. For if you say the 


internal Word, or thought. Heer. 65. 
The term word in this inferior sense 
is often in Greek ῥῆμα. Epiph. supr. 
and Cyril, de Incarn. Unig. init. t. v. i. 
p- 679. 

h ἐς Tf they understood and acknow- 
ledged the characteristic idea (xapar- 
τῆρα) of Christianity, they would not 
have said that the Lord of glory was a 
creature.” ad Serap. ii. 7. In Orat. i. 
§ 2. he says, Arians are not Christians 
because they are Arians, for Christians 
are called, not from Arius, but from 
Christ, who is their only Master. vid. 
also de Syn. § 38. init, Sent. D. fin. Ad 


Afros. 4. Their cruelty and cooperation 
with the heathen populace was another 
reason. Greg. Naz. Orat. 25. 12. 

i All the titles of the Son of God are 
consistent with each other, and vari- 
ously represent one and the same 
Person. ‘‘Son” and ‘ Word,’ de- 
note His derivation; ‘‘Word” and 
“Tmage,”’ His Similitude ; ‘‘ Word” 
and ‘* Wisdom,” His immateriality ; 
“ς Wisdom” and ‘‘ Hand,’ His co- 
existence. “ If He is not Son, neither 
is He Image.” Orat. ii. § 2 [infra p. 
283). “ον is there Word and Wis- 
dom, unless He be a proper offspring of 


(παρ. 


§ 17. 


NIcEN. 
DEF. 


Ts. 48, 
8% 


Is. 51, 
16. 


Ps. 104, 
24, 


Prov. 3, 
19. 


John 1, 
1—3. 


28 The Names of the Son 


Son, you have declared what is from the Father by nature; and 
if you imagine the Word, you are thinking again of what is 
from Him, and what is inseparable; and, speaking of Wisdom, 
again you mean just as much, what is not from without, but 
from Him and in Him; and if you name the Power and the 
Hand, again you speak of what is proper to substance; and, 
speaking of the Image, you signify the Son; for what else is 
like God but the offspring from Him ? Doubtless the things, 
which came to be through the Word, these are founded in 
Wisdom; and what are laid in Wisdom, these are all made 
by the Hand, and came to be through the Son. And we have 
proof of this, not from external sources, but from the Scrip- 
tures; for God Himself says by Hsaias the Prophet; My 
hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and My right 
hand hath spanned the heavens. And again, And I have 
covered them in the shadow of My Hand, that I may plant 
the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth. And David 
being taught this, and knowing that the Lord’s Hand was 
nothing else than Wisdom, says in the Psalm, In wisdom hast 
Thou made them all ; the earth is full of Thy riches. Solomon 
also received the same from God, and said, The Lord by 
wisdom hath founded the earth; and John, knowing that 
the Word was the Hand and the Wisdom, thus preached, In 
the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, 
and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning 
with God: all things were made by Him, and without Him 
was not any thing made. And the Apostle, understanding 
that the Hand and the Wisdom and the Word was nothing 
else than the Son, says, God, who at sundry times and in 
divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the 
Prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, 
whom He hath appointed Heir of all things, by whom also He 
made the ages. And again, There is one Lord Jesus Christ, 
through whom are all things, and we through Him. And 
knowing also that the Word, the Wisdom, the Son was the 
Image Himself of the Father, he says in the Hpistle to the 
Colossians, Giving thanks to God and the Father, which 


His substance? ii. § 22 [infra p. 311]. i. 18. Hilar. de Trin. vii. 11. August. 
vid. also Orat. i. § 20,21. andat great in Joan. xviii. 6. [pp. 640, 641 O.T.] 
length Orat. iv. § 20. &c. vid. also Naz. and in Psalm 44, (45,) 5. [vol. 2 pp. 
Orat. 30. n. 20. Basil. contr. Eunom. 292, 233 O.T.| 


s 


—— a φήου σαβῃ 


il ἝΞ 


ee ee ee ee Ψω, 


ee να εν δ ϑ Ψν ννυγνυ τὰν νη βὴη 


ee υυν ὐ οὍδο 


imply His Divinity. 29 
hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the 
Saints in light, who hath delivered us from the power of 
darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His 
dear Son; in whom we have redemption ', even the remission 
of sins ; who is the Image of the Invisible God, the First- 
born of every creature; for by Him were all things created, 
that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invi- 
sible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, 
or powers; all things were created by Him and for Hin ; 
and He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 
For as all things are created by the Word, so, because He is 
the Image, are they also created in Him*. And thus any one 
who directs his thoughts to the Lord, will avoid stumbling 
upon the stone of offence, but rather will go forward to that 
brightness which is reflected from the light of truth ; for this 
is really the doctrine of truth, though these contentious men 
burst with spite !, neither religious toward God, nor abashed 
at their confutation. 


k vid. a beautiful passage, contr. 
Gent. 42. &c. Again, of men, “ He 
made them after His own image, im- 
parting to them of the power of His 
proper Word, that, having as it were 
certain shadows of the Word, and be- 
coming rational, λογικοὶ, they might be 
enabled to continue in blessedness.” 
Incarn. 3. vid. also Orat. ii. 78. [infra 


p- 391] where he speaks of Wisdom 
as being infused into the world on its 
creation, that it might possess “ἃ type 
and semblance of Its Image.” 

ι διαῤῥαγῶσιν, and so Serap. ii. fin. 
διαῤῥηγνύωνται. de Syr. 34. διαῤῥηγνύ- 
wow ἑαυτούς. Orat. ii. ὃ 23. σπαρατ- 
τέτωσαν ἑαυτούς. Orat. ii. § 64. τριζέτω 
τοὺς ὀδόντας. Sent. 1). 16. 


(παρ. 
Vie 


1 through 
His 
blood, 
rec: τ, 


NICEN. 
Der. 


πε ἘΠῚ: 


ly. sup. 
p. 12. 
note y. 
2 ἐξ οὐκ 
ὄντων 


Heb. 11, 
2 


CHAP. Ve 


DEFENCE OF THE COUNCIL’S PHRASES, ‘‘ FROM THE SUBSTANCE,” 
AND “ONE IN SUBSTANCE.” 


Objection that the phrases are not scriptural ; we ought to look at the sense 
more than the wording ; evasion of the Eusebians as to the phrase “ of 
God” which is in Scripture ; their evasion of all explanations but those 
which the Council selected ; which were intended to negative the Arian 
formule ; protest against their conveying any material sense. 


1. Now the Eusebians were at the former period examined 
at great length, and convicted themselves, as I said before ; 
on this they subscribed ; and after this change of mind they 
kept in quiet and retirement™; but since the present party, in 
the fresh arrogance of irreligion, and in dizziness about the 
truth, are full set upon accusing the Council, let them tell us 
what are thesort of Scriptures from which they have learned, 
or who isthe Saint! by whom they have been taught, that they 
have heaped together the phrases,“ out ofnothing’,” and“ He 
was not before His generation,” and “ once He was not,” and 
“ alterable,” and “ pre-existence,” and “at the will;”’ which 
are their fables in mockery of the Lord. Forthe blessed Paul 
in his Epistle to the Hebrews says, By faith we understand 
that the ages were framed by the Word of God, so that things 
which are seen were not made of things which do appear. But 
nothing is common to the Word with the ages"; for He it 


m After the Nicene Council, the a sort of positive existence, though not 


Eusebians did not dare avow their 
heresy in Constantine’s lifetime, but 
merely attempted the banishment of 
Athanasius, and the restoration of 
Arius. Their first Council was A.D. 
341, four years after Constantine’s 
death. 

» By atwy, age, seems to be meant 
duration, or the measure of duration, be- 
fore or independent of the existence of 
motion, which is the measure of time. 
As motion, and therefore time, are 
creatures, so are the ages. Considered 
as the measure of duration, an age has 


an οὐσία or substance, and means the 
sameas‘‘ world,” or an existing system 
of things viewed apart from time and 
motion. vid. Theodor. in Hebr. i. 2. 
Our Lord then is the Maker of the 
ages thus considered, as the Apostle 
also tells us, Hebr. xi. 3. and God is 
the King of the ages, 1 Tim. i. 17. or 
is before all ages, as being eternal, or 
προαιώνιος. However, sometimes the 
word is synonymous with eternity ; 
‘* as time is to thing's which are under 
time, so ages to things which are eyer- 
lasting,’ Damase. Fid. Orth. ii. 1, 


The Son before all ages, because their Creator. 31 
is who is in existence before the ages, by whom also the ages 
came to be. And in the Shepherd ! it is written, (since they 
allege this book also, though it is not of the Canon °,) “ First 
of all believe, that God is one, who created all things, and 
arranged them, and brought all things from nothing into 
being ;” but this again does not relate to the Son, for it 
speaks concerning all things which came to be through Him, 
from whom He is distinct ; for it is not possible to reckon 
the Framer of all with the things made by Him, unless a man 
is so beside himself as to say that the architect also is the 
same as the buildings which he rears. 

2. Why then, when they have invented on their part un- 
scriptural phrases, for the purposes of irreligion, do they 
accuse those who are religious in their use of them? ? For 
irreligiousness is utterly forbiden, though it be attempted 


and “ages of ages ” stands for eter- 
nity; and then the “ages” or mea- 
sures of duration, may be supposed 
to stand for the ἴδεαι or ideas in the 
Divine Mind, which seems to have 
been a Platonic or Gnostic notion. 
Hence Synesius, Hymn iii. addresses 
the Almighty as αἰωνότοκε, parent of 
the ages. Hence sometimes God Him- 
self is called the Age, Clem. Alex. 
Hymn. Pied. iii. fin. or, the Age of 
ages, Pseudo-Dion. de Diy. Nom. 5. p. 
580. or again, αἰώνιος. Theodoret sums 
up what has been said thus: ‘‘ Age is 
not any subsisting substance, but is an 
interval indicative of time, now infi- 
nite, when God is spoken of, now com- 
mensurate with creation, now with 
human life.’ Her. y. 6. Ifthen, as 
Athan. says in the text, the Word is 
Maker of the ages, He is independent 
of duration altogether; He does not 
come to be in time, but is aboye and 
beyond it, or eternal. Elsewhere he 
says, ‘‘The words addressed to the 
Son in the 144th Psalm, ‘Thykingdom 
is a kingdom of all ages,’ forbid any 
one to imagine any interval at all in 
which the Word did not exist. For 
if eyery interval is measured by ages, 
and of all the ages the Word is King 
and Maker, therefore, whereas no in- 
terval at all exists prior to Hin, it 
were madness to say, ‘There was 
once when the Everlasting (αἰώνιος) 
was not.’ ” Orat. i. 12. [infra p. 198] 
And so Alexander; ‘‘ Is it not unrea- 
sonable that He who made times, and 
ages, and seasons, to all of which be- 


longs ‘was not,’ should be said not to 
be? for, if so, that interval in which 
they say the Son was not yet begotten 
by the Father, precedes that Wisdom 
of God which framed αὐ things.’ 
Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 736. vid also 
Basil de Sp. S. n. 14. Bilar. de Trin. 
xii. 34. 

° And so in Ep. Fest. fin. he enu- 
meratesit with Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 
Esther, Judith, Tobit, and others, ‘not 
canonized but appointed by the Fathers 
to be read by late converts and persons 
under teaching [Festal Epistles, 39 p. 
139 O.T.].”’ He calls it elsewhere a 
most profitable book. Incarn. 3. 

P Athan. here retorts the charge 
brought against the Council, as it was 
obvious to do, which gave occasion for 
this Treatise. If the Council went be- 
yond Scripture in the use of the word 
“ substance,” (which however can 
hardly be granted,) who made this 
necessary, but they who had already 
introduced the phrases, ‘ the Son was 
out of nothing,’ ἕο. &e.? “Οἵ the 
substance,” and ‘* one in substance,’ 
were directly intended to contradict 
and supplant the Arian unscriptural 
innovations, as he says below, § 20. 
fin. 21. init. vid. also ad Afros. 6. de 
Synod. § 36, 37. He observes in like 
manner that the Arian ἀγένητος, 
though allowable as used by religious 
men, de Syn. § 40. was unscriptural, 
Orat. i. § 30, 34, Also Epiph. Heer. 
76. p. 941. Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 5. 
Hilar. contr. Const. 16. Ambros. In- 
carn. 80, 


CHAP. 
Wishers 

1 Herm. 
9. 1 Ὁ: 
ad Afr. 5. 


NICEN. 


DEF. 


1 vid. 
Desa 


note m. 


§ 19. 
2 vid. ad 
Afr. 5. 


32 History of the Nicene symbol, “ Of the Substance.” 


to disguise it with artful expressions and plausible sophisms ; 
but religiousness is confessed by all to be lawful, even though 
presented in strange phrases', provided only they are used 
with a religious view, and a wish to make them the expres- 
sion of religious thoughts. Now the aforesaid grovelling 
phrases of Christ’s enemies, have been shewn in these re- 
marks to be both formerly and now replete with irreligion ; 
whereas the definition of the Council against them, if ac- 
curately examined, will be found to be altogether a repre- 
sentation of the truth, and espécially if diligent attention 
be paid to the occasion which gave rise to these expressions, 
which was reasonable, and was as follows :— 

3. The Council? wishing to negative the irreligious phrases 
of the Arians, and to use instead the acknowledged words of 
the Scriptures, that the Son is not from nothing but from 
God, and is Word and Wisdom, nor creature or work, but the 
proper offspring from the Father, the party of Eusebius, out 
of their inveterate heterodoxy, understood the phrase from 
God as belonging to us, as if in respect to it the Word of God 
differed nothing from us, and that because it 15 written, There 
is one God, from whom all things ; and again, Old things are 
passed away, behold, all things are new, and all things are 
from God. But the Fathers, perceiving their craft and the 
cunning of their irreligion, were forced to express more dis- 
tinctly the sense of the words from God, Accordingly, they 
wrote “from the substance of God4,” in order that from God 


4 Hence it stands in the Creed, 
“from the Father, that is, from the 
substance of the Father.” vid. Euse- 
bius’s Letter, infra. According to the 
received doctrine of the Church all 
rational beings, and in one sense all 
beings whatever, are “from God,” over 
and above the fact of their creation ; 
and of this truth the Eusebians made 
use to deny our Lord’s proper divinity. 
Athan. lays down elsewhere that no- 
thing remains in consistence and life, 
except froma participation of the Word, 
which is to be considered a gift from 
Him, additional to that of creation, 
and separable in idea from it. vid. 
above, note k. Thus he says that the 
all-powerful andall-perfect, Holy Word 
of the Father, pervading all things, 
and developing every where His power, 
and illuminating all things visible 


and invisible, gathers them within 
Himself and knits them in one, leay- 
ing nothing destitute of His power, but 
quickening and preserving all things 
and through all, and each by itself, and 
the whole together.” contr. Gent. 42. 
Again, “God not only made us of 
nothing, but also vouchsafed to us a 
life according to God, and by the 
grace of the Word. But men, turn- 
ing from things eternal to the things 
of corruption at the devil’s counsel, 
have brought on themselves the cor- 
ruption of death, who were, as I 
said, by nature corrupted, but by the 
grace of the participation of the 
Word, had escaped their natural state, 
had they remained good.” Incarn. 
5. Man thus considered is, in his 
first estate, a son of God and born of 
God, or, to use the term which occurs 


Necessity of it, to explain “ of God.” 33 


might not be considered common and equal in the Son and 
in things generate, but thatallothers might be acknowledged 
as creatures, and the Word alone as from the Father. For 
though all things be said to be from God, yet this is not in 
the sense in which the Son is from Him; for as to the crea- 
tures, “‘of God” is said of them on this account, in that they 
exist not at random or spontaneously, nor come to be by 
chance!, according to those philosophers who refer them to 
the combination of atoms, and to elements of similar struc- 
ture,—nor as certain heretics speak of a distinct Framer,— 
nor as others again say that the constitution of all things is 
from certain Angels;—but in that, whereas God is, it was 
by Him that all things were brought into being, not being 
before, through His Word, but as to the Word, since He is 
not a creature, He alone is both called and is from the Father ; 
and it is significant of this sense to say that the Son is “from 
the substance of the Father,” for to no creature does this 
attach. In truth, when Paul says that all things are from 
God, he immediately adds, and one Lord Jesus, Christ, through 
whom all things, by way of shewing all men, that the Son 
is other than all these things which came to be from God, 
(for the things which came to be from God, came to be 
through His Son;) and that he had used his foregoing 
words with reference to the world as framed by God’, and 


so frequently in the Arian controversy, prerogatives are ascribed to God, or to 
inthe number, not onlyofthecreatures, the Father, this is done only to the 
but of things generate, γενητά. This exclusion of creatures, or of false gods, 
was the sense in which the Arians said not to the exclusion of His Son who is 
that our Lord was Son of God; where- implied in the mention of Himself. 
as,as Athan. says, ‘things generate,be- Thus when God is called only wise, or 
ing works, cannot be called generate, the Father the only God, or God is said 
except so far as, after their making, to be ingenerate, ἀγένητος, this is not 
they partake of the begotten Son, and ἴῃ contrast to the Son, but to all things 
are therefore said to have been gene- which are distinct from God. vid. 
rated also; not at all in their own na- Athan. Orat. iii. 8. Naz. Orat. 30, 13. 
ture, but because of their participation Cyril. Thesaur. p. 142, ‘* The words 
of the Son in the Spirit.” Orat.i.56 ‘one’ and ‘only’ ascribed to God in 
{infra p. 261]. The question then was, Scripture,’’ says S. Basil, ‘‘are not used 
as to the distinction of the Son’s di- in contrast to the Son or the Holy 
vine generation over that of holymen; Spirit, but with reference to those who 
and the Catholics answered that He are not God, and falsely called so.” 
was ἐξ οὐσίας, from the substance of Ep.8.n. 3. On the other hand, when 
God; not by participation of grace, the Father is mentioned, the other 
not by resemblance, not in a limited Divine Persons are implied in Him, 
sense, but really and simply, andthere- ‘* The Blessed and Holy Trinity,” says 
fore by an internal, divine act. vid. S. Athan. ‘tis indivisible and one in 
below, § 22. and infr. § 31. note k. itself; and when the Father is men- 

When characteristic attributes and tioned, His Word is added, and the 


D 


CHAP. 
Ve 


1 vid. de 
Syn. 
§ 35. 


1 Cor. 8, 


NICEN. 
DEF. 


34 History of the Nicene Symbol “One in substance.” 


not as if all things were from the Father as the Sonis. For 
neither are other things as the Son, nor is the Word one 
among others, for He is Lord and Framer of all; and on this 
account did the Holy Council declare expressly that he was 
of the substance’ of the Father, that we might believe the 
Word to be other than the nature of things generate, being 
alone truly from God; and that no subterfuge should be left 
open to the irreligious. This then was the reason why the 


Council wrote “ of the substance.” 


§ 20. 


1 ἀπαράλ- 
λακτον 


1Cor. 11, 
tl 
2 Cor. 4, 


90. 

who shall 
separate 
Joel 2, 


Al. 
Ps. 46, 8. 


4. Again, when the Bishops said that the Word must be 
described as the True Power and Image of the Father, hke 
to the Father in all things and unvarying!, and as unalterable, 
and as always, and as in Him without division; (for never 
was the Word not, but He was always, existing everlastingly 
with the Father, as the radiance of ight,) the party of Kuse- 
bius endured indeed, as not daring to contradict, being put 
to shame by the arguments which were urged against them ; 
but withal they were caught whispering to each other and 
winking with their eyes, that “ like,’ and “always,” and 
“power,” and ‘‘in Him,” were, as before, common to us and 
the Son, and that it was no difficulty to agree to these. As 
to “like,” they said that it is written of us, Man is the image 
and glory of God; “ always,” that it was written, Por we which 
live are alway ; “in Him,” In Him we live and move and have 
our being; “unalterable,” that it is written, Nothing shall 
separate us from the love of Christ; as to “ power,” that the 
caterpillar and the locust are called power, and great power, 
and that it is often said of the people, for mstance, All 
the power of the Lord came out of the land of Egypt; and 
others are heavenly powers, for Scripture says, The Lord 


Spirit in the Son; and if the Son is 
named, in the Son is the Father, and 
the Spirit is not external to the Word.” 
ad Serap. i. 14. 

5 Vid. also ad Afros, 4. Again, ‘‘‘ [ 
am,’ Td dy, is really proper to God and 
is a whole, bounded or mutilated nei- 
ther by aught before Him, nor after 
Him, for He neither was, nor shall 
be.” Naz. Orat. 30. 18 fin. Also Cyril 
Dial. i. p. 892. Damasc. Fid. Orth. i. 
9. and the Semiarians at Ancyra, 
Epiph. Her. 73. 12 init. By the “ es- 
sence,” however, or, ‘‘ substance” of 
God, the Council did not mean any 


thing distinct from God, vid. note a 
infr. but God Himself yiewed in His 
self-existing nature (vid. Tert. in 
Hermog. 3.), nay, it expressly meant 
to negative the contrary notion of the 
Arians, that our Lord was from some- 
thing distinct from God, and in conse- 
quence of created substance. Moreover 
the term expresses the idea of God 
positively, in contradistinction to ne- 
gative epithets, such as infinite, im- 
mense, eternal, &c. Damase. Fid. 
Orthod. i. 4. and as little implies any 
thing distinct from God as those 
epithets do. 


Necessity of it to explain “Image of God.” 35 


of powers is with us, the God of Jacob is our refuge. Indeed παρ. 
Asterius, by title the sophist, had said the like in writing, —Y-— 
having taken it from them, and before him Arius! having! vid. 
taken it also, as has been said. But the Bishops, discern- δὲν 
ing in this too their simulation, and whereas it is written, 
Deceit is in the heart of the irreligious that imagine evil, were Prov. 12, 
again compelled on their part to concentrate the sense of τ 
the Scriptures, and to re-say and re-write what they had 
said before, more distinctly still, namely, that the Son is 
“one in substance'”’ with the Father; by way of signifying, 
that the Son was from the Father, and not merely like, 
but is the same in likeness", and of shewing that the Son’s 
likeness and unalterableness was different from such copy 
of the same as is ascribed to us, which we acquire from virtue 
on the ground of observance of the commandments. 

5, For bodies which are like each other, may be separated 
and become at distances from each other, as are human sons 
relatively to their parents, (as it is written concerning Adam 
and Seth, who was begotten of him, that he was like him Gen. 5, 
after his own pattern ;) but since the generation of the Son * 


Lyte 
ef. 2. 


' vid. ad Afros, 5. 6. ad Serap. ii. 5. 
S. Ambrose tells us, that a Letter 
written by Eusebius of Nicomedia, in 
which he said, “If we call him true 
Son of the Father and uncreate, then 
are we granting that He is one in 
substance, éuoovcioy,” determined the 
Council on the adoption of the term. 
de Fid. iii. n. 125. He had disclaimed 
“of the substance,” in his Letter to 
Paulinus. Theod. Hist.i. 4. Arius, how- 
ever, had disclaimed ὁμοούσιον already, 
Epiph. Her. 69. 7. It was a word of 
old usage in the Church, as Eusebius 
of Czesarea confesses in his Letter, 
infr. Tertullian in Prax. 13 fin. has 
the translation “ unius substantiz,” 
(vid. Lucifer de non Pare. p. 218.) as 
he has ‘“‘de substantia Patris,’’ in 
Prax. 4. and Origen perhaps used the 
word, vid. Pamph. Apol. 5. and Theo- 
gnostus and the two Dionysius’s, infra, 
§ 25.26. And before them Clement had 
spoken of the ἕνωσις τῆς μοναδικῆς 
οὐσίας, “the union of the single sub- 
stance,” vid. Le Quien in Damase. Fid. 
Orth. i. 8. Noyatian too has ‘‘ per sub- 
stantiz communionem,” de Trinit. 31. 

ἃ The Eusebians allowed that our 
Lord was like and the image of the 


D 


Father, but in the sense in which a 
picture is like the original, differing 
from it in substance and in fact. In 
this sense they even allowed the strong 
word ἀπαράλλακτος unvarying image, 
vid. beginning of § 20. [supra p. 34] 
which had been used by the Catholics, 
(vid. Alexander, ap. Theod. Hist. i. 
3. p. 740.) as by the Semiarians after- 
wards, who even added the words κατ᾽ 
οὐσίαν, or *‘according to substance.” 
Even this strong phrase, however, 
κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ἀπαράλλακτος εἰκὼν, ΟΥ̓ 
ἀπαραλλάκτως ὅμοιος, did not appear 
to the Council an adequate safeguard 
of the doctrine. Athan. notices de Syn. 
that ‘‘like” applies to qualities rather 
than to substance, ὃ 53. Also Basil. 
Ep. 8. n. 3. “while in itself,” says the 
same Father, “ it is frequently used of 
faint similitudes, and falling very far 
short of the original.” Ep. 9.n. 3. Ac- 
cordingly, the Council determined on 
the word ὁμοούσιον as implying, as the 
text expresses it, ‘‘ tie same in like- 
ness,’ ταὐτὸν τῇ ὁμοιώσει, that the 
likeness might not be analogical. yid. 
the passage about gold and brass, p. 40. 
below, Cyril in Joan. 1. iii. c. y. p. 802. 
[Ρ. 851 O.T.] 

5) 


a! 


36 Those, who do not reject the Council’s sense, will not its words. 


NICEN. 
DEF. 


δ 21, 


3 vid. p. 
17. note 
m. 


from the Father is not according to the nature of men, and 
not only like, but also inseparable from the substance of the 
Father, and He and the Father are one, as He has said 
Himself, and the Word is ever in the Father and the Father 
in the Word, as the radiance stands towards the light, (for 
this the phrase itself indicates,) therefore the Council, as un- 
derstanding this, suitably wrote ‘ one in substance,” that 
they might both defeat the perverseness of the heretics, and 
shew that the Word was other than generated things. For, 
after thus writing, they at once added, “ But they who say 
that the Son of God is from nothing, or created, or alterable, 
or a work, or from other substance, these the Holy Catholic 
Church anathematizes!.” And in saying this, they shewed 
clearly that “of the substance,” and “ one in substance,” do 
negative” those syllables of irreligion, such as “ created,” 


" and “work,” and generated,’ and “alterable,” and “‘ He 


was not before His generation.”” And he who holds these, 
contradicts the Council; but he who does not hold with 
Arius, must needs hold and comprehend the decisions of 
the Council, suitably regarding them to signify the relation 
of the radiance to the light, and from thence gaining the 
illustration of the truth. 

6. Therefore if they, as the others, make an excuse that the 
terms are strange, let them consider the sense in which the 
Council so wrote, and anathematize what the Council ana- 
thematized; and then if they can, let them find fault with the 
expressions. But I well know that, if they hold the sense 
of the Council, they will fully accept the terms in which it 
is conveyed ; whereas if it be the sense* which they wish to 
complain of, all must see that it is idle in them to discuss the 
wording, when they are but seeking handles for irreligion. 

7. This then was the reason of these expressions; but if 
they still complain that such are not scriptural, that very 
complaint is a reason why they should be cast out, as talk- 
ing idly and disordered in mind ; and next why they should 
blame themselves in this matter, for they set the example, 
beginning their war against God with words not in Scrip- 
ture. However, if a person is interested in the question, 
let him know, that, even if the expressions are not in so 
many words in the Scriptures, yet, as was said before, they 


37 


Its sense in Scripture, if not its words. 


contain the sense of the Scriptures, and expressing it, they Cuap. 


convey it to those who have their hearing unimpaired for 
religious doctrine. Now this circumstance it is for thee to 
consider, and for those ill-instructed men to learn. It has 
been shewn above, and must be believed as true, that the 
Word is from the Father, and the only Offspring * proper 
to Him and natural. For whence may one conceive the 
Son to be, who is the Wisdom and the Word, in whom all 
things came to be, but from God Himself? However, the 
Scriptures also teach us this, since the Father says by 


Ws 


David, My heart was bursting of a good Word, and, From the Εὲ 
womb before the morning star I begat Thee ; and the Son sig- τ᾿ 


45,1. 
. 110, 


nifies to the Jews about Himself, If God were your Father, Jom 8, 
ye would love Me; for I proceeded forth from the Father, 15. 
And again; Not that any one has seen the Father, save He γ0.6, 48. 


which is from God, He hath seen the Father. 


And more- 


over, 1 and My Father are one, and, I in the Father and 10. 10, 
the Father in Me,is equivalent with Sag ns “1 am from the qp. 14, 


Father, and inseparable from Him.” 


And John in saying, 10. 


The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, tb. 1, 18. 
He hath declared Him, spoke of what he had learned from 


the Saviour. 


Besides, what else does in the bosom intimate, 


but the Son’s genuine generation from the Father ? 
8. If then any man conceives as if God were compound, so 


as to have accidents in His 


* γέννημα, offspring ; this word is of 
very frequent occurrence in Athan. He 
speaks of it, Orat. iv. 3. [infra pp. 516, 
517] as virtually Scriptural. ‘ If any 
one declines to say ‘ offspring,’ and 
only says that the Word exists with 
God, let such a one fear lest, declin- 
ing an expression of Scripture (τὸ 
λεγόμενον) he fall into extravagance, 
&e.” Yet Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 
6—8. explicitly disayows the word, as 
an unscriptural invention of Euno- 
mius. ‘f That the Father begat we are 
taught in many places: that the Son 
is an offspring we never heard up to 
this day, for Scripture says, ‘* unto 
us a child is born, unto us a son is 
given.’” c. 7. He goes on to say that 
‘it is fearful to give Him names of 
our own to whom God has given a 
name which is above every name ;” 
and observes that offspring is not the 
word which even a human father would 
apply to his son, as for instance we 


substance 5, or any external 


read, ‘* Child, (réxvov,) go into the 
vineyard,” and ‘‘ Who art thou, my 
son?” moreover that fruits of the earth 
are called offspring, (“I will not drink 
of the offspring of this vine,’’) rarely 
animated things, except indeed in 
such instances as, “Ὁ generation 
(offspring ) of vipers.’’ Nyssen defends 
his brother, contr. Eunom. Orat. iii. 
p- 105. In the Arian formula ‘‘an 
offspring, but not as one of the 
offsprings,” it is synonymous with 
“work” or “creature.” On the other 
hand Epiphanius uses it, e.g. Heer. 
76. n. 8. and Naz. Orat. 29. n. 2. 
Eusebius, Demonstr. Ey.iy. 2. Pseudo- 
Basil. ady. Eunom. iy. p. 280. fin. 

Υ συμβεβηκός. And so elsewhere, 
when resisting the Arian and Sabellian 
notion that the wisdom of God is only 
a quality in the Divine nature, ‘ In 
that case God will be compounded of 
substance and quality ; for every qua- 
lity is in the substance. And at this 


§ 22. 


NICEN. 
DEF. 


l περὶ av- 
τὸν 


Ex. 3, 14. 
15. 


98 To speak of God’s substance is to speak of God. 

envelopement’,and to be encompassed, or as if there is aught 
about Him which completes the substance, so that when we 
say “God,” or name “Father,” we do not signify the invisible 
and incomprehensible substance, but something about it, 
then let them complain of the Council’s stating that the Son 
was from the substance of God; but let them reflect, that in 
thus considering they commit two blasphemies; for they 
make God material, and they falsely say that the Lord is not 
Son of the very Father, but of what is about Him'. But if 
God be simple, as He is, it follows that in saying “God” 
and naming “ Father,” we name nothing as if about Him, 
but signify His substance itself. For though to compre- 
hend what the substance of God is be impossible, yet if we 
only understand that God is, and if Scripture indicates Him 
by means of these titles, we, with the intention of indicating 
Him and none else, call Him God and Father and Lord. 
When then He says, I am that I am, and I am the Lord 
God, or when Scripture says, God, we understand nothing 
else by it but the intimation of His incomprehensible sub- 
stance Itself, and that He Is, who is spoken of*. Therefore 


rate, whereas the Divine Unity (μονὰς) 
is indivisible, it will be considered com- 
pound, being separated into substance 
and accident.” Orat. iv, 2. [infra p. 
515.] vid. also Orat. i. 36. This is 
the common doctrine of the Fathers. 
Athenagoras, however, speaks of God’s 
goodness as an accident, “ as colour to 
the body,” ‘‘ as flame is ruddy and the 
sky blue,” Legat. 24. This, however, is 
but a verbal difference, for shortly be- 
fore he speaks of His being,70 ὄντως“ ὃν, 
and His unity of nature, τὸ μονοφυὲς, 
as in the number of ἐπισυμβεβηκότα 
αὐτῷ. Eusebius uses the word συμβε- 
βηκὸς in the same way, Demonstr. 
Eyang.iv. 8. And hence S. Cyril, in 
controversy with the Arians, is led by 
the course of their objections to ob- 
serve, ‘“* There are cogent reasons for 
considering these things as accidents 
συμβεβηκότα in God, though they be 
not.” Thesaur. p. 263. vid. the follow- 
ing note. 

2 περιβολὴ, and so de Synod. ὃ 34. 
which is very much the same passage. 
Some Fathers however, seem to say 
the reverse. E.g. Nazianzen says that 
‘neither the immateriality of God nor 
ingenerateness, present to us His sub- 
stance.” Orat.28.9.And S. Augustine, 


arguing on the word ingenitus, says, 
that “not every thing which is said 
to bein God is said according to sub- 
stance.” de Trin. y. 6. And hence, 
while Athan. in the text denies that 
there are qualities or the like belonging 
to Him, περὶ αὐτὸν, it is still common 
in the Fathers to speak of qualities, as 
in the passage of 5. Gregory just cited, 
in which the words περὶ θεὸν oceur. 
There is no difficulty in reconciling 
these statements, though it would re- 
quire more words than could be given 
to it here. Petayvius has treated the 
subject fully in his work de Deo i. 
7—11. and especially ii. 3. When the 
Fathers say that there is no difference 
between the divine ‘proprietates’ and 
essence, they speak of the fact, con- 
sidering the Almighty as Heis ; when 
they affirm a difference, they speak of 
Him as contemplated by us, who are 
unable to grasp the idea of Him as one 
and simple, but view His Divine Na- 
ture as if in projection, (if such a word 
may be used,) and thus divided into 
substance and quality as man may be 
divided into genus and difference. 

2 Jn like manner de Synod. § 34. 
Also Basil, ‘‘ The substance is not any 
one of things which do not attach, but 


— 


“Of the substance” only brings out the meaning of “Son.” 39 


let no one be startled on hearing that the Son of God is from 


the substance of the Father; rather let him accept the ——~~ 


explanation of the Fathers, who in more explicit but equi- 
valent language have for from God written “of the sub- 
stance.” For they considered it the same thing to say that 
the Word was of God and “ of the substance of God,” since 
the word “ God,” as I have already said, signifies nothing 
but the substance of Him WhoIs. Ifthen the Word is not 
in such sense from God, as to be Son, genuine and natural, 
from the Father, but only as creatures because they are 
framed, and as all things are from God, then neither is He 
from the substance of the Father, nor is the Son again Son 
according to substance, but in consequence of virtue, as we 
who are called sons by grace. But if He only is from God, 
as.a genuine Son, as He is, then let the Son, as is reasonable, 
be called from the substance of God. 

9. Again, the illustration of the Light and the Radiance 
has this meaning. For the Saints have not said that the 
Word was related to God as fire kindled from the heat of 
the sun, which is commonly put out again, for this is an ex- 
ternal work and a creature of its author, but they all preach 
of Him as Radiance?, thereby to signify His being from the 


substance, proper and! indivisible, and His oneness with ’ ἀδιαίρε- 
= = το fs TOV 
This also will secure His true” unalterableness 2% x. 


the Father. 


CHap. 
V. 


ὃ 23. 


and immutability ; for how can these be His, unless He be τρεπτὸν 


καὶ ἀναλ- 


is the very being of God.’ contr. Eun. ἃ lamp divided into two, which after χοίωτον 


i. 10 fin. “ΤΠ nature of Godis no all was Arian doctrine. Athanasius 


other than Himself, for He is simple 
and uncompounded.” Cyril Thesaur. 
p- 59. - ** When we say the power of 
the Father, we say nothing else than 
the substance of the Father.” August. 
de Trin. vii. 6. And so Numenius in 
Eusebius, ‘ Let no one deride, if I say 
that the name of the Immaterial is 
substance and being.’ Prep. Eyang. 
xi. 10. 

> Athan.’s ordinary illustration is, as 
here, not from “ fire,” but from “‘ ra- 
diance,” ἀπαύγασμα, after S. Paul and 
the Author of the Book of Wisdom, 
meaning by radiance the light which 
a light diffuses by means of the atmo- 
sphere. On the other hand Arius in 
his letter to Alexander, Epiph. Her. 
69. 7. speaks against the doctrine of 
Hieracas that the Son was from the 
Father as a light from a light or as 


refers to fire, Orat. iy. § 2 and 10. but 
still to fire and its radiance. How- 
ever we find the illustration of fire 
from fire, Justin. Tryph. 61. [p. 149 
O.T.] Tatian contr. Gree. 5. At this 
early day the illustration of radiance 
might have a Sabellian bearing, as 
that of fire in Athan.’s had an Arian. 
Hence Justin protests against those 
who considered the Son as ‘like the 
sun’s light in the heayen,’? which 
“when it sets, goes away with it,” 
whereas it is as “ fire kindled from 
fire.’ Tryph. 128. [p. 229, 230 O.T.] 
Athenagoras, however, like Athan- 
asius, says “as light from fire,” using 
also the word ἀπόῤῥοια, efuence : vid. 
also Orig. Periarch. i. 2.n.4. Tertull. 
Ap. 21. [p.47.0.T.] Theognostus infr. 
§ 25. 


ἐϊ 


NICEN. 
DEF. 


1 ταυτό- 


TTA 


2 vid. de 
Syn. § 
Al. Hyp. 
Mel. et 
Euseb. 


3 εἰ 1. 6. 
> A 
εἰ μὴ 
4 ὄργανον 


ὃ 24, 


5. γνήσιον 
5 ἰδιότη- 
τα 

7 ἀπα- 
ράλλακ- 
τον 


40 “One in substance” but brings out the meaningof “Image.” 


proper Offspring of the Father’s subtance? for this too must 


be taken to confirm His ‘identity with His own Father. 

10. Our explanation then having so religious an aspect, 
Christ’s enemies should not be startled at the ‘‘ One in sub- 
stance” either, since this term also admits of being soundly 
expounded and defended. Indeed, if we say that the 
Word is from the substance of God, (for after what has been 
said this must be a phrase admitted by them,) what does this 
mean but the truth and eternity of the substance from which 
He is begotten? for it is not different in kind, lest it be 
combined with the substance of God, as something foreign 
and unlike it. Nor is He like only outwardly, lest He 
seem in some respect or wholly to be other in substance, 
as brass shines like gold and silver like tin. For these are 
foreign and of other nature, and are separated off from each 
other in nature and qualities, nor is brass proper to gold, 
nor 1s the pigeon born from the dove*; but though they 
are considered like, yet they differ in substance. If then 
it be thus with the Son, let Him be a creature as we are, 
and not One in substance; but if the Sonis Word, Wisdom, 
Image of the Father, Radiance, He must in all reason be One 
in substance. For unless* it be proved that He is not from 
God, but an instrument? different in nature and different 
in substance, surely the Council was sound in its doctrine 
and apposite in its decree °. 


11. Further, let every corporeal thought be banished on . 


this subject ; and transcending every imagination of sense, 
let us, with the pure understanding and with mind alone, 
apprehend the Son’s genuine? relation towards the Father, 
and the Word’s proper® relation towards God, and the un- 
varying’ likeness of the radiance towards the light: for as 
the words “Offspring” and “Son” bear, and are meant to 
bear, no human sense, but one suitable to God, in like manner 
when we hear the phrase “one in substance,” let us not fall 
upon human senses, and imagine partitions and divisions of 
the Godhead, but as having our thoughts directed to things 

« As ‘Sof the substance” declared substance”? answering for this pur- 
that our Lord was unereate, so ‘‘one pose, for such phrases might all be 
in substance” declared that He was understood of resemblance or repre- 


equal with the Father; no term de- sentation. vid. note t. 
rived from ‘‘likeness,’’ even ‘‘ like in 


The Son the one Mediator between the Father and creation. 41 


immaterial, let us preserve undivided the oneness of nature Cuap. 


and the identity of light ; for this is proper to the Son as re- —Y*— 


gards the Father, and in this is shewn that God is truly 
Father of the Word. Here again, the illustration of light 
and its radiance is in point’. Who will presume to say 
that the radiance is unlike and foreign from the sun? rather 
who, thus considering the radiance relatively to the sun, 
and the identity of the hight, would not say with confidence, 
“Truly the light and the radiance are one, and the one is ma- 
nifested in the other, and the radiance is in the sun, so that 
whoso sees this, sees that also?” but such a oneness and 


natural possession !, what should it be named by those who! ἰδιότη- 
believe and see aright, but Offspring one in substance? and ** 


God’s Offspring what should we fittingly and suitably con- 
sider, but the Word, and Wisdom, and Power? which it 
were a sin to say was foreign from the Father, or a crime 
even to imagine as Other than with Him everlastingly. 

12. For by this Offspring the Father made all things, and 
extended His Providence unto all things, by Him He 
exercises His love to man, and thus He and the Father are 
one,as has been said; unless indeed these perverse men 
make a fresh attempt, and say that the substance of the 
Word is not the same as the Light which is in Him from the 
Father, as if the Light in the Son were one with the Father, 
but He Himself foreign in substance as being a creature. Yet 
this is simply the belief of Caiaphas and Samosatene, which 
the Church cast out, but they now are disguising; and by 
this they fell from the truth, and were declared to be heretics. 
For if He partakes in fulness the light from the Father, why 


is He not rather that which others partake *, that there be no ? vid. p. 


medium introduced between Himself andthe Father? Other- ; 


wise, it is no longer clear that all things were generated by 


the Son, but by Him, of whom He too partakes ὁ. And if 


4 Athan. has just used the illustration 


of radiance in reference to “of the 
substance :”’ and now he says that it 
equally illustrates ‘‘one insubstance ;” 
the light diffused from the sun being 
at once contemporaneous and homo- 
geneous with its original. 

© The point in which perhaps all the 
ancient heresies concerning our Lord’s 
divine nature agreed, was in consi- 


dering His different titles to be those 
of different beings or subjects, or not 
really and properly to belong to one 
and the same person; so that fhe Word 
was not the Son, or the Radiance not 
the Word, or our Lord was the Son, 
but only improperly the Word, not the 
true Word, Wisdom, or Radiance. 
Paul of Samosata, Sabellius,and Arius, 
agreed in considering that the Son 


5. note 


42 The Son partaken of all in the Spirit. 


Nicen. this is the Word, the Wisdom of the Father, in whom the 
_D=F. Wather is revealed and known, and frames the world, and 
‘without whom the Father doth nothing, evidently He it is 
who is from the Father: for all things generated partake of 
Him, as partaking of the Holy Ghost. And being such, He 
cannot be from nothing, nor a creature at all, but rather the 
proper Offspring from the Father as the radiance from light. 
was a creature, and that He was call- or Wisdom. When the Word or Wis- 


ed, made after, or inhabited by the dom was held to be personal, it became 
impersonal attribute called the Word the doctrine of Nestorius. 


CHAPS Vi. 
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE COUNCIL. 
Theognostus ; Dionysius of Alexandria ; Dionysius of Rome; Origen. 


1. Tuts then is the sense in which the Fathers at Nica 
made use of these expressions; but next that they did 
not invent them for themselves, (since this is one of their 
excuses,)° but spoke what they had received from their 
predecessors, proceed we to prove this also, to cut off even 
this excuse from them, Know then, O Arians, foes of Christ, 
that Theognostus*, a learned man, did not decline the 
phrase “of the substance,” for in the second book of his 
Hypotyposes, he writes thus of the Son :— 


“The substance of the Son is not any thing procured from 
without, nor accruing out of nothing”, but it sprang from the 
Father’s substance, as the radiance of light, as the vapour® of 
water; for neither the radiance, nor the vapour, is the water 
itself or the sun itself, nor is it alien; but it is an effluence of the 
Father’s substance, which, however, suffers no partition. For as 
the sun remains the same, and is not impaired by the rays poured 
forth by it, so neither does the Father’s substance suffer change, 
though it has the Son as an Image of Itself 4.” 


« Athanasius elsewhere calls him 
“the admirable and excellent.” ad 
Serap. iv. 9. He was Master of the 
Catechetical school of Alexandria 
towards the end of the 3d century, 
being a scholar, or at least a follower 
of Origen. His seven books of Hypo- 
typoses treated of the Holy Trinity, 
of angels, and evil spirits, of the Incar- 
nation, and the Creation. Photius, 
who gives this account, Cod. 106, ac- 
euses him of heterodoxy on these 
points; which Athanasius in a measure 
admits, as far as the wording of his 
treatise went, when he speaks of his 


‘investigating by way of exercise.’ 
Eusebius does not mention him at all. 

b Vid. above ὃ 15. fin. *‘ God was 
alone,” says Tertullian, ‘because there 
was nothing external to Him, ewtrin- 
secus ; yet not even then alone, for 
He had with Him, what He had in 
Himself, His Reason.” in Prax. 5. 
Non per adoptionem spiritus filius fit 
extrinsecus, sed natura filius est. 
Origen. Periarch. i. 2. n. 4. 

© From Wisdom vii. 25. and so 
Origen, Periarch.i. 2.n.5.and 9, and 
Athan. de Sent. Dionys. 15. 

4 Jt is sometimes erroneously sup- 


CuHaAp. 
VI. 


§ 25. 


NICEN. 


Der. 


44 Theognostus. Dionysius of Alewandria. 

Theognostus then, after first investigating in the way of an 
exercise®, proceeds to lay down his sentiments in the 
foregoing words. 

2. Next, Dionysius, who was Bishop of Alexandria, 
upon his writing against Sabellius and expounding at large 
the Saviour’s economy according to the flesh, and thence 
proving against the Sabellians that not the Father but 
His Word was made flesh, as John has said, was suspected 
of saying that the Son was a thing made and oenerated, 
and not one in substance with the Father; on this he 
writes to his namesake Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, to ex- 
plain that this was a slander upon him. And he assured 
him that he had not called the Son made, nay, did con- 
fess Him to be even one in substance. And his words 
run thus :— 


“And I have written in another letter a refutation of the false 
charge they bring against me, that I deny that Christ was one in 
substance with God. For though I say that I have not found 
this term any where in Holy Scripture, yet my remarks which 
follow, and which they have not noticed, are not inconsistent with 
that belief. For 1 instanced a human production as being evidently 
homogeneous, and I obseryed that undeniably parents differed from 
their children only in not being the same individuals, otherwise 


posed that such illustrations as this are 
intended to explain how the Sacred 
Mystery in question is possible, where- 
as they are merely intended to shew 
that the words we use concerning it 
are not self-contradictory, which is 
the objection most commonly brought 
against them. To say that the doc- 
trine of the Son’s generation does not 
intrench upon the Father’s perfection 
and immutability, or negative the 
Son’s eternity, seems at first sight in- 
consistent with what the words Father 
and Son mean, till another image is 
adduced, such as the sun and radiance, 
in which that alleged inconsistency is 
seen to exist in fact. Here one image 
corrects another ; and the accumula- 
tion of images is not, as is often 
thought, the restless and fruitless 
effort of the mind to enter into the 
Mystery, but is a safeguard against 


any one image, nay, any collection of 
images being supposed sufficient. If 
it be said that the language used con- 
cerning the sun and its radiance is 
but popular not philosophical, so again 
the Catholic language concerning the 
Holy Trinity may, nay, must be eco- 
nomical, not adequate, conveying the 
truth, not in the tongues of angels, 
but under human modes of thought 
and speech. 

© ἐν γυμνασίᾳ ἐξέτασας. And 50 ὃ 27, 
of Origen, ζητῶν καὶ γυμνάζων. Con- 
stantine too, writing to Alexander and 
Arius, speaks of altercation, φυσικῆς 
τινος γυμνασίας ἕνεκα. Socr.i. 7. In 
somewhat a similar way, Athanasius 
speaks of Dionysius writing κατ᾽ οἶκο- 
voulay, economically, or with reference 
to certain persons addressed or objects 
contemplated, de Sent. D. 6. and 26. 


sh ee) A κι». 


re 


Dionysius of Rome. 45 
there could be neither parents nor children. And my letter, as 
I said before, owing to present circumstances I am unable to pro- 
duce; or I would have sent you the very words I used, or rather 
a copy of it all, which, if I have an opportunity, I will do still. 
But I am sure from recollection that I adduced parallels of things 
kindred with each other; for instance, that a plant grown from 
seed or from root, was other than that from which it sprang, yet 
was altogether one in nature with it’: and that a stream flowing 
from a fountain, gained a new name, for that neither the fountain 
was called stream, nor the stream fountain, and both existed, and the 
stream was the water from the fountain.” 


3. And that the Word of God is not a work or creature, 
but an offspring proper to the Father’s substance and indivi- 
sible, as the great Council wrote, here you may see in the 


CHap. 


xr 
bo 
for) 


words of Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, who, while writing . 


against the Sabellians, thus inveighs against those who 
dared to say so :— 


** Next, I reasonably turn to those who divide and cut into pieces 
and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the 
Divine Monarehy ", making it certain three powers and _partitive' 


£ The Eusebians at Nicza objected 
to this image, Socr. i. 8. as implying 
that the Son was a προβολὴ, issue or 
development, as Valentinus taught. 
Epiph. Heer. 69. 7. Athanasius else- 
where uses it himself. 

h By the Monarchy is meant the 
doctrine that the Second and Third 
Persons in the Ever-blessed Trinity 
are ever to be referred in our thoughts 
to the First as the Fountain of God- 
head, vid. p. 25. note e. and p. 33. note 
r. It is one of the especial senses in 
which God is said to be one. ‘“ We 
are not introducing three origins or 
three Fathers, as the Marcionites and 
Manichees, just as our illustration is 
not of three suns, but of sun and its 
radiance.” Orat. iii. § 15 [infra p. 421 
fin.]. vid. also iy. § 1. “The Father 
is union, ἕνωσις," says S. Greg. Naz. 
* from whom and unto whom are the 
others.’ Orat. 42.15. also Orat. 20. 7. 
and Epiph. Her. 57. 5. Tertullian, 
before Dionysius, uses the word Mo- 


narchia, which Praxeas had perverted 
into a kind of Unitarianism or Sabel- 
lianism, in Prax. 3. [renzeus too wrote 
on the Monarchy, i. e. against the 
doctrine that God is the author of 
evil. Eus. Hist. v. 20. [see S. Iren. 
fragments, p. 540 O.T.] And before 
him was Justin’s work de Monarchia, 
where the word is used in opposition 
to Polytheism. The Marcionites. 
whom Dionysius presently mentions, 
are also specified in the above extract 
by Athan. vid. also Cyril. Hier, Cat. 
xvi. 3. [p. 206 O.T.] Epiphanius says 
that their three origins were God, the 
Creator, and the eyil spirit. Her. 42, 
3. or as Augustine says, the good, the 
just, and the wicked, which may be 
taken to mean nearly the same thing. 
Her. 22. The Apostolical Canons de- 
nounce those who baptize into Three 
Unoriginate ; vid. also Athan. Tom. 
ad Antioch. 5. Naz. Orat. 20. 6. Basil 
denies τρεῖς ἀρχικαὶ ὑποστάσεις, de 
Sp. 5. 38. which is a Platonic phrase. 


1 wepe- 


plomevas 


NICEN. 
Der. 


1 ἐμφιλο- 
χωρεῖν 


40 Heresy of Tritheism. 


subsistences! and godheads three. I am told that some among 
you who are catechists and teachers of the Divine Word, take the 
lead in this tenet, who are diametrically opposed, so to speak, to 
Sabellius’s opinions; for he blasphemously says that the Son is 
the Father, and the Father the Son, but they in some sort preach 
three Gods, as dividing the Holy Unity into three subsistences 
foreign to each other and utterly separate. For it must needs be 
that with the God of the Universe, the Divine Word is one, and 
the Holy Ghost must repose! and habitate in God; thus in one as 
in a summit, I mean the God of the Universe, must the Divine 
Trinity* be gathered up and brought together. For it is the 
doctrine of the presumptuous Marcion, to sever and divide the 
Divine Monarchy into three origins,—a devil’s teaching not that 
of Christ’s true disciples and lovers of the Saviour’s lessons. For 
they know well that a Trinity is preached by divine Scripture, 
but that neither Old Testament nor New preaches three Gods. 

4. Equally must one censure those who hold the Son to be 
a work, and consider that the Lord has come into being, as one of 
things which really came to be; whereas the divine oracles witness 
to a generation suitable to Him and becoming, but not to any 
fashioning or making. A blasphemy then is it, not ordinary, but 
even the highest, to say that the Lord is in any sort a handiwork. 


i And so Dionysius Alex. in a frag- 
ment preserved by Κα. Basil, “ΠῚ because 
the subsistences are three, theysay that 
they are partitive, μεμερισμένας, still 
three there are, though these persons 
dissent, or they utterly destroy the Di- 
vine Trinity.”’ de Sp. S. n. 72. Athan. 
expresses the same more distinctly, οὐ 
τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις μεμερισμένας, Expos. 
Fid. ὃ 2. In 5. Greg. Naz. we find 
ἀμέριστος ἐν μεμερισμένοις ἣ θεότης. 
Orat. 31. 14. Elsewhere for wen. he 
substitutes ἀπεῤῥηγμένας. Orat. 20. 6. 
ἀπεξενωμένας ἀλλήλων καὶ διεσπασμέ- 
vas. Orat.23. 6. as infra ξένας ἀλλήλων 
παντάπασι κεχωρισμένας. The passage 
in the text comes into question in the 
controversy about the ἐξ ὑποστάσεως 
ἢ οὐσίας of the Nicene Creed, of which 
infra on the Creed itself in Eusebius’s 
Letter. 

k The word τριὰς translated Trinity 
is first used by Theophilus, ad Autol. ii. 
15. Gibbon remarks that the doctrine 
of “a numerical rather than a gene- 
rical unity,” which has been explicitly 
put forth by the Latin Church, is 
“favoured by the Latin language ; 
τριὰς Seems to excite the idea of sub- 
stance, trinitas of qualities.” ch. 21. 
note 74. It is certain that the Latin 
view of the sacred truth, when per- 
verted, becomes Sabellianism ; and 


that the Greek, when perverted, be- 
comes Arianism; and we find Arius 
arising in the East, Sabellius in- the 
West. It is also certain that the word 
Trinitas is properly abstract ; and ex- 
presses τριὰς or ‘fa three,” only in an 
ecclesiastical sense. But Gibbon does 
not seem to observe that Unitas is 
abstract as well as Trinitas ; and that 
we might just as well say in con- 
sequence, that the Latins held an ab- 
stract unity or a unity of qualities, 
while the Greeks by μονὰς taught the 
doctrine of “ἃ one” or a numerical 
unity. “Singularitatem hance dico,(says 
S. Ambrose, ) quod Greece μονότης dici- 
tur; singularitas ad personam pertinet, 
unitas ad naturam.” de Fid. y. 1. It 
is important, however, to understand, 
that ‘* Trinity” does not mean the state 
or condition of being three, as huma- 
nity is the condition of being man, 
but is synonymous with ‘‘ three per- 
sons.” Humanity does not exist and 
cannot be addressed, but the Holy 
Trinity is a three, or a unity which 
exists in three. Apparently from not 
considering this, Luther and Calvin 
objected to the word Trinity, “It is a 
common prayer,” says Calvin, “ Holy 
Trinity, one God, have mercy onus. It 
displeases me,and savours throughout 
of barbarism.” Ep. ad Polon. p. 796. 


a | 


Heresy of making the Son a creature. 47 
For if He came to be Son, once He was not; 
if (that is) He be in the Father, as He says Himself, and if the 
Christ be Word and Wisdom and Power, (which, as ye know, divine 
Scripture says,) and these attributes be powers of God. If then the 
Son came into being, once these attributes were not ; consequently 
there was a time, when God was without them; which is most ex- 
travagant. And why say more on these points to you, men full 
of the Spirit and well aware of the extravagances which come to 
view from saying that the Son is a work? Not attending, as I 
consider, to this circumstance, the authors of this opinion have 
entirely missed the truth, in explaining, contrary to the sense of 
divine and prophetic Scripture in the passage, the words, The Lord proy. 8, 
hath created Me a beginning of His ways unto His works. For the 22. 
sense of He ΕΝ as ye know, is not one, for we must under- 

stand He created in this place, as‘He set over the works made 

by Him,’ that is,‘made by the Son Himself.” And He created 

here must not be taken for made, for creating differs from 
making ; Is not He Thy Father that hath bought thee ? hath He Deut. 32, 
not made thee and created thee ? says Moses in his great song in 6. 
Deuteronomy. And one may say to them, O men of great hazard, 

is He a work, who is the First-born of every creature, who is born Col. 1, 
from the womb before the morning star, who said, as Wisdom, 15. 
Before all the hills He begets Me 2. And in many passages of the Ps- 119, 
divine oracles is the Son said to haye been’ generated, but no where ἡ ιν, 8 
to have*® come into being; which manifestly convicts those of mis- 95, 9 ” 
conception about the Lord’s generation, who presume to call His! yeyev- 
divine and ineffable generation a making~. Neither then may we νῆσθαι 
divide into three Godheads the wonderful and divine Unity; nor 2 γεγονέ- 
disparage with the name of ‘work’ the dignity and exceeding ”™ 
majesty of the Lord; but we must believe in God the Father 
Almighty, and in Christ Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Ghost, 

and hold that to the God of the universe the Word is united. For 

I, says He, and the Father are one; and, I in the Father and the 


but He was always, (παρ. 
Vi. 


' This extract discloses tous, (in con- 
nexion with the passages from Diony- 
sius Alex. here and in the de Sent. D.) 
a remarkable anticipation of the Arian 
controversy in the third century. 1. It 
appears that the very symbol of ἦν ὅτε 
ovr ἦν, “once He was not,” was as- 
serted or implied ; vid. also the follow- 
ing extract from Origen, § 27. and 
Origen Periarchon, iv. 28. where men- 
tion is also made of the ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, 
“ out of nothing,” which was the Arian 
symbol in opposition to “οὗ the sub- 
stance.” Allusions are made besides, 
to “the Father not being always Fa- 
ther,” de Sent. D. 15. and “ the Word 
being brought to be by the true Word, 
and Wisdom by the true Wisdom ;” 
ibid. 25. 2. The same special text is 


used in defence of the heresy, and - 


that not at first sight an obvious one, 
which is found among the Arians, 
Proy. viii. 22. 3. The same texts were 
used by the Catholics, which oceur in 
the Arian controversy. e.g. Deut. 
Xxxil.6. against Prov. viii. 22. and such 
as Ps. cx. 3. Proy. viii. 25. and the two 
John x. 30. and xiv. 10. 4. The same 
Catholic symbols and statements are 
found, e.g. “‘ begotten not made,” “one 
in substance,” ‘* Trinity, ”’ ἀδιαίρετον, 
ἄναρχον, aevyeves, light trom light, &e. 
Much might be said on this cireum- 
stance, as forming part of the proof of 
the very early date of the development 
and formation of the Catholie theo- 
logy, which we are at first sight 
apt to ascribe to the 4th and 5th cen- 
turies. 


NICEN. 


DEF. 


§ 27. 


1 vid. p. 
44. note 
e. 


48 The labour-loving Origen. 


Father in Me. For thus both the Divine Trinity, and the holy 
preaching of the Monarchy, will be preserved.” 


5. And concerning the everlasting co-existence of the 
Word with the Father, and that He is not of another 
substance or subsistence, but proper to the Father’s, as 
the Bishops in the Council said, hear again from the 
labour-loving ™ Origen also. For what he has written as if 
inquiring and exercising himself, that let no one take as 
expressive of his own sentiments, but of parties who are 
disputing in the investigation, but what he” definitely 
declares, that is the sentiment of the labour-loving man. 
After his exercises! then against the heretics, straightway 
he introduces his personal belief, thus :— 


“If there be an Image ofthe Invisible God, it is an invisible 
Image ; nay, I will be bold to add, that, as being the likeness of 
the Father, never was it not. For else was that God, who, ac- 
cording to John, is called Light, (for God is Light,) without the 
radiance of His proper glory, that a man should presume to assert 
the Son’s origin of existence, as if before He was not. But 
when was not that Image of the Father’s Ineffable and Nameless 
and Unutterable subsistence, that Expression and Word, and He 
that knows the Father ? for let him understand well who dares to 
say, ‘ Once the Son was not, ’ that he is saying, ‘ Once Wisdom was 
not, ? and ‘ Word was not, ’ and‘ Life was not.’ ” 


6. And again elsewhere he says :— 


“But it is not innocent nor without peril, if because of our 
weakness of understanding we deprive God, as far as in us lies, 
of the Only-begotten Word ever co-existing with Him; and the 
Wisdom in which He rejoiced ; else He must be conceived as not 
always possessed of joy.” 


See, we are proving that this view has been transmitted 
from father to father; but ye, O modern Jews and 
disciples of Caiaphas, how many fathers can ye assign to 


™ φιλοπόνου, and so Serap. iv. 9. φρόνημά ἐστι. “ἀλλὰ. Certe legendum 
" & μὲν ὡς ζητῶν καὶ γυμνάζων ἔγρα- ἀλλ᾽ ἃ, idque omnino exigit sensus.” 
We, ταῦτα μὴ ὧς αὐτοῦ φρονοῦντος δε- Montfaucon. Rather for ἀδεῶς read ἃ 
χέσθω τις, ἀλλὰ τῶν πρὸς“ ἔριν φιλονει- δὲ ὡς, and put the stop αὖ ζητεῖν in- 
κούντων ἐν τῷ (ητεῖν, ἀδεῶς ὁρίζων stead of δεχέσθω TIS. 
ἀποφαίνεται, τοῦτο τοῦ φιλοπόνου τὸ 


The Nicene Council did but consign tradition to writing. 49 


your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise; for Cnae. 
all abhor you, but the devil alone!; none but he is your VY" 
father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning scattered Riera 
on you the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to 
slander the Ecumenical Council®, for committing to writing, 

not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those 


who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word have 


handed down to us P. 


° vid. supr. § 4. Orat.i. § 7. Ad Afros 
2, twice. Apol. contr. Arian. 7. ad Ep. 
Eg. 5. Epiph. Her. 70. 9. Euseb. Vit. 
Const. iii. 6. The Council was more 
commonly called μεγάλη vid. supr. ὃ 
26. The second General Council, A.D. 
381, took the name of ecumenical. 
vid. Can. 6. fin. but incidentally. The 
Council of Ephesus so styles itself in 
the opening of its Synodical Letter. 

Ρ The profession under which the 
decrees of Councils come to us is that 
of setting forth in writing what has 
ever been held orally or implicitly in 
the Church. Hence the frequent use 
of such phrases as ἐγγραφῶς ἐξετέθη 
with reference to them. Thus Dama- 
sus, Theod. Hist. ν. 10. speaks of that 
“apostolical faith, which was set forth 
in writing by the Fathers in Niczea.” 
On the other hand, Ephrem of Antioch, 
speaks of the doctrine of our Lord’s 
perfect humanity being “ inculeated 
by our Holy Fathers, but not as yet 
[i. e. till the Council of Chalcedon] 
being confirmed by the decree of an 
ecumenical Council.” Phot. 229. p. 
801. (ἐγγραφῶς, however, sometimes 
relates to the act of subscribing. Phot. 
ibid. or to Scripture, Clement. Strom. 
i. init. p. 821.) Hence Athan. says ad 
Afros, 1. and 2. that ‘the Word of 
the Lord which was given through the 
ecumenical Council in Niezea remain- 
eth for ever ;”? and uses against its op- 
posers the texts, ‘‘ Remove not the 
ancient landmark which thy fathers 
have set” (vid. also Dionysius in Eus. 
Hist. vii. 7.), and ‘‘ He that curseth his 
father or his mother, shall surely be put 
to death.” Proy. xxii. 28. Ex. xxi. 17. 
vid. also Athan. ad Epict. 1. And the 
Council of Chalcedon professes to 
‘* drive away the doctrines of error by 
a common decree, and renew the un- 
swerving faith of the Fathers,” Act. v. 
p. 452. [t. iv. 1458 ed. Col.] “‘as,” they 
proceed, “from of old the prophets 


For the faith which the Council has 


spoke of Christ, and He Himself in- 
structed us, and the creed of the Fa- 
thers has delivered to us,’? whereas 
“Ὁ other faith it is not lawful for any to 
bring forth, or to write, or to draw up, 
or to hold, or to teach.” p. 456. [1460 
ed. Col.] vid. S. Leo. supr. p. 5. note 
m. This, however, did not interfere 
with their adding without undoing. 
“ ΒΟΥ ᾽ says Vigilius, “if it were un- 
lawful to receive aught further after 
the Nicene statutes, on what authority 
venture we to assert that the Holy 
Ghost is of one substance with the Fa- 
ther, which it is notorious was there 
omitted ?” contr. Eutych. ν. init.; he 
gives other instances, some in point, 
others not. vid. also Eulogius, apud 
Phot. Cod. 23. pp. 829. 853. Yet to 
add to the confession of the Church is 
not to add to the faith, since nothing 
can be added to the faith. Leo, Ep. 124. 
p- 1237. Nay, Athan. says that the 
Nicene faith is sufficient to refute 
every heresy, ad Max. 5. fin. also Leo. 
Ep. 54. p. 956. and Naz. Ep. 102. init. 
excepting, however, the doctrine of the 
Holy Spirit ; which explains his mean- 
ing. The Henoticon of Zeno says the 
same, but with the intention of dealing 
a blow at the Council of Chalcedon. 
Evagr. iii. 14. p. 345. Aetius at Chalce- 
donsays that at Ephesus and Chaleedon 
the Fathers did not profess to draw up 
an exposition of faith, and that Cyril 
and Leo did but interpret the Creed. 
Cone. t. 2. p. 428. [t. iv. 1430, 1431 
ed. Col.] [see this whole subject very 
amply treated in Dr. Pusey’s On the 
Clause, And the Son, pp. 76 544.} 
Leo even says that the Apostles’ 
Creedis sufficient against all heresies, 
and that Eutyches erred on a point 
‘of which our Lord wished no one 
of either sex in the Church to be igno- 
rant,” and he wishes Eutyches to take 
the plenitude of the Creed “ puro et 
simplici corde.” Ep. 31. p. 857, 8. 
Ε 


50 Arians quarrelled with the sense, not the words merely. 


Niczy. confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church ; 
_PF._ to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves 
while condemning the Arian heresy ; and this is a chief 
reason why these apply themselves to calumniate the Coun- 
supr-§ cil, For it is not the terms which trouble them !, but that 
21. init. : 
those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous 


beyond other heresies. | 


CHAP. VIL. 
ON THE ARIAN SYMBOL ‘‘ INGENERATE.” 


This term afterwards adopted by them; and why ; three senses of it. A fourth 
sense. Ingenerate denotes God in contrast to His creatures, not to His 
Son; Father the scriptural title instead ; Conclusion. 


1. Tuts in fact was the reason, when the unsound nature 
of their phrases had been exposed at that time, and they 
were henceforth open to the charge of irreligion, that they 
proceeded to borrow of the Greeks the term Ingenerate*, 
that, under shelter of it, they might reckon among the things 
generate and the creatures, that Word of God, by whom 
these very things came to be; so unblushing are they in 
their irreligion, so obstinate in their blasphemies against 
the Lord. If then this want of shame arises from ignorance 
of the term, they ought .to learn of those who gave it 
them, and who have not scrupled to say that even in- 
tellect, which they derive from Good, and the soul which 
proceeds from intellect, though their respective origins be 
known, are notwithstanding ingenerate, for they understand 
that by so saying they do not disparage that first Origin 
of which the others come”. This being the case, let them 


ἃ ἀγένητον. Opportunity will occur 
for noticing this celebrated word on 
Orat. i. 30—34. where the present 
passage is partly re-written, partly 
transcribed. Mention is also made of 
it in the De Syn. 46, 47. Athanasius 
would seem to haye been but partially 
acquainted with the writings of the 
Anomeeans, whose symbol it was, and 
to have argued with them from the 
writings of the elder Arians, who had 
also made use of it. 

-b Montfaucon quotes a passage from 
Plato’s Phzedrus, in which the human 
soul is called “ ingenerate and immor- 


tal ;” but Athan. is referring to an- 
other subject, the Platonic, or rather 
the Eclectic Trinity. Thus Theodoret, 
“ὁ Plotinus, and Numenius, explaining 
the sense of Plato, say, that he taught 
Three principles beyond time and eter- 
nal, Good, Intellect, and the Soul of 
411,᾿ de Affect. Cur. ii. p. 750. And 
so Plotinus himself, ‘‘ It is as if one 
were to place Good as the centre, In- 
tellect like an immoyeable circleround, 
and Soul a moveable circle, and moye- 
able by appetite.’ 4 Ennead. iy. c. 16. 
vid. Porphyry in Cyril. contr. Julian. 
viii. t. ult. p. 271. vid. ibid. i. p. 32. 
EB 2 


CHap. 
VII. 


Ҥ 28. 


NICEN. 


Der. 


1 supr. p. 
31. note 
Ρ. 


52 Arians used phrases, neither in nor according to Scripture. 


say the like themselves, or else not speak at all, of what 
they do not know. But if they consider they are acquainted 
with the subject, then they must be interrogated ; for ° the 
expression is not from divine Scripture, but they are con- 
tentious, as elsewhere, for unscriptural positions. Just as 
I have related the reason and sense, with which the Council 
and the Fathers before it defined and published “of the 
substance,” and “one in substance,” agreeably to what 
Scripture says of the Saviour; so now let them if they can, 
answer on their part what has led them to this unscriptural 
phrase, and in what sense they call God Ingenerate ? 

2. In truth, Iam told 4, that the name has different senses ; 
philosophers say that it means, first, “ what has not yet, but 
may, come to be;” next, “ what neither exists, nor can come 
into being;” and thirdly, “what exists indeed, but was neither 
generated nor had origin of being, but is everlasting and in- 
destructible®.” Now perhaps they will wish to pass over the 


Plot. 3 Ennead. y. 2 and 3. Athan.’s 
testimony that the Platonists consi- 
dered their three ὑποστάσεις all in- 
generate is perhaps a singular one. 
In 5 Ennead. iy. 1. Plotinus says what 
seems contrary to it, 7 δὲ ἀρχὴ aye- 
yntos, speaking of His τἀγαθόν. Yet 
Plato, quoted by Theodoret, ibid. p. 
749, speaks of εἴτε ἀρχὴν εἴτε ἀρχάς. 

ὁ ἐπεὶ μάλισται. ὅτι μάλιστα, Orat. i. 
§ 36. de Syn. § 21. fin. ὅταν μάλιστα, 
Apol. ad. Const. 28. καὶ μάλιστα, de 
Syn. § 42. 54. 

4 And so de Syn. § 46. “we have 
on careful inquiry ascertained, &c.” 
Again, ‘‘ I have acquainted myself on 
their account [the Arians’] with the 
meaning of ἀγένητον." Orat. i. § 80 
[infra p. 225]. This is remarkable, for 
Athan. was a man of liberal education, 
as his Orat. contr. Gent. and de Incarn. 
shew, especially his acquaintance with 
the Platonic philosophy. Sulpicius too 
speaks of him as a jurisconsultus, Sacr. 
Hist. ii. 50. S. Gregory Naz. says, that 
he gave some attention, but not much, 
to the subjects of general education, 
τῶν ἐγκυκλίων, that he might not be 
altogether ignorant, of what he never- 
theless despised, Orat. 21.6. In the 
same way S. Basil, whose cultivation 
of mind none can doubt, speaks slight- 
ingly of his own philosophical know- 
ledge. He writes of his “ neglecting 


his own weakness, and being utterly 
unexercised in such disquisitions ;” 
contr. Eunom. init. And so in de Sp. 
§ 5. he says, that ‘‘ they who have giv- 
en time” to vain philosophy, “ divide 
causes into principal, cooperative,” 
Χο. Elsewhere he speaks of haying 
‘* expended much time on yanity, and 
wasted nearly all his youth in the yain 
labour of pursuing the studies of that 
wisdom which God has made foolish- 
ness,” Ep. 223.2. In truth, Christian- 
ity has a philosophy of its own. Thus 
in the commencement of his Vie Dux 
Anastasius says, “ It is a first point to 
be understood, that the tradition of 
the Catholic Church deos not proceed 
upon, or follow, the philosophical de- 
finitions in all respects, and especially 
as regards the mystery of Christ, and 
the doctrine of the Trinity, but a cer- 
tain rule of its own, evangelical and 
apostolical.”’ p. 20. 

e Four senses of ἀγένητον are enu- 
merated, Orat. i. § 30 [infra pp. 225, 
226]. 1. What is not as yet, but is possi- 
ble; 2. what neither has been nor can 
be; 3. what exists, but has not come to 
be from any cause ; 4. whatis not made, 
but is ever. Only two senses are spe- 
cified in the de Syn. § 46. and in these 
the question really lies; 1. what is, 
but without a cause; 2. uncreate. 


53 


The equivocation of the word Ingenerate. 


first twosenses, from the absurdity which follows ; for accord- 
ing to the first, things that already have come to be, and 
things that are expected to be, are ingenerate; and the second 
is more extravagant still; accordingly they will proceed to the 
third sense, and use the word in it ; though here, in this sense 
too, their irreligion will be quite as great. For if by Ingene- 
rate they mean what has no origin of being, nor is generated 
or created, but eternal, and say that the Word of God is con- 
trary to this, who comprehends not the craft of these foes of 
God? who but would stone‘ such madmen? for, when they 
are ashamed to bring forward again those first phrases which 
they fabled, and which were condemned, the bad men have 
taken another way to signify them, by means of what they call 
Ingenerate. For ifthe Son be of things generate, it follows, 
that He too came to be from nothing; and if He has an 
origin of being, then He was not before His generation ; 
and if He is not eternal, there was once when He was 
not §. If these are their sentiments they ought to signify 
their heterodoxy in their own phrases, and not to hide 
their perverseness under the cloke of the Ingenerate. But 
instead of this, the evil-minded men are busy with their 
craftiness after their father, the devil; for as he attempts to 
deceive in the guise of others,so these have broached the 
term Ingenerate, that they might pretend to speak piously 


 BaddAcoOwoav παρὰ πάντων, Orat. ii. 
§ 28 [infra p. 319]. An apparent allu- 
sion to the punishment of blasphemy 
andidolatry under the Jewish Law. vid. 
reference to Ex. xxi. 17, in page 49, 
n.p. Thus, 6. g. Nazianzen: “While I 
20 up the mount with good heart, that 1 
may become within the cloud, and may 
hold converse with God, for so God bids ; 
if there be any Aaron, let him go up 
with meandstandnear. Andiftherebe 
any Nadab or Abiud, or of the elders, let 
him go up, but stand far off, according 
to the measure of his purification... .. 
But if any one is an eyil and savage 
beast, and quite incapable of science 
and theology; let him stand off still 
further, and depart from the mount ; 
or he will be stoned and crushed ; for 
the wicked shall be miserably de- 
stroyed. For as stones for the bestial 
are true words and strong. Whether 


he be leopard, let him die spots and 
all,” &c. ὅζ6. Orat. 28. 2. 

s The Arians argued that the word 
Ingenerate implied generate or erea- 
ture as its correlative, and therefore 
indirectly signified Creator; so that 
the Son being not ingenerate, was not 
the Creator. Athan. answers, that in 
the use of the word, whether there be 
a Son does not come into the question. 
As the idea of Father and Son does not 
include creation, so that of creator and 
creature does not include generation ; 
and it would be as illogical to infer 
that there are no creatures because 
there is a Son, as that there is no Son 
because there are creatures. Or, more 
closely, as a thing generate, though 
not the Father, is not therefore Son, 
so the Son though not Ingenerate is 
not therefore a thing generate. vid. 
p- 33, note r. 


CHAP. 


VIL. 


§ 29. 


NICEN. 
DEF. 


} ὕδιον 


§ 80. 


e¢ a 
ενα τῶν 


πάντων 


54. Ingenerate does not exclude the idea of Son but of creature. 


of God, yet might cherish a concealed blasphemy against the 
Lord, and under this covering might teach it to others. 

3. However, on the detecting of this sophism, what re- 
mains to them? “We havefound another,” say the evildoers; 
and then proceed to add to what they have said already, 
that Ingenerate means what has no author of being, but 
stands itself in this relation to things generate. Unthankful, 
and in truth deaf to the Scriptures! who do every thing, 
and say every thing, not to honour God, but to dishonour 
the Son, ignorant that he who dishonours the Son, dis- 
honours the Father. For first, even though they denote God 
in this way, still the Word is not proved to be of things ge- 
nerated. For if He be viewed as offspring of the substance 
of the Father, He is of consequence with Him eternally. 
For this name of offspring does not detract from the nature 
of the Word, nor does Ingenerate take its sense from con- 
trast with the Son, but with the things which come to be 
through the Son; and as he who addresses an architect, 
and calls him framer of house or city, does not under this 
designation allude to the son who is begotten from him, 
but on account of the art and science which he displays in 
his work, calls him artificer, signifying thereby that he is 
not such as the things made by him, and while he knows the 
nature of the builder, knows also that he whom he begets 
is other than his works; and in regard to his son calls him 
father, but im regard to his works, creator and maker; 
in like manner he who says in this sense that God is inge- 
nerate, names Him from His works, signifying, not only that 
He is not generate, but that He is maker of things which 
are so; yet is aware withal that the Word is other than 
the things generate, and alone a proper ! offspring of the 
Father, through whom all things came to be and consist}. 

4, In like manner, when the Prophets spoke of God as 
All-powerful, they did not so name Him, as if the Word were 
included in that All ὅ; (for they knew that the Son was other 
than things generate, and Sovereign over them Himself, 
according to His likeness to the Father;) but because He is 
Sovereign over all things which through the Son He has 


» The whole of this passage is repeated in Orat.i. 32. &c. vid. for this par- 
ticular argument, Basil also, contr. Eunom. i. 16. 


ae 


As ‘Lord of Hosts’ does not eaclude a Son, so not Ingenerate. 99 


made, and has given the authority of all things to the Son, 
and having given it, is Himself once more the Lord of all 


CuHap. 
γ 


things through the Word. Again, when they called God, | : 
Lord of the powers}, they said not this as if the Word was Ἐπ ἜΗΝ. 


one of those powers, but because, while He is Father of the 
Son, He is Lord of the powers which through the Son have 
come to be. For again, the Word too, as being in the 
Father, is Lord of them all, and Sovereign over all; for all 
things, whatsoever the Father hath, are the Son’s. This then 
being the force of such titles, in like manner let a man call 
God ingenerate, if it so please him; not however as if the 
Word were of generate things, but because, as I said before, 
God not only is not generate, but through His proper 
Word is He the maker of things which are so. For though 
the Father be called such, still the Word is the Father’s 
Image, and one in substance with Him; and being His 
Image, He must be distinct from things generate, and from 
every thing; for whose Image He is, to Him hath Heit to be 
proper” and to be like: so that he who calls the Father in- 
generate and almighty, perceives in the Ingenerate and the 
Almighty, His Word and His Wisdom, which is the Son. 
But these wondrous men, and prompt for irreligion, hit 
upon the term Ingenerate, not as caring for God’s honour, 
but from malevolence towards the Saviour ; for if they had 
regard to honour and blessing, it rather had been right and 
good to acknowledge and to call God Father, than to give 
Him this name ; for in calling God ingenerate, they are, as 
I said before, calling Him from things which came to be, 
and as a Maker only, that so they may imply the Word to 
be a work after their own pleasure; but he who calls God 
Father, in Him withal signifies His Son also, and cannot 
fail to know that, whereas there is a Son, through this Son 
all things that came to be were created. 


5. Therefore it will be much more accurate to denote God § 


from the Son and to call Him Father, than to name Him 
and call Him Ingenerate from His works only ; for the latter 
term refers to the works that have come to be at the will of 
God through the Word, but the name of Father points out 
the proper offspring from His substance. And whereas the 
Word surpasses things generate, by so much and more also 


2 τὴν ἰδιό- 
τητα 


[ων] 
— 


NIcEN. 
Der. 


John 14, 
10. 9. 


Ib. 10, 
30. 


Matt. 6, 
9. 


56 Father, not Ingenerate, the Scripture term. 

doth calling God Father surpass the calling Him Ingenerate; 
for the latter is unscriptural and suspicious, as it has various 
senses ; but the former is simple and scriptural, and more 
accurate, and alone implies the Son. And“ Ingenerate” is 
a word of the Greeks who know not the Son: but “ Father’’ 
has been acknowledged and vouchsafed by our Lord; for He 
knowing Himself whose Son He was, said, I in the Father 
and the Father in Me; and, He that hath seen Me hath seen 
the Father; and, I and the Father are one; but no where 
is He found to call the Father Ingenerate. Moreover, when 
He teaches us to pray, He says not, ‘‘ When ye pray, say, 
O God Ingenerate,” but rather, When ye pray, say, Our 
Father, which art in heaven. And it was His Will, that the 
Summary of our faith should have the same bearing. For 
He has bid us be baptized, not in the name of Ingenerate 
and generate, not into the name of uncreate and creature, 
but into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost’; for with 


such an initiation we too are 


i And so S. Basil, ‘‘ Our faith was 
not in. Framer and Work, but in Father 
and Son were we sealed through the 
grace in baptism.” contr. Eunom. ii. 
22. And a somewhat similar passage 
occurs Orat. ii. § 41. 

K υἱοποιούμεθα ἀληθῶς. This strong 
term ‘‘ truly” or “verily” seems taken 
from such passages as speak of the 
‘race and truth” of the Gospel, John 
i. 12—17, Again S. Basil says, that 
we are sons, κυρίως, *‘ properly,” and 
πρώτως ‘primarily,’ in opposition to 
τροπικῶς, “figuratively,” contr. Eu- 
nom. ii. 23. 5. Cyril too says, that 
we are sons “naturally” φυσικῶς as 
wellas κατὰ χάριν, vid. Suicer Thesaur. 
y. vids. 1.8. Of these words, ἀληθῶς, 
voids, κυρίως, and πρώτως, the first 
two are commonly reserved for our 
Lord ; e.g. τὸν ἀληθῶς υἱὸν, Orat. ii. ὃ 
37. ἡμεῖς viol, ovr ὡς ἐκεῖνος φύσει καὶ 
ἀληθείᾳ, iii. § 19. Hilary seems to deny 
us the title of ‘‘ proper” sons ; de Trin. 
xii. 15 ; but his ‘‘ proprium”’ is a trans- 
lation of ἴδιον, not κυρίως. And when 
Justin says of Christ 6 μόνος λεγόμενος 
κυρίως vids, Apol. ii. 6. [p. 62 O.T.] 
κυρίως seems to be used in reference to 
the word κύριος Lord, which he has just 
been using, κυριολογεῖν, being some- 
times used by himas others in the sense 
of ‘naming as Lord,” like θεολογεῖν. 


made sons verily*, and using 


vid. Tryph. 56. [p.141 O.T.] There isa 
passage in Justin’s ad Greece. 21. where 
he (or the writer) when speaking of 
ἐγώ εἶμι ὃ ὧν, uses the word in the 
same ambiguous sense; οὐδὲν yap ὄνομα 
ἐπὶ θεοῦ κυριολογεῖσθαι δυνατὸν, 21; as 
if κύριος, the Lord, by which “1 am” 
is translated, were a sort of symbol of 
that proper name of God which cannot 
be given. But to return; the true doc- 
trine then is, that, whereas there is a 
primary and secondary sense in which 
the word Son is used, primary when it 
has its formal meaning of continuation 
of nature, and secondary when it is 
used nominally, or for an external 
resemblance to the first meaning, it 
is applied to the regenerate, not in 
the secondary sense, but in the 
primary. S. Basil and S. Gregory 
Nyssen consider Son to be ‘‘ a term 
of relationship according to na- 
ture’ (vid. supr. p. 16, note k), also 
Basil in Psalm 28,1. The actual pre- 
sence of the Holy Spirit in the regen- 
erate in substance, (vid. Cyril. Dial. 
7. p. 638.) constitutes this relation- 
ship of nature; and hence after the 
words quoted from S. Cyril in the 
beginning of the note, in which he 
says, that we are sons, φυσικῶς, he pro- 
ceeds, “naturally, because we are in 
Him, andin Him alone.” vid, Athan.’s 


Novel terms of heresy met by new terms of orthodoxy. 


57 


the name of the Father, we acknowledge from that name 


Cuap. 
the Wordin the Father. But if He wills that we should call V4 
His own Father our Father, we must not on that account 
measure ourselves with the Son according to nature, for it 
is because of the Son that the Father is so called by us; for 
since the Word bore our body and came to be! in us, there- 1 γέγονεν 
fore by reason of the Word in us, is God called our Father. ἐν ἡμῖν 
For the Spirit of the Word in us, names through us His 
own lather as ours, which is the Apostle’s meaning when 
he says, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your Gal. 4, 
hearts, crying, Abba, Father. ee 

6. But perhaps being refuted as touching the term Ingene- § 82, 
rate also, they will say according to their evil nature, “ It 
behoved, as regards our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ also, 
to state from the Scriptures * what is there written of Him, *supr. p. 
and not to introduce unscriptural expressions.” Yes, it ot 


behoved, say I too; for the tokens of truth are more exact 
as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources!; but 
the ill disposition and the versatile and crafty irreligion of 
the Husebians, compelled the Bishops, as I said before, to 
publish more distinctly the terms which overthrow their 
irreligion ; and what the Council did write has already been 
shewn to have an orthodox sense, while the Arians have been 


shewn to be corrupt in their 


words which follow in the text at 
the end of § 31. And hence Nys- 
sen lays down, as a received truth, 
that “‘to none does the term ‘ proper,’ 
κυριώτατον, apply, but to one in whom 
the name responds with truth to the 
nature,” contr. Eunom. iii. p. 123. 
And he also implies, p. 117, the inti- 
mate association of our sonship with 
Christ’s, when he connects together 
regeneration with our Lord’s eternal 
generation, neither being διὰ παθοῦς, 
or, of the will of the flesh. If it be 
asked, what the distinctive words are 
which are incommunicably the Son’s, 
since so much is man’s, it is obvious to 
answer, ἴδιος vids and μονογενὴ5. which 
are in Scripture, and thesymbols *‘ ofthe 
substance,” and “one in substance,” 
of the Council ; and this is the value of 
the Council’s phrases, that, while they 
guard the Son’s divinity, they allow 
full scope, without risk of entrenching 
on it, to the Catholic doctrine of the 


expressions, and evil in their 


fulness of the Christian privileges. vid. 
supr. p. 3d. note q. 

ἐκ The holy and inspired Scriptures 
are sufficient of themselves for the 
preaching of the truth: yet there are 
also many treatises of our blessed 
teachers composed for this purpose.” 
contr. Gent. init. ‘ For studying and 
mastering the Scriptures, there is need 
of a good life and a pure soul, and 
virtue according to Christ,’ Incarn. 
57. “Since divine Scripture is more 
sufficient than any thing else, 1 re- 
commend persons who wish to know 
fully concerning these things” (the 
doctrine of the blessed Trinity), ‘to 
read the divine oracles,” ad Ep. Aig. 4. 
(Hist. tracts p. 190 0.T.] ‘The Scrip- 
tures are sufficient for teaching; but it 
is good for us to exhort each other in 
the faith, and to refresh each other 
with discourses.’ Vit.S. Ant. 16. And 
passim in Athan. 


NICEN. 
Der. 


Jer. 13, 
23. 


58 Conclusion. 


dispositions. The term Ingenerate, having its own sense, 
and admitting of a religious use, they nevertheless, accord- 
ing to their own idea, and as they will, use for the dishonour 
of the Saviour, all for the sake of contentiously maintain- 
ing, like giants™, their fight with God. But as they did 
not escape condemnation when they adduced these former 
phrases, so when they misconceive of the Ingenerate which 
in itself admits of being used well and religiously, they were 
detected, being disgraced before all, and their heresy every 
where proscribed. 

7. This then, asI could, have I related, by way of explain- 
ing what was formerly done in the Council ; but I know that 
the contentious among Christ’s foes will not be disposed to 
change even after hearing this, but will ever search about 
for other pretences, and for others again after those. For 
as the Prophet speaks, If the Ethiopian change his skin, or 
the leopard his spots, then will they be willing to think 
religiously, who have been instructed in irreligion. Thou 
however, Beloved, on receiving this, read it by thyself; and 
if thou approvest of it, read it also to the brethren who 
happen to be present, that they too on hearing it, may 
welcome the Council’s zeal for the truth, and the exactness 
of its sense; and may condemn that of Christ’s foes, the 
Arians, and the futile pretences, which for the sake of their 
irreligious heresy they have been at the pains to frame for 
each other; because to God and the Father is due the 
glory, honour, and worship with His co-existent Son and 
Word, together with the All-holy and Life-giving Spirit, 
now and unto endless ages of ages. Amen. 


m And so, Orat. ii. ὃ 32 [infra. p. the Arian ascendancy. Also Soer. 
325]. κατὰ τοὺς μυθευομένους γίγαντας. y.10.p.268.d. Sometimes the Scrip- 
And so Nazianzen, Orat. 48. 26. speak- ture giants are spoken of, sometimes 
ing of the disorderly Bishops during the mythological. 


APPENDIX. 


LETTER OF EUSEBIUS OF CHSAREA TO THE PEOPLE OF 
HIS DIOCESE ®. 


1. Waar was transacted concerning ecclesiastical faith at ΑΡΡῈΝ- 


the Great Council assembled at Niczea, you have probably 
learned, Beloved, from other sources, ruamour being wont 
to precede the accurate account of what is doing. But 
lest in such reports the circumstances of the case have been 
misrepresented, we have been obliged to transmit to you, 
first, the formula of faith presented by ourselves, and next, 
the second, which the Fathers put forth with some additions 


to our words. 


Our own paper then, which was read in the 


presence of our most pious” Emperor, and declared to be 
good and unexceptionable, ran thus :— 


2. As we have received from the Bishops who preceded us, and 
in our first catechisings, and when we received the Holy Layer, 


® This Letter is also found in Soer. 
Hist. i. 8. Theod. Hist. i. Gelas. Hist. 
Nic. ii. 34. p. 442. Niceph. Hist. viii. 22. 

b And so infr. ’* most pious,’ § 4. 
“most wise and most religious,”’ ibid. 
“most religious,’ § 8. ὃ 10. Euse- 
bius observes in his Vit. Const. the 
same tone concerning Constantine, 
and assigns to him the same office in 
determining the faith (being as yet 
unbaptized). E.g. ‘“ When there were 
differences between persons of differ- 
ent countries, as if some common 
bishop appointed by God, he con- 
vened Councils of God’s ministers ; and 
not disdaining to be present and to sit 
amid their conferences,” &c. i. 44. 
When he came into the Nicene Coun- 
cil, “Sit was,” says Eusebius, “as some 
heavenly Angel of God,” iii. 10. al- 
luding to the brilliancy of the imperial 


purple. He confesses, however, he did 
not sit down until the Bishops bade 
him. Again at the same Council, 
‘* with pleasant eyes looking serenity 
itself into them all, collecting himself, 
and in a quiet and gentle voice” he 
made an oration to the Fathers upon 
peace. Constantine had been an in- 
strument in conferring such vast 
benefits, humanly speaking, on the 
Christian Body, that it is not won- 
derful that other writers of the day 
besides Eusebius should praise him. 
Hilary speaks of him as “οὗ sacred 
memory,” Fragm. 5. init. Athanasius 
calls him ‘‘most pious,’ Apol. contr. 
Arian. 9; ‘‘of blessed memory,” ad 
Ep. 4g. 18.19. Epiphanius ‘‘ most 
religious and of eyer-blessed memory,” 
Her. 70. 9. Posterity, as was natural, 
was still more grateful. 


DIX. 


on 


§ 2. 


NICEN. 
DEF. 


§ 3. 


Matt. 28, 
19. 


ὃ 4. 


00 Letter of Husebius of Cwsarea 


and as we have learned from the divine Scriptures, and as we 
believed and taught in the presbytery, and in the Episcopate itself, 
so believing also at the time present, we report to you our faith, 
and it is this © :— 

We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all 
things visible and invisible. 

And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, 
Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born 
of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, 
by whom also all things were made; who for our salvation was 
made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again 
the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in 
glory to judge the quick and dead. 

And we believe also in One Holy Ghost; believing each of 
These to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son 
truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our 
Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, Go 
teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Concerning whom we con- 
fidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have 
held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathe- 
matizing every godless heresy. That this we have ever thought 
from our heart and soul, from the time we recollect ourselves, and 
now think and say in truth, before God Almighty and our Lord 
Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by proofs to shew and to 
conyince you, that, even in times past, such has been our belief 


and preaching. 


3. On this faith being publicly put forth by us, no room 


9 “The children of the Church have 
received from their holy Fathers, that 
is, the holy Apostles, to guard the 
faith ; and withal to deliver and preach 
it to their own children. ... Cease 
not, faithful and orthodox men, thus 
to speak, and to teach the like from 
the divine Scriptures, and to walk, 
and to catechise, to the confirmation 
of yourselves and those who hear you; 
namely, that holy faith of the Ca- 
tholic Church, as the holy and only 
Virgin of God received its custody 
from the holy Apostles of the Lord; 
and thus, in the case of each of those 
who are under catechising, who are 
to approach the Holy Laver, ye ought 
not only to preach faith to your chil- 
dren in the Lord, but also to teach 
them expressly, as your common mo- 
ther teaches, to say: ‘ We believe in 
One God,” &c. Epiph. Ancor. 119. 
fin. who thereupon proceeds to give at 
length the Niceno-Constantinopolitan 
Creed. And so Athan. speaks of the 


orthodox faith, as ‘‘issuing from Apos- 
tolical teaching and the Fathers’ tra- 
dition, and confirmed by New and Old 
Testament.’ ad Adelph. 6. init. Cyril 
Hier. too as ‘‘ declared by the Church 
and established from all Scripture.” 
Cat. y. 12. [p.580.T.] “Let us guard 
with vigilance what we have received. 
. .. What then have we received from 
the Scriptures but altogether this ? 
that God made the world by the 
Word,” &c.&c. Procl.ad Armen. p.612. 
‘That God, the Word, after the union 
remained such as He was, &c. so clear- 
ly hath divine Scripture, and more- 
over the doctors of the Churches, 
and the lights of the world taught us.” 
Theodor. Dial.3. init. ‘* That it is the 
tradition of the Fathers is not the 
whole of our case; for they too follow- 
ed the meaning of Scripture, starting 
from the testimonies, which just now 
we laid before you from Scripture.’ 
Basil de Sp. § 16. vid. also a remark- 
able passage in de Synod. ὃ 6. fin. infra. 


ee 


to the people of his Diocese. 61 


for contradiction appeared; but our most pious Emperor, Appen- 
before any one else, testified that it comprised most orthodox ὅπ 
statements. He confessed moreover that such were his 

own sentiments, and he advised all present to agree to it, 

and to subscribe its articles and to assent to them, with the 
insertion of the single word, One in substance, which more- 

over he interpreted as not in the sense of the affections of 
bodies, nor as if the Son subsisted from the Father, in the 

way of division, or any severance; for that the immaterial, 

and intellectual, and incorporeal nature could not be the 
subject of any corporeal affection, but that it became us to 
conceive of such things in a divine and ineffable manner. 

And such were the theological remarks of our most wise 

and most religious Emperor; but they, with a view to 

the addition. of One m substance, drew up the following 
formula :— 


4. The Faith dictated in the Council. 


“We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all 
things visible and invisible :— 

“And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten 
of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the Substance of the 
Father ; God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very 
God, begotten not made, One in substance with the Father, by 
whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in 
earth ; who for us men and for our salyation came down and was 
made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, 
ascended into heaven, and cometh to judge quick and dead. 

“ And in the Holy Ghost. 

“And those who say, ‘Once He was not,’ and ‘ Before His 
generation He was not,’ and ‘He came to be from nothing,’ or 
those who pretend that the Son of God is ‘ Of other subsistence or 
substance “,’ or ‘created,’ or‘ alterable,’ or ‘ mutable,’ the Catholic 
Church anathematizes.” 


5. On their dictating this formula, we did not let it § 5. 
pass without inquiry in what sense they introduced “ of the 
substance of the Father,” and “one in substance with the 
Father.’ Accordingly questions and explanations took 


4 The only clauses of the Creed the former shall be reserved for a 
which admit of any question in their later part of the volume; the latter is 
explanation, are the “‘He was not treated of in a note at the end of this 
before His generation,” and ‘of other Treatise ; infr. p. 66. 
subsistence or substance.” Of these 


NICEN. 


Der. 


§ 6. 


62 Letter of Eusebius of Caesarea 


place, and the meaning of the words underwent the scrutiny 
of reason. And they professed, that the phrase “ of the sub- 
stance” was indicative of the Son’s being indeed from the 
Father, yet without being as if a part of Him. And with 
this understanding we thought good to assent to the sense 
of such religious doctrine, teaching, as it did, that the Son 
was from the Father, not however a part of His substance °. 
On this account we assented to the sense ourselves, without 
declining even the term “ One in substance,” peace being 
the object which we set before us, and stedfastness in the 
orthodox view. 

6. In the same way we also admitted “begotten, not 
made ;”’ since the Council alleged that “made” was an ap- 
pellative common to the other creatures which came to be 
through the Son, to whom the Son had no likeness. Where- 
fore, say they, He was not a work resembling the things 


which through Him came to 


e Eusebius does not commit him- 
self to any positive sense in which 
the-formula ‘‘ of the substance” is 
to be interpreted, but only says what 
it does not mean. His comment on 
it is “of the Father, but not as a 
part ;’? where, what is not negative, 
instead of being an explanation, is but 
a recurrence to the original words of 
Scripture, of which ἐξ οὐσίας itself is 
the explanation ; a curious inversion. 
Indeed it is very doubtful whether he 
admitted the ἐξ οὐσίας at all. He says, 
that the Son is not like the radiance of 
light so far as this, that the radiance 
is an inseparable accident of substance, 
whereas the Son is by the Father’s will, 
κατὰ γνώμην καὶ προαίρεσιν, Demostr. 
Ἐν. ἵν. 8. And though he insists on our 
Lord being alone, ἐκ θεοῦ, yet he means 
in the sense which Athan. refutes, 
supr. § 7 [pp. 12, 13]. viz. that He 
alone was created immediately from 
God, vid. next note f. It is true that 
he plainly condemns with the Nicene 
Creed the ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων of the Arians, 
“out of nothing,” but an evasion was 
at hand here also; for he not only 
adds, according to Arian custom, “as 
others,” (vid. note following,) but he 
has a theory that no being whatever 
is out of nothing, for non-existence 
cannot be the cause of existence. God, 
he says, “‘ proposed His own will and 


be’, but was of a substance 


power as a sort of matter and sub- 
stance of the production and constitu- 
tion of the universe, so that it is not 
reasonably said, that any thing is out 
of nothing. For what is from nothing 
cannot be at all. How indeed can no- 
thing be to any thing a cause of being? 
but all that is, takes its being from One 
who only is, and was, who also said, ‘I 
am that Lam.’”’ Demonstr. Ev. iy. 1. 
Again, speaking of our Lord, “ΗΘ who 
was from nothing would not truly be 
Son of God, as neither is any other of 
things generate.” Eccl. Theol. i. 9. fin. 

f Eusebius distinctly asserts, Dem. 
Ἐν. iv. 2. that our Lord is a creature. 
“This offspring,’ he says, ‘did He 
first produce Himself from Himself as 
a foundation of these things which 
should succeed, the perfect handy- 
work, δημιούργημα, of the Perfect, and 
the wise structure, ἀρχιτεκτόνημα, of 
the Wise,” &c. Accordingly his avowal 
in the text is but the ordinary Arian 
eyasion of ‘an offspring, not as the 
offsprings.” E.g. ** It is not without 
peril to say recklessly that the Son is 
generate out of nothing similarly to 
the other generates.”’ Dem. Ey. ν. 1. 
vid. also Eccl. Theol. i. 9. iii. 2. And 
he considers our Lord the only Son by 
a divine provision similar to that by 
which there is only one sun in the fir- 
mament, as a centre of light and heat. 


to the people of his Diocese. 


. 


63 


which is too high for the level of any work!, and which 
the Divine oracles teach to have been generated from the 
Father 8, the mode of generation being inscrutable and in- 
calculable to every generated nature. 

7. And so too on examination there are grounds for saying, 
that the Son is “one in substance” with the Father; not in 
the way of bodies, nor like mortal beings, for He is not such 


by division of substance, or by severance”, no nor by δὴν 
2 2 yi Wh 


affection ὅ, or alteration, or changing of the Father’s sub- 
stance and power ", (since from all such the ingenerate nature 


**Such an Only-begotten Son, the ex- 
cellent artificer of His will and opera- 
tor, did the supreme God and Father 
of that operator Himself first of all 
beget, through Him and in Him giv- 
ing subsistence to the operative words 
(ideas or causes) of things which were 
to be, and casting in Him the seeds of 
the constitution and governance of the 
universe; ... Therefore the Father 
being one, it behoved the Son to be 
one also; but should any one object 
that He constituted not more, it is 
fitting for such a one to complain that 
He constituted not more suns, and 
moons, and worlds, and ten thousand 
other things.” Dem. EV. iy. 5. fin. vid. 
aiso iv. 6. 

8 Eusebius does not say that our 
Lord is from the substance of the 
Father, but has a substance from the 
Father. This is the Semi-arian doc- 
trine, which, whether confessing the 
Son from the substance of the Father 
or not, implied that His substance was 
not the Father’s substance, but a 
second substance. The same doctrine 
is found in the Semi-arians of Ancyra, 
though they seem to have confessed 
“οὗ the substance.” And this is one 


object of the ὁμοούσιον, to hinder the ΄ 


confession “οἵ the substance” from 
implying a second substance, which 
was not obyiated or was even encou- 
raged by the ὁμοιούσιον. The Council 
of Ancyra, quoting the text “‘ As the 
Father hath life in Himself, so,” &c. 
says, ‘since the life which is in the 
Father means substance, and the life 
of the Only-begotten which is begot- 
ten from the Father means substance, 
the word ‘ so’ implies a likeness of 
substance to substance.” Heer. 73. 10 
fin. Hence Eusebius does not scruple 
to speak of “two substances,” and 


other writers of three substances, 
contr. Mare.i. 4. p. 25. He calls our 
Lord ‘‘a second substance.’ Dem. Evy. 
vi. Pref. Praep. Evy. vii .12. p. 320. and 
the Holy Spirit a third substance, 
ibid. 15. p. 825. This it was that made 
the Latins so suspicious of three hy- 
postases, because the Semi-arians, as 
well as they, understood ὑπόστασις to 
mean substance. Eusebius in like 
manner calls our Lord “‘ another God,’’ 
**asecondGod.” Dem. Ey. y.4.p. 226. 
γ. fin. ‘second Lord.” ibid. 8 init. 6. 
fin. ‘‘ second cause.”’ Dem. Ev. ν. Preef. 
vid. also ἕτερον ἔχουσα τὸ Kar οὐσίαν 
ὑποκείμενον, Dem. Ey. ν. 1. p. 215. 
καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸν οὐσιωμένος. ibid. iy. 3. 
And so ἕτερος παρὰ τὸν πατέρα. Eccl. 
Theol. i. 60. p. 90. and ζωὴν ἰδίαν ἔχων. 
ibid. and ζῶν καὶ ὑφεστὼς καὶ τοῦ 
πατρὸς ὑπάρχων ἔκτος. ibid. Hence 
Athan. insists so much, as in this 
treatise, on our Lord not being exter- 
nal to the Father. Once admit that 
He is in the Father, and we may call 
the Father, the only God, for He is 
included. And so again as to the In- 
generate, the term does not exclude 
the Son, for He is generate in the In- 
generate. 

h This was the point on which,as we 
haye partly seen already, the Semi- 
arians made their principal stand 
against the ‘‘ one in substance,” 
though they also objected to it as 
being of a Sabellian character. E.g. 
Euseb. Demonstr. iv. 3. p. 148. d. p. 
149. a, b. ν. 1. pp. 218—215. contr. 
Marcell. i. 4. p. 20. Eccl. Theol. i. 12. 
Ρ. 73. in laud. Const. p. 525. de Fidei. 
ap. Sirmond. tom. i. p. 7. de Fide ii. p. 
16. and apparently his de Incorporali. 
And so the Semi-arians at Ancyra, 
Epiph. Heer. 73. 11. p. 858.a,b. And 
so Meletius, ibid. p. 878 fin. and Cyril 


§ 7. 


a“ 


64. Letter of Eusebius of Cesarea 


of the Father is alien,) but because “ one in substance with 


—** the Father” suggests that the Son of God bears no resem- 


§ 8. 


ὃ 9. 


blance to the generated creatures, but that to His Father 
alone who begat Him is He in every way assimilated, and 
that He is not of any other subsistence and substance, but 
from the Father’. ‘To which term also, thus interpreted, it 
appeared well to assent; since we were aware that even 
among the ancients, some learned and illustrious Bishops 
and writers* have used the term “one in substance,” in 
their theological teaching concerning the Father and Son. 

8. So much then be said concerning the faith which was 
published ; to which all of us assented, not without inquiry, 
but according to the specified senses, mentioned before the 
most religious Emperor himself, and justified by the fore- 
mentioned considerations. And as to the anathematism 
published by them at the end of the Faith, it did not pain 
us, because it forbade to use words not in Scripture, from 
which almost all the confusion and disorder of the Church 
have come. Since then no divinely inspired Scripture has 
used the phrases, “out of nothing,” and “once He was not,” 
and the rest which follow, there appeared no ground for 
using or teaching them ; to which also we assented as a good 
decision, since it had not been our custom hitherto to use 
these terms. 

9. Moreover to anathematize “‘ Before His generation He 
was not,” did not seem preposterous, in that it is confessed 


Hier. Catech. vii. 5. xi. 18. though 
of course Catholics would speak as 
strongly on this point as their op- 
ponents. 

i Here again Eusebius does not say 
“from the Father’s substance,” but 
“not from other substance, but from 
the Father.” According to note 6. 
supr. he considered the will of Goda 
certain matter or substance. Mont- 
faucon in loc. and Collect. Noy. Preef. 
p- Xxvi. translates without warrant 
‘ex Patris hypostasi et substantia.” 
As to the Son’s perfect likeness tothe 
Father which he seems here to grant, 
it has been already shewn, p. 35. note 
u, how the admission was evaded. 
The likeness was but a likeness after 
its own kind, as a picture is of the ori- 
ginal. ‘* Though our Saviour Himself 
teaches,” he says, ‘‘ that the Father is 


the ‘ only true God,’ still let me not be 
backward to confess Him also the true 
God, as in an image, and that pos- 
sessed ; so that the addition of “ only’ 
may belong to the Father alone as 
archetype of the image .... As, sup- 
posing one king held sway, and his 
image was carried about into every 
quarter, no one in his right mind 
would say that those who held sway 
were two, but one who was honoured 
through his image ; in like manner,” 
&c. de Eccles. Theol. ii, 23, vid. ibid. 
7. pp. 109. 111. 

k Athanasius in like manner, ad 
Afros, 6. speaks of ‘‘ testimony of an- 
cient Bishops about 1380 years since ;” 
and in de Syn. ὃ 48. of ‘long before” 
the Council of Antioch, A.D. 269. viz. 
the Dionysii, &e. vid. supra p. 35. 
note t. 


to the people of his diocese. 65 
by all, that the Son of God was before the generation ac- Αρρεν- 
cording to the flesh!. Nay, our most religious a as a τ 


ἐδ 


did at the time prove, in a speech, that He was in being 
even according to His divine generation which is before 
all ages, since even before He was generated in energy, 
He was in virtue™ with the Father ingenerately, the Father 


being always Father, as King 


always, and Saviour always, 


having all things in virtue, and being always in the same 


respects and in the same way. 


10. This we have been forced to transmit to you, Beloved, 
as making clear to you the deliberation of our inquiry and 
assent, and how reasonably we resisted even to the last 
minute as long as we. were offended at statements which 
differed from our own, but received without contention what 
no longer pained us, as soon as, on a candid examination of 
the sense of the words, they appeared to us to coincide with 
what we ourselves have professed in the faith which we have 


already published. 


! Socrates, who advocates the ortho- 
doxy of Eusebius, leaves out this he- 
terodox paragraph altogether. Bull, 
however, Defens. F. N. iii. 9. n. 3. 
thinks it an interpolation. Athanasius 
alludes to the early part of the clause, 
supr. p. 7. and ad Syn. § 13. where he 
says, that Eusebius implied that the 
Arians denied eyen our Lord’s exist- 
ence before His incarnation. As to 
Constantine, he seems to haye been 
used on these occasions by the court 
Bishops who were his instructors, 
and who made him the organ of their 
own heresy. Upon the first rise of the 
Arian controversy he addressed a sort 
of pastoral letter to Alexander and 
Arius, telling them that they were 
disputing about a question of words, 
and recommending them to drop it 
and live together peaceably. Euseb. 
vit. C. ii. 69. 72. 

m Theognis, another of the Nicene 
Arians, says the same, according to 
Philostorgius ; viz. “ that God even 
before He begat the Son was a Father, 
as having the power, δύναμις, of be- 
getting.” Hist.ii.15. Though Bull pro- 
nounces such doctrine to be heretical, 
as of course it is, still he considers that 
it expresses what otherwise stated may 
be orthodox, viz. the doctrine that our 
Lord was called the Word from eter- 


nity, and the Son upon His descent to 
create the worlds. And he acutely and 
ingeniously interprets the Arian for- 
mula, ‘* Before His generation He was 
not,’ to support this yiew. Another 
opportunity will occur of giving an 
opinion uponthis question ; meanwhile, 
the parallel on which the heretical 
doctrine is supported in the text is 
answered by many writers, on the 
ground that Father and Son are words 
of nature, but Creator, King, Saviour, 
are external, or what may be called 
accidental to Him. Thus Athanasius 
observes, that Father actually implies 
Son, but Creator only the power to 
create, as expressing a δύναμις; “ἃ 
maker is before his works, but he who 
says Father, forthwith in Father im- 
plies the existence of the Son.” Orat. 


‘iii. § 6 [infra p. 407]. vid. Cyril too, 


Dial. ii. p. 459. Pseudo-Basil, contr. 
Eun. iy. 1. fin. On the other hand Ori- 
gen argues the reverse way, that since 
God is eternally a Father, therefore 
eternally Creator also: “ΑΒ one cannot 
be father without a son, nor lord with- 
out possession, so neither can God be 
called All-powerful, without subjects 
of His power ;” Periarch. i. 2. n. 10. 
hence he argued for the eternity of 
matter. 


NICEN. 


DEF. 


NOTE on page 61. 


On the meaning of the phrase ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας 
in the Nicene Anathema. 


Bishop Bull has made it a question, whether these words in the 
Nicene Creed mean the same thing, or are to be considered dis- 
tinct from each other, advocating himself the latter opinion against 
Petavius. The history of the word ὑπόστασις is of too intricate a 
character to enter upon here; but a few words may be in place 
in illustration of its sense as it occurs in the Creed, and with 
reference to the view taken of it by the great divine, who has 
commented on it. 

Bishop Bull, as I understood him (Defens. F. N. ii. 9. δ 1]. ) 
considers that two distinct ideas are intended by the words οὐσία 
and ὑπόστασις, in the clause ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας ; as if the 
Creed condemned those who said that the Son was not from the 
Father’s substance, and those also who said that He was not from 
the Father’s hypostasis or subsistence; as if a man might hold at 
least one of the two without holding the other. And in matter of 
fact, he does profess to assign two parties of heretics, who denied 
this or that proposition respectively. 

Petavius, on the other hand (de Trin. iv. 1.), considers that the 
word ὑπόστασις, is but another term for οὐσία, and that not two but 
one proposition is contained in the clause in question; the word 
ὑπόστασις not being publicly recognised in its present meaning till 
the Council of Alexandria, in the year 362. Constant. (Epist. Pont. 
Rom. pp. 274. 290. 462.), Tillemont (Memoires 8. Denys. d’Alex. 
§ 15.), Huet (Origenian. ii. 2. n. 3.), Thomassin (de Incarn. iii. 1.), 
and Morinus (de Saer. Ordin. ii. 6.), takes substantially the same 
view; while Maranus (Pref. ad S. Basil. § 1. tom. 3. ed. Bened.), 
Natalis Alexander, Hist. (See. 1. Diss. 22. cire. fin.), Burton (Tes- 
timonies to the Trinity, No. 71), and the President of Magdalen 
(Reliqu. Sacr. vol. iii. p. 189.), differ from Petavius, if they do not 
agree with Bull. 

Bull’s principal argument lies in the strong fact, that S. Basil ex- 
pressly asserts, that die Council did mean the two terms to be distinct, 
and this when he is answering the Sabellians, who grounded their 
assertion that there was but one ὑπόστασις, on the alleged fact, the 
Council had used οὐσία and ὑπόστασις indifferently. 

Bull refers also to Anastasius, Hodeg. 21. (22. p. 343. ?) who says, 
that the Nicene Fathers defined that there are three hypostases or 
Persons in the Holy Trinity. Petavius considers that he derived 
this from Gelasius of Cyzicus, a writer of no great authority; but. 
as the passage occurs in Anastasius, they are the words of Andrew 
of Samosata. But what is more important, elsewhere Anastasius 
quotes a passage from Amphilochius to something of the same effect. 


Note on the word Hypostasis in the Nicene Anathema. 67 


c. 10. p. 164. He states it besides himself, ὁ. 9. p- 150. and ec. 24. Νοτε. 
p. 364. In addition, Bull quotes passages from S. Dionysius of 
Alexandria, S. Dionysius of Rome (vid. above, pp. 44—48. and 
note i. p. 46.), Eusebius of Ceesarea, and afterwards Origen ; in all 
of which three hypostases being spoken of, whereas antiquity, early 
or late, never speaks in the same way of three οὐσίαι, it is plain that 
ὑπόστασις then conveyed an idea which οὐσία did not. To these 
may be added a passage in Athanasius, in ΠΙᾺ, Omnia, &e. § 6. 

Bishop Bull adds the following explanation of the two words as 
they occur in the Creed: he conceives that the one is intended to 
reach the Arians, and the other the Semi-arians; that the Semi- 
arians did actually make a distinction between οὐσία and ὑπόστασις, 
admitting in a certain sense that the Son was from the ὑπόστασις 
of the Father, while they denied that He was from His οὐσία. 
They then are anathematized in the words ἐξ ἑτέρας οὐσίας ; and, as 
he would seem to mean, the Arians in the ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως. 

Now I hope it will not be considered any disrespect to so great 
an authority, if I differ from this view, and express my reasons for 
doing so. 

l. First then, supposing his account of the Semi-arian doctrine 
ever so free from objection, granting that they denied the ἐξ οὐσίας, 
and admitted the ἐξ ὑποστάσεως, yet who are they who, according to 
his view, denied the ἐξ ὑποστάσεως, or said that the Son was ἐξ ἑτέρας 
ὑποστάσεως ? he does not assign any parties, though he implies 
the Arians. Yet though as is notorious, they denied the ἐξ 
οὐσίας. there is nothing to shew that they or any other party 
of Arians maintained specifically that the Son was not of the 
ὑπόστασις, or subsistence of the Father. That is, the hypothesis 
supported by this eminent divine, does not answer the very ques- 
tion which it raises. It professes that those who denied the ἐξ 
ὑποστάσεως, were not the same as those who denied the ἐξ οὐσίας : 
yet it fails to tell us who did deny the ἐξ ὑποστάσεως, in a sense 
distinct from ἐξ οὐσίας. 

2. Next, his only proof that the Semi-arians did hold the ἐξ ὗπο- 
στάσεως as distinct from the ἐξ οὐσίας, lies in the cireumstance, that 
the three (commonly called) Semi-arian confessions of A.D. 341, 
344, 351, known as Mark’s of Arethusa, the Macrostiche, and the 
first Sirmian, anathematize those who say that the Son is ἐξ ἑτέρας 
ὑποστάσεως καὶ μὴ ἐκ TOD θεοῦ, not anathematizing the ἐξ ἑτέρας οὐσίας, 
which he infers thence was their own belief. Another explanation 
of this passage will be offered presently ; meanwhile, it is well to 
observe, that Hilary, in speaking of the confession of Philippopolis 
which was taken from Mark’s, far from suspecting that the clause 
involved an omission, defends it on the ground of its retaining the 
Anathema. de Synod. 35. thus implying that ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως 
καὶ μὴ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ was equivalent to ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας. 
And it may be added, that Athanasius in like manner, in his account 
of the Nicene Council above translated (de Decret. § 20. fin. [supra 
p- 36]), when repeating its anathema, drops the ἐξ ὑποστάσεως al- 
together, and reads τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, ... . ἢ ποίημα, ἢ 
ἐξ ἑτέρας οὐσίας, τούτους ἀναθεματίζει κ. τ. λ. 

Β2 


NICEN. 
DEF. 


68 Note on the word Hypostasis in the Nicene Anathema. 


3. Further, Bull gives us no proof whatever that the Semi-arians 
did deny the ἐξ οὐσίας : while it is very clear, if it is right to contra- 
dict so great a writer, that most of them did not deny it. He says 
that it is “ certissimum” that the heretics who wrote the three con- 
fessions above noticed, that is, the Semi-arians, ‘* nunguam fassos, 
nunquam fassuros fuisse filium ἐξ οὐσίας, ὃ substantia, Patris pro- 
genitum.” His reason for not offering any proof for this naturally 
is, that Petavius, with whom he is in controversy, maintains it 
also, and he makes use of Petavius’s admission against himself. 
Nowit may seem bold in a writer of this day to differ not only with 
Bull but with Petavius; but the reason for doing so is simple; it 
is because Athanasius asserts the very thing which Petavius and 
Bull deny, and Petavius admits that he does; that is, he allows it 
by implication when he complains that Athanasius had not got to 
the bottom of the doctrine of the Semi-arians, and thought too 
favourably of them. ‘* Horum Semi-arianorum, quorum antesignanus 
fuit Basilius Ancyre episcopus, prorsus obscura fuit heresis . Sone 
ut ne ipse quidem Athanasius satis illam exploratam habuerit.” de 
yan rox. $7. 

Now S. Athanasius’s words are most distinct and express; “ΑΚ 
to those who receive all else that was defined at Nicwa, but dis- 
pute about the ‘One in substance’ only, we must not feel as 
towards enemies... . for, as confessing that the Son is from the 
substance of the Father and not of other subsistence, ἐ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας TOD 
πατρὸς εἶναι, καὶ μὴ ἐξ € ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως τὸν viov,...they are not far 
from receiving the phrase * One in substance’ also. Such is Basil of 
Ancyra, in what he has written about the faith” de Syn. § 4] 
[infra p- 139];—a passage, not only express for the matter in 
hand, but remarkable too, as apparently using ὑπόστασις and οὐσία 
as synonymous, which is the main point which Bull denies. What 
follows in Athanasius is equally to the purpose: he urges the 
Semi-arians to accept the ὁμοούσιον, in consistency, beeause they 
maintain the ἐξ οὐσίας and the ὁμοιούσιον would not sufliciently 
secure it. 

Moreover Hilary, while defending the Semi-arian deerees of 
Ancyra or Sirmium, says expressly, that according to them, among 
other truths, “non creatura est Filius genitus, sed ἃ naturd Patris 
indiscreta substantia est.” de Syn. 27. 

Petavius, however, in the passage to which Bull appeals, refers 
in proof of this view of Semi-arianism, to those Ancyrene do- 
cuments, which Epiphanius has preserved, Her. 73. and which 
he considers to shew, that according to the Semi-arians the Son_ 
was not ἐξ οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός. He says, that it is plain from their 
own explanations that they considered our Lord to be, not ἐκ τῆς 
οὐσίας, but ἐκ τῆς ὁμοιότητος [he does not say ὑποστάσεως, as Bull 
wishes] τοῦ πατρὸς and that, évepyeta. γεννητικῇ, Which was one of the 
divine ἐνέργειαι, as creation, 7 κτιστικὴ, was another. Yet surely 
Epiphanius does not bear out this representation better than 
Athanasius ; since the Semi-arians, whose words he reports, speaks 
of “υἱὸν ὅμοιον καὶ Kat’ οὐσίαν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς, p. 825 b, ὡς 7) σοφία 
τοῦ σοφοῦ υἱὸς, οὐσία οὐσίας, p. 853 ο, κατ᾽ οὐσίαν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ 


Note on the word Hypostasis in the Nicene Anathema. 69 


Kal πατρός. p- 854 Cc. ἐξουσίᾳ 6 ὁμοῦ καὶ οὐσίᾳ πατρὸς μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ. 
p- 858 d, besides the strong word γνήσιος, ibid. and Athan. de Syn. 
§ 41. not to insist on other of their statements. 

The same fact is brought before us even in a more striking way 
in the conference at Constantinople, A.D. 360, before Constantius, 
between the Anomceans and Semi-arians, where the latter, accord- 
ing to Theodoret, shew no unwillingness to acknowledge even the 
ὁμοούσιον, because they acknowledge the ἐξ οὐσίας. When the 
Anomeceans wished the former condemned, Silvanus of Tarsus said, 
“Tf God the Word be not out of nothing, nor a creature, nor of 
other substance, οὐσίας, therefore is He one in substance, ὁμοούσιος, 
with God who begot Him, as God from God, and Light from Light, 
and He has the same nature with His Father.” Hist. ii. 25. Here 
again it is observable, as in the passage from Athanasius above, that, 
while apparently reciting the Nicene Anathema, he omits ἐξ ἑτέρας 
ὑποστάσεως, as if it were superfluous to mention a synonyme. 

At the same time there certainly is reason to suspect that the 
Semi-arians approximated towards orthodoxy as time went on ; and 
perhaps it is hardly fair to determine what they held at Nicwea by 
their statements at Ancyra, though to the latter Petavius appeals. 
Several of the most eminent among them, as Meletius, Cyril, and 
Eusebius of Samosata conformed soon after; on the other hand in 
Eusebius, who is their representative at Nieza, it will perhaps be 
difficult to find a clear admission of the ἐξ οὐσίας. But at any rate he 
does not maintain the ἐξ ὑποστάσεως, which Bull’s theory requires. 

On various grounds then, because the Semi-arians as a body did 
not deny the ἐξ οὐσίας, nor confess the ἐξ ὑποστάσεως, nor the Arians 
deny it, there is reason for declining Bishop Bull’s explanation of 
these words as they occur in the Creed; and now let us turn to the 
consideration of the authorities on which that explanation rests. 

As to Gelasius, Bull himself does not insist upon his testimony, 
and Anastasius is too late to be of authority. The passage indeed 
which he quotes from Amphilochius is important, but as he was a 
friend of S. Basil, perhaps it does not very much increase the weight 
of S. Basil’s more distinct and detailed testimony to the same point, 
and no one can say that that weight is inconsiderable. 

Yet there is evidence the other way which overbalances it. 
Bull, who complains of Petavius’s rejection of S. Basil's testi- 
mony concerning a Council which was held before his birth, 
cannot maintain his own explanation of its Creed without rejecting 
Athanasius’s testimony respecting the doctrine of his contempo- 
raries, the Semi-arians; and moreover the more direct evidence, 
as we shall see, of the Council of Alexandria, A.D. 362, S. Jerome, 
Basil of Ancyra, and Socrates. 

First, however, no better comment upon the sense of the Coun- 
cil can be required than the incidental language of Athanasius and 
others, who in a foregoing extract exchanges οὐσία for ὑπόστασις 
in a way which is natural only on the supposition that he used 
them as synonymes. Elsewhere, as we have seen, he omits the 
word ἢ ὑποστάσεως in the Nicene Anathema, while Hilary considers 
the Anathema sufficient with that omission, 


Note. 


NICEN. 


DEF. 


70. Note on the word Hypostasis in the Nicene Anathema. 


In like manner Hilary expressly translates the clause in the 
Creed by ex alteraé substantia vel essentié. Fragm. ii. 27. And 
somewhat in the same way Eusebius says in his letter, ἐξ ἑτέρας 
τινὸς ὑποστάσεώς TE καὶ οὐσίας. 

But further, Athanasius says expressly, ad Afros,—‘* Hypostasis is 
substance, οὐσία, and means nothing else than simply being, which 
Jeremiah calls existence when he says,” &c. § 4. It is true, he 
elsewhere speaks of three Hypostases, but this only shews that he 
attached no fixed sense to the word. ‘This is just what I would 
maintain ; its sense must be determined by the context, and, whereas 
it always stands in all Catholic writers for the Una Res, (as the 4th 
Lateran speaks,) which οὐσία denotes, when Athanasius says, “three 
hypostases,” he takes the word to mean οὐσία in that particular 
sense in which it is three, and when he makes it synonymous with 
οὐσία, he uses it to signify Almighty God in that sense in which He 
is one. 

Leaving Athanasius, we have the following evidence concerning 
the history of the word ὑπόστασις. 8. Jerome says, “The whole 
school of secular learning understanding nothing else by hypostasis 
than usia, substance.” Ep. xv. 4. Where, speaking of the Three 
Hypostases he uses the strong language, ‘‘ If you desire it, then be 
a new faith framed after the Nicene, and let the orthodox confess 
in terms like the Arian.” 

In like manner, Basil of Aneyra, George, and the other Semi- 
arians, say distinctly, ‘This hypostasis our Fathers called sub- 
tance,” οὐσία. Epiph. Her. 74. 12. fin.; in accordance with which 
is the unauthorized addition to the Sardican Epistle, ‘ ὑπόστασιν, 
ἣν αὐτοὶ οἱ αἱρετικοὶ οὐσίαν προσαγορεύουσι." Theod. Hist. ii. 6. 

If it be said that Jerome from his Roman connection, and Basil 
and George as Semi-arians, would be led by their respective 
theologies for distinct reasons thus to speak, it is true, and may 
have led them to too broad a statement of the fact; but then on the 
other hand it was in accordance also with the theology of S. Basil, 
so strenuous a defender of the formula of the Three Hypostases, 
to suppose that the Nicene Fathers meant to distinguish ὑπόστασις 
from οὐσία in their anathema. 

Again, Socrates informs us that, though there was some dispute 
about hypostasis at Alexandria shortly before the Nicene Council, 
yet the Council itself “ devoted not a word to the question,” Hist. 
ili. 7.; which hardly consists with its having intended to rule that 
ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως was distinct from ἐξ ἑτέρας οὐσίας. 

And in like manner the Council of Alexandria; A.D. 362, in 
deciding that the sense of Hypostasis was an open question, not 
only from the very nature of the case goes on the supposition 
that the Nicene Council had not closed it, but says so in words again 
and again in its Synodal Letter. If the Nicene Council had already 
used ““ hypostasis” in its present sense, what remained to Athanasius 
at Alexandria but to submit to it ? 

Indeed the history of this Council is perhaps the strongest 
argument against the supposed discrimination of the two terms by 
the Council of Nicea. Bull can only meet it by considering that 


Note on the word Hypostasis in the Nicene Anathema. 71 


an innovation upon the ‘“ veterem vocabuli usum”’ began at the date 
of the Council of Sardica, though Socrates mentions the dispute as 
existing at Alexandria before the Nicene Council, Hist. iii. 4. 5. while 
the supposititious confession of Sardica professes to have received 
the doctrine of the one hypostasis by tradition as Catholic. 

Nor is the use of the word in earlier times inconsistent with 
these testimonies ; though it occurs so seldom, in spite of its being 
a word of S. Paul, that testimony is our principal evidence. 
Socrates’s remarks deserve to be quoted; ‘*Those among the 
Greeks who have treated of the Greek philosophy, have defined 
substance, οὐσία, in many ways, but they had made no mention at all 
of hypostasis. Irenzus the Grammarian, in his alphabetical Atticist, 
even calls the term barbarous; because it is not used by any of the 
ancients, and if any where found, it does not mean what it is now 
taken for. Thus in the Pheenix of Sophocles it means an ‘ am- 
bush ;? but in Menander, ‘ preserves,’ as if one were to call the 
wine-lees in a cask ‘ hypostasis.” However it must be observed, 
that, in spite of the old philosophers being silent about the term, 
the more modern continually use it for substance, o οὐσίας." Hist. 
iil. 7. The word principally cecurs in Origen among Ante-Nicene 
writers, and he, it must be confessed, uses it, as far as the context 
decides its sense, to mean subsistence or person. In other words, it 
was the word of a certain school in the Church, which afterwards 
was accepted by the Church; but this proves nothing about 
the sense in which it was used at Niecea. The three Hypo- 
stases are spoken of by Origen, his pupil Dionysius, as afterwards 
by Eusebius of Cesarea, (though he may notwithstanding have 
considered hypostasis synonymous with pubetanees) ae Athanasius 
(Origen i in Joan. ii. 6. Dionys. ap. Basil de Sp. 8. n. 72. Euseb. ap. 
Socr. i. 23. Athan. in Ilud Omnia, &c. 6.); and the Two πα 
of the Father and the Son, by Origen, Ammonius, and Alexander 
(Origen in Cels. viii. 2. Ammon. ap. Caten. in Joan. x. 30. Alex. 
ap. Theod.i. 3. p. 740). As to the passage in which two hypostases 
are spoken of in Dionysius’s letter to Paul of Samosata, that letter 
certainly is not genuine, as might be shewn on a fitting occasion, 
though it is acknowledged by very great authorities. 

I confess that to my mind there is an antecedent probability 
that the view which has here been followed is correct. Judging by 
the general history of doctrine, one should not expect that the formal 
ecclesiastical meaning of the word should have obtained every 
where so early. Nothing is more certain than that the doctrines 
themselves of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation were de- 
veloped, or, to speak more definitely, that the propositions containing 
them were acknowledged, from the earliest times; but the parti- 
cular terms which now belong to them are most uniformly of a later 
date. Ideas were brought out, but technical phrases did not obtain. 
Not that these phrases did not exist, but either not as technical, or 
in use in a particular School or Chureh, or with a particular writer, or 
as ἅπαξ λεγόμενα, as words discussed, nay resisted, perhaps used by 
some local Council, and then at length accepted generally from their 


Note. 


NICEN. 


Der. 


72 Note on the word Hypostasis in the Nicene Anathema. 


obvious propriety. Thus the words of the Schools pass into the 
service of the Catholic Church. Instead then of the word ὑπόστασις 
being, as Maran says, received in the East “‘summo consensu,” 
from the date of Noetus or at least Sabellius, or of Bull’s opinion 
“apud Catholicos Dionysii «tate rutum et fixum illud fuisse, tres 
esse in divinis hypostases,” I would consider that the present use of 
the word was in the first instance Alexandrian, and that it was 
little more than Alexandrian till the middle of the fourth century. 
Lastly, it comes to be considered how the two words are to be 
accounted for in the Creed, if they have not distinct senses. 
Coustant supposes that ἐξ οὐσίας was added to explain ἐξ ὑποστάσεως, 
lest the latter should be taken in a Sabellian sense. On which we 
may perhaps remark besides, that the reason why ὑπόστασις was 
selected as the principal term was, that it was agreeable to the 
Westerns as well as admitted by the Orientals. Thus, by way of 
contrast, we find the Second General Council, at which there were 
no Latins, speaking of Three Hypostases, and Pope Damasus and 
the Roman Council speaking a few years sooner of the Holy Ghost 
as of the same hypostasis and usia with the Father and the Son. 
Theod. Hist. ii. 17. Many things go to make this probable. For 
instance, Coustant acutely points out, though Maran and the President 
of Magdalen dissent, that this probably was a point of dispute be- 
tween the two Dionysii; the Bishop of Alexandria asserting, as we 
know he did assert, Three Hypostases, the Bishop of Rome protest- 
ing in reply against ‘‘ Three partitive Hypostases,” as involving 
tritheism, and his namesake rejoining, ‘‘ If because there are Three 
Hypostases, any say that they are partitive, three there are, though 
they like it not.” Again, the influence of the West shews itself 
in the language of Athanasius, who, contrary to the custom of his 
Church, of Origen, Dionysius, and his own immediate patron and 
master Alexander, so varies his own use of the word, as to make his 
writings almost an example of that freedom which he vindicated in 
the Council of Alexandria. Again, when Hosius went to Alexan- 
dria before the Nicene Council, and a dispute arose with reference 
to Sabellianism about the words ὑπόστασις and οὐσία, what is this 
too, but the collision of East and West? It should be remembered 
moreover that Hosius presided at Nicza, a Latin in an Eastern 
city; and again at Sardica, where, though the decree in fayour of 
the One Hypostasis was not passed, it seems clear from the history 
that he was resisting persons with whom in great measure he agreed. 
Further, the same consideration acécounts for the omission of the 
ἐξ οὐσίας from the Confession of Mark and the two which follow, 
on which Bull relies in proof that the Semi-arians rejected this 
formula. These three Semi-arian Creeds and these only, were 
addressed to the Latins, and therefore their compilers naturally 
select that synonyme which was most pleasing to them, as the means 
of securing a hearing; just as Athanasius on the other hand in his 


de Decretis, writing to the Greeks, omits ὑποστάεως, and writes 
ὅν 
οὐσίας. 


EPISTLE ‘OF Sv ATHANASIUS 


ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, 


CONCERNING THE COUNCIL HELD AT ARIMINUM IN ITALY 
AND AT SELEUCIA IN ISAURIA. 


CHAP. § 
HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 


Reason why two Councils were called. Inconsistency and folly of calling 
any; and of the style of the Arian formularies; occasion of the Nicene 
Council; proceedings at Ariminum ; Letter of the Council to Constantius ; 
its decree. Proceedings at Seleucia; reflections on the conduct of the 
Arians. 


1. Peruars news has reached even yourselves concerning 
the Council, which is at this time the subject of general 
conversation ; for letters both from the Emperor and the 
Prefects? were circulated far and wide for its convocation. 
However, you take that interest in the events which have 
occurred, that I have determined upon giving you an account 
of what I have seen myself” or have ascertained, which may 
save you from the suspense attendant on the reports of 
others ; and this the more, because there are parties who are 
in the practice of misrepresenting what is going on. 

2. At Niczea then, which had been fixed upon, the Council 
did not meet, but a second edict® was issued, convening the 


® There were at this time four pre- 
torian prefects, who divided between 
them this administration of the Em- 
pire. They had been lately made 
merely civil officers, Constantine hay- 
ing suppressed the celebrated troops 
which they used to command. At 
Ariminum, one of them, Taurus, was 
present, and was the instrument of the 
Emperor in oyerawing the Council. 


> From these words Tillemont and 
Gibbon infer that Athanasius was pre- 
sent at least at Seleucia, but, as Mont- 
faucon observes, such a supposition is 
not required by the words, and is in 
itself improbable. 

© The Council was originally to have 
been held at Nicwa, but the party of 
Basil did not like a second meeting in 
the same place, and Nicomedia was 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 


SELEU. 


74 Circumstances of the calling of the Two Councils. 


Western Bishops at Ariminum in Italy, and the Hastern at 
Seleucia the Rugged, as itis called, in Isauria. The professed 
reason of such a meeting was to treat of the faith touching 
our Lord Jesus Christ ; and those who alleged it, were Ursa- 
cius, Valens‘, and one Germinius® from Pannonia; and from 
Syria, Acacius, Hudoxius‘, and Patrophilus of Scythopolis$. 
These men who had always been of the Arian party, and 
understood neither how they believe or whereof they affirm, 
and were silently deceiving first one and then another, and 
scattermg the second sowing! of their heresy, influenced 
some persons of consequence, and the Emperor Constantius 
among them, being a heretic”, on some pretence about the 
Faith, to call a Council; under the idea that they should be 


substituted. The greater number of 
Bishops had set out, when an earth- 
quake threw the city into ruins. Nica 
was then substituted again at Basil's 
wish, Soz. iv. 16. but it was considered 
too near the seat of the earthquake to 
be safe. Then the Eusebian or Aca- 
cian influence prevailed, and the 
Council was divided into two; but at 
first Ancyra, Basil’s see, was to have 
been one of them, (where a celebrated 
Council of Semi-arians actually was 
held at the time,) Hil. de Syn. 8. but 
this was changed for Seleucia. A de- 
legacy of Bishops from each Proyince 
was summoned to Nicomedia ; but to 
Nicza, all Bishops whatever, whose 
health admitted of the journey, ac- 
cording to Sozomen ; but Hilary says, 
only one or two from each province of 
Gaul were summoned to Ariminum ; 
he himself was at Seleucia, under 
compulsion of the local magistrate, 
being in exile there for the faith, 
Sulp. Sev. ii. 57. 

4 Ursacius, Bishop of Singidon, and 
Valens; Bishop of Mursa, are generally 
mentioned together. They were pupils 
of Arius ; and as such are called young 
by Athan. ad Ep. 4g. 7. by Hilary ad 
Const. i. 5. (imperitis et improbis duo- 


- bus adolescentibus,) and by the Coun- 


cil of Sardica, ap. Hilar. Fragm. ii. 12. 
They first appear at the Council of 
Tyre, A.D. 835. The Council of Sar- 
dica deposed them ; in 349, they pub- 
licly retracted their charges against 
Athanasius, who has preserved their 
letters. Apol. contr. Arian. 58. [Hist. 
tracts pp. 86,87 O.T.] Valens was the 
more prominent of the two ; he wasa 


fayourite Bishop of Constantius, was 
an extreme Arian in his opinions, and 
the chief agent at Ariminum in effect- 
ing the lapse of the Latin Fathers. 

© Germinius was made Bishop of 
Sirmium by the Eusebians in 351, in- 
stead of Photinus whom they deposed 
for a kind of Sabellianism. However, 
he was obliged in 358 to sign the 
Semi-arian formula of Ancyra ; yet he 
was an active Eusebian again at Ari- 
minum. Ata later date he approached 
very nearly to Catholicism. 

f Acacius has been mentioned, p. 7. 
note p. Eudoxius is said to have been 
a pupil of Lucian, Arius’s Master, 
though the dates scarcely admit it. 
Eustathius, Catholic Bishop of An- 
tioch, whom the Eusebians subse- 
quently deposed, refused to admit him 
into orders. Afterwards he was made 
Bishop of Germanicia in Syria, by his 
party. He was present at the Council 
of Antioch in 341, spoken of infra, 
§ 22. and carried into the West in 
345, the fifth Confession, called the 
Long, μακρόστιχος. infr. ὃ 26. He 
afterwards passed in succession to the 
sees of Antioch (vid. supr. p. 1. note 
a.), and Constantinople, and baptized 
the Emperor Valens into the Arian 
profession. 

5. Patrophilus was one of the ori- 
ginal Arian party, and took share in 
all their principal acts, but there is 
nothing very distinctive in his history. 
Sozomen assigns to these six Bishops 
the scheme of dividing the Council 
into two, Hist.iv.16.and Valens under- 
took to manage the Latins, Acacius 
the Greeks. 


» 


No necessity for them. 75 
able to put into the shade the Nicene Council, and prevail 
upon all to turn round, and to establish irreligion every 
where instead of the Truth. 

3. Now here I marvel first, and think that I shall carry 
every thinking man whatever with me, that, whereas a 
Catholic Council had been fixed, and all were looking’ for- 
ward to it, it was all of a sudden divided into two, so that 
one part met here, and the other there. . However, this 
would seem providential, in order in the respective Councils 
to exhibit the faith without guile or corruption of the one 
party, and to expose the dishonesty and duplicity of the 
other. Next, this too was on the mind of myself and my 
true brethren here, and made us anxious, the impropriety of 
this great gathering which we saw in progress; for what 
pressed so much, that the whole world was to be put in con- 
fusion, and those who at the time bore the profession of 
clerks, should run about far and near, seeking how best to 
learn to believe in our Lord Jesus Christ ? Certainly if they 
were believers already, they would not have been seeking, as 
though they were not. And to the catechumens, this was no 
small scandal; but to the heathen, it was something more 
than common, and even furnished broad merriment, that 
Christians, as if waking out of sleep at this time of day, 
should be making out how they were to believe concerning 
Christ ; while their professed clerks, though claiming defer- 
ence from their flocks, as teachers, were infidels on their own 
shewing, in that they were seeking what they had not. And 
the party of Ursacius, who were at the bottom of all this, 
did not understand what wrath they were storing up against 
themselves, as our Lord says by His saints, Woe unto them, 
through whom My Name is blasphemed among the Gentiles ; 
and by His own mouth in the Gospels, Whoso shall offend 
one of these little ones, it were better for him that a millstone 
were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the 


» The heathen Ammianus speaks 
of “the troops of Bishops hurrying 
to and fro at the public expense,” 
and ‘‘the Synods, in their efforts to 
bring over the whole religion to their 
side, being the ruin of the posting 
establishments.” Hist. xxi. 16. ‘* The 
spectacle proceeded to that pitch of 
indecency,” says Ensebius, ** that af 


length in the very midst of the thea- 
tres of the unbelievers, the solemn 
matters of divine teaching were sub- 
jected to the basest mockery.” in vit. 
Const. ii. 61. Heathen Philosophers 
attended the Nicene Council, “ from 
an interest to learn what the Christian 
doctrine was.” Soz. i. 18. 


Is. 52, 5. 
Rom. 2, 

24. 

Matt. 18, 


7 


Se 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 
SELEU. 


ὃ 8. 


76 Absurdity of dating the Catholic Faith. 
depth of the sea, than, as Luke adds, that he should offend one 
of these little ones. 

4. What defect of teaching was there for religious truth in 
the Catholic Church, that they should search after faith now, 
and should prefix this year’s Consulate to their profession of 
it? Yet Ursacius, and Valens, and Germinius, and their 
friends have done, what never took place, never was heard 
of among Christians. After putting ito writing what it 
pleased them to believe, they prefix to it the Consulate, and 
the month and the day of the current year‘; thereby to 
shew all thinking men, that their faith dates, not from of old, 
but now, from the reign of Constantius!; for whatever they 
write has a view to their own heresy. Moreover, though 


i ** Who is there, who when he 
heard, upon his first catechisingss, that 
God had a Son, and had made all 
things in His proper Word, did not 
so understand it in that sense which 
we now intend? who, when the vile 
Arian heresy began, but at once, on 
hearing its teachers, was startled, as if 
they taught strange things?” Orat. ii. 
§ 34 [infra p. 828]. And Hilary with 
the same sense, “1 call the God of 
heaven and earth to witness, that, be- 
fore I had heard either term, I always 
felt concerning the two words that by 
‘onein substance’ ought to be under- 
stood ‘like in substance,’ that is, that 
nothing can be like Him in nature, but 
That which is of the same nature. Re- 
generated long since, and for a while 
a Bishop, yet I never heard the Nicene 
Creed till [ was in exile, but Gospels 
and Apostles intimated to me the 
meaning of ‘one in substance’ and 
‘like in substance.’”’ de Syn. 91. vid. 
also ad Const. ii. 7. 

k «Faith is made a thing of dates 
rather than Gospels, while it is written 
down by years, and is not measured 
by the confession of baptism.” ad 
Const. ii. 4. ‘‘ We determine yearly 
and monthly creeds concerning God, 
we repent of our determinations ; we 
defend those who repent, we anathe- 
matize those whom we have defend- 
ed; we condemn our own doings in 
those of others, or others in us, and 
gnawing each other, we are well nigh 
devoured one of another.” ibid. 5. 

1 «Who are you? whence and when 
came ye? what do ye on my property 
being none of mine? by what right, O 
Marcion, cuttest thou my wood ? by 


what license, O Valentinus, turnest 
thou my springs ? by what power, O 
Apelles, movest thou my landmarks ? 
Mine is possession...I possess of old, I 
have prior possession. .. 1 am heir of 
the Apostles.” Tertull. de Preeser. 37. 
Tardily for me hath this time of day 
put forth these, in my judgment, most 
impious doctors. Full late hath that 
faith of mine, which Thou hast in- 
structed, encountered these Masters. 
Before these names were heard of, I 
thus believed in Thee, I thus was new 
born by Thee, and thenceforth [ thus 
am Thine.” Hil. de Trin. vi. 21. ‘What 
heresy hath ever burst forth, but un- 
der the name of some certain men, in 
some certain place, and at some cer- 
tain time? Who ever set up any heresy, 
who first divided not himself from the 
consent of the universality and anti- 
quity of the Catholic Church?” Vin- 
cent Lir. Commonit. 24. “1 will tell 
thee my mind briefly and plainly, that 
thou shouldest remain in that Church 
which, being founded by the Apos- 
tles, endures even to this day. When 
thou hearest that those who are called 
Christ’s, are named, not after Jesus 
Christ, but after some one, say Mar- 
cionites, Valentinians, &c. know then 
it is not Christ’s Church, but the syna- 
gogue of Antichrist. For by the very 
fact that they are formed afterwards, 
they shew that they are those who the 
Apostle foretold should come.” Jerom. 
in Lucif. 27. ‘If the Church was 
not... whence hath Donatus appear- 
ed? from what soil has he sprung? out 
of what sea hath he emerged? from 
what heaven hath he fallen?”? August, 
de Bapt. contr. Don. iii. 3. 


No authority for vt from the Scripture. 77 


pretending to write about the Lord, they nominate another 
sovereign for themselves, Constantius, who has bestowed on 
them this reign of irreligion ™; and they who deny that the 
Son is everlasting, have called him Eternal Emperor; such 
foes of Christ are they in behalf of irreligion. 

5. But perhaps the dates in the holy Prophets form their 
excuse for the Consulate; so bold a pretence, however, will 
serve but to publish more fully their ignorance of the subject, 
For the prophecies of the sacred writers do indeed specify 
their times (for instance, Hsaias and Osee lived in the days 
of Ozias, Joatham, Achaz, and Ezekias ; Jeremias, in the days 
of Josias ; Ezekiel and Daniel prophesied unto Cyrus and 
Darius ; and others in other times); yet they were not laying 
the foundations of divine religion ; it was before them, and 
was always, for before the foundation of the world had God 
prepared it for us in Christ. Nor were they signifying the 
respective dates of their own faith; for they had been be- 
lievers before these dates, which did but belong to their own 
preaching. And this preaching chiefly related tothe Saviour’s 
coming, and secondarily to what was to happen to Israel and 
the nations; and the dates denoted not the commencement 
of faith, as I said before, but of the prophets themselves, that 


m Athan. says, that after Eusebius had 
taken up the patronage of the heresy, 
he made no progress till he had gained 
the Court. Hist. Arian. 66. shewing 
that it was an act of external power by 
which Arianism grew, not an inward 
movement in the Church, which indeed 
loudly protested against the Emperor’s 
proceeding. ‘ If Bishops are tojudge,” 
he says shortly before, ‘‘ what has the 
Emperor to do with this matter? if the 
Emperor is to threaten, what need of 
men styled Bishops? wherein the world 
was such a thing heard of? where had 
the Church’s judgment its force from 
the Emperor, or his sentence was at 
all recognised? many Councils have 
been before this, many judgments of 
the Church, but neither the Fathers 
ever argued with the Emperor about 
them, nor the Emperor meddled with 
the concerns of the Church. Paul the 
Apostle had friends of Czesar’s house- 
hold, and in his Epistle he saluted the 
Philippians in their name, but he took 
them not to him as partners in his 
judgments. But now a new specta- 
cle, and this the discovery of the Arian 


heresy,” &c. § 52. [ Hist. tracts p. 266 
O.T.] Again, “In what then is he 
behind Antichrist ? what more will he 
do when he comes? or rather, on his 
coming will he not find the way by 
[Constantius] prepared for him unto 
his deceiving without effort? for he too 
is to claim the judgments for thecourt 
instead of the Churches, and of these 
he is to become head.” § 76. [ib. p. 
287.] And so Hosius to Constantius, 
“Cease, I charge thee, and remember 
that thou art a mortal man. Fear the 
day of judgment; keep thyself clear 
against it. Interfere not with things 
ecclesiastical, nor be the manto charge 
us in a matter of the kind; rather learn 
them thyself from us. God has put 
into thy hand the kingdom; to us 
He hath intrusted the things of the 
Church ; and as he who is traitorous 
to thy rule speaks against God who 
has thus ordained, so fear thou, lest 
drawing to thyself the things of the 
Chureh, thou fallest beneath a great 
accusation.” Apud Athan. ibid. 44 
[ib. p. 258]. vid. infr. p. 90, note p. 


Cuapr. 


Counc, 
ARIM. 
AND 


SELEU. 


1 vid. 
infr. 
Orat. tii. 
§ 47. 


78 Difference between decree of faith and rule of discipline. 


is, when it was they thus prophesied. But our modern sages, 
not in historical narration, nor in prediction of the future, 
but, after writing, ‘‘ The Catholic Faith was published,” im- 
mediately add the Consulate and the month and the date; 
that, as the sacred writers specified the dates of their his- 
tories, and of their own ministries, so these may mark the 
date of their own faith. And would that they had written, 
touching “ their own ἢ; (for it does date from to-day;) and 
had not made their essay as touching “the Catholic,” for 
they did not write, “Thus we believe,” but “the Catholic 
Faith was published.” 

6. The boldness then of their design shews how little they 
understand the subject ; while the novelty of their phrase 
befits their heresy. For thus they shew, when it was they 
began their own faith, and that from that same time present 
they would have it proclaimed. And asaccording tothe Evan- 
gelist Luke, there was made a decree concerning the taxing, 
and this decree before was not, but began from those days in 
which it was made by its framer, they also in like manner, by 
writing, “The Faith is now published,” shewed that the 
sentiments of their heresy are young, and were not before. 
But if they add “of the Catholic Faith,”’ they fall before 
they know it into the extravagance of the Phrygians, and say 
with them, “ΤῸ us first was revealed,” and “from us dates 
the Faith of Christians.” And as those inscribe it with the 
names of Maximilla and Montanus!, so do these with “ Con- 
stantius, Sovereign,” instead of Christ. If, however, as they 
would have it, the faith dates from the present Consulate, 
what must the Fathers do, and the blessed Martyrs? nay, 
what will they themselves do with their own catechumens, 
who departed to rest before this Consulate? how will they 
wake them up, that so they may obliterate their former les- 
sons, and may sow in turn the seeming discoveries which 
they have now put into writing °? So ignorant they are on 


n<* He who speaketh of his own, 
ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων, speaketh a 116.᾽ Athan. 
contr. Apoll.i. fin. ‘* They used to call 
the Church a virgin, ’says Hegesippus, 
“*for it was not yet defiled by profane 
doctrines.... the Simonists, Dosithians 
&c.... each privately(idiws) and sepa- 
rately has brought in a private opi- 
nion.” ap. Euseb. Hist. iy. 22, So- 


phronius at Seleucia cried out, “ If to 
publish day after day our own private 
(ἰδίαν. will, be a profession of faith, ac- 
curacy of truth will fail us.”’ Soer.ii. 40. 

° ** However the error was, certainly 
error reigned so long as heresies were 
not. Truth needed a rescue, and looked 
out for Marcionites and Valentinians. 
Meanwhile, gospelling was nought, 


Reasons for convening the Nicene Council. 


79 


the subject ; with no knowledge but that of making excuses, 
and those unbecoming and unplausible, and carrying with 
them their own refutation. 

7. As to the Nicene Council, it was not acommon meeting, 
but convened upon a pressing necessity, and for a reasonable 
object. The Syrians, Cilicians, and Mesopotamians, were 
out of order in celebrating the Feast, and kept Kaster with 
the Jews’; on the other hand, the Arian heresy had risen up 
against the Catholic Church, and found supporters in the 
Eusebians, who were both zealous for the heresy, and con- 
ducted the attack upon religious people. This gave occasion 


for an Heumenical' Council, that the feast might be every ! supr. 


where celebrated on one day, and that the heresy which was 
springing up might be anathematized. It took place then ; 
and the Syrians submitted, aud the Fathers pronounced the 
Arian heresy to be the forerunner of Antichrist‘, and drew 


faith was nought, nought was the bap- 
tism of so many thousand thousand, 
so many works of faith performed, 
sO many virtues, so many gifts dis- 
played, so many priesthoods, so many 
ministries exercised, nay, so many mar- 
tyrdoms crowned.” Tertull. Przeser. 
29. “* Profane novelties,’ which if we 
receive, of necessity the faith of our 
blessed ancestors, either ail or a great 
part of it must be overthrown; the 
faithful people of ail ages and times, 
all holy saints, all the chaste, all the 
continent, all the virgins, all the 
Clergy, the Deacons, the Priests, so 
many thousands of confessors, so great 
armies of martyrs, so many famous 
populous cities and commonweaiths, 
so many islands, provinces, kings, 
tribes, kingdoms, nations, to conclude, 
almost now the whole world, incor- 
porated by the Catholic Faith to Christ 
their head, must needs be said, so 
many hundred years, to have been ig- 
norant, to have erred, to have blas- 
phemed, to have believed they knew 
not what.” Vine. Comm. 24. “Ὁ the 
extravagance ! the wisdom, hidden 
after Christ’s coming, they announce 
to us to-day, which is a thing to draw 
tears. For if the faith began thirty 
years since, while near four hundred 
are past since Christ was manifested, 
nought hath been our gospel that 
long while, and nought our faith, 
and fruitlessly have martyrs been mar- 


tyred, and fruitlessly have such and so 
great rulers ruled the people.” Greg. 
Naz. ad Cledon. Ep. 102. p. 97. 

P This seems to have been an inno- 
vation in these countries of about fifty 
years old, or from about the year 276. 
It is remarkable, that the Quartodeci- 
man custom had come to an end in 
Proconsular Asia, where it had existed 
from 8. John’s time, before it began 
in Syria. Tillemont refers the change 
to Anatolius of Laodicea; the writer 
of this note has attempted in a former 
work to prove Paul of Samosata the 
author of it. 

4 πρόδρομος, preecursor, is almost a 
received word for the predicted apos- 
tasy or apostate (vid. note on S. Cyril’s 
Cat. xy. 9. also infr. note p.), but the 
distinction was not always carefully 
drawn between the apostate and the 
Antichrist. Constantius is called Anti- 
christ by Athan. Hist. Arian. 67. his 
acts are the προοίμιον καὶ παρασκευὴ 
of Antichrist. Hist. Arian. 70 fin. 71. 
and80. Constantiusis theimage, εἴκων, 
of Antichrist. 74. and 80. and shews 
the likeness, ὁμοίωμα, of the maligntiy 
of Antichrist. 75. vid. also 77. πρόδρομος 
77. ‘‘ Let Christ be expected, for Anti- 
christ is in possession.’’? Hilar. contr. 
Const. init. Constantius, Antichrist. 
ibid. 5. Speaking of Auxentius, the 
Arian Bishop of Milan, he says, “ Of 
one thing I warn you, beware of Anti- 
christ ; it is Ul that a love of walls has 


Ρ. 49, 
note o. 


linfr. 
p. 84. 
note ὁ. 


80 Councils declare the ancient Apostolical faith. 


up a suitable formula against it. 


And yet in this, many as 


they are, they ventured on nothing like the proceedings* of 


these three or four mens’. 


Without prefixing Consulate, 


month, and day, they wrote concerning the Haster “It seemed 
good as follows,” for it did then seem good that there should 
be a general comphance; but about the faith they wrote 


not, “It seemed good,” but, 


“Thus believes the Catholic 


Church ;” and thereupon they confessed how the faith lay, 
in order to shew that their own sentiments were not novel, 
but Apostolical ; and what they wrote down, was no discovery 
of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles!. 


seized you, it is ill that your veneration 
for God’s Church lies in houses and 
edifices ; it is ill that under this plea 
ye insinuate the name of peace. Is 
there any doubt that Antichrist is to 
sit in these? Mountains and woods 
and lakes and prisons and pits are to 
be more safe; for in these did prophets, 
sojourning or sunk, still by God’s spirit 
prophesy.” contr. Aux. 12. Lucifer calls 
Constantius precursor Antichristi. p. 
89. possessed with the spirit of Anti- 
christ, p. 219. friend of Antichrist, p. 
259. Again, S. Jerome, writing against 
Jovinian, says that he who so says 
that there are no differences of re- 
wards is Antichrist, ii. 21.S. Leo, allud- 
ing tol Johniy. 10. calls Nestorius and 
Eutyches, Antichristi preecursores, Ep. 
75. p.1022. Again, Antichrist, who- 
ever opposes what the Church has 
once settled, with an allusion to op- 
position to the see of S. Peter. Ep. 
156. ec. 9. Anastasius speaks of the 
ten horns of Monophysitism, Hodeg. 
6. also 8. and 24. and calls Severus, 
Monophysite Bp. of Antioch, Anti- 
christ, for usurping the judicial powers 
of Christ and His Church. ibid. p. 92. 

τ « They know not to be reverent 
even to their leaders. And this is 
why commonly schisms exist not a- 
mong heretics; because while they 
are, they are not visible. Schism is 
their very unity. I am a liar if they 
do not dissent from their own rules, 
while every man among them equally 
alters at his private judgment (suo 
arbitrio) what he has received, just as 
he who gave to them composed it at 
his privatejudgment. The progress of 
the thing is true to its nature and its 
origin. What was a right to Valenti- 
nus, was aright to Valentinians, what 


to Marcion was to the Marcionites, to 
innoyate on the faith at their private 
judgment. As soon as any heresy is 
thoroughly examined, it is found in 
many points dissenting from its parent. 
Those parents for the most part have 
no Churches ; they roam about with- 
out Mother, without see, bereaved of 
the faith, without a country, without 
a home.” Tertull. Preeser. 42. At Se- 
leucia Acacius said, “If the Nicene 
faith has been altered once and many 
time since, no reason why we should 
not dictate another faith now.” Eleu- 
sius the Semi-arian answered, ‘‘ This 
Council is cailed, not to learn what it 
does not know, not to receive a faith 
which it does not possess, but walking 
in the faith of the fathers” (meaning 
the Semi-arian Council of the Dedica- 
tion, A.D. 341. vid. infr. § 22.) ‘it 
swerves not from it in life or death.” 
On this Socrates (Hist. ii. 40.) ob- 
serves, ‘* How call you those who met 
at Antioch Fathers, O Eleusius, you 
who deny their Fathers? for those 
who met at Niceea, and unanimously 
professed the Consubstantial, might 
more properly receive the name, &c. 
But if the Bishops at Antioch set at 
nought their own fathers, those who 
come after are blindly following parri- 
cides ; and how did they receive a yalid 
ordination from them, whose faith they 
set at nought as reprobate? But if 
those had not the Holy Ghost, which 
cometh through laying on of hands, 
neither did these receive the priest- 
hood; for did they receive from those 
who have not wherewith to give ?” 

5 ὀλίγοι τινές, says Pope Julius, ap. 
Athan. Apol. 34 [Hist. tracts p. 55. 
O.T.). ἔγραψάν τινες περὶ πίστεως says 


Athan.ad Ep. Ag. 5. [ib. p. 130 0.1.] 


mY 


New Councils for new heresies. 81 


8. But the Councils which they have set in motion, what (παρ. 
colourable pretext have they!? If any new heresy has risen —/- 
since the Arian, let them tell us the positions which it has , "ἡ ee 
devised, and who are its inventors? and in their own for- £¢. 10. 
mula, let them anathematize the heresies antecedent to this 
Council of theirs, among which is the Arian, as the Nicene 
Fathers did, that it may be made appear that they too have 
some cogent reason for saying what is novel”. Butifno such ? vid. 
event has happened, and they have it not to shew, but rather notes b 
they themselves are uttering heresies, as holding Arius’s ir- and e. 
religion, and are exposed day by day, and day by day shift 
their ground’, whatneed is there of Councils, when the Nicene 
is sufficient, as against the Arian heresy, so against the rest, 
which it has condemned one and all by means of the sound 
faith? For even the notorious Aetius, who was surnamed 
godless *, vaunts not of the discovering of any mania of his ὃ vid. p. 
own, but under stress of weather has been wrecked upon oer 
Arianism, himseif and the persons whom he has beguiled. 
Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they 
have demanded Councils for the faith’s-sake ; for divine 
Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be 
needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, 
for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but 
stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their 
words honestly, cannct but be reminded by them of the 


religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture*, ‘vid. p. 
ὃ hie 3 - 57, note 
9. Having therefore no reason on their side, but being inj. 
; p- 60, 
note c. 


difficulty whichever way they turn, inspite of their pretences, 
they have nothing left but to say; “ Forasmuch as we con- 


δ 7. 


‘vid. de Decr. init. and § 4. and p. 2. 
note c. We shall have abundant in- 
stances of the Arian changes as this 
Treatise proceeds. ‘‘ It happens to 
thee,” says S. Hilary to Constantius, 
“Sas to unskilful builders, always to be 
dissatisfied with what thou hast done ; 
thou art ever destroying what thou 
art ever building.” contr. Constant.23. 
“Ὁ miserable state! with what seas 
of cares, with what storms, are they 
tossed! for now at one time, as the 
wind driveth them, they are carried 
away headlong in error; at another 
time, coming again to themselves, they 
are beaten back like contrary waves ; 


G 


sometimes withrash presumption, they 
allow such things as seem uncertain, at 
another time of pusillanimity they are 
in fear even about those things which 
are certain; doubtful which way to 
take, which way to return, what to 
desire, what to avoid, what to hold, 
what to let go, ἕο." Vincent. Comm. 
20. ‘* He writes,” says Athan. of Con- 
stantius, ‘‘and while he writes repents, 
and while he repents is exasperated ; 
and then he grieves again, and not 
knowing how to act, he shews how 
bereft the soul is of understanding.” 
Hist. Arian. 70. [Hist. tracts p. 282 
O.T.] vid, alsoad Ep. Hg. 6. 


82 Council of Ariminum. 


Counc. tradict our predecessors, and transgress the traditions of 


ARIM. 
~~ AND 


SELEU. 


1 infr. 
note b. 


τ 


the Fathers, therefore we have thought good that a Council 
should meet"; but again, whereas we fear lest, should it 
meet at one place, our pains will be thrown away, therefore 
we have thought good that it be divided into two; that so 
when we put forth our articles to these separate portions, we 
may overreach with more effect, with the threat of Constan- 
tius the patron of this irreligion, and may abrogate the acts 
of Niczea, under pretence of their simplicity.” If they have 
not put this into words, yet this is the meaning of their deeds 
and their disturbances. Certainly, many and frequent as 
have been their speeches and writings in various Councils, 
never yet have they made mention of the Arian heresy as 
unchristian'; but, if any present happened to accuse the 
heresies, they always took up the defence of the Arian, 
which the Nicene Council had anathematized; nay, rather, 
they cordially welcomed the professors of Arianism. This 
then is in itselfa strong argument, that the aim of the present 
Councils was not truth, but the annulling of the acts of 
Nicza; but the proceedings of them and their friends in the 
Councils themselves, make it equally clear that this was the 
case :—So that it follows to relate every thing as it occurred. 

10. When all were in expectation that they were to assem- 
ble in one place, whom the Emperor’s letters convoked, and to 
form one Council, they were divided into two; and, while 
some betook themselves to Seleucia called the Rugged, the 
others met at Ariminum, to the numberof those four hundred 
bishops and more, among whom were Germinius, Auxentius, 


Valens, Ursacius, Demophilus, and Caius*. And, while the 


«<The Emperor [Theodosius] had 
a conyersation with Nectarius, Bishop 
{of Constantinople], in what way to 
make Christendom concordant, and to 
unite the Church. This made Necta- 
rius anxious ; but Sisinnius, a man of 
ready speech and of practical expe- 
rience, and throughly versed in the in- 
terpretation of the sacred writings and 
in the doctrines of philosophy, having 
a conyiction that disputations would 
but aggravate the party spirit of the 
heresies instead of reconciling schisms, 
advises him to avoid dialectic engage- 
ments, and to appeal to the statements 
of the ancients, and to put the question 


to the heresiarchs from the Emperor, 
whether they made any sort of account 
of the doctors who belonged to the 
Church before the division, or came to 
issue with them as aliens from Chris- 
tianity; for if they made their autho- 
rity null, therefore let them venture to 
anathematize them. But if they did 
venture, then they would be driven out 
by the people.” Soer. y. 10. 

x There were two Arian Bishops of 
Milan of the name of Auxentius, but 
little is known of them besides. S. 
Hilary wrote against the elder; the 
other came into collision with S. Am- 
brose. Demophilus, Bishop of Berea, 


Third Confession of Sirmium, Homeean wn doctrine. 83 


whole assembly was discussing the matter from the Divine Cuar. 
Scriptures, these men produced a paper, and, reading the 
Consulate, they demanded that the whole Council should 
acquiesce in it, and that no questions should be put to the 
heretics beyond it, nor inquiry made into their meaning, 

but that it should be sufficient ;—and it ran as follows’: 


1. The Catholic Faith was published in the presence of our Viii. 
Sovereign the most religious and gloriously victorious Emperor, aoe 
Constantius, Augustus, the eternal and majestic, in the Consulate 5.4 ἘΞ 
of the most Magee ious Plavians, Eusebius, and Hypatius, in Sirmium pian, of 
on the I 1th of the Calends of June”. 359. vid. 

We believe in one Only and True God, the Father Almighty, : Hea 
Creator and Framer of all things: 

And in one Only-begotten Son of God, who, before all ages, 
and before all origin, and before all conceivable time, and before 
all comprehensible substance, was begotten impassibly from God ; 
through whom the ages were disposed and all things were made ; 
and Him begotten as the Only-begotten, Only from the Only 
Father, God from God, like to the Father who begat Him, accord- ὅμοιον 
ing to the Scriptures ; whose generation no one knoweth save the 
Father alone who begat Him. We know that He, the Only-begotten 
Son of God, at the Father’s bidding came from the heavens for the 
abolishment of sin, and was born of the Virgin Mary, and conversed 
with the disciples, aud fulfilled the economy according to the Father’s 
will, and was crucified, and died and descended into the parts beneath 
the earth, and had the economy of things there, whom the gate- 
keepers of hell saw and shuddered; and He rose from the dead the 
third day, and conversed with the disciples, and fulfiiled the economy, 
and when the forty days were full ascended into the heavens, and 
sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and is coming in the last day 
of the resurrection in the glcry of the Father, to render to every one 
according to his works. 

And in the Holy Ghost, whom the Only-begotten of God Him- 
self, Jesus Christ, had promised to send to the race of men, the 
Paraciete, as it is written, “I go to the Father, and I will ask the 
Father, and He shall send unto you another Paraclete, even the 
Spirit of Truth,” He shall take of Mine and shall teach and bring 
to your remembrance all things. 


was one of those who carried the long the composition of Mark of Arethusa, 


Confession into the West, though not 
mentioned by Athan. below. He was 
afterwards claimed by Aetius, as agree- 
ing with him. Of Caius, an [lyrian 
Bishop, nothing is known except that 
he sided throughout with the Arian 
party. 

¥ The Creed which follows had been 
prepared at Sirmium shortly before, 
and is the third, or, as some think, the 
fourth, drawn up at Sirmium. It was 


G 


yet it was written in Latin ; and 
though Mark was a Semi-arian, it dis- 
tinctly abandons the word substance. 
But this point of history is involved in 
much obscurity. As it stands it is a 
patchwork of two views. It will be 
observed, that it is the Creed on which 
Athanasius has been animadvyerting 
above. 
* May 22, 359, Whitsun-Eve. 


2 


84 Collision between the Latin Bishops and the Acacians. 


Counce. But whereas the term “substance,” has been adopted by the 
Arm. Fathers in simplicity, and gives offence as being misconceived by the 
“ANP people, and is not contained in the Scriptures, it has seemed good 
SELEU. 5 - ο 5 
rir: to remove it, that it be never in any case used of God again, because 
the divine Scriptures no where use it of Father and Son. But 
we say that the Son is like the Father in all things, as all the Holy 
Scriptures say and teach *. 


12. When this had been read, the dishonesty of its framers 
was soon apparent. For on the Bishops proposing that 
the Arian heresy should be anathematized together with the 
other heresies», and all assenting, Ursacius and Valens and 
their friends refused ; till in the event the Fathers con- 
demned them, on the ground that their confession had been 
written, not in sincerity, but for the annulling of the Acts 
of Nica, and the introduction instead of their miserable 
heresy. Marvelling then at the deceitfulness of their lan- 
guage and their unprincipled intentions, the Bishops said ; 
“Not as if in need of faith have we come hither; for we 
have within us faith, and that in soundness: but that we 
may put to shame those who gainsay the truth and attempt 
novelties. Ifthen ye have drawn up this formula, as if now 
beginning to believe, ye are not so much as clerks, but are 
starting with school; but if you meet us with the same 
views, with which we have come hither, let there be a general 
unanimity, and let us anathematize the heresies, and pre- 
serve the teaching of the Fathers. Thus pleas for Councils 
will not longer circulate about, the Bishops at Niczea having 
anticipated them once for all, and done all that was need- 
ful for the Catholic Church °.” 


2 This clause shews the presence and 


§ 9. 


However, even then, in 


nasius ; then they held Councils to ex- 


influence of the Acacian party; but 
the confession is raised towards the 
end by the introduction of the phrase, 
“like in all things,” κατὰ πάντα ὅμοιον, 
which was added by Constantius him- 
self, Epiph. Heer. 73. 22. and which in 
the minds of the more orthodox in- 
cluded ““ substance,” vid. S. Cyril, 
Catech. iv. 7. χὶ. 18. a sense, however, 
which is contradictory to what goes 
before. It is impossible to go into 
this. subject without being inyolyed 
in historical difficulties, which there 
would be no room for discussing. 

> The Eusebian party began after 
the Nicene Council by attacking Atha- 


plain the faith ; then they attacked the 
received terms of theology, and there- 
by the Nicene Creed, professing to 
adhere to Scripture. At Seleucia, as 
described infra, they openly attacked 
the Creed. But they did not dare 
avow the Arian heresy ; the first step 
then on the part of the Catholies was 
to demand of them a condemnation of 
it. The Anomeans perplexed the 
Eusebians by letting out the secret of 
their real Arianism. 

© It need scarcely be said, that the 
great object of the Arians was to ob- 
tain a consideration of the doctrine 
settled at Niczea by a new Council. 


The Council condemns the Acacians and writes to Constantius. 85 


spite of this general agreement of the Bishops, still the Cuar. 
above-mentioned refused. So at length the whole Council, ἢ 
condemning them as ignorant and deceitful men, or rather 

as heretics, gave their suffrages in behalf of the Nicene 
Council, and gave judgment all of them that it was enough ; 

but as to the forenamed Ursacius and Valens, Germinius, 
Auxentius, Caius, and Demophilus, they pronounced them | 

to be heretics, deposed them as not really Christians!, but Ρ. on 
Arians, and wrote against them in Latin what has een note h. 


2 κατὰ 
translated in its substance? into Greek, thus :— brane 


13. Copy of an Epistle from the Council to Constantius, ὃ 10. 


Augustus ἃ :--- 


*“We believe it has been ordered by God’s command, upon the 
mandate © of your religiousness, that we, the Bishops of the Western 
Provinces, came from all parts to Ariminum, for the manifestation 
of the Faith to all Catholic Churches and the detection of the heretics. 
For upon a discussion, in which we all took part who are right- 
minded, it was resolved to adhere to that faith which, enduring 
from antiquity we have ever received from Prophets, Gospels, 
and Apostles, from God Himself, and our Lord Jesus Christ, the 
upholder of your dominion, and the author of your welfare. For we 
deemed it to be a sin, to mutilate any work of the saints, and in 
particular of those Mia in the case of the Nicene formulary, held 


This Athan. all through his works 
strenuously resists. In the Letter 
which follows, the Council observes, 
that the Emperor had commanded ‘to 
treat of the faith,’ under which ambi- 
guous phrase the Arians attempted to 
“propose,” as they say, ‘“‘ something 
novel for their consideration.” And so 
at Sardica the Council writes to Pope 
Julius, that the Emperors Constan- 
tius and Gonstans had pr oposed three 
subjects for its consideration ; first, 
“that all points in discussion should 
be debated afresh (de integro), and 
above all concerning the holy faith and 
the integrity of the truth which [the 
Arians] had violated.”’ Hil. Fragm. ii. 
11. Enemies of the Arians seem to 
have wished this as well as themselves; 
and the Council got into difficulty 
in consequence. Hosius the presi- 
dent and Protogenes Bishop of the 
place wrote to the Pope to explain, 
‘from fear,” says Sozomen, ‘‘lest some 
“might think that there was any inno- 
vation upon the Nicene decrees.” iii. 
12. From his way of stating the mat- 
ter, Sozomen seems to have himself 


believed that the Council did publish 
a creed. And, as has been alluded to in 
a former note, p. 70. a remarkable con- 
fession, and attributed to the Council, 
does exist. Accordingly Athanasius, 
Eusebius of Vercellz, and the Council 
of Alexandria, A.D. 362, protest 
against the idea. “It is true that 
certain persons wished to add to the 
Nicene Council as if there was some- 
thing wanting, but the Holy Council 
was displeased,’ &c. Tom. ad Antioch. 
However, Vigilius of Thapsus repeats 
the report. contr. Eutych. vy. init. 

4 The same yersion of the Letter 
which follows is found in Soer. ii. 39. 
Soz. iv. 10. Theod. Hist. ii. 19. Niceph. 
i. 40. On comparison with the Latin 
original, which is preserved by Hilary, 
Fragm. viii. it appears to be so very 
freely executed, thatit has been thought 
betterhere to translate it from the text 
of Hilary. 

ὁ Exprecepto. Praceptum becomes 
a technical word afterwards for a royal 
deed, charter, or edict; and it has 
somewhat of that meaning even here. 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
-- AND 


SELEU. 


1 supr. 
p. 74. 
note d. 


86 Letter of the Council of Ariminui. 

session together with Constantine of glorious memory, the Father 
of your religiousness. Which formulary was put abroad and gained 
entrance into the minds of the people, and being at that time drawn 
up against Arianism, is found to be such, that heresies are overthrown 
by it; from which, if aught were subtracted, an opening is made to 
the poison of the heretics. 

Accordingly Ursacius and Valens formerly came into suspicion of 
the said Arian heresy, and were suspended from Communion, and 
asked pardon according to their letters!, and obtained it then at the 
Council of Milan, in the presence of the legates of the Roman Church. 
And since Constantine was at the Nicene Council, when the formulary 
was drawn up with great deliberation, and after being baptized with 
the profession of it, departed to God’s rest, we think it a crime to 
mutilate aught in it, and inany thing to detract from so many Saints, 
and Confessors, and Successors of Martyrs who drew it up; consi- 
dering that they in turn preserved all doctrine of the Catholics 
who were before them, according to the Scriptures, and that they 
remained unto these times in which thy religiousness has received 
the charge of ruling the world from God the Father through our 
God and Lord Jesus Christ. For them, they were attempting to pull 
up what had been reasonably laid down. For, whereas the letters of 
your religiousness commanded to treat of the faith, there was proposed 
to us by the aforenamed troublers of the Churches, Germinius being 
associated with Auxentius ‘and Caius, something novel for our consi- 
deration, which contained many particulars of perverse doctrine. 
Accordingly, when they found that what they proposed publicly in 
the Council was unacceptable, they considered that they must draw up 
another statement. Indeed it is certain that they have often changed 
these formularies in a short time. And lest the Churches should 
have a recurrence of these disturbances, it seemed good to keep the 
ancient and reasonable institutions. For the information there- 
fore of your clemency, we have instructed our legates to acquaint 
you of the judgment of the Council by our letter, to whom we 
have given this sole direction, not to execute the legation otherwise 
than for the stability and permanence of the ancient decrees; that 
your wisdom also might know, that peace would not be accom- 
plished by the removal of those decrees, as the aforesaid Valens 
and Ursacius, Germinius and Caius, engaged. On the contrary, 
troubles have in consequence been excited in all regions and the 
Roman Church. 

On this account we ask your clemency to regard and hear all 
our legates with favourable ears and a serene countenance, and 


f Auxentius, omitted in Hilary’s posed, but he was an Eastern Bishop, 


copy, is inserted here, and in the De- 
cree which follows, from the Greek, 
since Athanasius has thus given his 
sanction to the fact of his being con- 
demned at Ariminum. Yet Auxentius 
appeals to Ariminum triumphantly. 
Hil. contr. Aux. fin. Socrates, Hist. ii. 
37. says, that Demophilus also was de- 


if he be Demophilus of Berea. vid. 
Coustant. on Hil. Fragm. vii. p. 1342. 
Yet he is mentioned also by Athanasius 
as present, supra, ὃ 9. A few words 
are wanting in the Latin in the com- 
mencement of one of the sentences 
which follow. 


Decree of the Council. 87 
not to suffer aught to be abrogated to the dishonour of the ancients ; 
so that all things may continue which we have received from our 
forefathers, who, as we trust, were prudent men, and acted not 
without the Holy Spirit of God; because by these novelties not 
only are faithful nations troubled, but the infidels also are deterred 
from believing. We pray also that you would give orders that so 
many Bishops, who are detained at Ariminum, among whom are 
numbers who are broken with age and poverty, may return to their 
own country, lest the members of their Churches suffer, as being 
deprived of their Bishops. This, however, we ask with earnestness, 
that nothing be innovated, nothing withdrawn ; but that all remain 
incorrupt which has continued in the times of the Father of your 
sacred piety and in your own religious days; and that your holy 
prudence will not permit us to be harassed, and torn from our sees ; 
but that the Bishops may in quiet give themselves always to the 
prayers, which they do always offer for your own welfare and for 
your reign, and for peace, which may the Divinity bestow on you, 
according to your merits, profound and perpetual! But our legates 
will bring the subscriptions and names of the Bishops or Legates, 
as another letter informs your holy and religious prudence. 


14. Decree of the Council 8. 


As far as it was fitting, dearest brethren, the Catholic Council 
has had patience, and has so often displayed the Church’s for- 
bearance towards Ursacius and Valens, Germinius, Caius, and 
Auxentius; who by so often changing what they had _ believed, 
have troubled all the Churches, and still are endeavouring to 
introduce their heretical spirit into Christian minds. For they 
wish to annul the formulary passed at Nicea, which was framed 
against the Arian and other heresies. They have presented to us 
besides a creed drawn up by themselves, which we could not law- 
fully receive. Even before this have they been pronounced 
heretics by us, and it has been confirmed by a long period, whom 
we have not admitted to our communion, but condemned them in 
their’ presence by our voices. Now then, what seems good to 
you, again declare, that it may be ratified by the subscription of 
each. 

All the Bishops answered, It seems good that the aforenamed 
heretics should be condemned, that the Church may remain in un- 
shaken faith, which is truly Catholic, and in perpetual peace. 


15. Matters at Ariminum then had this speedy issue; for 


£ This Decree is also here translated proposed, acknowledges in particular 


from the original in Hilary, who has 
besides preserved the ‘‘ Catholic Defi- 
nition” of the Council, in which it pro- 
fesses its adherence to the Creed of 
Niczea, and in opposition to the Sir- 
mian Confession which the Arians had 


both the word and the meaning of 
*‘substance : ” *‘ substantia nomen et 
rem, 4 multis sanctis Scripturis in- 
sinuatam mentibus nostris, obtinere 
debere sui firmitatem.” Fragm. vii. 3. 


CuHap. 
I. 


Rl 


Counc. 
ARIM. 

~ AND 
SELEv. 


§ 12. 


88 Union of the Acacians at Seleucia with the Anomeans. 


there was no disagreement there, but all of them with one 
accord both put into writing what they decided upon, and 
deposed the Arians". Meanwhile the transactions in Seleucia 
the Rugged were as follows: it was in the month called by 
the Romans September, by the Egyptians Thoth, and by 
the Macedonians Gorpieus', and the day of the month ac- 
cording to the Egyptians the 16th, upon which all the 
members of the Council assembled together. And there were 
present about a hundred and sixty ; and whereas there were 
many who were accused among them, and their accusers 
were crying out against them, Acacius, and Patrophilus, and 
Uranius of Tyre, and Hudoxius, who usurped the Church of 
Antioch, and Leontius, and Theodotus, and Evagrius, and 
Theodulus, and George who has been driven from the whole 
world, adopt an unprincipled course. Fearing the proofs 
which their accusers had to shew against them, they coa- 
lesced with the rest of the Arian party’, (who were merce- 
naries in the cause of irreligion as if for this purpose, and 


h Athanasius seems to haye known 
no more of the proceedings at Arimi- 
num, which perhaps were then in pro- 
gress, when he wrote this Treatise ; 
their termination, as is well known, 
was very unhappy, ‘* Ingemuit totus 
orbis,’’ says S. Jerome, “ οὐ Arianum 
se esse miratus est.”’ ad Lucif. 19. A 
deputation of ten persons was sentfrom 
the Council to Constantius, to which 
Valens opposed one of his own. Con- 
stantius pretended the barbarian war, 
and delayed an answer till the begin- 
ning of October, the Council having 
opened in July. The postscript to this 
Treatise contained the news of this 
artifice and of the Council’s distress in 
consequence, which Athanasius had 
just heard. He also seems to have in- 
serted into his work, ὃ 80and31, upon 
the receipt of the news of the mission 
of Valens to Constantinople, a mission 
which ended in the submission of the 
Catholic delegacy. Upon this return- 
ing to Ariminum with the delegates 
and the Arian creed they had signed 
(vid. infr. § 30.), Valens, partly by 
menaces and partly by sophistry, suc- 
ceeded in procuring the subscriptions 
of the Council also to the same for- 
mula. 

1 Gorpieus was the first month of 
the Syro-Macedonic year among the 


Greeks, dating according to the era of 
the Seleucid. The Roman date of the 
meeting of the Council was the 27th 
of September. The original transac- 
tions at Ariminum had at this time 
been finished as much as two months, 
and its deputies were waiting for Con- 
stantius in Constantinople. 

κ There is little to observe of these 
Acacian Bishops in addition to what 
has been said of several of them, except 
that George is the Cappadocian, the 
notorious intruder into the see of S. 
Athanasius. The charges which lay 
against them were of various kinds. 
Socrates says that the Acacian party 
consisted in all of 84; others increase 
it by a few more. / 

' The Eusebian or Court party are 
herecalled Acacian, and were Anomee- 
ans and Semi-arians alternately, or 
more properly as they may be called 
Homeean or Scriptural; for Arians, 
Semi-arians, and Anomeeans, all used 
theological terms as well as the Catho- 
lics. The Semi-arians numbered about 
100, the remaining dozen might be the 
Egyptian Bishops who were zealous 
supporters of the Catholic cause. 
However, there were besides a few 
Anomeeans or Arians, as Athan. 
calls them, with whom the Acacians 
now coalesced. 


oe 


89 


Semi-arian majority condemn them. 


were ordained by Secundus who had been deposed by the Cuar. 
great Council,) the Libyan Stephen, and Seras, and rhs == 
who were under accusation upon various charges, next Pan- 
cratius, and one Ptolemy a Meletian™. And they made a ~ 
pretence of entering upon the question of faith, but it was 
clear" they were doing so from fear of their accusers ; and 

they took the part of the heresy, till at length they were 

left by themselves. For, whereas supporters of the Acacians 

lay under suspicion and were very few, but the others were 

the majority ; therefore the Acacians, acting with the bold- 

ness of desperation, altogether denied the Nicene formula, 

and censured the Council, while the others, who were the 
majority, accepted the whole proceedings of the Council, 
except that they complained of the word ‘‘ Consubstantial,” 

as obscure and open to suspicion. When then time passed, 

and the accusers pressed, and the accused put in pleas, 

and thereby were led on further by their irreligion and 
blasphemed the Lord, thereupon the majority of Bishops 
became indignant °, and deposed Acacius, Patrophilus, 
Uranius, Eudoxius, and George the contractor !, and others | Pork 
from Asia, Leontius, and Theodosius, Evagrius and Theo- taco 
doret, and excommunicated Asterius, Eusebius, Augerus, pa ας 
Basilicus, Phoebus, Fidelius, Eutychius, and Magnis. And ὑποδέκ. 
this they did on their non-appearance, when summoned to Hie. 
defend themselves on charges which numbers preferred Arian. 
against them. And they decreed that so they should re- 705 ὙΠ: 


: 2 Naz. 
main, until they made their defence and cleared themselves Orat. 21. 
16. 


“πὶ The Meletian schismatics of 


341. of which infr. § 22. Basil of 
Egypt had formed an alliance with the 


Ancyra, the leading Semi-arian, was 


Arians from the first. Athan. imputes 
the alliance to ambition and avarice 
in the Meletians, and to zeal for their 
heresy in theArians. Ad Ep. Hg. 22. 
vid. also Hist. Arian. 78. [Hist. tracts 
pp- 151, 289, 290 O.T.) After Sardica 
the Semi-arians attempted a coalition 
with the Donatists of Africa. Aug. 
contr. Crese. iii. 38. 

π᾿ Acacius had written to the Semi- 
arian Macedonius of Constantinople 
in favour of the κατὰ πάντα ὅμοιον, and 
of the Son’s being τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας, 
and this the Council was aware of. 
Soz.iy. 22. Acacius made answer that 
no one ancient or modern was ever 
judged by his writings. Socr. ii. 40. 

° They also confirmed the Semi- 
arian Confession of the Dedication, 


not present; and he and Mark of 
Arethusa were both parties to the 
Acacian third Sirmium Confession, 
which had been proposed at Arimi- 
num. George of Laodicea, however, 
who was with him at the Council of 
Ancyra in the foregoing year, acted as 
the leader of the Semi-arians. After 
this the Acacians drew up another 
Confession, which Athan. has pre- 
served, infra, § 29. in which they per- 
sist in their rejection of all but Scrip- 
ture terms. This the Semi-arian 
majority rejected, and proceeded to 
depose its authors. There is nothing 
to remark as regards the names of 
Arian Bishops here introduced into 
the text. 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 


SELEU. 


ὃ 13. 


1 supr. 
p- 80, 
note r. 
3 προπί- 
Ψνουσι. 
infr. § 
16. fin. 


90 Oontrast between Council of Ariminumin its first proceedings 


of the offences imputed to them. And after despatching 
the sentence pronounced against them to the diocese of 
each, they proceeded to Constantius, that most irreligious ? 
Augustus, to report to him their proceedings, as they had 
been ordered. And this was the termination of the Council 
in Seleucia. 

16. Who then but must approve of the conscientious 
conduct of the Bishops at Ariminum? who endured such 
labour of journey and perils of sea, that by a sacred and 
canonical resolution they might depose the Arians, and 
guard inviolate the definitions of the Fathers. For each of 
them deemed that, if they undid the acts of their prede- 
cessors, they were affording a pretext to their successors to 
undo what they themselves then were enacting). And who 
but must condemn the fickleness of the party of Eudoxius 
and Acacius, who sacrifice” the honour due to their own 


P Up to the year 356, Athanasius 
had treated Constantius as a member 
of the Church; but at that date the 
Eusebian or Court party abandoned 
the Semi-arians for the Anomceans, 
George of Cappadocia was sent as 
Bishop to Alexandria, Athanasius was 
driven into the desert, S. Hilary and 
other Western Bishops were sent into 
banishment, Hosius was persecuted 
into signing an Arian confession, and 
Pope Liberius into communicating 
with the Arians. Upon this Athan- 
asius changed his tone and considered 
that he had to deat with an Antichrist. 
We have seen above, note g, the lan- 
guage both of himself and others in 
consequence. In his Apol. contr. 
Arian. init. (A.D. 350.) ad Ep. Hg. 
5. (356.) and his Apol. ad Constant. 
passim. (856.) he calls the Emperor 
most pious, religious, &c. At the end 
of the last mentioned work, § 27. the 
news comes to him while in exile 
of the persecution of the Western 


Bishops and the measures against him- 


self. He still in the peroration calls 
Constantius, ‘‘ blessed and divinely 
favoured Augustus,” and urges on him 
that he is a “" Christian, φιλόχριστος, 
Emperor.” In the works which follow, 
Apol. de fuga, ὃ 26.(357.) he calls him 
an heretic; and Hist. Arian. ὃ 45, &c. 
(358.) speaking of the treatment of 
Hosius, &c. he calls him ‘‘ Ahab,” ‘‘ Bel- 


shazzar,”’ ‘Saul,’ “Antichrist.” The 
passage at the end of the Apol. contr. 
Arian. [ Hist. traets, p. 123 O.T.] in 
which he speaks of the ‘‘ much violence 
and tyrannical power of Constantius,” 
is an addition of Athan.’s at a later 
date, vid. Montfaucon’s note on § 88. 
fin. This is worth mentioning, as it 
shews the unfairness of the following 
passage from Gibbon, ch. xxi. note 116. 
‘© As Athanasius dispersed secret in- 
yectives against Constantius, see the 
Epistle to the monks,” [i. 6. Hist. 
Arian. ad Monach. A.D. 358.] “ at the 
same time that he assured him of his 
profound respect, we might distrust 
the professions of the Archbishop. 
tom. i. p. 677.” [i.e apparently Apol. 
ad Const. A.D. 356.] Again in a 
later part of the chapter, “" In his pub- 
lic Apologies, which he addressed to 
the Emperor himself, he sometimes 
affected the praise of moderation ; 
whilst at the same time in secret and 
vehement inyectives he exposed Con- 
stantius as a weak and wicked prince, 
the executioner of his family, the ty- 
rant of the republic, and the Antichrist 
of the Church.’ He offers no proof 
of this assertion. It may be added 
that S. Greg. Naz. praises Constantius, 
but it is in contrast to Julian. Orat. 
iy. 3. y.6. And 5. Ambrose, but it is 
for his enmity to paganism. Ep. i. 18. 
n. 32. 


and the Acacians. 


91 


fathers to partizanship and patronage of the Ario-maniacs! ? 
for what confidence can be placed in their acts, if the acts 
of their fathers be undone? or how call they them fathers 
and themselves successors, if they set about impeaching 
their judgment ? and especially what can Acacius say of his 
own master, Husebius, who not only gave his subscription 
in the Nicene Council, but even in a letter! signified to 
his flock, that that was true faith, which the Council had 
declared? for, if he explained himself in that letter in his 


4° The dumb ass forbade the mad- 
ness of the prophet,” παραφρονίαν. On 
the word ᾿Αρειομανῖται, Gibbon ob- 
serves, ‘‘ The ordinary appellation with 
which Athanasins and his followers 
chose to compliment the Arians, was 
that of Ariomanites,”’ ch. xxi. note 61. 
Rather, the name originally was a 
state title, injoined by Constantine, 
vid. Petay. de Trin.i.8 fin. Naz. Orat. 
p. 794. note 6. and thenceforth used by 
the general Church, e.g. Eustathius 
of Antioch, ap. Theod. Hist.i. 7. Con- 
stant. ap. Concil. t. i. p.456.b. Hilar. 
de Trin. vi. Julius ap. Athan. Apol. 
23. Council of Egypt, ibid. 6. Phe- 
badius, contr. Arian. cire. fin. Epiph. 
Heer. 69.19. (ὁ μανιώδης ’Apelos.) Greg. 
Naz. Orat. ii. 387. τὴν ᾿Αρείου καλῶς 
ὀνομασθεῖσαν μανίαν, andso ὁ τῆς μανί- 
ας ἐπώνυμος. Orat. 43. 30. vid. also 
Orat. 20.5. and so Proclus, τὴν ᾿Αρείου 
μανίαν. ad Armen. p. 618 fin. And 
Athan. e.g. μανίαν διαβόλου. ad Serap. 
i. 1. also ad Serap.i. 17 fin. 19init. 20 ἃ. 
24 6.29 e. ii. 1 fin. iv. 5 init. 6 fin. 15 fin. 
16 fin. In some of these the denial of 
the divinity of the Holy Ghost is the 
madness. In like manner Hilaryspeaks 
continually of their “furor.” de Trin. 
e. ρ΄. 1. 17. Several meanings are im- 
plied in this title ; the real reason for it 
was the fanatical fury with which it 
spread and maintained “itself; e.g. 
ὁ wavikds ἐραστὴς Tov χριστοῦ. enthu- 
siastic. Chrysost. in Esai. vi. 1. Hom. 
iv. 3. p.124. Thus Athan. contrasts 
the Arian hatred of the truth, with 
the mere worldliness of the Meletians, 
supr. p. 89. note m. Hence they are 
ἀσεβεῖς, χριστομάχοι.απἃ governed by 
κακόνοια and κακοφροσύνη. Again So- 
erates speaks of it asa flame which ra- 
vaged, ἐπενέμετο, provinces and cities. 
i.6. And Alexander cries out,& ἀνοσίου 
τύφου καὶ ἀμέτρου μανίας. Theod. Hist. 
i.3. p. 741. vid. also pp. 735, 6, 747. 
And we read much of their eager spirit 


of proselytism. Theod. ibid. The ori- 


CHAP. 


1 vid. 
supr. de 
Deer. 

§ 3. 


ginal word mania best expresses it in — 


English. Their cruelty came into 
this idea of their ‘‘mania;’ hence 
Athan. in one place calls the Arian 
women, in the tumult under George 
of Cappadocia, Ma@nades. ‘They 
running up and down like Baccha- 
nals and furies, μαινάδες καὶ epivyves, 
thought it a misfortune not to find 
opportunity for injury, and passed that 
day in grief in which they could do no 
harm.” Hist. Arian. 59. [ Hist. tracts 
p. 272 O.T.] Also “‘profana Arianorum 
novitas velut quedam Bellona aut 
Furia.” Vincent. Common. 6. Eusta- 
thius speaks of of παράδοξοι τῆς ἀρείου 
θυμέλης μεσόχοροι. ap. Phot. 225. p. 
759. And hence the strange parono- 
masia of Constantine, ’Apés, ἄρειε, with 
an allusion to Hom. Il. v.31. A second 
reason, or rather sense, of the appel- 
lation was what is noted, supr. p. 2, 
note e. that, denying the Word, they 
have forfeited the gift of reason, e.g. 
τῶν ᾿Αρειομανιτῶν τὴν ἀλογίαν. de 
Sent. Dion. init. vid. ibid. 24 fin. Orat. 
ii. § 32. 6. iii. § 63. throughout. Hence 
in like manner Athan. speaks of the 
heathen as mad who did not acknow- 
ledge God and His Word. contr. Gent. 
fin. also 23 fin. Hence he speaks of 
εἰδωλομανία. contr. Gent. 10. and 21 
fin. Again, Incarn. 47. he speaks of 
the mania of oracles, which belongs 
rather to the former sense of the word. 
Other heresies had the word mania 
applied to them, e.g. that of Valentinus 
Athan. Orat.ii.§ 70 [infra p. 382]. κἂν 
μαινῆται. Epiphanius speaks of the 
ἐμμανὴς διδασκαλία of the Noetians. 
Hier. 57. 2. Nazianzen contrasts the 
sickness, νόσος, of Sabellius with the 
madness of Arius, Orat. 20.5; but 
Athan. says, μαίνεται μὲν ἴΑρειος, μαί- 
νεται δὲ Σαβέλλιος, Orat. iv. 25 [infra 
Ρ. 543]: But this note might be pro- 
longed indefinitely. 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 


SELEv. 


note u. 


§ 14. 
1 Cor. 
1:9. 


3 προπί- 
vovot, de 
Decr. 


92 Impiety of the Arians towards the Fathers. 


own way', yet he did not contradict the Council’s terms, 
but even charged it upon the Arians, that, their position 
that the Son was not before His generation, was not even 
consistent with His being before Mary. What then will 
they proceed to teach the people who are under their 
teaching ? that the Fathers erred ? and how are they them- 
selves to be trusted by those, whom they teach to disobey 
their Teachers ? and with what faces too will they look 
upon the sepulchres of the Fathers whom they now name 
heretics? And why do they defame the Valentinians, 
Phrygians, and Manichees, yet give the name of saint to 
those whom they themselves suspect of making parallel 
statements? or how can they any longer be Bishops, if they 
were ordained by persons whom they accuse of heresy! ? 
But if their sentiments were wrong and their writings se- 
duced the world, then let their memory perish altogether ; 
when, however, you cast out their books, go and cast out 
their relics too from the cemeteries, so that one and all may 
know that they are seducers, and that you are parricides. 
The blessed Apostle approves of the Corinthians because, he 
says, ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as 
I delivered them to you ; but they, as entertaining such views 
of their predecessors, will have the daring to say just the 
reverse to their flocks: “ We praise you not for remember- 
ing your fathers, but rather we make much of you, when 
you hold not their traditions.” And let them go on to 
cast a slur on their own ignoble birth, and say, “ We are 
sprung not of religious men but of heretics.” For such 
language, as I said before, is consistent in those who barter 5 
their Fathers’ fame and their own salvation for Arianism, 
and fear not the words of the divine proverb, There is a 
generation that curseth their father, and the threat lying in 
the Law against such. 

17. They then, from zeal for the heresy, are of this ob- 
stinate temper; you, however, be not troubled at it, nor 
take their audacity for truth. For they dissent from each 
other, and, whereas they have revolted from their Fathers, 
are not of one and the same mind, but float about with 
various and discordant changes. And, as quarrelling with 

τ ὡς ἠθέλησεν. Vid. also de Decr. ὃ 3. ὡς ἠθέλησαν. ad Ep. ig. 5. 


Their Variations. 93 


the Council of Niczea, they have held many Councils them- Cuap. 
selves, and have published a faith in each of them, and have | 
stood to nonel, nay, they will never do otherwise, for per- 1 ad Ep. 
versely seeking, they will never find that Wisdom which ae 
they hate. I have accordingly subjoined portions both of tracts, 
Arius’s writings and of whatever else I could collect, of Br 
their publications in different Councils; whereby you will 

learn to your surprise with what object they stand out 
against an Ecumenical* Council and their own Fathers 3 supr. 
without blushing. Le 


note o. 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 


SELEU. 


§ 15. 


CHAP." Tk: 


HISTORY OF ARIAN OPINIONS. 


Arius’s own sentiments; his Thalia and Letter to S. Alexander; corrections 
by Eusebius and others; extracts from the works of Asterius; letter of 
the Council of Jerusalem; first Creed of Arians at the Dedication of 
Antioch ; second, Lucian’s on the same occasion ; third, by Theophronius ; 
fourth, sent to Constans in Gaul; fifth, the Macrostiche sent into Italy ; 
sixth, at Sirmium; seventh, at the same place; and eighth also, as 
given above in Chapter i; ninth, at Seleucia; tenth, at Constantinople ; 
eleventh, at Antioch. 

1. Arius and his friends thought and professed thus: “God 
made the Son out of nothing, and called Him His Son;” “The 
Word of God is one of the creatures ;” and ‘‘ Once He was 
not ;” and “ He isalterable; capable, when it is His will, of 
altering.” Accordingly they were expelled from the Church 
by Alexander of blessed memory. However, after his ex- 
pulsion, when he was with the Husebians, he drew up his 
heresy upon paper, and imitating, as if in festivity!, no 
grave writer, but the Egyptian Sotades, in the dissolute tone 
of his metre*, he writes at great length, for instance as 
follows :— 


2. Blasphemies of Arius. 


God Himself then, in His own nature, is ineffable by all men. 
Equal or like Himself He alone has none, or one in glory. 


a Again, Orat.i. § 2—5. he calls him 
the Sotadean Arius ; and speaks of the 
** dissolute manners,” and “‘ the effemi- 
nate tone,” and the ‘‘jests” of the Tha- 
lia; a poem which, he says shortlybefore, 
“is not even found among the more 
respectable Greeks, but among those 
only who sing songs over their wine, 
with noise and reyel,” [infra p.182]: 
vid. also de Sent. D.6. Constantine 
also after the “Apes “Apese, proceeds, 
ἐπισχέτω δέ σε ἣ γοῦν ᾿Αφροδίτης ὁμι- 
Ala. Epiph. Her. 69. 9 fin. Socrates 
too says that ‘the character of the 
book was gross and dissolute.” Hist. 
i.9. The Arian Philostorgius tells us 
that “‘ Arius wrote songs for the sea 
and for the mill and for the road, and 
then set them to suitable music,”’ Hist. 
ii. 2. It is remarkable that Athanasius 


should say the Hgyptian Sotades, and 
again in Sent. D. 6. There were two 
Poets of the name; one a writer of the 
Middle Comedy, Athen. Deipn. vii. 
11; but the other, who is here spoken 
of, was a native of Maronea in Crete, 
according to Suidas (in yoce.), under 
the suecessors of Alexander, Athen. 
xiv. 4. He wrote in Ionic metre, 
which was of infamous name from the 
subjects to which he and others ap- 
plied it. vid. Suid. ibid. Some read 
** Sotadicos”’ for ““ Socraticos,” Juy. 
Satir. ii. 10. vid. also Martial Ep. ii. 86, 
The characteristic of the metre was 
the recurrence of the same cadence, 
which virtually destroyed the division 
into verses, Turneb. in Quinct. i. 8. 
and thus gave the composition that lax 
and slovenly air to which Athanasiu< 


Arius’s Thalia. 95 


And Ingenerate we call Him, because of Him who is generate by 


nature. 
We praise Him as Unoriginate because of Him who has an origin. 
And adore Him as everlasting, because of Him who in time has 


come to be. 


The Unoriginate made the Son an origin of things generated ; 
And advanced Him as a Son to Himself by adoption. 

He has nothing proper to God in proper subsistence. 

For He is not equal, no, nor one in substance” with Him. 

Wise is God, for He is the teacher of Wisdom °. 

There is full proof that God is invisible to all beings, 

Both to things which are through the Son, and to the Sun He is 


invisible. 


I will say it expressly, how by the Son is seen the Invisible ; 

By that power by which God sees, and in His own measure, 

The Son endures to see the Father, as is lawful. 

Thus there is a Three, not in equal glories. 

Not intermingling with each other“ are their subsistences. 

One more glorious than the other in their glories unto immensity. 
Foreign from the Son in substance is the Father, for He is 


alludes. Horace’s Ode, ‘‘ Miserarum 
est nec amori, &c.” is a specimen of 
this metre, and some have called it So- 
tadic ; but Bentley shews in loc. that 
Sotades wrote in the [onic ἃ majore, 
and that his verse had somewhat more 
of system than is found in the Ode of 
Horace. Athenzeus implies that all 
Ionic metres were called Sotadic, or 
that Sotades wrote in various Lonic 
metres. ‘Ehe-Church adopted the Do- 
ric music, and forbade the Ionic and 
Lydian. The name “Thalia” com- 
monly belonged to convivial songs ; 
Martial contrasts the ‘“‘lasciva Thalia” 
with “‘ carmina sanctiora,”’ Epigr. vii. 
17. yid. Thaliarchus, ‘“‘ the master of 
the feast,’’ Horat. Od. i. 9. If one were 
to attempt to form a judgment on 
the nature of Arius’s proceeding, it 
would be this; that he attempted to 
popularize his heresy by introducing 
it into the common employments and 
recreations of life, and having no reye- 
rence, he fell into the error of modern 
religionists, who, with a better creed, 
sing spiritual songs at table, and use 
in their chapels glees and opera airs. 
This would be more offensive of old 
even than now, in proportion to the 
keener sensibilities of the South and 
the more definite ideas which music 


Unoriginate. 


seems to have conveyed to their 
minds ; and more especially in a case 
where the metre Arius employed had 
obtained so shocking a reputation, and 
was associated in the minds of Chris- 
tians with the deeds of darkness, in 
the midst of which in those heathen 
times the Church lived and witnessed. 

> This passage ought to have been 
added to note t, p. 85. supr. as contain- 
ing a more direct denial of the ὁμοού- 
σιον ; soincorrect is Gibbon’s assertion, 
that on Eusebius’s ‘‘ingenuously con- 
fessing that it was incompatible with 
the principles of their theological sys- 
tem, the fortunate opportunity was 
eagerly embraced by the Bishops,” as 
if they were bent at all hazards, and 
without reference to the real and sub- 
stantial agreement or disagreement 
of themselves and the Arians, to find 
some word which might accidentally 
serve to exclude the latter from com- 
munion. 

¢ That is, Wisdom, or the Son, is 
but the disciple of Him who is Wise, 
and not the attribute by which He is 
Wise, which is what the Sabellians 
said, vid. Orat. iv. § 2. and what Arius 
imputed to the Church. 

ὦ ἀνεπιμικτοὶ, that is, he denied the 
mepix@pyois, vid. infra, Orat. iii. 3, &e. 


CHAP. 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 


SELEU. 


ἃ 16. 


96 Arius’s Tha lia. 


Understand that the One was; but the Two was not, before it was 


in existence. 


It follows at once that, though the Son was not, the Father was God. 
Hence the Son, not being, (for He existed at the will of the Father,) 
Is God Only-begotten, and He is alien from either. 

Wisdom existed as Wisdom by the will of the Wise God. 

Hence He is conceived in numberless conceptions ©. 

Spirit, Power, Wisdom, God’s glory, Truth, Image, and Word. 
Understand that He is conceived to be Radiance and Light. 

One equal to the Son, the Superior is able to generate. 

But more excellent, or superior, or greater, He is not able. 

At God’s will the Son is what and whatsoever He is. 

And when and since He was, from that time He has subsisted 


from God. 


He, being a strong God, praises in His degree the Superior. 
To speak in brief, God is ineffable by His Son. 

For He is to Himself what He is, that is, unspeakable. 

So that nothing which is called comprehensible £ 

Does the Son know to speak about; for it is impossible for Him 
To investigate the Father, who is by Himself. 

For the Son does not know His own substance, 

For, being Son, He really existed, at the will of the Father. 
What argument then allows, that He who is from the Father 
Should know His own parent by comprehension ? 

For itis plain that, for That which hath origin 

To conceive how the Unoriginate is, 

Or to grasp the idea, is not possible. 


3. And what they wrote by letter to Alexander of blessed 
memory, the Bishop, runs as follows :— 


T'o Our Blessed Pope’ and Bishop, Alexander, the Presbyters 
and Deacons, send health in the Lord. 


Our faith from our forefathers, which also.we have learned from 


© ἐπινοίαις, that is, our Lord’s titles 
are but names, or figures, not properly 
belonging to Him but only existing in 


τ our minds. 


f κατὰ κατάληψιν, that is, there is 
nothing comprehensible in the Father 
for the Son to know and declare. On 
the other hand the doctrine of the Ano- 
meeans, who inmost points agreed with 
Arius, was, that all men could know 
Almighty God perfectly ; according to 
Socrates, who says, ‘‘ Not to seem to 
be slandering, listen to Eunomius him- 


self, what words he dares to use in 
sophistry concerning God; they run 
thus :—‘ God knows not of His sub- 
stance more than we do; nor is it 
known to Him more, to us less; but 
whatsoever we may know of it, that 
He too knows; and what again He, 
that you will find without any distine- 
tion in us.’ ” Hist. iv. 7. 

s Alexander is also so called, Theod. 
Hist. i. 4. p. 749. Athanasius, Hieron. 
contr. Joan. 4. Heraclas, also of Alex- 
andria, by Dionysius apud Euseb. Hist. 


Arius’s letter to Alewander, 97 


thee, Blessed Pope, is this:—We acknowledge One God, alone 
Ingenerate, alone Everlasting, alone Unoriginate, alone ‘True, 
alone having Immortality, alone Wise, alone Good, alone Sovereign ; 
Judge, Governor, and Providence of all, unalterable and unchange- 
able, just and good, God of Law and Prophets and New Testament ; 
who generated an Only-begotten Son before eternal times, through 
whom He has made both the ages and the universe; and generated 
Him, not in semblance, but in truth; and that He made Him 
subsist at His own will unalterable and unchangeable; perfect 
creature of God, but not as one of the creatures; offspring, but 
not as one of things generated; nor as Valentinus pronounced that 
the offspring of the Father was an issue®; nor as Manicheus 
taught that the offspring was a portion of the Father, one in sub- 
stance’; or as Sabellius, dividing the One, speaks of a Son-and- 
Father * ; nor as Hieracas, of one torch from another, or as a lamp 
divided into two!; nor that He who was before, was afterwards 
generated or new-created into a Son™, as thou too thyself, Blessed 


vii. 7. Epiphanius of Cyprus, Hieron. 
Ep. 57, 2. John of Jerusalem, Hier. 
contr. Joan. 4. Cyprian of Carthage, 
Ep. ap. Cypr. 31. Augustine of Hippo, 
Hier. Ep. 141 init. Lupus, Pragmatius, 
Leontius, Theoplastus, Eutropius, &c. 
of Gaul, by Sidon. Apoll. Ep. vi. Euty- 
ches, Archimandrite, Abraham Abbot, 
are called by the same name, in the 
Acts of Chalcedon. 

h What the Valentinian προβολῇ was, 
is describedin Epiph. Her. 31, 13. The 
Eons, wishing to shew thankfulness 
to God, contributed together (épavica- 
μένους) whatever was most beautiful 
of each of them, and moulding these 
several excellencies into one, formed 
this Issue, προβαλέσθαι πρόβλημα, to 
the honour and glory of the Profound, 
βύθος, and they called this star and 
flower of the Pleroma, Jesus, &c. And 
so Tertullian ‘‘ a joint contribution, ex 

_ere collatitio, to the honour and glory 
of the Father, ex omnium defloratione 
constructum,’’ contr. Valent. 12. Ac- 
cordingly Origen protests against the 
notion of προβολὴ, Periarch. iv. p. 190. 
and Athanasius Expos. § 1. The Arian 
Asterius too considers προβολὴ to in- 
troduce the notion of τεκνογονία, Euseb. 
contr. Mare. i. 4. p. 20. vid. also Epiph. 
Her. 72. 7. Yet Eusebius uses the 
word προβάλλεσθαι. Eccles. Theol. i. 
8. On the other hand Tertullian uses 
it with a protest against the Valen- 
tinian sense. Justin has προβληθὲν γέν- 
νημα, Tryph. 62. [».ὄ 150 0.T.] And 
Nazianzen calls the Almighty Father 
προβολεὺς of the Holy Spirit. Orat. 29. 
2. Arius introduces the word here as 
an argumentum ad invidiam. Hil. de 
πεῖην γι 9. 


Η 


i The Manichees adopting ἃ material 
notion of the divine substance, con- 
sidered that it was divisible, and thata 
portion of it was absorbed by the power 
of darkness, vid. Appendix to Transla- 
tion of S. Augustine’s Confessions, ii, 
pp- 320 sqq. 

k υἱοπατόρα. This word is made the 
symbol of the Noetians or Sabellians by 
both Catholics and Arians, as if their 
doctrine involved or avowed Patripas- 
sianism, or that the Father suffered, 
Without entering upon thecontroversy 
raised by Beausobre (Hist. Manich. iii. 
6. § 7, &c.), Mosheim (Ant. Constant. 
sec. ii. § 68. ii. 32.), and Lardner 
(Cred. part ii. ch. 41.), on the subject, 
we may refer to the following passages 
for the use of the term. [Ὁ is ascribed to 
Sabellius, Ammon. in Caten. Joan. i. 
1. p. 14: to Sabellius and Marcellus, 
Euseb. Eccl. Theol. ii. 5: to Marcel- 
lus, Cyr. Hier. Catech. xy. 9. also iv. 
8. xi. 16. Epiph. Her. 73. 11 fin.: to 
Sabellians, Athan. Expos. Fid. 2. and 7 
Can. Constant. and Greg. Nyssen. 
contr. Eun. xii. p. 733: to certain 
heretics, Cyril. Alex. in Joann. p. 243. 
[p. 282 0.7.1} : to Praxeas and Mon- 
tanus, Mar. Mere. p. 128: to Sabellius, 
Cesar. Dial. i. p. 550: to Noetus, 
Damase. Heer. 57. 

1 Hieracas was a Manichean. He 
compared the Two Divine Persons to 
the two lights of one lamp, where the 
oil is common and the flame double, 
thusimplying asubstance distinct from 
Father and Son, or to a flame divided 
into two by (for instance) the papyrus 
which was commonly used instead of 
a wick. vid. Hilar. de Trin. vi. 12. 

™ Bull considers that the doctrine 


‘CHAP, 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 


SELEv. 


and so 
Chrys. 
Hom. 3. 
Hebr. 


98 


Arius’s letter to Alexander. 


Pope, in the midst of the Church and in Session hast often con- 
demned ; but, as we say, at the will of God, created before times 
and before ages, and gaining life and being from the Father, who 
gave subsistence to His glories together with Him. For the Father 
did not, in giving to Him the inheritance of all things, deprive Him- 
self, of what He has ingenerately in Himself; for He is the Fountain 
of all things. 

Thus there are Three Subsistences. And God, being the cause 
of all things, is Unoriginate and altogether Sole, but the Son being 
generated apart from time by the Father, and being created and 
founded before ages, was not before His generation, but being 
generated apart from time before all things, alone was made to 
subsist by the Father. For He is not eternal or co-eternal or co- 
ingenerate with the Father, nor has He His being together with the 
Father, as some speak of relations", introducing two ingenerate 
origins, but God is before all things as being a One and an 
Origin of all. Wherefore also He is before the Son; as we have 
learned also from thy preaching in the midst of the Church. So 
far then as from God He has being, and glories, and life, and all 
things are delivered unto Him, in such sense is God His origin. 
For He is above Him, as being His God and before Him. But 
if the terms from Him, and from the womb, and I came forth from 


‘the Father, and I am come', be understood by some to mean as if a 


part of Him, one in substance, or as an issue, then the Father is 
according to them compounded and divisible and alterable and 
material, and, as far as their belief goes, has the circumstances of a 
body, who is the Incorporeal God. 


This is a part of what the Arians cast out from their 
heretical hearts. 
4. And before the Nicene Council took place, similar state- 


of such Fathers is here spoken of as 
held that our Lord’s συγκατάβασις to 
createthe world was a yévyynois,andcer- 
tainly such language as that of Hippol. 
contr. Noet. § 15. favours the supposi- 
tion. But one class of the Sabellians 
may more probably be intended, who 
held that the Word became the Son 
on His incarnation, such as Marcellus, 
vid. Euseb. Eccles. Theol. i. 1. contr. 
Mare. ii. 3. vid. also Eccles. Theol. 
ii.9.p. 114}. μηδ᾽ ἄλλοτε ἄλλην κ.τ.λ. 
Also the Macrostich says, ‘‘ We ana- 
thematize those who call Him the 
mere Word of God, not allowing Him 
to be Christ and Son of God before 
all ages, but from the time He took on 
Him our flesh ; such are the followers 
of Marcellus and Photinus, &c.” infra, 
§ 26 [pp. 1138, 114]. Again, Athan- 
asius, Orat. iv. 15 [infra p. 531], says 
that, of those who divide the Word 
from the Son, some called our Lord’s 
manhood the Son, some the two Na- 
tures together, and some said ‘‘that 


the Word Himself became the Son 
when He was made man.” It makes it 
more likely that Marcellus is meant, 
that Asterius seems to have written 
against him before the Nicene Council, 
and that Arius in other of his writings 
borrowed from Asterius. vid. de De- 
cret. § 8. 

» Eusebius’s letter to Euphration, 
whichis mentioned just after, expresses 
this more distinctly—‘‘If they co- 
exist, how shall the Father be Father 
and the Son Son? or how the One 
first, the Other second? and the One 
ingenerate and the other generate ?” 
Acta Cone. 7. p. 301. The phrase τὰ 
πρός τι Bull well explains to refer to 
the Catholic truth that the Father or 
Son being named, the Other is therein 
implied without naming. Defens. F. 
N. iii. 9. § 4. Hence Arius, in his Letter 
to Eusebius, complains that Alexander 
says, ἀεὶ 6 θεὸς, ἀεὶ 6 vids’ Gua πατὴρ, 
ἅμα vids. Theod. Hist. i, 4. 


Arian statements of the two Eusebii, Athanasius and George. 99 


ments were made by Eusebius’s party, Narcissus, Patrophi- (παρ. 


lus, Maris, Paulinus, Theodotus, and Athanasius of Nazarbi°. _1/ 
And Eusebius of Nicomedia wrote over and above to Arius, 

to this effect, “‘ Since your sentiments are good, pray that all 
may adopt them; for it is plain to any one, that what has 
been made was not before its generation ; but what came to 

be, has an origin of being.” And Eusebius of Ceesarea in 
Palestine, in a letter to Huphration the Bishop, did not 
scruple to say plainly that Christ was not true God?. And 
Athanasius of Nazarbi uncloked the heresy still further, 
saying that the Son of God was one of the hundred sheep. 

For writing to Alexander the Bishop, he had the extreme 
audacity to say: “ Why complain of the Arians, for saying, 

The Son of God is made as a creature out of nothing, and 

one among others? For all that are made being represented 

in parable by the hundred sheep, the Son is one of them. 
Ifthen the hundred are not created and generated, or if there 

be beings beside that hundred, then may the Son be not a 
creature nor one among others ; but if those hundred are all 
generate, and there is nothing besides the hundred save God 
alone, what extravagance do the Arians utter, when, as com- 
prehending and reckoning Christ in the hundred, they say 

that He is one aniong others?” And George who now is in 
Laodicea, and then was presbyter of Alexandria, and was 
staying at Antioch, wrote to Alexander the Bishop; “ Do 

not complain of the Arians, for saying, ‘Once the Son of 
God was not,’ for Hsaias came to be son of Amos, and, whereas 
Amos was before Esaias came to be, Esaias was not before, 

but came to be afterwards.”” And he wrote to the Arians, 
“Why complain of Alexander the Pope 1, saying, that the Son 'p. 96, 
is from the Father? for you too need not fear to say that the "°° δ᾽ 
Son was from God. For if the Apostle wrote, All things are 1 Cr 1 


° Most of these original Arians were 
attackedin a work of Marcellus’s which 
Eusebius answers. ‘‘ Now he replies 


tical Fathers, being satisfied with no 
one but himself.” contr. Mare. i. 4. 
There ‘is little to be said of Maris 


to Asterius,” says Eusebius, “‘ now to 
the great Eusebius,’ [of Nicomedia, ] 
“and then he turns upon that man of 
God, that indeed thrice blessed person 
Paulinus, [of Tyre.] Then he goes to 
war with Origen. ... Next he marches 
Out against Narcissus, and pursues the 
other Eusebius,” himself. ‘‘In a word, 
he counts for nothing all the Ecclesias- 


and Theodotus. Nazarbi is more com- 
monly called Anazarbus, and is in 
Cilicia. 

P This is quoted, among other pas- 
sages from Eusebius, inthe 7th General 
Council, Act. 6. p. 409. [t. 8. 1148 e 
ed. Col.] “ὙΠῸ Son Himself is God, 
but not Very God.” 


H 2 


100 


Arian statements of Asterius. 


Counc. from God, and it is plain that all things are made of nothing, 
' εἰ τας though the Son too is a creature and one of things made, 
Szrzv. still He may be said to be from God in that sense in which 

all things are said to be from God.” From him then the 

Arians learned to pretend to the phrase from God, and to 

use it indeed, but not in a good meaning. And George 

himself was deposed by Alexander for certain reasons, and 

among them for manifest irreligion; for he was himself a 

presbyter, as has been said before. 

5. On the whole then such were their statements, as if they 
all were in dispute and rivalry with each other, which should 
make the heresy more irreligious, and display it in a more 
naked form. Andas for their letters I have them not at hand, 
to dispatch them to you ; else I would have sent you copies ; 
but, if the Lord will, this too I will do, when I get possession 
of them. Andone Asterius‘ from Cappadocia,amany-headed 
Sophist, one of the Eusebians, whom they could not advance 
into the Clergy, as having done sacrifice in the former perse- 
cution in the time of Constantius’s grandfather, writes, with 
the countenance of the Eusebians,a small treatise, which was 
on a par with the crime of his sacrifice, yet answered their 
wishes ; for in it, after comparing, or rather preferring, the 
locust and the caterpillar to Christ, and saying that Wisdom 
in God was other than Christ, and was the Framer as well of 
Christ as of the world, he went round the Churches in Syria 
and elsewhere, with introductions from the Eusebians, that 


§ 18, 


as he once had been at pains 


4 Asterius has been mentioned above, 
p- 13, note b. Philostorgius speaks of 
him as adopting Semi-arian terms; and 
Acacius gives an extract from him con- 
taining them, ap. Epiph. Her. 72. 6. 
and doubtless both he (to judge by his 
fragments) and Eusebius write with 
much less of revolting impiety than 
others of their party. Thus in one of 
the extracts made in the text he dis- 
tinguishes after the manner of the 
Semi-arians between the γεννητικὴ 
and the δημιουργικὴ δύναμις. Again, 
the illustration of the Sun in another 
much resembles Euseb. Dem. iy. 5. So 
does his doctrine, supr. de Deer. § 8. 
that the Son was generated to create 
other beings, and that, because they 


to deny the truth, so now he 


could not bear the hand of the Al- 
mighty. also vid. Orat. 11. 24. ef. Dem. 
iv. 4. Eccl. Theol. i. 8. 13. Preep. vii. 
15. but especially Eusebius’s avowal, 
“not that the Father was not able, did 
He beget the Son; but because those 
things which were made were not able 
to sustain the power of the Ingenerate, 
therefore speaks He through a Me- 
diator. contr. Sabell. i. p. 9. At the 
same time if he is so to be considered, 
it is an additional proof that the Semi- 
arians of 325 were far less Catholic 
than those of 359. He seems to be 
called many-headed with an allusion 
to the Hydra, and to his activity in the 
Arian cause and his fertilityin writing, 
He wrote comments on Scripture. 


- 
= 
« i 


Arian statements of Asterius. 101 


might make free with it. The bold man intruded himself Cuar. 
into forbidden places, and seating himself in the place of τ: 
Clerks", he used to read publicly this treatise of his, in spite 

of the general indignation. The treatise is written at great 
length, but portions of it are as follows :— 


“ὁ For the Blessed Paul said not that he preached Christ, His, that 
is, God’s, ‘proper Power’ or ‘Wisdom,’ but without the article, 
God’s Power and God’s Wisdom, preaching that the proper power 1 Cor. 1, 
of God Himself was distinct, which was connatural and co-existent 24. 
with Him ingenerately, generative indeed of Christ, creative of the 
whole world; concerning which he teaches in his Epistle to the 
Romans, thus, The invisible things of Him from the creation of Rom. 1, 
the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things which 30. 
are made, even His eternal power and godhead. For as no one 
would say that the Godhead there mentioned was Christ, but the 
Father Himself, so, as I think, His eternal power is also not the 
Only-begotten God, but the Father who begat Him. And he tells 
us of another Power and Wisdom of God, namely, that which is 
manifested through Christ, and made known through the works 
themselves of His Ministry.” 


And again:— 


*‘ Although His eternal Power and Wisdom, which truth argues 
to be Unoriginate and Ingenerate, would appear certainly to be one 
and the same, yet many are those powers which are one by one 
created by Him, of which Christ is the First-born and Only- 
begotten. All however equally depend upon their Possessor, and 
all His powers are rightly called His, who has created and uses 
them; for instance, the Prophet says that the locust, which became 
a divine punishment of human sin, was called by God Himself, 
not only the power of God, but the great power. And the blessed 
David too in most of the Psalms, invites, not Angels alone, but Powers 
also to praise God. And while he invites them all to the hymn, he 
presents before us their multitude, and is not unwilling to call them 
ministers of God, and teaches them to do His will.” 


6. These bold words against the Saviour did not content § 19. 
him, but he went further in his blasphemies, as follows: 
“The Son is one among others; for He is first of things gene- 


rated, and one among intellectual natures; and as in things visible 
the sun is one among what is apparent, and it shines upon the 


τ None but the clergy might enter 
the Chancel, i.e. in Service time. 
Hence Theodosius was made to retire 
_ by S. Ambrose. Theod. y. 17. The 
Council of Laodicea, said to be held 
A.D. 372, forbids any but persons in 


orders, feparikol, to enter the Chancel 
and then communicate. Can. 19. vid. 
also 44. Conc. t. 1. p. 788, 789. It is 
doubtful what orders, the word iepa- 
τικοὶ is intended to include. vid. Bing- 
ham Antiqu. viii. 6. § 7. 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 
SELEU. 


Τρ. 65, 
note m. 


§ 20. 


5 vid.infr. 
§ 32. 


102 


Arian statements of Asterius. 


whole world according to the command of its Maker, so the Son, 
being one of the intellectual natures, also enlightens and shines 
upon all that are in the intellectual world.” 


And again he says, Once He was not, writing thus :— 
*‘ And before the Son’s generation, the Father had pre- 
existing knowledge how to generate ; since a physician too, 
before he cured, had the science of curing!.” And he says 
again: “ The Son was created by God’s beneficent earnest- 
ness; and the Father made Him by the superabundance of 
His Power.””? And again: “If the will of God has pervaded 
all the works in succession, certainly the Son too, being a 
work, has at His will come to be and been made.” Now 
though Asterius was the only person to write all this, the 
Eusebians felt the like in common with him. 

7. These are the doctrines for which they are contending ; 
for these they assail the Ancient Council, because its members 
did not propound the like, but anathematized the Arian 
heresy instead, which they were so eager to recommend. On 
this account they put forward, as an advocate of their irre- 
ligion, Asterius who sacrificed, a sophist too, that he might 
not spare to speak against the Lord, or by a shew of reason 
to mislead the simple. And they were ignorant, the shallow 
men, that they were doing harm to their own cause. For the 
ill savour of their advocate’s idolatrous sacrifice, betrayed 
still more plainly that the heresy is Christ’s foe. And now 
again, the general agitations and troubles which they are 
exciting, are in consequence of their belief, that by their 
numerous murders and their monthly Councils, at length 
they will undo the sentence which has been passed against 
the Arian heresy*. But here too they seem ignorant, or to 
pretend ignorance, that even before Nica that heresy was 
held in detestation, when Artemas * was laying its founda- 
tions, and before him Caiaphas’s assembly and that of the 
Pharisees his contemporaries. And at all times is this school 
of Christ’s foes detestable, and will not cease to be hateful, 

5. Artemas or Artemon was one of 


the chiefs of a school of heresy at 
Rome at the end of the second cen- 


now be called Unitarianism, or that our 
Lord was amere man. Artemas seems 
to have been more known in the East ; 


tury. Theodotus was another, and the 
moreeminent. They founded separate 
sects. Their main tenet is what would 


at least is morefrequently mentioned in 
controversy with the Arians, 6. g. by 
Alexander, Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 739. 


oa ἃ 


103 


Council of Jerusalem. 


the Lord’s Name being full of love, and the whole creation a 
bending the knee, and confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord, 7 on 
to the glory of God the Father. i: 

8. Yet so it is, they have convened successive Councils § 21. 
against that Ecumenical One 1, and are not yet tired *. After ' p. 49, 
ἘΠ6 Nicene, the Eusebians had been deposed ; however, in es 
course of time they intruded themselves without shame 
upon the Churches, and began to plot against the Bishops 
who withstood them, and to substitute in the Church men 
of their own heresy. Thus they thought to hold Councils 
at their pleasure, as having those who concurred with them, 
whom they had ordained on purpose for this very object’. 
Accordingly, they assemble at Jerusalem, and there they 
write thus :— 


2p. 84, 
note b. 


The Holy Council assembled in Jerusalem" by the grace of 
God, to the Church of God which is in Alexandria, and to all 
throughout Egypt, Thebais, Libya, and Pentapolis, also to the 


Bishops, Priests, and Deacons throughout the world, 


the Lord. 


health in 


To all of us who have come together into one place from 
different provinces, to the great celebration, which we have held 
at the consecration of the Saviour’s Martyry*, built to God the 


t ΤΆ will be observed, that the Euse- 
bian or court party from 341 to 358, 
contained in it two elements, the more 
religious or Semi-arian which tended 
to Catholicism, and ultimately coa- 
lesced with it, the other the proper 
Arian or Anomcean which was essen- 
tially heretical. During the period 
mentioned, it wore for the most part 
the Semi-arian profession. Athanasius 
as well as Hilary does justice to the 
Semi-arians ; but Athanasius does not 
seem to have known or estimated the 
quarrel between them and the Arians 
as fully as Hilary. Accordingly, while 
the former is bent in this treatise in 
bringing out the great fact of the vari- 
ations of the heretical party, Hilary, 
wishing to commend the hopeful Semi- 
arians to the Gallic Church, makes 
excuses for them, on the ground of 
the necessity of explanations of the 
Nicene formulary, ‘‘necessitatem hanc 
furor hereticus imponit.” Hil. de Syn. 
63. vid. also 62. and 28. At the same 
time, Hilary himself bears witness 
quite as strongly as Athan. to the 


miserable variations of the heretical 
party, vid. supr. p. 76, note k. as Am- 
mianus in p. 75, note h. The same 
thing is meant in Nazianzen’s well- 
known declaration against Councils, 
‘*Never saw I Council brought to a 
useful issue, nor remedying, but rather 
increasing existing evils.” Ep. 130. 

« This Council at Jerusalem was a 
continuation of one held at Tyre at 
which Athan. was condemned. It 
was very numerously attended; by 
Bishops (as Eusebius says, Vit. Const. 
iy. 43.), from Macedonia, Pannonia, 
Thrace, Asia Minor, Syria, Arabia, 
Egypt, and Libya. One account speaks 
of the number as being above 200. 
He says that ‘an innumerable mul- 
titude from all provinces accompanied 
them.” It was the second great Coun- 
cil in Constantine’s reign, and is com- 
pared by Eusebius (invidiously) to the 
Nicene, ec. 47. At this Council Arius 
was solemnly received, as the Synodal 
Letter goes on to say. 

* This Church, called the Martyry 
or Testimony, was built over the spot 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 


SELEv. 


§ 22. 


104 Arius re-admitted at Jerusalem. 


King of all, and to His Christ, by the zeal of the most religious 
Emperor Constantine, the grace of Christ provided a higher grati= 
fication, in the conduct of that most religious Emperor himself, 
who, by letters of his own, banishing from the Church of God 
all jealousy, and driving far away all envy, by means of which, 
the members of Christ had been for a long season in dissension, 
exhorted us, what was our duty, with open and peaceable mind 
to receive Arius and his friends, whom for a while jealousy which 
hates virtue had contrived to expel from the Church. And the 
most religious Emperor bore testimony in their behalf by his letter 
to the exactness of their faith, which, after inquiry of them, and 
personal communication with them by word of mouth, he acknow- 
ledged, and made known to us, subjoining to his own letters their 
orthodox teaching in writing Y, which we all confessed to be sound 
and ecclesiastical. And he reasonably recommended that they 
should be received and united to the Church of God, as you will 
know yourselves from the transcript of the same Epistle, which we 
have transmitted to your reverences. We believe that yourselves 
also, as if recovering the very members of your own body, will 
experience great joy and gladness, in acknowledging and recovering 
your own bowels, your own brethren and fathers ; since not only the 
Presbyters who are friends of Arius are given back to you, but also 
the whole Christian people and the entire multitude, which on oc- 
casion of the aforesaid men have a long time been in dissension 
among you. Moreover it were fitting, now that you know for 
certain what has passed, and that the men haye communicated with 
us and have been received by such a Holy Council, that you should 
with all readiness hail this your coalition and peace with your own 
members, specially since the articles of the faith which they have 
published preserve indisputable the universally confessed apostolical 
tradition and teaching. 


9, This was the first of their Councils, and in it they were 
speedy in divulging their views, and could not conceal them. 


made sacred by our Lord’s death, 
burial, and resurrection, in commemo- 
ration of the discovery of the Holy 
Cross, and has been described from 
Eusebius in the preface to the Trans- 
lation of S. Cyril’s Catechetical Lee- 
tures, p. xxiv. It was begun A.D. 
326, and dedicated at this date, A.D. 
335, on Saturday the 13th of Septem- 
ber. The 14th howeyer is the feast of 
the Exaltatio S. Crucis both in East 
and West. 

y This is supposed to be the same 
Confession which is preserved by Soer. 
i. 26. and Soz. ii. 27. and was presented 
to Constantine by Arius in 330. [1 


-says no more than * And inthe Lord 


Jesus Christ His Son, who was begot- 


ten from Him before all the ages God 
and Word, through whom all things 
were made, both in the heayens and 
upon earth;”’ afterwards it professes to 
have * received the faith from the holy 
Evangelists,’ and to believe ‘‘as all the 
Catholic Church and as the Scriptures 
teach.” The Synodal Letter in the 
text adds ‘‘apostolical tradition and 
teaching.”’ Arius might safely appeal 
to Scripture and the Church for a creed 
which did not specify the point in con- 
troversy. In his letter to Eusebius of 
Nicomedia before the Nicene Council 
where he does state the distinctive 
articles of his heresy he appeals to him 
as a fellow pupil in the School of Lu- 
cian, not to tradition. Theod. Hist. i. 4. 


105 


Council at Antioch, and first creed of Eusebians. 


CuHap. 


For when they said that they had banished all jealousy, and, ΜΙ 


after the expulsion of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, 
recommended the reception of Arius and his friends, they 
shewed, that their measures against Athanasius himself 
then, and before against all the other Bishops who with- 
stood them, had for their object their receiving Arius’s 
party, and introducing the heresy into the Church. But 
although they had approved in this Council all Arius’s 
malignity, and had ordered to receive his party into com- 
munion, as they had set the example, yet feeling that even 
now they were short of their wishes, they assembled a 
Council at Antioch under colour of the so-called Dedi- 
cation” ; and, since they were in general and lasting odium 
for their heresy, they publish different letters, some of this 
sort, and some of that; and what they wrote in one letter 
was as follows :— 


We have not been foilowers of Arius,—how could Bishops, such ist Con- 
as we, follow a Presbyter?—nor did we receive any other faith ΠΕΡ 
beside that which has been handed down from the beginning 8. But, antoch, 
after taking on ourselves to examine and to verify his faith, we have A.D. 341. 
admitted him rather than followed him; as you will understand 
from our present avowals. 

For we have been taught from the first, to believe in one God, 
the God of the Universe, the Framer and Preserver of all things 
both intellectual and sensible. 

And in One Son of God, Only-begotten, existing before all ages, 
and being with the Father who begat Him, by whom all things were 
made, both visible and invisible, who in the last days according to 


τ i.e. the dedication of the Diomini- 
cum Aureum, which had been ten 
years in building, vid. the description 
of itin Euseb. Vit. Const. iii. 50. This 
Council is one of great importance 
in the history, though it was not at- 
tended by more than 90 Bishops ac- 
cording to Ath. infr. or 97 according 
to Hilary de Syn. 28. The Eusebians 
had written to the Roman see against 
Athan. and eyentually called on it 
to summon a Council. Accordingly, 
Julius proposed a Council at Rome; 
they refused to come, and instead held 
this meeting at Antioch. Thus ina 
certain sense it is a protest of the East 
against the Pope’s authority. Twenty- 
five Canons are attributed to this 
Council, which have been received 
into the Code of the Catholic Church, 


though not as from this Council, 
which took at least some of them from 
more ancient sources. It is remark- 
able that S. Hilary calls this Council 
an assembly of Saints. de Syn. 32. but 
it is his course throughout to look at 
these Councils on their hopeful side. 
vid. note t. 

@ The Council might safely appeal 
to antiquity, since, with Arius in the 
Confession noticed supr. note y, they 
did not touch on the point in dispute. 
The number of their formularies, three 
or four, shews that they had a great 
difficulty in taking any view which 
would meet the wishes and express 
the sentiments of one and all. The 
one that follows, which is their first, 
is as meagre as Arius’s, quoted note y. 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 


SeELEv. 


§ 23. 


iid Con- 
fession 

or 2d of 
Antioch, 
A.D.341. 


D Vad: 
xth Con- 
fession, 
infr. 

§ 30. 


106 Creed of the Dedication at Antioch, 


the good pleasure of the Father came down, and took flesh of the 
Virgin, and fulfilled all] His Father’s will; and suffered and rose 
again, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the 
Father, and cometh again to judge quick and dead, and remaineth 
King and God unto all ages. 

And we believe also in the Holy Ghost; and if it be necessary 
to add, we believe concerning the resurrection of the flesh, and the 
life everlasting. 


10. Here follows what they published next at the same 
Dedication in another Epistle, being dissatisfied with the 
first, and devising something newer and fuller : 


We believe”, conformably to the evangelical and apostolical tra- 
dition, in One God, the Father Almighty, the Framer, and Maker, 
and Preserver of the Universe, from whom are all things. 

And in One Lord Jesus Christ, His Only-begotten Son, God, 
by whom are all things, who was begotten before all ages from 
the Father, God from God, whole from whole, sole from sole’, 
perfect from perfect, King from King, Lord from Lord, Living 
Word, Living Wisdom, true Light, Way, Truth, Resurrection, 
Shepherd, Door, both unalterable and unchangeable ©; unvarying 
image of the Godhead, Substance, Will, Power, and Glory of the 


> This formulary is that known as 
the Formulary of the Dedication. It 
is quoted as such by Soer. ii. 39, 40. 
Soz. iv. 15. and infr.§ 29. Sozomen 
says that the Eusebians attributed it 
to Lucian, alleging that they had 
found a copy written by his own hand ; 
but he decides neither for or against it 
himself. Hist. iii. 5. And the Auctor 
de Trinitate (in Theodoret’s works, 
t. 5.), allows that it is Lucian’s, but 
interpolated. Dial. iii. init. vid. Routh, 
Reliqu. Sacr. vol. iii. p. 294—6. who 
is in favour of its genuineness ; as are 
Bull, Cave, and 5. Basnage. Tille- 
mont and Coustant take the contrary 
side; the latter observing (ad Hilar. 
de Synod. 28.) that Athanasius, infr. 
§ 36, speaks of parts of it as Acacius’s, 
and that Acacius attributes its lan- 
guage to Asterius. The Creed is of a 
much higher cast of doctrine than the 
two former, (§ 22. and note y,) con- 
taining some of the phrases which in 
the fourth century became badges of 
Semi-arianism. 

¢ These strong words and those 
which follow, whether Lucian’s ornot, 
mark the great difference between 
this confession and the foregoing. It 
would seem as if the Eusebians had at 


first tried the assembled Bishops with 
a negative confession, and finding 
that they would not accept it, had 
been forced upon one of a more ortho- 
dox character. It is observable too 
that even the Council of Jerusalem, 
but indirectly received the Confession 
on which they re-admitted Arius, 
though they gave it a real sanction. 
The words “unalterable and unchange- 
able” are formal Anti-arian symbols, 
as the τρεπτὸν or alterable was one 
of the most characteristic parts of 
Arius’s creed. vid. Orat i. § 35, ἕο. 

4 On ἀπαράλλακτος εἰκὼν κατ᾽ οὐσίαν, 
which was synonymous with ὁμοιού- 
o.os, vid. infr. § 38. and one of the 
symbols of Semi-arianism, (not as if 
it did not express truth, but because 
it marked the limit of Semi-arian ap- 
proximation to the absolute truth,) 
something has been-said, supr. p. 35, 
note ἃ. It was in order to secure 
the true sense of ἀπαράλλακτον that 
the Council adopted the word ὁμοού- 
σιον. ᾿Απαράλλακτον is accordingly 
used as a familiar word by Athan. 
de Deer. supr. ὃ 20. 24. Orat. iii. ὃ 
36. contr. Gent. 41. 46 fin. Philo- 
storgius ascribing it to Asterius, and 
Acacius quotes a passage from his 


107 


being second Oreed of Husebians, Semi-arian. 


Father; the first born of every creature, who was in the beginning 
with God, God the Word, as it is written in the Gospel, and the 
Word was God; by whom all things were made, and in whom all 
things consist; who in the last days descended from above, and was 
born of a Virgin according to the Scriptures, and was made Man, 
Mediator ὁ between God and man, and Apostle of our faith, and 
Prince of life, as He says, 1 came down from heaven, not to do 
Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me; who suffered for 
us and rose again on the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sat 
down on the right hand of the Father, and is coming again with glory 
and power, to judge quick and dead. 

And in the Holy Ghost, who is given to those who believe for 
comfort, and sanctification, and initiation, as also our Lord Jesus 
Christ enjoined His disciples, saying, Go ye, teach all nations, 
baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the 
Holy Ghost; that of Father being truly Father, and of Son being 
truly Son, and of the Holy Ghost being truly Holy Ghost, the names 
not being given without meaning or effect, but denoting accurately 
the peculiar subsistence, rank, and glory of each that is named, so 


that they are three in subsistence, and in agreement onet. 


writing’s containing it. (vid. supr. note 
4.) Acacius at the same time forcibly 
expresses what is meant by the word, 
τὸ ἔκτυπον καὶ Tpaves ἐκμαγεῖον τοῦ 
θεοῦ τῆς οὐσίας ; and §S. Alexander 
before him, τὴν κατὰ πάντα ὅμοι- 
ότητα αὐτοῦ ἐκ φύσεως ἀπομαξάμενος. 
Theod. Hist. i. 3. (as,in the legend, the 
impression of our Lord’s face on the 
cloth at His crucifixion.) Χαρακτὴρ, 
Hebr. i. 3. contains the same idea. 
* An image not inanimate, not framed 
by the hand, nor work of art and 
imagination, (ἐπίνοιας.) but a living 
image, yea, the very life (avrovvca) ; 
ever preserving theunyarying(7d ἄπα- 
ράλλακτον), not in likeness of fashion, 
butin its very substance.” Basil. contr. 
Eunom. i. 18. The Auctor de Trinitate 
says, speaking of the word in this very 
creed, ‘* Will in nothing varying from 
will (ἀπαράλλακτος) is the same will ; 
and power nothing varying from power 
is the same power ; and glory nothing 
varying from glory is the same glory.” 
The Macedonian replies, ““ Unvarying 
I say, the same I say not.” Dial iii. p. 
993. Athan. de Decr. 1. c. seems to say 
the same. That is, in the Catholic 
sense, theimage was not ἀπαράλλακτος, 
if there was any difference, unless He 
was one with Him of whom He was 
the image. vid. Hil. supra, p. 76, note i. 

© This statement perhaps is the most 
Catholic in the Creed; not that the 


former are not more explicit in them- 
selves, or that in a certain true sense 
our Lord may not be called a Mediator 
before He became incarnate, but be- 
cause the Arians, even Eusebius, seem 
to have made His mediatorship con- 
sist essentially in His divine nature, 
whereas this Confession speaks of our 
Lord as made Mediator when He came 
in the flesh. On the other hand, Eu- 
sebius, like Philo and the Platonists, 
considers Him as made in the begin- 
ning, the ‘‘ Eternal Priest of the Fa- 
ther,’ Demonst. v. 3. de Laud. C. 3, 
p- 503 fin. “an intermediate divine 
power,” 11, p. 525. ““ mediating and 
joining generated substance to the 
Ingenerate,” 12, p. 528. vid. infr. pp. 
115. and 119. notes f. and o. 

f This phrase, which is of a more 
Arian character than any other part of 
the Confession, is justified by S. Hilary 
on the ground, that when the Spirit is 
mentioned, agreement is the best sym- 
bol of unity. de Syn. 32. It is protested 
against in the Sardican Confession. 
Theod. Hist. ii. 6. p. 846. A similar 
passage ocew's in Origen, contr. Cels. 
yiii. 12. to which Huet. Origen ii. 2. 
n. 3. compares Noyatian. de Trin. 22. 
The Arians insisted on the ““ oneness 
in agreement” as a fulfilment of such 
texts as “1 and my Father are one;” 
but this subject will come before us in 
Orat. iii. § 10. vid. infr. § 48. 


Cuap. 


Il. 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 
SELEU. 


1 vid. 
p. 10, 
note u. 


§ 24. 


114 Con- 
fession 
or 3d of 
Antioch, 
A.D. 341. 


108 Creed of Theophronius, at Antioch, 

Holding then this faith, and holding it in the presence of God 
and Christ, from beginning to end, we anathematize every here- 
tical heterodoxy&. And if any teaches, beside the sound and right 
faith of the Scriptures, that time, or season, or age ", either is or has 
been before the generation of the Son, be he anathema. Or if any 
one says, that the Son is a creature as one of the creatures’, or an off- 
spring as one of the offsprings, or a work as one of the works, and 
not the aforesaid articles one after another, as the divine Scriptures 
have delivered, or if he teaches or preaches beside what we received, 
be he anathema. For all that has been delivered in the divine Scrip- 
tures, whether by Prophets or Apostles, do we truly and conscientiously 
both believe and follow’. 


11. And one Theophronius*, Bishop of Tyana, put forth 
before them all the following statement of his personal faith. 
And they subscribed it, accepting the faith of this man :— 


God knows, whom I call as a witness upon my soul, that so I 
believe :—-in God the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker of 
the Universe, from whom are all things: 

And in His Only-begotten Son, God, Word, Power, and Wisdom, 
our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things; who was begotten 
from the Father before the ages, perfect God from perfect God! 


5. The whole of these anathemas are 
an Eusebian addition. The Council 
anathematizes ‘‘ every heretical hete- 
rodoxy ;” not, as Athanasius observes, 
supra, § 7. the Arian. 

h The introduction of these words 
“time,” “age,” &c. allows them still 
to hold the Arian formula ‘‘ once He 
was not;’’ for our Lord was, as they 
held, before time, but still created. 

i This emphatic mention of Scrip- 
ture is also virtually an Arian evasion ; 
to hold certain truths, ‘‘ as Scripture 
has delivered,” might either mean e- 
cause and as in fact, or so far as, and 
admitted of a silent reference to them- 
selves as interpreters of Scripture. 

k Nothing is known of Theophronius ; 
his Confession is in great measure a 
relapse into Arianism proper ; that is, 
as far as the absence of characteristic 
symbols is a proof of a wish to intro- 
duce the heresy. The phrase “perfect 
God” will be mentioned in the next 
note. 

1 It need scarcely be said, that ‘‘ per- 
fect from perfect” is asymbol on which 
the Catholics laid stress, Athan. Orat. 
ii. 35. Epiph. Her. 76. p. 945. but it 
admitted of an evasion. An especial 
reason for insisting on it in the pre- 


vious centuries had been the Sabellian 
doctrine, which considered the title 
“Word” when applied to our Lord 
to be adequately explained by the or- 
dinary sense of the term, as a word 
spoken by us. vid. on the λόγος 
προφορικὺς, inf. p. 113, note z. In con- 
sequence they insisted on His τὸ τέ- 
Aevov, perfection, which became almost 
synonymous with His personality. 
Thus the Apollinarians, 6. g. denied 
that our Lord was perfect man, be- 
cause His person was not human. 
Athan. contr. Apoll. i. 2. Hence Justin, 
Tatian, are earnest in denying that our 
Lord was a portion divided from the 
Divine Substance, οὐ κατ᾽ ἀποτομὴν, 
&e. &e. Just. Tryph. 128. [p. 229 fin. 
O.T.] Tatian. contr. Gree. 5. And 
Athan. condemns the notion of ‘‘ the 
λόγους ἐν τῷ θεῷ ἀτελὴς, γεννηθεὶς 
τέλειος, Orat. iv. 11 [infra p. 526.]. 
The Arians then, as being the especial 
opponents of the Sabellians, insisted 
on nothing so much as our Lord’s be- 
ing a real, living, substantial, Word. 
vid. Eusebius passim. ‘‘ The Father,” 
says Acacius against Marcellus, ‘ be- 
gat the Only-begotten, alone alone, 
and perfect perfect ; for thereis nothing 
imperfect in the Father, wherefore 


being third Oreed of Eusebius, negative. 109 
and being with God in subsistence, and in the last days descended, 
and was born of the Virgin according to the Scriptures, and was 
made man, and suffered, and rose again from the dead, and ascended 
into the heavens, and sat down on the right hand of His Father, and 
cometh again with glory and power to judge quick and dead, and 
remaineth for ever : 

And in the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, which 
also God promised by His Prophet to pour out upon His servants, 
and the Lord promised to send to His disciples: which also He sent, 
-as the Acts of the Apostles witness. 

But if any one teaches, or holds in his mind, aught beside this 
faith, be he anathema; or with Marcellus of Ancyra ™, or Sabellius, 
or Paul of Samosata, be he anathema, both himself and those who 
communicate with him. 


12. Ninety Bishops met at the Dedication under the 
Consulate of Marcellinus and Probinus, in the 14th of the 
Indiction ", Constantius the most irreligious!being present. 
Having thus conducted matters at Antioch at the Dedica- 
tion, thinking that their composition was deficient still, and 
fluctuating moreover in their own views, again they draw up 
afresh another formulary, after a few months, professedly 
concerning the faith, and despatch Narcissus, Maris, Theo- 


neither is there in the Son, but the 
Son’s perfection is the genuine off- 
spring of His perfection, and superper- 
fection.” ap. Epiph. Her. 72. 7. Té- 
Aevos then was a relative word, varying 
with the subject matter, yid. Damase. 
F. O. i. 8. p. 188. and when the Arians 
said that our Lord was perfect God, 
they meant, “ perfect, in that sense in 
which He is God’’—i. e. as a secondary 
divinity.—Nay, in one point of view 
they would use the term of His divine 
Nature more freely than the Catholics 
sometimes had. For, Hippolytus, e.g. 
though of course really holding His 
perfection from eternity as the Son, 
yet speaks of His condescension in 
coming upon earth as a kind of com- 
pletion of His Sonship, He becoming 
thus a Son a second time ; whereas the 
Arians holding no real condescension 
or assumption of a really new state, 
could not hold that our Lord was in 
any respect essentially other than He 
had been before the incarnation. ‘‘ Nor 
was the Word,’ says Hippolytus, 
** before the flesh and by Himself, per- 
fect Son, though being perfect Word, 
Only-begotten ; nor could the flesh 
subsist by itself without the Word, 


because that in the Word it has its 
consistence: thus then He was mani- 
fested One perfect Son of God.” contr. 
Noet. 15. 

τὰ Marcellus wrote his work against 
Asterius in 335, the year of the Arian 
Council of Jerusalem, which at once 
took cognizance of it, and cited Mar- 
cellus to appear before them. The 
next year a Council held at Constan- 
tinople condemned and deposed him, 
about the time that Arius came thi- 
ther for re-admission into the Church. 
From that time his name is frequently 
introduced into the Arian anathemas, 
vid. Macrostich. § 26. By adding those 
““who communicate with him,” the 
Eusebians intended to strike at the 
Roman see, which had acquitted Mar- 
cellus in a Council held in June of the 
same year. 

Ὁ The commencement and the origin 
of this mode of dating are unknown. 
It seems to have been introduced be- 
tween A.D. 313 and 315. The Indic- 
tion was a cycle of 15 years, and 
began with the month of September. 
S. Athanasius is the first ecclesiastical 
author who adopts it. 


Cuap. 
II. 


§ 25. 


1p. 90, 
note p. 


Counc. 
ARIM. 


SELEU. 


ivth Con- 
fession, 
or 4th of 
Antioch, 


A. 


AND 


1. 


110 Creed sent into Gaul, 


dorus, and Mark into Gaul°®. And they, as being sent from 


the Council, deliver the following document to Constans 
Augustus of blessed memory ?, and to all who were there: 


We believe’ in One God, the Father Almighty, Creator and Maker 
of all things ; from whom the whole family in heayen and on earth is 
named. 

And in His Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who before 
all ages was begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from 
Light, by whom all things were made in the heavens and on the earth, 
visible and invisible, being Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and Life, 
and True Light; who in the last days was made man for us, and was 
born of the Holy Virgin ; who was crucified, and dead, and buried, 
and rose again from the dead the third day, and was taken up into 
heaven, and sat down on the right hand of the Father ; and is coming 
at the end of the world, to judge quick and dead, and to render to 
every one according to his works; whose Kingdom endures indissolubly 
into infinite ages’; for He shall be seated on the right hand of the 


Father, not only in this world but in that which is to come. 


° This deputation had it in purpose 
to gain the Emperor Constans to the 
Eusebian party. They composed a new 
Confession with this object. Theo- 
dore of Heraclea, (who made commen- 
taries on Scripture and is said to have 
been an elegant writer,) Maris and 
Narcissus, were all Eusebians; but 
Mark was a Semi-arian. As yet the 
Eusebian party were making use of 
the Semi-arians, but their professed 
Creed had already much degenerated 
from Lucian’s at the Dedication. 

» Constans had lately become master 
of two thirds of the Empire by the 
death of his elder brother Constantine, 
who had made war upon him and 
fallen in an engagement. He was at 
this time only 22 years of age. His 
enemies represent his character in no 
favourable light, but, for whatever 
reason, he sided with the Catholics, 
and S. Athanasius, who had been hon- 
ourably treated by him in Gaul, speaks 
of him in the language of eratitude. 
In his apology to Constantius, he 
says, ‘thy brother of blessed memory 
filled the Churches with offeri ings,” 
and he speaks of “the grace given 
him through baptism.” § 7. [ Hist. tracts 
p-161 O.T.] Constans was murder- 
ed by Magnentius in 350, and one of 
the calumnies against Athanasius was 
that he had sent letters to the mur- 
derer. 

4 The fourth, fifth, and sixth Con- 
fessions are the same, and with them 


agree the Creed of Philippopolis (A.D. 
347, or 344 according to Mansi). 
These extend over a period of nine 
years, A.D. 342—351, (or 15 or 16 
according to Baronius and Mansi, who 
place the 6th Confession, i.e. the Ist 
Sirmian, at 357,358 respectively,) and 
make the stationary period of Arian- 
ism. The two parties of which the 
heretical body was composed were 
kept together, not only by the court, 
but by the rise of the Sabellianism of 
Marcellus (A.D. 335) and Photinus 
(about 342). This too would increase 
their strength in the Church, and 
is the excuse, which Hilary himself 
urges, for their frequent Councils. 
Still they do not seem to be able to 
escape from the argument of Athana- 
sius, that, whereas new Councils are 
for new heresies, if but one new heresy 
had risen, but one new Council was 
necessary. If these four Confessions 
say the same thing, three of them 
must be superfluous. vid. infr. § 32. 
However, in spite of the identity of 
the Creed, the difference in their Ana- 
themas is very great, as we shall see. 

τ These words, which answer to 
those afterwards added at the second 
General Council (881—3) are directed 
against the doctrine of Marcellus, who 
taught that the Word was but a divine 
energy, manifested in Christ and re- 
tiring from Him at the consummation 
of all things, when the manhood or 
flesh of Christ would consequently no 


- oe} 


being fourth creed of Husebians, negative. 11 

And in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete; which, having 
promised to the Apostles, He sent forth after His ascension into 
heaven, to teach them and to remind of all things; through whom 
also shall be sanctified the souls of those who sincerely believe in 
Him. 

But those who say, that the Son was from nothing, or from other 
subsistence and not from God, and, there was time when He was 
not, the Catholic Church regards as aliens 8. 


13. As if dissatisfied with this, they hold their meeting 
again after three years, and dispatch Eudoxius, Martyrius, 
and Macedonius of Cilicia‘, and some others with them, to 
the parts of Italy, to carry with them a faith written at great 
length, with numerous additions over and above those which 


have gone before. 
had devised something new. 


They went abroad with these, as if they 


We believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Creator and 
Maker of all things, from whom the whole family in heaven and on 


earth is named. 


longer reign. ‘* How can we admit,” 
says Marcellus in Eusebius, “ἢ that 
that flesh, which is from the earth 
and profiteth nothing, should co-exist 
with the Word in the ages to come as 
serviceable to Him? ”’ de Eccl. Theol. 
iii. 8. Again, “1 He has received a 
beginning of His Kingdom not more 
than four hundred years since, it is no 
paradox that He who gained that 
Kingdom so short a while since, should 
be said by the Apostle to deliver it up 
to God. What are we told of the hu- 
man flesh, which the Word bore for us, 
not four hundred years since? will the 
Word have it in the ages to come, or 
only to the judgment season ?” iii. 17. 
And, “Should any ask concerning 
that flesh which is in the Word having 
become immortal, we say to him, that 
we count if not safe to pronounce 
on points of which we learn not for 
certain from divine Scripture.” cont. 
Mare. ii. 4. 

5. §. Hilary, as we have seen above, 
p- 67. by implication calls this the 
Nicene Anathema ; and so it is in the 
respects in which he speaks of it; but 
it omits many of the Nicene clauses, 
and with them the condemnation of 
many of the Arian articles. The 
especial point which it evades is our 
Lord’s eternal existence, substituting 
for “once He was not,’ “there was 


time when He was not,” and leaving 
out ‘before His generation He was 
not,” ‘created,’ ‘‘alterable” and 
“mutable.” It seems to haye been 
considered sufficient for Gaul, as used 
now, for Italy as in the 5th Confession 
or Macrostich, and for Africa as in the 
creed of Philippopolis. 

t Little is known of Macedonius who 
was Bishop of Mopsuestia, or of Mar- 
tyrius ; and too much of Eudoxius. 
This Long Confession, or Macrostich, 
which follows, is remarkable for the 
first signs of the presence of that 
higher party of Semi-arians who ul- 
timately joined the Church. It is ob- 
servable also that the more Catholic 
portions occur in the Anathemas, as 
if they were forced in indirectly, and 
that with an inconsistency with the 
other statements, for not only the word 
““substance”’ does not occur, but the 
Son is said to be made. At this date 
the old Semi-arians, as Eusebius, As- 
terius, and Acacius were either dying 
off, or degenerating into most explicit 
impiety; the new school of Semi-arians 
consisting for the most part of a 
younger generation. §S. Cyril deli- 
vered his Catechetical Lectures two 
or three years later than this Creed, 
viz. 347 or 348. Silvanus, Eleusius, 
Meletius, Eusebius of Samosata are 
later still. 


CuHap. 
πε 


§ 96. 


γί Con- 
fession 

or Ma- 
crostich, 
A.D.345. 


Counce. 
ARIM. 
AND 


SELEv. 


112 The Macrostich Creed sent into Italy, 

And in His Only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who 
before all ages was begotten from the Father, God from God, Light 
from Light, by whom all things were made, in heaven and on the 
earth, visible and invisible, being Word and Wisdom and Power and 
Life and True Light, who in the last days was made man for us, 
and was born of the Holy Virgin, crucified and dead and buried, 
and rose again from the dead the third day, and was taken up into 
heaven, and sat down on the right hand of the Father, and is coming 
at the end of the world to judge quick and dead, and to render to 
every one according to his works, whose Kingdom endures unceas- 
ingly unto infinite ages; for He sitteth on the right hand of the 
Father not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. 

And we believe in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete, which, 
having promised to the Apostles, He sent forth after the ascension 
into heaven, to teach them and to remind of all things: through 
whom also shall be sanctified the souls of those who sincerely be- 
lieve in Him. 

But those who say, (1) that the Son was from nothing, or from 
other subsistence and not from God ; (2) and that there was a time 
or age when He was not, the Catholic and Holy Church regards as 
aliens. Likewise those who say, (3) that there are three Gods: 
(4) or that Christ is not God; (5) or that before the ages He was 
neither Christ nor Son of God ; (6) or that Father and Son, or Holy 
Ghost, are the same ; (7) or that the Son is Ingenerate ; or that the 
Father generated the Son, not by choice or will; the Holy and 
Catholic Church anathematizes. 

(1.) For neither is safe to say that the Son is from nothing, (since 
this is no where spoken of Him in divinely inspired Scripture,) 
nor again of any other subsistence before existing beside the Father, 
but from God alone do we define Him genuinely to be generated. 
For the divine Word teaches that the Ingenerate and Unoriginate, 
the Father of Christ, is One®. 

(2.) Nor may we, adopting the hazardous position, “ἢ There was 
once when He was not,” from unscriptural sources, imagine any 
interval of time before Him, but only the God who generated Him 
apart from time ; for through Him both times and ages came to be. 
Yet we must not consider the Son to be co-unoriginate and co- 
ingenerate with the Father ; for no one can be properly called Father 
or Son of one who is co-unoriginate and co-ingenerate with Him *. 
But we acknowledge that the Father who alone is Unoriginate and 


ἃ It is observable that here and in God. vid. p. 62, note e. 


the next paragraph the only reasons 
they give against using the only two 
Arian formulas which they condemn is 
that they are not found in Scripture, 
which leaves the question of their truth 
untouched. Here, in their explanation 
of the ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, or from nothing, 
they do but deny it with Eusebius’s 
eyasion; that nothing can be from 
nothing, and every thing must be from 


x They argue after the usual Arian 
manner, that the term “Son” essenti- 
ally implies beginning, and excludes 
the title ‘‘ co-unoriginate ;”’ whereas 
the Catholics contended (as alluded to 
supr. p. 98, note n.) that the word 
Father implied a continuity of nature, 
that is, a co-eternal existence with the 
Father. yid. p. 10, note u. 


being the fifth of the Eusebians, Semi-arian. 113 


Ingenerate, hath generated inconceivably and incomprehensively ; Cuap. 
and that the Son hath been generated before ages, and in no wise to __ II. 
be ingenerate Himself like the Father, but to have the Father who 
generated Him as His origin; for the Head of Christ is God. 1 Cor. 11, 
(3.) Nor again, in confessing three realities | and three Persons, of 3- 
the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost according to the Scriptures, ge 
ματα 
do we therefore make Gods three; since we acknowledge the Self- 
complete and Ingenerate and Unoriginate and Invisible God to be one 
only *, the God and Father of the Only-begotten, who alone hath being ? p. 123, 
from Himself, and alone vouchsafes this to all others bountifully. note u. 
(4.) Nor again in saying that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ 
is the one only God, the only Ingenerate ; do we therefore deny that 
Christ also is God before ages: as the disciples of Paul of Samosata, 
who say that after the incarnation He was by advance* made God, ὅ ἐκ : 
from being made by nature a mere man. For we acknowledge, that ane 
though He be subordinate to His Father and God, yet, being before ; ’ esr 
ages begotten of God, He is God perfect according to nature and ἡ 
true, and not first man and then God, but first God and then 
beeoming man for us, and never having been deprived of being Y. 
(5.) We abhor besides, and anathematize those who make a pre- 
tence of saying that He is but the mere word of God and unexisting, 
having His being in another,—now as if pronounced, as some speak, 
now as mental ?,—holding that He was not Christ or Son of God or 


3 ἐκ mpo- 


y These strong words, θεὸν κατὰ 
φύσιν τέλειον Kal ἀληθῆ are of a dif- 
_ ferent character from any which have 
occurred in the Arian Confessions. 
They can only be explained away by 
considering them used in contrast to 
the Samosatene doctrine; Paul saying 
that that dignity, which the Arians 
ascribed to our Lord before His birth 
in the flesh, was bestowed on Him 
after it. vid. p. 115, ref. 1. Thus 
“‘nerfect according to nature” and 
“true,” will not be directly connected 
with ** God” so much as opposed to, 
“by adyance,” ‘* by adoption,” &c. 
p- 108, note 1. 

The use of the words ἐνδιάθετος 
and προφορικὸς, mental and pronounce- 
ed, to distinguish the two senses of 
λόγος, reason and word, came from 
the school of the Stoies, and is found 
in Philo, and was under certain limit- 
ations allowed in Catholic theology. 
Damase. F. O. ii. 21. To use either 
absolutely and to the exclusion of the 
other would have involyed some form 
of Sabellianism, or Arianism as the 
case might be; but each might correct 
the defective sense of either. S.Theo- 
philus speaks of our Lord as at once 
ἐνδιάθετος and προφορικός. ad Autol. ii. 
10 and 22, S. Cyril as ἐνδιάθετος, in 


Joann. p. 39. [p. 44 O.T.]; on the 
other hand he says, ‘‘ This pronounced 
word of ours, προφορικὺς, is generated 
from mind and unto mind, and seems 
to be other than that which stirs in the 
heart, ἕο. &c. .. so too the Son of God 
proceeding from the Father without 
division, is the expression and likeness 
of what is proper to Him, being a sub- 
sistent Word, and living froma Living 
Father.”’ Thesaur. p. 47. When the 
Fathers deny that our Lord is the 
προφορικὸς λόγος, they only mean that 
that title is not, even as far as its 
philosophical idea went, an adequate 
representative of Him, a word spoken 
being insubstantive, vid. Athan. Orat. 
ii. 35. Hil. de Syn. 46. Cyr. Catech. xi. 
10. Damas. Ep, ii. p. 203. nec prola- 
tivum ut generationem ei demas, for 
this was the Arian doctrine. ‘* The 
Son [says Eunomius] is other than 
the Mental Word, or Word in intel- 
lectual action, of which partaking and 
being filled He is called the Pro- 
nounced Word, and expressive of the 
Father’s substance, that is, the Son.’’ 
Cyril in Joann. p. 91. [p- 36 O.T.] 
The Gnostics seem to have held the 
λόγος προφορικός. ren. Her. ii. 12. 
n. 5. [p. 120 O.T.] Marcellus is said 
by Eusebius to have considered our 


Gen. I, 
26. 

2 vid. p. 
120, 
notes p. 
and q. 


114 The Macrostich Creed, sent into Italy, 


mediator’ or image of God before ages; but that He first ve- 
came Christ and Son of God, when He took our flesh from the 
Virgin, not four hundred years since. For they will have it that 
then Christ began His Kingdom, and that it will haye an end 
after the consummation of all and the judgment*. Sueh are the 
disciples of Marcellus and Scotinus » of Galatian Ancyra, who, equally 
with Jews, negative Christ’s existence before ages, and His God- 
head, and unending Kingdom, upon pretence of supporting the 
divine Monarchy. We, on the contrary, regard Him not as simply 
God’s pronounced word or mental, but as Living God and Word, 
existing in Himself, and Son of God and Christ ; being and abiding 
with His Father before ages, and that not in foreknowledge only °, 
and ministering to Him for the whole framing whether of things 
visible or invisible. For He it is, to whom the Father said, Let 
Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness?, who also was 
seen in His own Person? by the patriarchs, gave the law, spoke 


Lord as first the one and then the 
other. Eccl. Theol. ii. 15. Sabellius 
thought our Lord the προφορικὸὺς ac- 
cording to Epiph. Her. p. 398, Da- 
masc. Heer. 62.: Paul of Samosata the 
ἐνδιάθετος. Epiph. Heer. 65. passim. 
Eusebius, Eccles. Theol.ii. 17. describes 
our Lord as the προφορικὸς while he 
disowns it. 

Ὁ This passage seems taken from 
Eusebius, and partly from Marcellus’s 
own words. vid. supr. note r. S. Cyril 
speaks of his doctrine in like terms. 
Catech. xy. 27. 

>i.e. Photinus of Sirmium, the pupil 
of Marcellus is meant, who published 
his heresy about 343. A similar play 
upon words is found in the case of other 
names; though Lucifer seems to think 
that his name was really Scotinus and 
that his friends changed it. de non 
pare. pp. 203, 220, 226. Thus Noetus 
is called ἀνόητος, Epiph. Her. 57. 2 
fin. and 8: Eudoxius, ἀδόξιος, Lucifer, 
pro Athan. i. p. 65. Moriend. p. 258: 
Eunomians among the Latins, (by a 
confusion with Anomeean,) ἄνομοι, or 
sine lege, Cod. Can. Ixi. 1. ap. Leon. 
Op. t. 3. p. 448 : Vigilantius dormitan- 
tius, Jerom. contr. Vigil. init.: Aerius 
ἀέριον πνεῦμα ἔσχεν, Epiph. Heer. 75. 
6 fin. Of Arius, “Apes, ἄρειε vid. supr. 
p. 91, note q. Gregory, 6 νυστάζων. 
Anast. Hod. 10. p. 186: Eutyches, 
δυστυχὴς. ἕο. &e. Photinus seems to 
have brought out more fully the heresy 
of Marcellus ; both of whom, as all Sa- 
bellians excepting Patripassians, dif- 
fered from the Arians mainly in this 
point alone, when it was that our Lord 
eame into being ; the Arians said be- 
fore the worlds, the Samosatenes, Pho- 


tinians, &c. said on His human birth ; 
both parties considered Him a creature, 
and that the true Word and Wisdom 
were attributes or energies of Almigh- 
ty God. This Lucifer well observes to 
Constantius in the course of one of the 
passagesabove quoted, “ Quid interesse 
arbitraris inter te et Paulum Samosa- 
tenum, vel eum tum ejus discipulum 
tuum conscotinum, nisi quia tu ante 
omnia dicas, ille yero post omnia ?” 
pp- 203, 4. A subordinate difference was 
this, that the Samosatene, Photinian, 
&e. considered our Lord to be really 
gifted with the true Word, whereas the 
Arian did scarcely more than consider 
Him framed after the pattern of it. 
Photinus was condemned, after this 
Council, at Sardica, (847 if not 344,) 
and if not by Catholics at least by Euse- 
bians; at Milan (348) by the Catholics; 
and perhaps again in 351 ; at Sirmium 
his see, by the Eusebians in 351, when 
he was deposed. He was an eloquent 
man and popular in his diocese, and 
thus maintained his ground for some 
years after his condemnation. 

© “This passage of the Apostle,” 
Rom.i.1. ‘‘[ Marcellus] [ knownot why 
perverts, instead of declared, épic- 
θέντος, making it predestined, mpoopic- 
θέντος, that the Son may be such as 
they who are predestined at foreknow- 
ledge.”? Euseb. contr. Marc.i.2. Paul 
of Samosata also considered our Lord 
Son by foreknowledge, προγνώσει. vid. 
Routh. Reliqu. t. 2. p. 466. and Euno- 
mius, Apol. 24. 

ἃ αὐτοπροσωπῶς and so Cyril Hier, 
Catech. xv. 14 and 17, (It means, 
‘not in personation,”) and Philo con- 
trasting diyine appearances with those 


being the fifth of the Husebians, Semi-arian. 115 
by the prophets, and at last, became man, and manifested His own Crap. 
Father to all men, and reigns to never-ending ages. For Christ has U. 
taken no recent dignity!, but we have believed Him to be perfect ' p. 118, 
from the first, and like in all things to the Father 5. note y. 
(6.) And those who say that the Father and Son and Holy Ghost 
are the same, and irreligiously take the Three Names of one and 
the same Reality ? and Person, we justly proscribe from the Church, ? πράγ- 
because they suppose the illimitable and impassible Father to be #9705; 
limitable withal and passible through His becoming man: for such Le τ 
are they whom the Latin calls the Patropassians, and we 8 6] π5 ἢ 6 
For we acknowledge that the Father who sent, remained in the pe- 
culiar state of His unchangeable Godhead, and that Christ who was 
sent fulfilled the economy of the incarnation. 
(7.) And at the same time those who irreverently say that 
the Son was generated, not by choice or will, thus encompassing 
God with a necessity which excludes choice and purpose, so that 
He begat the Son unwillingly, we account as most irreligious 
and alien to the Church; in that they have dared to define such 
things concerning God, beside the common notions concerning 
Him, nay, beside the purport of divinely inspired Scripture. For 
we, knowing that God is absolute and sovereign over Himself, have 
a religious judgment that He generated the Son voluntarily and 
freely ; yet, as we have a reverent belief in the Son’s words con- 
cerning Himself, The Lord hath created Me a beginning of His page 8, 


of Angels. Leg. Alleg. iii. 62. On the is toa father. And if any one says 


other hand, Theophilus on the text, 
“The voice of the Lord God walking 
in the garden,” speaks of the Word, 
‘‘assuming the person, πρόσωπον, of 
the Father,” and “in the person of 
God,” ad Autol. ii. 22. the word not 
then haying its theological sense. 

© ὅμοιον κατὰ πάντα. Here again 
we have a strong Semi-arian or almost 
Catholic formula introduced by the 
bye, marking the presence of what 
may be called the new Semi-arian 
school. Of course it admitted of eva- 
sion, but in its fulness it included 
** substance.” At Sirmium Constan- 
tius inserted it in the Confession which 
occurs supra. vid. p. 84, note a. On 
this occasion Basil subscribed in this 
form: “1, Basil, Bishop of Ancyra, 
believe and assent to what is afore- 
written, confessing that the Son is like 
the Father in all things; and by ‘in 
all things,’ not only that He is like in 
will, but in subsistence, and existence, 
and being; as divine Scripture teaches, 
spirit from spirit, life from life, light 
from light, God from God, true Son 
from true, Wisdom from the Wise 
God and Father; and once for all, 
like the Father in all things, as a son 


Era 


that He is like in a certain respect, 
κατά τι, as is written afore, he is alien 
from the Catholic Church, as not con- 
fessing the likeness according to divine 
Scripture.”’ Epiph. Her.73.22.S. Cyril 
of Jerusalem uses the κατὰ πάντα or 
ἐν πᾶσιν ὅμοιον, Vatech. iy. 7. xi. 4and 
18. and Athan. Orat. i. § 21. and ii. 
§ 18 and 22. Damase. F. O. i. 8. p. 135. 
f Eusebius also, Eccles. Theol. i. 20. 
says that Sabellius held the Patro- 
passian doctrine. Epiph. however, 
Heer. p. 398. denies it, and imputes 
the doctrine to Noetus. Sabellius’s 
doctrine will come before us infr. Orat. 
iy. ; meanwhile it should be noticed, 
that in the reason which the Confes- 
sion alleges against that heretical 
doctrine it is almost implied that the 
divine nature of the Son suffered on 
the Cross. They would naturally fall 
into this notion directly they gave up 
their belief in our Lord’s absolute di- 
vinity. It would as naturally follow 
to hold that our Lord had no human 
soul, but that His pre-existent nature 
stood in the place of it:—also that 
His Mediatorship was no peculiarity 
of His Incarnation. vid. p. 107, note e ; 
p- 119, note o. 
92 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 


SELEU. 


1de Decr. 
§ 8. supr. 
p- 13. 


2 de Decr. 
§ 26. 
supr. 
p. 46. 


3p. 45, 
note h. 


116 The Macrostich Creed, sent into Italy, 

ways for His works, we do not understand Him to be generated, 
like the creatures or works which through Him came to be. For it 
is irreligious and alien to the ecclesiastical faith, to compare the 
Creator with handiworks created by Him, and to think that He has 
the same manner of generation with the rest. For divine Scripture 
teaches us really and truly that the Only-begotten Son was generated 
sole and solely &. 

Yet), in saying that the Son is in Himself, and both lives and 
exists like the Father, we do not on that account separate Him from 
the Father, imagining place and interval between their union in the 
way of bodies. For we believe that they are united with each other 
without mediator or distance’, and that they exist inseparable ; all 
the Father embosoming the Son, and all the Son hanging and ad- 
hering to the Father, and alone resting on the Father’s breast con- 
tinually *. Believing then in the All-perfect Trinity, the most Holy, 
that is, in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and calling 
the Father God, and the Son God, yet we confess in them, not two 
Gods,: but one dignity of Godhead, and one exact harmony of do- 
minion, the only Father being Head over the whole universe wholly, 
and over the Son Himself, and the Son subordinated to the Father ; 
but, excepting Him, ruling over all things after Him which through 
Himself have come to be, and granting the grace of the Holy Ghost 
unsparingly to the holy at the Father’s will. For that such is the 
account of the Divine Monarchy * towards Christ, the sacred oracles 
have delivered to us. 

Thus much, in addition te the faith before published in epitome, 
we have been compelled to draw forth at length, not in any officious 
display, but to clear away all unjust suspicion concerning our 
opinions, among those who areignorant of what we really hold: and 
that all in the West may know, both the audacity of the slanders of 
the heterodox, and as to the Orientals, their ecclesiastical judgment 


ΒΕ The Confession does not here in its very form an interpolation or ap- 


comment on the clause against onr 
Lord’s being Ingenerate, having al- 
ready noticed it under paragraph (2). 
It will be remarked that it still insists 
upon the unscripturalness of the Ca- 
tholic positions. The main subject of 
this paragraph the θελήσει γεννηθὲν, 
which forms great part of the Arian 
question and controversy, is reserved 
for Orat. ili. 59, &c. in which Athan- 
asius formally treats of it. He treats 
of the text Prov. viii. 22. throughout 
Orat. ii. The doctrine of the μονο- 
γενὲς has already partially come before 
us in de Deer. ὃ 7—9. p. 12, &c. Μόνως, 
not as the creatures. vid. p. 62, note f. 

h This last paragraph is the most 
curious of the instances of the presence 
of this new and nameless influence, 
which seems at this time to have been 
springing up among the Eusebians, 
and shewed itself by acts before it has 
a place in history. The paragraph is 


pendix, while its doctrine bears distine- 
tive characters of something higher 


than the old Semi-arianism. The 
characteristic of that, as of other 


shapes of the heresy, was the absolute 
separation which it put between the 
Father and the Son. They considered 
Them as two οὐσίαι, ὅμοιαι like, but 
not as ὁμοούσιοι ; this very explana- 
tion of the word τέλειος was “ inde- 
pendent” and ‘‘distinct.”’ Language 
then, such as that in the text, was the 
nearest assignable approach to the 
reception of the ὁμοούσιον ; all that 
was wanting was the doctrine of the 
περιχώρησις, of which infr. Orat. iii, 
It is observable that a hint is thrown 
out by Athanasius about ‘ sugges- 
tions” from without, a sentence or two 
afterwards. It is observable too that 
in the next paragraph the preceding 
doctrine is pointedly said to be that of 
ΚΕ the Orientals.” 


ι 


being the fifth of the Husebians, Semi-arian. 


117 


in the Lord, to which the divinely inspired Scriptures bear witness 
without violence, where men are not perverse. 


14. However they did not stand even to this; for again 
at Sirmium! they met together * against Photinus!, and 
there composed a faith again, not drawn out into such 
length, not so full in words; but subtracting the greater 
part and adding in its place, as if they had listened to the 
suggestions of others, they wrote as follows :— 


i Sirmium was a city of lower Pan- 
nonia, not far from the Danube, and 
it was the great bulwark of the Illy- 
rian provinces of the Empire. There 
Vetranio assumed the purple; and 
there Constantius was born. The 
frontier war caused it to be from time 
to time the Imperial residence. We 
hear of Constantius at Sirmium in the 
summer of 357. Ammian. xvi. 10. He 
also passed there the ensuing winter. 
ibid. xvii. 12. In October, 358, after 
the Sarmatian war, he entered Sir- 
mium in triumph, and passed the 
winter there. xvii. 13 fin. and with a 
short absence in the spring, remained 
there till the end of May, 359. vid. p. 
84, note a. 

* In the dates here fixed for the 
Confessions of Sirmium, Petavius has 
been followed, who has thrown more 
light on the subject than any one else. 
In 351, the Semi-arian party was still 
stronger than in 345. The leading 
person in this Council was Basil of 
Ancyra, who is generally considered 
their head. Basil held a disputation 
with Photinus. Silvanus too of Tarsus 
now appears for the first time: while, 
according to Socrates, Mark of Are- 
thusa, who was more connected with 
the Eusebians than any other of his 
party, drew up the Anathemas; the 
Confession used was the same as that 
sent to Constans, of the Council of 
Philippopolis, and the Macrostich. 

! There had been no important Ori- 
ental Council held since that of the 
Dedication ten years before, till this of 
Sirmium ; unless indeed that of Phi- 
lippopolis requires to be mentioned, 
which was a secession from the Coun- 
cil of Sardica. S. Hilary treats its creed 
as a Catholic composition. de Syn. 39 
—63. Philastrius and Vigilius call the 
Council a meeting of “holy bishops” 
and a ‘Catholic Council.” de Her. 
65. in Eutych. ν. init. What gave a 
character and weight to this Council, 
which belonged to no other Eusebian 


meeting, was, that it met to set right 
areal evil, and was not a mere pre- 
tence with Arian objects. Photinus 
had now been 8 or 9 years in the open 
avowal of his heresy, yet in possession 
of his see. Nothing is more instruc- 
tive in the whole of this eventful 
history than the complication of hope- 
fulness and deterioration in the Ori- 
ental party, and the apparent advance 
yet decline of the truth. Principles, 
good and bad, were developing on both 
sides with energy. The fall of Hosius 
and Liberius, and the dreadful event 
of Ariminum, are close before the ruin 
of the Eusebian power. As to the 
Bishops present at this Sirmian Coun- 
cil, we have them described in Sul- 
pitius ; ‘“ Part of the Bishops followed 
Arius, and welcomed the desired 
condemnation of Athanasius; part, 
brought together by fear and faction, 
yielded to a party spirit; a few, to 
whom faith was dear and truth preci- 
ous, rejected the unjust judgment.” 
Hist. ii. 52 ; he instances Paulinus of 
Treyes, whose resistance, however, 
took place at Milan some years later. 
Sozomen gives us a similar account, 
speaking of a date a few years before 
the Sirmian Council. “The East,” 
he says, “ἴῃ spite of its being in fac- 
tion after the Antiochene Council” of 
the Dedication, “ and thenceforth 
openly dissenting from the Nicene 
faith, in reality, [ think, concurred in 
the sentiment of the majority, and 
with them confessed the Son to be of 
the Father’s substance ; but from con- 
tentiousness certain of them fought 
against the term ‘ One in substance ;? 
some, as I conjecture, having origin- 
ally objected to the word... others 


from habit... others, aware that the’ 


resistance was unsuitable, leaned to 
this side or that to gratify parties ; and 
many thought it weak to waste them- 
selves in such strife of words, and 
peaceably held to the Nicene decision.” 
Hist. iii. 13, 


CuHap. 


II. 


§ 27. 


Counc. 
ARIM. 

AND 

SELEU. 


vi; Con- 


fession, 
or Ist 


Sirmian. 


A.D. 351. 
Eph. 3, 
15. 


1 yid. 
note on 


118 ‘The first Creed of Sirmium, against Photinus, 

We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Creator and 
Maker of all things, from whom the whole family in heaven and 
earth is named. 

And in His Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus the Christ, who 
before all the ages was begotten from the Father, God from God, 
Light from Light, by whom all things were made, in heaven and on 
the earth, visible and invisible, being Word and Wisdom and True 
Light and Life, who in the last days was made man for us, and was 
born of the Holy Virgin, and crucified and dead and buried, and 
rose again from the dead the third day, and was taken up into heaven, 
and sat down on the right hand of the Father, and is coming at the 
end of the world, to judge quick and dead, and to render to every 
one according to his works; whose Kingdom being unceasing en- 
dures unto the infinite ages; for He shall sit on the right hand of 
the Father, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. 

And in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete; which, having 
promised to the Apostles, to send forth after His ascension into 
heaven, to teach and to remind them of all things, He did send; 
through whom also are sanctified the souls of those who sincerely 
believe in Him. 

(1.) But those who say that the Son was from nothing or from 
other subsistence! and not from God, and that there was time or 
age when He was not, the Holy and Catholic Church regards as 
aliens. 

(2.) Again we say, Whosoever says that the Father and the Son 
are two Gods, be he anathema™. 

(3.) And whosoever, saying that Christ is God, before ages Son 
of God, does not confess that He subserved the Father for the 
framing of the universe, be he anathema”. 


™ This Anathema which has oc- heretics is very much the same on this 


curred in substance in the Macrostich, 
and again infra, Anath. 18 and 23. is 
a disclaimer on the part of the Euse- 
bian party of the charge brought 
against them with reason by the 
Catholics, of their in fact holding a 
supreme and a secondary God. In the 
Macrostich it is disclaimed upon a 
simple Arian basis. The Semi-arians 
were more open to this imputation ; 
Eusebius, as we have seen above, dis- 
tinctly calling our Lord a second and 
another God. vid. p. 63, note g. It 
will be observed that this Anathema 
contradicts the one which immediately 
follows, and the 11th, in which Christ 
is called God; except, on the one 
hand, the Father and Son are One 
God, which was the Catholic doctrine, 
or, on the other, the Son is God in 
name only, which was the pure Arian 
or Anomeean. 

" The language of Catholics and 


point of the Son’s ministration, with 
this essential difference of sense, that 
Catholic writers mean a ministration 
internal to the divine substance and 
an instrument connatural with the 
Father, and Arius meant an external 
and created medium of operation, 
vid. p. 12. note z. Thus S. Clement 
calls our Lord “the All-harmonious 
Instrument (ὄργανον) of God.” Pro- 
trept. p. 6; Eusebius “an animated 
and living instrument (ὄργανον ἔμψυ- 
xov,) nay, rather divine and vivific 
of every substance and nature.’ De- 
monstr. iy. 4. S. Basil, on the other 
hand, insists that the Arians reduced 
our Lord to “an inanimate instru- 
ment.’ ὄργανον ἄψυχον, though they 
called Him ὑπουργὸν τελειότατον, most 
perfect minister or under-worker. adv. 
Eunom. ii. 2]. Elsewhere he says, 
“Πρ nature of a cause is one, and the 
nature of an instrument, ὀργάνου, an- 


being the sixth of the Eusebians, Semi-arian. 119 

(4.) Whosoever presumes to say that the Ingenerate, or a part of Cyap, 
Him', was born of Mary, be he anathema. IL. 

(5.) Whosoever says that according to foreknowledge? the Son? p. 114, 
is before Mary and not that, generated from the Father before ages, USE τ: 
He was with God, and that through Him all things were generated, | P- --ς 
be he anathema. 

(6.) Whosoever shall pretend that the substance of God was en- 
larged or contracted *, be he anathema. ὅ Orat. 

(7.) Whosoever shall say that the substance of God being en- iv. § 13. 
larged made the Son, or shall name the enlargement of His substance 


the Son, be he anathema. 


(8.) Whosoever calls the Son of God the mental or pronounced 


Word 4, be he anathema. 


(9.) Whosoever says that the Son from Mary is man only, be he 


anathema. 


(10.) Whosoever, speaking of Him who is from Mary God and 50. 112, 


man, thereby means God the Ingenerate’, be he anathema. 


(11.) Whosoever shall explain 7 am the First and Iam the Last, τς, 44,6. 


and besides Me there is no God, which is said for the denial of idols 
and of gods that are not, to the denial of the Only-begotten, before 
ages God, as Jews do, be he anathema. 


(12.) Whosoever, because it is said The Word was made flesh, Jovn 1, 
shall consider that the Word was changed into flesh, or shall say “™ 


that He underwent an alteration and took flesh, be he anathema°®. 


other; ... foreign then in nature is the 
Son from the Father, since such is an 
instrument from a workman.” de Sp. 
S.n. 6 fin. vid. also π. 4 fin. and n. 20. 
Afterwards he speaks of our Lord as 
“not intrusted with the ministry of 
each work by particular injunctions in 
detail, for this were ministration,” 
λειτουργικὸν, but as being “ full of the 
Father’s excellencies,” and “ fulfilling 
not an instrumental, ὀργανικὴν, and 
servile ministration, but accomplishing 
the Father’s will like a Creator, δημι- 
ουργικῶς. ibid. n. 19. And so S. Gre- 
gory, ‘The Father signifies, the Word 
accomplishes, not servilely, nor igno- 
rantly, but with knowledge and soye- 
reignty, and, to speak more suitably, 
in a father’s way, πατρικῶς. Orat. 30. 
11. AndS. Cyril, “‘ There is nothing 
abject in the Son, as in a minister, 
ὑπουργῷ, as they say ; for the God and 
Father injoins not, ἐπιτάττει, on His 
Word, ‘ Make man,’ but as one with 
Him, by nature, and inseparably exist- 
ing in Him as a co-operator,” &c. in 
Joann. p.48. [p.55 O.T.] Explanations 
such as these secure for the Catholic 
writers some freedom in their modes 
of speaking, e. g. we have seen, supr. 
Ῥ. 15, note d. that Athan. speaks of the 
Son, as “enjoined and ministering,” 
πουσταττόμενος, καὶ ὑπουργῶν, Orat. il. 


§ 22. Thus S. Irenzus speaks of the 
Father being well-pleased and com- 
manding, κελεύοντος, and the Son 
doing and framing. Heer. iv. 75. [p. 
438 O.T.] S. Basil too, in the same 
treatise in which are some of the fore- 


- going protests, speaks of “‘the Lord 


ordering, προστάσσοντα, πα the Word 
framing.” de Sp. 5. n. 38. S. Cyril of 
Jerusalem, of ‘‘ Him who bids, ἐντέλ- 
Aetai, bidding to one who is present 
with Him,” Cat. xi. 16. [p. 118 0.T.] 
vid. also ὑπηρετῶν τῇ βουλῇ. Justin. 
Tryph.126. [p.227 O.T.] and ὑπουργὸν, 
Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 10. ἐξυπηρετῶν 
θελήματι, Clem. Strom. vii. p. 832. 

© The 12th and 13th Anathemas are 
intended to meet the charge which is 
alluded to pp. 115, 128, notes f and u, 
that Arianism inyolvyed the doctrine 
that our Lord’s divine nature suffered. 
Athanasius brings this accusation 
against them distinctly in his work 
against Apollinaris, “Idle then is the 
fiction of the Arians, who suppose that 
the Saviour took flesh only, irreligi- 
ously imputing the notion of suffering 
to the impassible godhead.” contr. 
Apollin. i. 15. vid. also Ambros. de 
Fide, iii. 51. Salig in his de Eutychi- 
anismo ant. Eutychen takes notice of 
none of the passages in the text. 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 
SELEU. 
Gen. 1, 

26. 
1 p. 114, 
ref. 2. 


Gen. 19, 
94. 


120 


The first Creed of Sirmium, against Photinus, 


(13.) Whosoever, as hearing the Only-begotten Son of God was 
crucified, shall say that His Gedhead underwent corruption, or pas- 
sion, or alteration, or diminution, or destruction, be he anathema. 

(14.) Whosoever shall say that Let Us make man* was not said 
by the Father to the Son, but by God to Himself, be he anathema P. 

(15.) Whosoever shall say that Abraham saw, not the Son, but 
the Ingenerate God or part of Him, be he anathema 4. 

(16.) Whosoéver shall say that with Jacob, not the Son as man, 
but the Ingenerate God or part of Him, did wrestle, be he ana- 


thema Τ᾿ 


(17.) Whosoever shall explain, The Lord rained fire from the 
Lord not of the Father and the Son, and says that He rained 


P This Anathemais directed against 
the Sabellians, especially Marcellus, 
who held the very opinion which it de- 
nounces, that the Almighty spake with 
Himself. Euseb. Eccles. Theol. ii. 15. 
The Jews said that Almighty God 
spoke to the Angels. Basil. Hexaem. 
fin. Others that the plural was used 
as authorities on earth use it in way 
of dignity. Theod. in Gen. 19. As to 
the Catholic Fathers, as is well known, 
they interpreted the text in the sense 
here given. It is scarcely necessary to 
refer to instances ; Petavius, however, 
cites the following. First those in 
which the Eternal Father is considered 
to speak to the Son. Theophilus, ad 
Autol. ii. 18; Novatian, de Trin. 26; 
Tertullian, de Carn. Christ. 5; Synod. 
Antioch. contr. Paul. ap. Routh. Re- 
liqu. t. 2. p. 468; Basil. Hexaem. fin. ; 
Cyr. Hieros. Cat. x. 6; Cyril. Alex. 
Dial. iv. p. 516; Athan. contr. Gentes. 
46. Orat. 111. § 29 fin.; Chrysost. in 
Genes. Hom. viii. 3; Hilar. ivy. 17. y. 8; 
Ambros. Hexaem. yi. 7 ; Augustin. ad 
Maxim. ii. 26. n. 2. Next those in 
which Son and Spirit are considered 
as addressed. Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 18; 
Pseudo-Basil. contr. Eunom.y. p. 315; 
Pseudo-Chrysost. de Trin. t. i. p. 832 ; 
Cyril. Thesaur. p. 12; Theodor. in 
Genes. 19. Her. y. 3. and 9. But 
eyen here, where the Arians agree with 
Catholics, they differ in this remark- 
able respect, that in this and the fol- 
lowing Canons they place certain in- 
terpretations of Scripture under the 
sanction of an anathema, shewing how 
far less free the system of heretics is 
than that of the Church. 

4 This again, in spite of the wording, 


which is directed against the Catholic 


doctrine, and of an heretical impli- 
cation, is a Catholic interpretation. 
vid. (besides Philo de Somniis. i. 12.) 


Justin, Tryph. 56. and 126. Iren. Her. 
iy. 10. n. 1. Tertull. de carn. Christ. 6. 
ady. Mare. iii. 9. ady. Prax. 16. Noyat. 
de Trin. 18. Origen. in Gen. Hom. iy. 
5. Cyprian. ady. Jud. ii. 5. Antioch. 
Syn. contr. Paul. apud Routh. Rell. t. 
2. p. 469. Athan. Orat. ii. 13. Epiph. 
Ancor. 29 and 39. Her. 71.5. Chry- 
sost. in Gen. Hom. 41. 7. These refer- 
ences are principally from Petavius ; 
also trom Dorscheus, who has written 
anelaboratecommentaryon this Coun- 
cil. The implication alluded to above 
is, that the Son isofa visible substance, 
and thus is naturally the manifestation 
of the Invisible God. Petayius main- 
tains, and Bull denies (Defens. F. D. 
iv. 3.), that the doctrine is found in 
Justin, Origen, &c. The Catholic 
doctrine is that the Son has conde- 
scended to become yisible by means of 
materialappearances. Augustineseems 
to have been the first who changed the 
mode of yiewing the texts in question, 
and considered the divine appearance, 
not God the Son, but acreated Angel. 
vid. de Trin. ii. passim. Jansenius 
considers that he did so from a sug- 
gestion of S. Ambrose, that the hither- 
to received view had been the origo 
heresis Arian, vid. his Augustinus, 
lib. proem. c. 12. t.2. p.12. The two 
views are not inconsistent with each 
other. It is remarkable that in this 
and the.next anathema for ‘‘ partem 
ejus” in Hilary, Petavius should pro- 
pose to read “patrem” against the 
original text in Athan. μέρος αὐτοῦ, and 
the obvious explanation of it by the 
phrase μέρος ὁμοουσίου, which was not 
unfrequently in the mouths of Arian 
objectors. vid. supr. p. 97. note i. 

τ This and the following Canon are 
Catholic in their main doctrine, and 
might be illustrated, if necessary, as 
the foregoing. 


ie 4 


being the sixth of the Husebians, Semi-arian. 121 


from Himself, be he anathema. For the Son Lord rained from the Crap. 
Father Lord. 

(18.) Whosoever hearing that the Father is Lord and the Son 
Lord and the Father and Son Lord, for there is Lord from Lord, 
says there are two Gods, be he anathema. For we do not place 
the Son in the Father’s order, but as subordinate to the Fatuer ; 
for He did not descend upon Sodom without the Father’s will’, * p. 118, 
nor did He rain from Himself, but from the Lord, that is, the note n. 
Father authorizing it. Nor is He of Himself set down on the 
right hand, but He hears the Father saying, Sit Thou on My right 
hand. 

(19.) Whosoever says that the Father and the Son and the Holy 
Ghost are one Person, be he anathema. 

(20.) Whosoever, speaking of the Holy Ghost as Paraclete, shall 
speak of the Ingenerate God, be he anathema δ. 

(21.) Whosoever shall deny, what the Lord taught us, that the 
Paraclete is other than the Son, for He hath said, 4nd another John 14, 
Paraclete shall the Father send to you, whom 1 will ask, be he 10. 
anathema. 

(22.) Whosoever shall say that the Holy Ghost is part of the 
Father or of the Son’, be he anathema. 

(23.) Whosoever shall say that the Father and the Son and the 
Holy Ghost be three Gods, be he anathema. 

(24.) Whosoever shall say that the Son of God at the will of 
God came to be, as one of the works, be he anathema. 

(25.) Whosoever shall say that the Son was generated, the Father 
not wishing it®, be he anathema. For not by compulsion, forced by ὅΡ- 119, 
physical necessity, did the Father, as He wished not, generate the ™ 7.) 
Son, but He at once willed, and, after generating Him from Himself 
apart from time and passion, manifested Him. 

(26.) Whosoever shall say that the Son is ingenerate and unori- 
ginate, as if speaking of two unoriginate and two ingenerate, and 
making two Gods, be he anathema. For the Son is the Head, 
which is the origin of all: and God is the Head, which is the origin 
of Christ 4; for thus to one unoriginate origin of the universe do we * p. 98. 
religiously refer all things through the Son. sae a 

ie : antes - Pare Ne p. 118, 

(27.) And in accurate delineation of the idea of Christianity we pn, (2.) 
say this again; Whosoever shall not say that Christ is God, Son of 


Ῥε. 1109: 
1: 


2p. 120, 
n. (16.) 


God, as being before ages, and 


5Τ0 was an expedient of the Mace- 
donians to deny that the Holy Spirit 
_was God because it was not usual to 
call Him Ingenerate ; and perhaps to 
their form of heresy which was always 
implied in Arianism, and which began 
-_toshew itself formally among the Semi- 
arians ten years later, this anathema 
may be traced. They asked the Ca- 
tholics whether the Holy Spirit was 
Ingenerate, generate, or created, for 
into these three they divided all things. 
vid. Basil. in Sabell, et Ar, Hom. xxiv. 


having subserved the Father in 


6. But, as the Arians had first made 
the alternative only between Ingene- 
vate and ereated,and Athan. de Decr. 
§ 28. supr. p. 53, note ρ΄. shews that 
generate is a third idea really distinct 
from one and the other, so S. Greg. 
Naz. adds, processive, ἐκπορευτὸν, as 
an intermediate idea, contrasted with 
Ingenerate, yet distinct from generate. 
Orat. xxxi. 8. In other words, Ingene- 
rate means, not only not generate, but 
not from any origin. vid. August, de 
Trin. xy. 26. - 


122 The second Creed of Sirmium, subscribed by Hosius, 


Counc. the framing of the Universe, but that from the time that He was 
Anim. born of Mary, from thence He was called Christ and Son, and took 
Soe an origin of being God, be he anathema. 


§ 28. 15. Casting aside the whole of this, as if they had dis- 
covered something better, they propound another faith, and 
write at Sirmium in Latin what is here translated into 


Greek. 


vii. Con- | Whereas it has seemed good that there should be some discussion 
fession, concerning faith, all points have been carefully investigated and dis- 
Ge cussed at Sirmium in the presence of Valens, and Ursacius, and 
A.D. 357, @erminius, and the rest. 

It is held for certain that there is one God, the Father Almighty, 
as also is preached in all the world. 

And His One Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, gene- 
rated from Him before the ages; and that we may not speak of 

John 20, two Gods, since the Lord Himself has said, J go to My Father and 
17. your Father, and My God and your God. On this account He 
πορεύομαι is God of all, as also the Apostle has taught: Is He God of the Jews 
eat: only, is He not also of the Gentiles? yea of the Gentiles also: 
“since there is one God who shall justify the circumcision from 
faith, and the uncireumcision through faith; and every thing else 

agrees, and has no ambiguity, 

But since many persons are disturbed by questions concerning 
what is called in Latin “ Substantia,’’ but in Greek “ Usia,” that is, 
to make it undertsood more exactly, as to ‘‘One in Substance,” or 
what is called, ‘‘ Like in substance,” there ought to be no mention 
of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for 
this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Seripture no- 
thing is written about them, and that they are above men’s knowledge 
and above men’s understanding; and because no one can deelare 

Is.53, 6. the Son’s generation, as it is written, Who shall declare His genera- 
tion ? for it is plain that the Father only knows how He generated 
the Son, and again the Son how He has been generated by the Father. 
And to none can it be a question that the Father is greater: for no 
one can doubt that the Father is greater in honour and dignity and 
Godhead, and in the very name of Father, the Son Himself testifying, 

vid. The Father that sent Me is greater than I. And no one ts igno- 

John 10, rant, that it is Catholic doctrine, that there are two-Persons of Father 

a 4,98, and Son, and that the Father is greater, and the Son subordinated ! 

lgrore. to the Father together with all things which the Father has subordi- 
ταγμέ- 

γον. tThe Creed which follows was not this date, calls this a ‘‘ blasphemia,” 
put forth by a Council, but at a meet- and upon it followed the Semi-arian 
ing of afew Arian Bisbops, and the Council by way of protest at Ancyra. 
author was Potamius, Bishopof Lisbon. S. Hilary tells us that it was the Con- 
It is important as marking the open fession which Hosius was imprisoned 
separation of the Eusebians or Acacians and tortured into signing. Whether 
from the Semi-arians, and their adop- it is the one which Pope Liberius sign- 
tion of Anomeean tenets. Hilary, who ed is doubtful; but he signed an Arian 
defends the Eusebian Councils up to Confession at this time. 


δ 


being the seventh of the Husebians, Arian. 123 

nated to Him, and that the Father has no origin, and is invisible, CHar. 
and immortal, and impassible; but that the Son has been generated Pri 
from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, and that His | **?* 

° - λαιον. 
generation, as aforesaid, no one knows, but the Father only. And νη, ge 
that the Son Himself and our Lord and God, took flesh, that is, a Deer. § 
body, that is, man, from Mary the Virgin, as the Angel heralded be- 31. p. 56. 
forehand ; and as all the Scriptures teach, and especially the Apostle Orat. i. 
himself, the doctor cf the Gentiles, Christ took man of Mary the Epiph 

as : Susie : iph. 
Virgin, through which He suffered. And the whole faith is summed yy, 78. 
up}, and secured in this, that a Trinity should ever be preserved, as 11. 
we read in the Gospel, Go ye and baptize all the nations in the Matt. 28, 
Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. And 19. 
entire and perfect is the number of the Trinity; but the Paraclete, the 
Holy Ghost, sent forth through the Son, came according to the promise, 
that He might teach and sanctify the Apostles and all believers". 


16. After drawing up this, and then becoming dissatisfied, 
they composed the faith which to their shame they paraded 
with “the Consulate.” And, as is their wont, condemning 
this also, they caused Martinian the notary to seize it from 
the parties who had the copies of it*. And having got the 
Emperor Constantius to put forth an edict against it, they 
form another dogma afresh, and with the addition of certain 
expressions, according to their wont, they write thus in 
Isauria. 


We decline not to bring forward the authentic faith published at ix. Con- 

fession, 
the supposititious Sardican Confes- at Seleu- 
sion, (vid. above, pp. 84, 85, note c,) cia A.D. 
and turns them into another evidence 399. 


« It will be observed that this Con- 
fession; 1. by denying ‘‘two Gods,’ 
and declaring that the One God is the 
God of Christ, implies that our Lord is 


not God. 2. It says that the word ‘‘sub- 
stance,” and its compounds, ought not 
to be used as being unscriptural, mys- 
terious, and leading to disturbance ; 
3. it holds that the Father is greater 
than the Son “‘in honour, dignity, and 
godhead ;” 4. that the Son is subor- 
dinate to the Father with all other 
things; 5. that it is the Father’s cha- 
racteristic to be invisible and impas- 
sible. On the last head, vid. supr. 
pp. 115. 119. notes f. o. They also 
say that our Lord, hominem suscep- 
isse per quem compassus est, a word 
which Phebadius condemns in his re- 
marks on this Confession ; where, by 
the way, he uses the word “‘ spiritus ” 
in the sense of Hilary and the Ante- 
Nicene Fathers, in a connection which 
at once explains the obscure words of 


of this additional heresy involved in 
Arianism. ‘‘ Impassibilis Deus,’’ says 
Phebadius, ‘‘ quia Deus Spiritus... 
non ergo passibilis Dei Spiritus, licet 
in homine suo passus.”’ Now the Sar- 
dican Confession is thought ignorant, 
as well as unauthoritative, (e.g. by 
Natalis Alex. Sec. 4. Diss. 29.) be- 
cause it imputes to Valens and Ursa- 
cius the following belief, which he 
supposes to be Patripassianism, but 
which exactly answers to this aspect 
and representation of Arianism: ὅτι 
λόγος καὶ ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμα Kal ἐσταυρώθη 
καὶ ἐσφάγη καὶ ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἀνέστη. 
Theod. Hist. ii. 6. p. 844. 

* Some critics suppose that the 
transaction really belongs to the se- 
cond instead of the third Confession 
of Sirmium. Socrates connects it with 
the second. Hist. ii. 30, 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 
SELEU. 
1 ὁμοιού- 
σιον 
3 ἀνόμοιον 


3 ὅμοιον 
Col.1,15. 


§ 30. 


124 Creed of Seleucia, ninth of the Husebians, Homean. 


the Dedication at Antioch; though certainly our fathers at the time 
met together for a particular subject under investigation. But since 
** One in substance” and “ Like in substance'!,” have troubled many 
persons in times past and up to this day, and since moreover some 
are said recently to have devised the Son’s ** Unlikeness?” to the Fa- 
ther, on their account we reject ‘“‘ One in substance” and “ Like in 
substance,” as alien to the Scriptures, but ‘ Unlike” we anathematize, 
and account all who profess it as aliens from the Church. And we 
distinctly confess the “ Likeness*” of the Son to the Father, according 
to the Apostle, who says of the Son, Who is the Image of the 
Invisible God. 

And we confess and believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the 
Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. 

And we believe also in our Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, generated 
from Him impassibly before all the ages, God the Word, God from 
God, Only-begotten, light, life, truth, wisdom, power, through whom 
all things were made, in the heavens and on the earth, whether visible 
or invisible. He, as we believe, at the end of the world, for the 
abolishment of sin, took flesh of the Holy Virgin, and was made 
man, and suffered for our sins, and rose again, and was taken up 
into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and is 
coming again in glory, to judge quick and dead. 

We believe also in the Holy Ghost, which our Sayiour and Lord 
named Paraclete, having promised to send Him to the disciples after 
His own departure, as He did send; through whom He sanctifieth 
all in the Church who believe, and are baptized in the Name of 
Father and Son and Holy Ghost. 

But those who preach aught beside this faith the Catholic Church 
regards as aliens. And that to this faith that is equivalent which was 
published lately at Sirmium, under sanction of his religiousness the 
Emperor, is plain to all who read it. 


17. Having written thus in Isauria, they went up to Con- 
stantinople’, and there, as if dissatisfied, they changed it, as 


Letter was finished, and contain later 


Υ The Semi-arian majority in the 
Council had just before been con- 
firming the Creed of the Dedication; 
hence this beginning. vid. supr. p. 89, 
note o. They had first of all offered 
to the Council the third Sirmian, or 
** Confession with a Date,” supr. § 3. 
which their coadjutors offered at Ari- 
minum, Soz. iv. 22. and at the end of 
the present they profess that the two 
are substantially the same. They seem 
to mean that they are both Homan 
or Scriptural Creeds ; they differ in 
that the latter, as if to propitiate the 
Semi-arian majority, adds an anathe- 
ma upon the Anomcean as well as on 
the Homoitsion and Homeusion. 

z These two sections seem to have 
been inserted by Athan. after his 


occurrences in the history of Arimi- 
num, than were contemplated when 
he wrote supra, ch. i. n. 15. init. vid. 
note ἢ, ἴῃ loc. In this place Athan, 
distinetly says, that the following 
Confession, which the Acacians from 
Seleucia adopted at Constantinople, 
was transmitted to Ariminum, and 
there forced upon the assembled Fa- 
thers. This is not inconsistent with 
what seems to be the fact, that the 
Confession was drawn up at a Council 
held at Nice in Thrace near Adrianople 
in Oct. 359, whither the deputies from 
Ariminum had been summoned by 
Constantius. yid. Hilar. Fragm. viii. 
5. There the deputies signed it, and 
thence they took it back to Ariminum, 


Oreed of Nice, tenth, signed at Ariminum, Homean. 125 


Cap. 


is their wont, and with certain additions against using even 
II. 


“ Subsistence ” of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, they trans- 
mitted it to the Council at Ariminum, and compelled even 
the Bishops in those parts to subscribe it, and those who 


contradicted them they got banished by Constantius. And 
it runs thus :— 


We believe in One God the Father Almighty, from whom are all x. Con- 
things ; fession 
And in the:Only-begotten Son of God, begotten from God before wets 
all ages and before every origin, by whom all things were made, Gon. 
visible and invisible, and begotten as only-begotten, only from the stanti- 
Father only ἃ, God from God, like to the Father that begat Him ac- nople. 
cording to the Scriptures; whose generation no one knows, except pete ie 
the Father alone who begat Him. He as we acknowledge, the Only- ~~ 
begotten Son of God, the Father sending Him, came hither from the 
heavens, as it is written, for the undoing of sin and death, and was 
born of the Holy Ghost, of Mary the Virgin according to the flesh, as 
it is written, and conversed with the disciples, and having fulfilled the 
whole economy according to the Father’s will, was crucified and dead 


In the beginning of the following year 
360 it was confirmed by a Council at 
Constantinople, after the termination 
of that of Ariminum, and to this con- 
firmation Athanasius refers. Socrates 
says, Hist. ii. 37 fin. that they chose 
Nice in order to deceive the ignorant 
with the notion that it was Niczea, and 
their creed the Nicene faith, and the 
place is actually called Nicea, in the 
Acts of Ariminum preserved by Hilary, 
p. 1846. Such a measure, whether or 
not adopted in matter of fact, might 
easily have had success, considering 
the existing state of the West. We 
have seen, supr. p. 76, note i, that 
S. Hilary had not heard the Nicene 
Creed till he came into Asia Minor 
A.D. 356. and he says of his Gallic 
and British brethren, ‘‘ O blessed ye 
in the Lord and glorious, who hold 
the perfect and apostolic faith in the 
profession of your conscience, and up 
to this time know not creeds in writ- 
ing. For ye needed not the letter, who 
abounded in the Spirit ; nor looked for 
the hand’s office for subscription, who 
believed in the heart, and professed 
with the mouth unto salvation. Nor 
was it necessary for you as bishops to 
read, what was put into your hands as 
neophytes on your regeneration. But 
necessity hath brought in the usage, 
that creeds should be expounded and 
subscriptions attached. For when what 
our conscience holds is in danger, then 


the letter is required ; nor surely is 
there reason against writing what 
there is health in confessing.’’ de Syn. 
63. It should be added that at this 
Council Ulphilas the Apostle of the 
Goths, who had hitherto followed the 
Council of Nicza, conformed, and 
thus became the means of spreading 
through his countrymen the Creed of 
Ariminum. 

ἃ μόνος ἐκ μόνου. Though this isan 
Homeean or Acacian, not an Anomcean 
Creed, this phrase may be considered 
a symptom of Anomeean influence ; 
μόνος παρὰ, or ὕπὸ, μόνου being one 
special formula adopted by Eunomius, 
explanatory of μονογενὴς. in accord- 
ance with the original Arian theory, 
mentioned de Deer. § 7. supra, p. 12. 
that the Son was the one instrument 
of creation. Eunomius said that He 
alone was created by the Father alone ; 
all other things being created by the 
Father, not alone, but through Him 
whom alone He had first created. vid. 
Cyril. Thesaur. 25. p. 239. S. Basil ob- 
serves that, if this be a true sense of 
μονογενὴς. then no man is such, e.g. 
Isaac, as being born of two, contr. 
Eunom. ii. 21. Acacius has recourse 
to Gnosticism, and illustrates the Arian 
sense by the contrast of the προβολὴ of 
the ASons, which as described supra, 
p- 97, note h, was ἐκ πολλῶν. ap.Epiph. 
Heer, 72. 7. p. 889. 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 
SELEU. 


ἃ 81. 


xi. Con- 
fession at 
Antioch. 
A.D.361. 


126 Oreed of Antioch, 

and buried and descended to the parts below the earth; at whom 
hell itself shuddered: who also rose from the dead on the third day, 
and abode with the disciples, and, forty days being fulfilled, was 
taken up into the heavens, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, 
to come in the last day of the resurrection in the Father’s glory, that 
He may render to every man according to his works. 

And in the Holy Ghost, whom the Only-begotten Son of God 
Himself, Christ, our Lord and God, promised to send to the race 
of man, as Paraclete, as it is written, “‘ the Spirit of truth,” which He 
sent unto them when He had ascended into the heavens. 

But the name of ““ Substance,”’ which was set down*by the Fathers 
in simplicity, and, being unknown by the people, caused offence, be- 
cause the Scriptures contain it not, it has seemed good to take away, 
and for the future to make no mention of it at all; since the divine 
Scriptures have made no mention of the Substance of Father and 
Son. For neither ought Subsistence to be named concerning Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost. But we say that the Son is Like the Father, 
as the divine Scriptures say and teach; and all the heresies, both 
those which have been afore condemned already, and whatever are of 
modern date, being contrary to this published statement, be they 
anathema ἢ. 


18. However, they did not stand even to this ; for coming 
down from Constantinople to Antioch, they were dissatisfied 
that they had written at all that the Son was “ Like the 
Father, as the Scriptures say;” and putting their ideas upon 
paper, they began reverting to their first doctrines, and said 
that “the Son is altogether unlike the Father,” and that 
the “ Son is in no manner like the Father,’ and so much 
did they change, as to admit those who spoke the Arian 
doctrine nakedly and to deliver to them the Churches with 
licence to bring forward the words of blasphemy with im- 
punity®. Because then of the extreme shamelessness of 


> Here as before, instead of speaking 
of Arianism, the Confession anathe- 
matizes all heresies. vid. supr. p. 108, 
note g. It will be observed, that for 
“ Like in all things,” which was con- 
tained in the Confession (third Sir- 
mian) first submitted to the Ariminian 
Fathers, is substituted simply ** Like.” 
Moreover, they include hypostasis or 
subsistence though a Scripture term, 
in the list of proscribed symbols. vid. 
also ad Afros. 4. The object of suppress- 
ing dréoracis,seems to have been that, 
since the Creed, which was written in 
Latin, was to go to Ariminum, the 
West might beforced to deny the Latin 
version or equivalent of duoovc toy, unius 
substantie, or hypostasis, as well as 


the Greek original. This circumstance 
might be added, to those enumerated 
supra, p. 69, &c. to shew that in the 
Nicene formulary substance and sub- 
sistence are synonymous. 

¢ Acacius, Eudoxius, and the rest, 
after ratifying at Constantinople the 
Creed framed at Nice and subscribed 
at Ariminum, appear next at Antioch 
a year and a half later, when they 
throw off the mask, and, avowing the 
Anomeean Creed, ‘revert,’ as S. Atha- 
nasius says, ‘‘ to their first doctrines,” 
i.e. those with which Arius started. 
The Anomean doctrine, it may be 
observed, is directly opposed rather 
to the Homeeusian than to the Ho- 
moiision, as indeed the very symbols 


eleventh of the Husebians, Anomcan. 


127 


their blasphemy they were called by all Anomceans, havmg 
also the name of Exucontian “, and the heretical Constantius 
for the patron of their ungodliness, who persisting up to the 
end in irreligion, and on the point of death, thought good 
to be baptized®; not however by religious men, but by 
Euzoius*, who for his Arianism had been deposed, not once, 
but often, both when he was a deacon, and when he was in 


the see of Antioch. 


19. The forementioned parties then had proceeded thus 
far, when they were stopped and deposed. But well I know, 
not even under these circumstances will they stop, as many 
as have now dissembled ¢, but they will always be making 


shew; “unlike in substance,” being 
the contrary to ‘‘like in substance.” 
It doubtless frightened the Semi- 
arians, and hastened their return to 
the Catholic doctrine. 

4 From ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, ‘out of no- 
thing,” one of the original Arian posi- 
tions concerning the Son. Theodoret 
says that they were also called Exa- 
cionitz, from the nature of their place 
of meeting, Heer. iv. 3. and Du Cange 
confirms it so far as to shew that there 
was a place or quarter of Constantino- 
ple called Exocionium or Exacionium. 

© At this critical moment Constan- 
tius died, when the cause of truth was 
only not in the lowest state of degrada- 
tion, because a party was in authority 
and vigour who could reduce it to a 
lower still; the Latins committed to an 
Anti-Catholic Creed, the Pope a rene- 
gade, Hosius fallen and dead, Athana- 
sius wandering in the deserts, Arians 
in the sees of Christendom, and their 
doctrine growing in blasphemy, and 
their profession of it in boldness, every 
day. The Emperor had come to the 
throne when almost a boy, and at this 
time was but 44 years old. In the or- 
dinary course of things, he might have 
reigned till, humanly speaking, ortho- 
doxy was extinct. This passage shews 
that Athanasius did not insert these 
sections till two years after the com- 
position of the work itself; for Con- 
stantine died A.D. 361. 

f Euzoius, at this time Arian Bishop 
of Antioch, was excommunicated with 
Arius in Egypt and at Niczea, and was 
restored with him to the Church at the 
Council of Jerusalem. He succeeded 
at Antioch S. Meletius, who on being 
placed in that see by the Arians pro- 


fessed orthodoxy, and was forthwith 
banished by them. 

& ὑπεκρίναντο. hypocrites, is almost 
a title of the Arians (with an apparent 
allusion to 1 Tim. iy. 2. vid. Soer. i. 
p-. 13. Athan. Orat. i. § 8.), and that 
in various senses. The first meaning 
is that, being heretics, they neverthe- 
less used orthodox phrases and state- 
ments to deceive and seduce Catholics. 
Thus the term is used by Alexander in 
the beginning of the controversy. vid. 
Theol. Hist. i. 3. pp. 729. 746. Again, 
it implies that they agreed with Arius, 
but would not confess it ; professed to 
be Catholics, but would not anathema- 
tize him. vid. Athan. ad Ep. Hg. 20. 
or alleged untruly the Nicene Council 
as their ground of complaint, infr. § 
39. Again, it is used of the hollowness 
and pretence of their ecclesiastical pro- 
ceedings, with the Emperor at their 
head; which were a sort of make-belief 
of spiritual power, or piece of acting, 
δραματούργημα. Ep. Encycl. 2 and 6. 
It also means general insincerity, as 
if they were talking about what they 
did not understand, and did not realize 
what they said, and were blindly impli- 
cating themselves in evils of a fearful 
character. Thus Athan. call them τοὺς 
τῆς ᾿Αρείου μανίας ὑποκριτάς. Orat. ii. 
§ 1. init. [infra p. 181], and he speaks 
of the evilspirit making them his sport, 
τοῖς ὑποκρινομένοις THY μανίαν αὐτοῦ. 
ad Serap. i. 1. And hence further it 
is applied, as in this place, though with 
severity, yet to those who were near 
the truth, and who, though in sin, 
would at length come to it or not, ac- 
cording as the state of their hearts was. 
Heis here anticipating the return into 
the Church of those whom he thus 


CuHap. 
Il. 


§ 82. 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
ADD 


SELEU. 


1 p. 6, 
note 0. 


2p. 110, 
note q. 


Sips 51. 
note t. 


128 More Oreeds in prospect till they submit to the Nicene. 


parties against the truth, until they return to themselves 
and say, ‘‘ Let us rise and go to our fathers, and say unto 
them, We anathematize the Arian heresy, and we acknow- 
ledge the Nicene Council";” for against this is their 
quarrel. Who then, with ever so little understanding, will 
bear them any longer ? who, on hearing in every Council 
some things taken away and others added, but comprehends 
their treachery and secret depravity against Christ ? who 
on seeing them embodying to so great a length both their 
professions of faith, and their own exculpation, but sees that 
they are giving sentence against themselyes!, and studi- 
ously writing much which may be likely by an officious 
display and an abundance of words to seduce the simple 
and hide what they are in point of heresy? But as the 
heathen, as the Lord said, using vain words in their pray- 
ers, are nothing profited ; so they too, after all their words 
were spent, were not able to extinguish the judgment pro- 
nounced against the Arian heresy, but were convicted and 
deposed instead ; and rightly ; for which of their formularies 
is to be accepted by the hearer? or with what confidence 
shall they be catechists to those who come to them? for if 
they all have one and the same meaning, what is the need 
of many”? But if need has arisen of so many, it follows 
that each by itself is deficient, not complete ; and they es- 
tablish this point better than we can, by their innovating on 
them all and re-making them*®. And the number of their 
Councils, and the difference of their statements is a proof 
that those who were present at them, while at variance 
with the Nicene, are yet too feeble to harm the Truth. 


censures. In this sense, though with 
far more severity in what he says, the 
writer of a Tract, imputed to Athan. 
against the Catholicising Semi-arians 
of 363, entitles it ‘‘on the hypocrisy of 
Meletius and Eusebius of Samosata.”’ 
It is remarkable that what Athan. here 
predicts was fulfilled to the letter, even 
of the worst of these “hypocrites.” 
For Acacius himself, who in 361 signed 
the Anomecean Confession above re- 
corded, was one of those very men 
who accepted the Homoiision with an 
explanation in 363. 

h Considering that Athanasius had 
now been for several years among the 


monasteries of the deserts,in close con- 
cealment, (unless we suppose he really 
had issued thence and was present at 
Seleucia, ) this is ἃ remarkable instance 
of aceurate knowledge of the state of 
feeling in the heretical party, and of 
foresight. From -his apparent want 
of knowledge of the Anomceans, and 
his unhesitatingly classing them with 
the Arians, it would seem in a great 
measure to arise from the intimate 
comprehension of the doctrine itself 
in dispute and of its bearings. There 
had been at that time no parallel of a 
great aberration and its issue. 


CHAP. LL: 


ON THE SYMBOLS “OF THE SUBSTANCE”? AND “ONE IN 
SUBSTANCE.” 


We must look at the sense not the wording. The offence excited is at the’ 


sense ; meaning of the Symbols ; the question of their not being in Scrip- 
ture. Those who hesitate only at the latter of the two, not to be con- 
sidered Arians. Reasons why “ one in substance” better than “ like in 
substance,” yet the latter may be interpreted in a good sense. Explanation 
of the rejection of “one in substance” by the Council which condemned 
Samosatene ; use of the word by Dionysius of Alexandria ; parallel variation 
in the use of Ingenerate; quotation from Ignatius and another; reasons 
for using “‘ one in substance ;” objections to it ; examination of the word 
itself; further documents of the Council of Ariminum. 


1. Bur since they are thus minded both towards each 
other and towards those who preceded them, proceed we 
to ascertain from them what extravagance they have seen, 
or what they complain of in the received phrases, that they 
should thus disobey their fathers, and contend against an 


Ecumenical Council ὃ ὃ 


“The phrases ‘of the substance’ 


and ‘one in substance,’” say they, “do not please us, for 


they are an offence tosome and a trouble to many ”. 


® The subject before us, naturally 
rises out of what has gone before. 
Athan. has traced out the course of 
Arianism to what seemed to be its 
result, the resolution of it into a better 
element or a worse,—the precipitation 
of what was really unbelieving in it 
in the Anomeean form, and the grad- 
ual purification of that Semi-arianism 
which prevailed in the Eastern Sees. 
vid.p. 103, notet. The Anomean creed 
was hopeless; but with the Semi- 
arians all that remained was the ad- 
justment of phrases. They had to 
reconcile their minds to terms which 
the Church had taken from philosophy 
and adopted as her own. Accordingly, 
Athan. goes on to propose such ea- 
planations as might clear the way 


b 2) 


This 
for a re-union of Christendom. The 
remainder of his work then is devoted 
to the consideration of the ‘ one in 
substance,” (as contrasted with “like 
in substance,’’) whieh had confessedly 
great difficulties in it. yid. p. 147, 
note u. 

6 This is only stating what the above 
Confessions have said again and again. 
The objections made to it were, 1. that 
it was not in Seripture ; 2. that it had 
been disowned by the Antiochene 
Council against Paul of Samosata; 3. 
that it was of a material nature, and 
belonged to the Manichees ; 4. that it 
was of a Sabellian tendency; 5. that 
it implied that the divine substance 
was distinct from God, 


Cuap. 
III. 


§ 88. 


130 They who held the doctrine, would admit the terms of Nicea. 


Counc 
ARIM. 
AND 


. then is what they allege in their writings; but one may 
reasonably answer them thus: If the very words were by 


Serev. themselves a cause of offence to them, it must have followed, 


1 vid. 
Orat. i. 
8. iy. 2 


not that some only should have been offended, and many 
troubled, but that we also and all the rest should have been 
affected by them in the same way; but if on the contrary ~ 
all men are well content with the words, and they who wrote 
them were no ordinary persons but men who came together 
from the whole world, and to these testify in addition the 
400 Bishops and more who have now met at Ariminum, 
does not this plainly prove against those who accuse the 
Council, that the terms are not in fault, but the perverseness 
of those who misinterpret them? How many men read 
divine Scripture wrongly, and as thus conceiving it, find 
fault with the Saints? such were the Jews formerly, who 
rejected the Lord, and the Manichees at present who blas- 
pheme the Law!; yet are not the Scriptures the cause to 
_ them, but their own evil humours. If then ye can shew the 
terms to be actually unsound, do so and let the proof pro- 
ceed, and drop the pretence of offence created, lest you come 
into the condition of the Pharisees formerly, when, on pre- 


Matt. 15, tending offence at the Lord’s teaching, He said, Hvery 


§ 84, 


plant, which My heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be 
rooted up. By.which He shewed that not the words of the 
Father planted by Him were really an offence to them, but 
that they misinterpreted good words and offended them- 
selves. And in like manner they who at that time blamed 
the Epistles of the Apostle, impeached, not Paul, but their 
own deficient learning and distorted minds. 

2. For answer what is much to the purpose, Who are | 
they whom you pretend are offended and troubled at these 
terms ? of those who are religious towards Christ not one ; 
on the contrary they defend and maintain them. But if they 
are Arians who thus feel, what wonder they should be dis- 
tressed at words which destroy their heresy? for it is not the 
terms which offend them, but the proscription of their irre- 
ligion which afflicts them*. Therefore let us have no more 
murmuring against the Fathers, nor pretence of this kind ; 
or next © you will be making complaints of the Lord’s Cross, 

© ὥρα. vid. Orat. i. § 15. iv. § 10. Serap. ii. 1. καίρος. de Decr. § 15. init. 


“ Of God,” if more than words, means “of His Substance.” 131 


that it is to Jews an offence and to Gentiles foolishness, as Car. 

said the Apostle“, But as the Cross is not faulty, for to a 

us who believe it is Christ the power of God and the wisdom 28. 24. 

of God, though Jews rave, so neither are the terms of the 

Fathers faulty, but profitable to those who rightly read, 

and subversive of all irreligion, though the Arians so often 

burst} with rage as being condemned by them. 1p. 29, 
3. Since then the pretence that persons are offended "οἶδ" 

does not hold, tell us yourselves, why is it you are not 

pleased with the phrase “ of the substance,” (this must 

first be enquired about,) when you yourselves have written 

that the Son is generated from the Father? If when you 

name the Father, or use the word “ God,” you do not sig- 

nify substance, or understand Him according to substance, 

who is that He is, but signify something else about Him 3, ? Ρ- 38, 

not to say inferior, then you should not have written that ‘ee 

the Son was from the Father, but from what is about Him 

or in Him®; and so, shrinking from saying that God is 


truly Father, and making Him compound who is simple, in 
a material way, you will be authors of a new blasphemy. 
And, with such ideas, do you of necessity consider the Word 
and the title “ Son,” not as a substance but as a name? only ; * Ρ- 41, 
and in consequence the views ye have ye hold as far as names 
only, and your statements are not positive points of faith, note b. 


but negative opinions. 


4, But this is more like the crime of the Sadducees, and 
of those among the Greeks who had the name of Atheists. 
It follows that you deny that creation too is the handy- 
work of God Himself that is; at least, if “Father” and 
“God” do not signify the very substance of Him that is, but 


4 “The Apostle”’ is a common title 
of S. Paul in antiquity. Εἰ. g. “ By 
partaking of the Son Himself, we are 
said to partake of God, and this is that 
which Pefer has said, ‘ that ye might 
be partakers of the divine nature,’ as 
says also the Apostle, “ Know ye not 
that ye are the temple of God, &c.” 
Orat. i. § 16 [infra p. 204]. “ When 
‘the Apostle is mentioned,’ says S. Au- 
gustine, if it is not specified which, 
Paul only is understood, because he is 
more celebrated from the number of 
his Epistles, and laboured more abun- 
dantly than all the rest.”” ad Bonifac. 
iii, 3. S, Peter is called the Apostle. 


Orat. i. 47 [infra p. 248]. 

© Vid. Orat. i. § 15 [infra p. 202] ; 
supra, de Decr. p. 38, note z. Thus 
Eusebius calls our Lord “the light 
throughout theuniverse,moving round 
(aut) the Father.” de Laud. Const. 
p. 501. It wasa Platonic idea, which 
he gained from Plotinus; whom he 
quotes speaking of his second Principle 
as ‘radiance around, from Him indeed, 
but from one who remains what He 
was; as the sun’s bright light circling 
around it, (περιθέον,) ever generated 
from it, which nevertheless remains.” 
Evang. Preep. xi. 17. vid. above, p. 51, 
note b, 


K 2 


ote e; 
p. 114, 


ἃ 35. 


1». 34, 
note s. 


Matt. 3, 


Gen. 1,1. 


Ps. 104, 
4. 


1 Cor. 8, 
6. 


2 de 
Decr. 

p. 33, 
ref. 1. 

3 Epicu- 
rus. 

4 Anaxa- 
goras, 


1 Cor. 8, 


6. 
5 p.33.fin. 
p. 54. fin. 


132 If “of God” not “of Substance,” Christ a creature. 


. Something else, which you imagine: which is irreligious, 


and most shocking even to think of. But if, when we hear 


. it said, 1 am that Iam, and, In the beginning God created the 
- heaven and the earth, and, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God 
‘is one Lord, and, Thus saith the Lord Almighty, we under- 


stand nothing else than the very simple, and blessed, and 
incomprehensible substance itself of Him that is, (for 
though we be unable to master that He is, yet hearing 
“‘ Father,” and “ God,” and “ Almighty,” we understand 
nothing else to be meant than the very substance of Him 
that is!;) and if ye too have said, that the Son is from God, 
it follows that you have said that He is from the “ sub- 
stance”’ of the Father. And since the Scriptures precede 
you which say, that the Lord is Son of the Father, and the 
Father Himself precedes them, who says, This is My beloved 
Son, and a son is no other than the offspring from his father, 
is it not evident that the Fathers have suitably said that the 
Son is from the Father’s substance? considering that it is 
all one to say in an orthodox sense “ from God,” and to say 
“from the substance.” For all the creatures, though they 
be said to be generated from God, yet are not from God as 
the Son is; for they are not offsprings in their nature, but 
works. Thus, it is said, in the ‘beginning God, not “ gene- 
rated,” but made the heaven and the earth, and all that is in 
them. And not, “who generates,’ but who maketh His angels 
spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire. And though the 
Apostle has said, One God, from whom all things, yet he 
says not this, as reckoning the Son with other things; but, 
whereas some of the Greeks consider? that the creation 
was held together by chance, and from the combination of 
atoms ὅ, and spontaneously from elements of similar struc- 
ture *, and has no cause; and others consider that it came 
from a cause, but not through the Word; and each heretic 
has imagined things at his will, and tells his fables about 
the creation ; on this account the Apostle was obliged to 
introduce from God, that he might thereby certify the 
Maker, and shew that the universe was framed at His will. 
And accordingly he straightway proceeds: And one Lord 
Jesus Christ, through whom all things, by way of excet- 
ing the Son from that “all*,’ (for what is called God’s 


Objection that the Nicene Symbols ave unscriptural. 133 


work, is all done through the Son; and it is not possible ὕπαρ. 
that, the things framed should have one generation with their i ΣΕΣ 
Framer,) and by way of teaching that the phrase of God, 

which oceurs in the passage, has a different sense in the 

case of the works, from what it bears when used of the 

Son ; for He is offspring, and they are works: and therefore 

He, the Son, is the proper offspring of His substance, but 

they are the handywork of His will. 

5. The Council, then, comprehending this!, and aware of § 36. 

the different senses of the same word, that none should sup- ae 
pose, that the Son was said to be from God like the creation, 8. 19. 
wrote with greater explicitness, that the Son was “ from the Ρ' 352: 
substance.” For this betokens the true genuineness of the 
Son towards the Father; whereas, in its being said simply 
‘from God,” only the Creator’s will concerning the framing , 
of all is signified. If then they too had this meaning, when 
they wrote that the Word was “ from the Father,” they had 
nothing to complain of in the Council’®; but if they meant ? p. 130, 
‘of God,” in the instance of the Son, as it is used of the Το" * 
creation, then as understanding it of the creation, they 
should not name the Son, or they will be manifestly mingling 
blasphemy with religiousness; but either they have to cease 
reckoning the Lord with the creatures, or at least to make 
statements not unworthy, and not unbecoming of the Son. 
For if He is a Son, He is not a creature; but if a creature, 
then not a Son. Since these are their views, perhaps they 
will be denying the Holy Laver also, because it is adminis- 
tered into Father and into Son; and not into Creator and 
Creature, as they account it. 

6. “But,” they say, “all this is not written: and we reject 
these words as unscriptural.” But this, again, is an un- 
blushing excuse in their mouths. For if they think every 
thing must be rejected which is not written, wherefore, when 
the Arian party invent such a heap of phrases, not from 
Scripture’, “Out of nothing,” and “the Son was not before 5}. 31, 
His generation,” and “Once He was not,” and “ He is alter- "°° P- 
able,” and “the Father is ineffable and invisible to the Son,”’ 
and “the Son knows not even His own substance ;” and all 
that Arius has vomited in his light and irreligious Thalia, 
why do not they speak against these, but rather take their 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 


SELEU. 


1 supr. 
§ 17. 


2 p. 106, 
note b. 


§ 37. 


1 Tim. 6, 


. 


vid. 
Prov. 7, 
99. 28. 


1954 Arian inconsistency in refusing theological terms. 


part; and on that account contend with their own Fathers? 
And, in what Scripture did they on their part find ‘‘ Ingene- 
rate,” and the name of “substance,” and “there are three 
subsistences,” and “Christ is not very God,” and “ He is one 
of the hundred sheep,” and “God’s Wisdom is ingenerate 
and inoriginate, but the created powers are many, of which 
Christ is one!?”? Or how, when in the so-called Dedication, 
the party of Acacius and Eusebius used expressions not in 
Scripture’, and said that “the First-born of the creation ” 
was “the unvarying Image of the divine substance, and 
power, and will of God,” do they complain of the Fathers, for 
making mention of unscriptural expressions, and especially 
of substance? For they ought either to complain of them- 
selves, or to find no fault with the Fathers. 

7. Now, if certain others made excuses of the expressions 
of the Council, it might perhaps have been set down, either 
to ignorance or to reverence. There is no question, for in- 
stance, about George of Cappadocia‘, who was expelled from 
Alexandria; a man, without character in years past, nor a 
Christian in any respect; but only pretending to the name 
to suit the times, and thinking religion to be a means of gain. 
And therefore reason is there, none should complain of his 
making mistakes about the faith, considering he knows 
neither what he says, nor whereof he affirms ; but, according 
to the text, goeth after all, as a bird. But when Acacius, and 
Eudoxius, and Patrophilus say this, do not they deserve 
the strongest reprobation? for while they write what is 


‘ George, whom Athanasius, Gregory of the heathen populace. He had laid 


Naz.,and Socrates, call a Cappadocian, 
was born, according to Ammianus, in 
Epiphania of Cilicia, at a fuller’s mill. 
He was appointed pork-contractor to 
the army, as mentioned above, ὃ 12. 
and being detected in defrauding the 
government, he fled to Egypt. Naz. 
Orat. 21. 16. How he became ac- 
quainted with the Eusebian party does 
not appear. Svuzomen tells us that he 
recommended himself to the see of 
Alexandria, by his zeal for Arianism 
and his τὸ δραστήριον ; and Gregory 
calls him the hand of the heresy as 
Acacius (?) was the tongue. Orat. 21. 
21. He made himself so obnoxious to 
the Alexandrians, that in the reign of 
Julian he was torn to pieces in a rising 


capital informations against many 
persons of the place, and he tried to 
persuade Constantius, that as the suc- 
cessor of Alexander its founder he was 
proprietor of the soil and had a claim 
upon the houses built on it. Ammian. 
xxii. 11. Epiphanius tells us, Her. 76. 
1, that he made a monopoly of the nitre 
of Egypt, farmed the beds of papyrus, 
and the salt lakes, and even contrived 
a profit from the undertakers. His 
atrocious cruelties to the Catholics are 
well known. Yet he seems to have 
collected a choice library of philoso- 
phers and poets and Christian writers, 
which Julian seized on; Pithzeus in 
loc. Ammian., also Gibbon, ch. 23. 


Likeness in Substance the only true likeness. 135 


unscriptural themselves, and have accepted many times, the Cuar. 
term “substance” as suitable, especially on the ground οὗ. “Π 
the letter of Eusebius!, they now blame their predecessors 
for using terms of the same kind. Nay, though they say 
themselves, that the Son is ‘God from God,” and “ Living 
Word,” “Unvarying Image of the Father’s substance ;” 
they accuse the Nicene Bishops of saying, that He who 
was begotten is “ of the substance”’ of Him who begat Him, 
and “One in substance” with Him. But what marvel the 
conflict with their predecessors and their own Fathers, when 
they are inconsistent to themselves, and fall foul of each 
other? For after publishing, in the so-called Dedication at 
Antioch, that the Son is unvarying Image of the Father’s 
substance, and swearing that so they held and anathematiz- 
ing those who held otherwise, nay, in Isauria, writing down, 
“We do not decline the authentic faith published in the 
Dedication at Antioch?,’ where the term “ substance” was 3 supr. 
introduced, as if forgetting all this, shortly after, in the same § 29. 
Isauria, they put into writing the very contrary, saying, 
We reject the words “one in substance,” and “like in 
substance,” as alien to the Scriptures, and demolish the 
term “substance,” as not contained therein °. ἢ 
8. Can we then any more account such men Christians ? § 38. 
or what sort of faith have they who stand neither to word 
nor writing, but alter and change every thing according to 
the times? For if, Ὁ Acacius and Eudoxius, you “do not 
decline the faith published at the Dedication,” and in it is 
written that the Son is “ Unvarying Image of God’s sub- 
stance,” why is it ye write in Isauria, “we reject the Like 
in substance?” for if the Son is not like the Father ac- 
cording to substance, how is He “ unvarying image of the 
substance?” But if you are dissatisfied at having written 
“ Unvarying Image of the substance,” how is it that ye 
* anathematize those who say that the Son is Unlike?” for 
if He be not according to substance like, He is altogether 
unlike: and the Unlike cannot be an Image. And if so, 
then it does not hold that he that hath seen the Son, hath John 14, 
seen the Father, there being then the greatest difference δι 
possible between Them, or rather the One being wholly 
Unlike the Other. And Unlike cannot possibly be called 
Like. By what artifice then do ye call Unlike lke, and 


1 pp. 62— 
64. 


3 supr. 
8 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 
SELEv. 


Coloss. 2, 
9 


John 1: 
16. 


§ 89. 
1p. 81, 
note t. 


136 


Arians had no fixedness, because no earnestness. 


consider Like to be unlike, and so pretend to say that the 
Son is the Father’s Image? for if the Son be not like the 
Father in substance, something is wanting to the Image, 
and it is not a complete Image, nor a perfect radiance ®. 
How then read ye, In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the 
Godhead bodily ? and, from His fulness have all we received? 
how is it that ye expel the Arian Aetius as an heretic, 
though ye say the same with him? for thy companion is 
he, O Acacius, and he became Eudoxius’s master in this so 
great irreligion"; which was the reason why Leontius 
the Bishop made him deacon, that using the name of the 
diaconate as a sheep’s clothing, he might be able with 
impunity to pour forth the words of blasphemy. What then 
has persuaded you to contradict each other!, and to procure 
to yourselves so great a disgrace? You cannot give any 
good account of it; this supposition only remains, that all 
you do is but outward profession and pretence, to secure 
the countenance of Constantius and the gain from thence 
accruing. And ye make nothing of accusing the Fathers, 
and ye complain outright of the expressions as being un- 
scriptural ; and, as it is written, have opened thy feet to every 
one that passed by ; so as to change as often as they wish, 
in whose pay and keep you are. 

9. Yet, though a man use terms not in Scripture, it makes 
no difference, so that his meaning be religious'. But the 


& Athan. here says, that when they 
spoke of “ like,” they could not con- 
sistently mean any thing short of 
‘likeness of substanee,”’ for this is the 
only true likeness ; and that, while 
they used the words ἀπαράλλακτος 


«εἴκων, unvarying image, to exclude all 


essential likeness was to suppose in- 
stead an image varying utterly from 
its original. It must not be supposed 
from this that he approves the phrase 
ὅμοιος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν or ὁμοιούσιος, in this 


- Treatise, for infr. § 53. he rejects it on 


the ground that when we speak of 


“like,” we imply qualities, not sub- 


stance. According to him then the 
phrase “unyarying image” was, strict- 
ly speaking, self-contradictory, for 
every image varies from the original 
because it isan image. Yet he him- 


’ self frequently uses it, as other Fathers, 


and Orat. i. § 26. uses ὅμοιος τῆς οὐσίας. 
And all human terms are imperfect ; 
and ‘“‘image’’itself is used in Scripture. 


h Aetius was the first to carry out 
Arianism in its pure Anomecean form, 
as Eunomius was its principal apolo- 
gist. He was born in humble life, and 
was at first a practitioner in medicine. 
After a time he became a pupil of the 
Arian Paulinus; then the guest of 
Athanasius of Nazarbi ; then the pupil 
of Leontius of Antioch, who ordained 
him deacon, and afterwards deposed 
him. This was in 350. In 351 he seems 
to have held a dispute with Basil of 
Ancyra, at Sirmium; in the begin- 
ning of 360 he was formally condemn- 
ed in the Council of Constantinople, 
which confirmed the Creed of Arimi- 
num, and just before Eudoxius had 
been obliged to anathematize his con- 
fession of faith. This was at the very 
time Athan. wrote the present work. 

‘vid. p. 31, note p. And so S. Gregory 
in a well-known passage ; ‘‘ Why art 
thou such a slave to the letter, and 
takest up with Jewish wisdom, and 


Scripture uses terms not in Scripture. 


137 


heretic, though he use scriptural terms, yet, as being Cuap. 


equally dangerous and depraved, shall be asked in the words 


ΠῚ. 


of the Spirit, Why dost thou preach My laws, and takest My ve 50, 


covenant in. thy mouth? Thus whereas the devil, though ἢ 
speaking from the Scriptures, is silenced by the Saviour, 
the blessed Paul, though he speaks from profane writers, 


The Cretans are always liars, and, For we are His offspring, Tit. 1, 2. 


and, Huvil communications corrupt good manners, yet has a 


Acts 7, 
28. 


religious meaning, as being holy,—is doctor of the nations, 1 Cor. 15, 
in faith and verity, as having the mind of Christ, and what ed 2, 


he speaks, he utters religiously. 


What then is there even 7 
plausible, in the Arian terms, in which the caterpillar and ee 


τ. 2, 


the locust} are preferred to the Saviour, and He is reviled Joel 2, 


with “Once Thou wast not,” and ‘Thou wast created,” 
“Thou art foreign to God in substance,” 
no insult is spared against Him ? On the other hand, what 
good word have our Fathers omitted ? yea rather, have they 
not a lofty view and a Christ-loving religiousness? And 
yet these men have written, “ We reject the words ; ”” while 
those others they endure in their insults towards the Lord, 
and betray to all men, that for no other cause do they resist 
that great Council but that it condemned the Arian heresy. 
For it is on this account again that they speak against the 
term One in substance, about which they also’ entertain 
wrong sentiments. For if their faith was orthodox, and 
they confessed the Father as truly Father, believed the Son 
to be genuine Son, and by nature true Word and Wisdom of 
the Father, and as to saying that the Son is from God, if they 
did not use the words of Him as of themselves, but under- 
stood Him to be the proper offspring of the Father’s sub- 
stance, as the radiance is from light, they would not every 
one of them have found fault with the Fathers; but would 
have been confident that the Council wrote suitably; and 
that this is the orthodox faith concerning our Lord Jesus 
Christ. 

10. “ But,” say they, “ the sense of such expressions is 


‘pursuest syllables to the loss of thing's ἢ 
For if thou wert to say, ‘ twice five,’ 
ΤΟΥ ‘ twice seven,’ and 1 concluded 
‘ten’ or ‘fourteen’ from your words, 
or from ‘a reasonable mortal animal’ 
I concluded ‘man,’ should I seem to 
-you absurd? -how so, if I did but give 


your meaning? for words helong as 
much to him who demands them as to 
him who utters.” Orat. 31. 24. vid. 
also Hil. contr. Constant. 16. August. 
Ep. 298. n. 4—6. Cyril. Dial. i. p. 391. 
Petayius refers to other passages. de 
Trin. iy. 5. § 6, 


25% 
and τε 18. 
and, in a word, p. 101. 


§ 40. 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND. 
SELEU. 


1 ὃ 8, 


2p. 31, 
note p. 


3 p. 108, 
note g. 


55 ΤῈ 
note 1. 


ἐλ} 


198 Pretence that the Nicene Symbols are obscure. 


obscure to us ;” for this is another of their pretences, —“ We ἡ 


reject them!,” say they, “ because we cannot master their 
meaning.” Butif they were true in this profession, instead 
of saying, “ We reject them,” they should ask instruction 
from the well informed ; else ought they to reject whatever 
they cannot understand in divine Scripture, and to find fault 
with the writers. But this were the crime of heretics rather 
than of us Christians ; for what we do not understand in the 
sacred oracles, instead of rejecting, we seek from persons 
to whom the Lord has revealed it, and from them we ask 
for instruction. But since they thus make a pretence of the 
obscurity of such expressions, let them at least confess what 
is annexed to the Creed, and anathematize those who hold 3 
that ‘the Son is from nothing,” and “ He was not before 
His generation,’ and “the Word of God is a creature and 
work,” and “ He is alterable by nature,” and “ from another 
subsistence ;” and in a word let them anathematize the 
Arian heresy, which has originated such irreligion®. Nor 
let them say any more, “ We reject the terms,” but that 
“we do not yet understand them ;” by way of having some 
reason to shew for declining them. But well know I, and 
am sure, and they know it too, that if they could confess 
all this and anathematize the Arian heresy, they would no 
longer deny those terms of the Council*. For on this ac- 
count it was that the Fathers, after declaring that the Son 
was begotten from the Father’s substance, and One in sub- 
stance with Him, thereupon added, “ But those who say,” 
(what has just been quoted, the symbols of the Arian heresy,) 
“we anathematize ;” I mean, in order to shew that the 
statements are parallel, and that the terms in the Creed 
imply the disclaimers subjoined, and that all who confess 
the terms, will certainly understand the disclaimers. But 
those who both dissent from the latter and impugn the 
former, such men are proved on every side to be foes of 
Christ. ' 

11. Those who deny the Council altogether, are sufficiently 
exposed by these brief remarks; those, however, who accept 
every thing else that was defined at Nicza, and quarrel only 
about the One in substance, must not be received as enemies; 
nor do we here attack them as Ario-maniacs, nor as oppo- 
nents of the Fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as 


— 


Semi-Arians not to be regarded as Arians. 139 


brothers with brothers', who mean what we mean, and dis- 
pute only about the word. For, confessing that the Son is 
from the substance of the Father, and not from other sub- 
sistence 3, and that He is not a creature nor work, but His 
genuine and natural offspring, and that He is eternally with 
the Father as being His Word and Wisdom, they are not 
far from accepting even the phrase “One in Substance ;”’ of 
whom is Basil of Ancyra, in what he has written concerning 
the faith*. For only to say “like according to substance,” 
is very far from signifying “of the substance’,”’ by which, 
rather, as they say themselves, the genuineness of the Son 
to the Father is signified. Thus tin is only like to silver, 
a wolf to a dog, and gilt brass to the true metal; but tin is 
not from silver, nor could a wolf be accounted the offspring 
of a dog'!. But since they say that He is “of the substance” 
and “Like in substance,” what do they signify by these but 
“One in substance™?” For, while to say only “Like in 
substance,” does not necessarily convey “of the substance,” 
on the contrary, to say “ One in substance,” is to signify 
the meaning of both terms, “ Like in substance,” and “ of 
the substance.” And accordingly they themselves in con- 
troversy with those who say that the Word is a creature, 
instead of allowing Him to be genuine Son, have taken their 
proofs against them from human illustrations of son and 
father", with this exception that God is not as man, nor the 
generation of the Son as offspring of man, but as one which 


* Basil, who wrote against Marcel- their unscrupulous slanders. 


lus, and was placed by the Arians in 
his see, has little mention in history 
till the date of the Council of Sardica, 
which deposed him. Constantius, 
however, stood his friend, till the be- 
ginning of the year 360, when Acacius 
supplanted him in the Imperial favour, 
and he was banished into Illyricum. 
This was a month or two later than 
the date at which Athan. wrote his 
first draught or edition of this work. 
He was condemned upon charges of 
tyranny, and the like, but Theodoret 
speaks highly of his correctness of life 
and Sozomen of his learning and elo- 
quence. vid. Theod. Hist. ii. 20. Soz. 
ἀϊ. 38. A very little conscientiousness, 
or even decency of manners, would put 
a man in strong relief with the great 
Arian party which surrounded the 
Court, and a very great deal would not 
have been enough tosecure him against 


! So also de Decr. ὃ 23. p. 40. Hyp. 
Mel. et Euseb. Hil. de Syn. 89. vid. 
p- 35, note u; p. 64, note i. The illus- 
trationruns into this position, ‘Things 
that are like, cannot be the same.” vid. 
p- 136, note g. On the other hand, 
Athan. himself contends for the ταὐτὸν 
τῇ ὁμοιώσει, ‘the same in likeness.” 
de Deer. § 20. p. 35. vid. infr. note r. 

πὶ vid. Socr. ili. 25. p. 204.a.b. Una 
substantia religiose predicabitur que 
ex nativitatis proprietate et ex nature 
similitudine ita indifferens sit, ut una 
dicatur. Hil. de Syn. 67. 

= Here at last Athan. alludes to the 
Ancyrene Synodal Letter, vid. Epiph. 
Her. 73. 5 aud 7. about which he has 
kept a pointed silence above, when 
tracing the course of the Arian con- 
fessions. That is, he treats the Semi- 
arians as tenderly as S. Hilary, as soon 
as they break company with the 


CHAP. 
IIL. 
1 vid. 
Ρ. 141, 
ref. 5. 
2 Note, 
p- 66. 


3p. 64, 
note i. 


Counc. 


ARIM. 
AND 
SELEv. 


ee 14, 


ee 8, 
12, 


1 ἀπαθὲς 
ἀμέρισ- 
TOV 

2 de 
Decr. 

§ 10. 

p. 17. 


140 The Son of God not like a human offspring. 


may be ascribed to God, and it becomes us to think. Thus 
they have called the Father the Fount of Wisdom and Life, 
and the Son the Radiance of the Eternal Light, and the Off- 
spring from the Fountain, as He says, 1 am the Life, and, I 
Wisdom dwell with Prudence. But the Radiance from the 
Light, and Offspring from Fountain, and Son from Father, 
how can these be so suitably expressed as by “One in 
substance ?” 

12. And is there any cause of fear, lest, because the off- 
spring from men are one in substance, the Son, by being 
called One in substance, be Himself considered as a human 
offspring too? perish the thought! not so; but the ex- 
planation is easy. For the Son is the Father’s Word and 
Wisdom; whence we learn the impassibility and indivisi- 


bility! of such a generation from the Father. 


For not even 


man’s word is part of him, nor proceeds from him accord- 


ing to passion 


2. much less God’s Word; whom the Father 


has declared to be His own Son, lest, on the other hand, if we 


Arians. The Ancyrene Council of 358 
was a protest against the ““ blasphe- 
mia” or second Sirmian Confession, 
which Hosius signed. 

π It is usual with the Fathers to use 
the two terms “Son” and ‘‘ Word,” to 
guard and complete the ordinary sense 
of each other. Their doctrine is that 
our Lord is both, in a certain transcend- 
ent, prototypical, and singular sense ; 
that in that high sense that are coinci- 
dent with one another; that they are 
applied to human things by an accom- 
modation, as far as these are shadows 
of Him to whom properly they really 
belong ; that being but partially rea- 
lized on earth, the ideas gained from 
the earthly types are but imperfect ; 
that in consequence if any one of them 
is used exclusively of Him, it tends to 
introduce wrong ideas respecting Him; 
but that their respective imperfections 
lying on different sides, when used to- 
gether they correct each other. vid. 
p. 18, note 0; and p. 43, note d. The 
term Son, used by itself, was abused 
into Arianism; and the term Word 
into Sabellianism ; again the term Son 
might be accused of introducing ma- 
terial notions, and the term Word of 
imperfection and transitoriness. Each 
of them corrected the other, ‘‘ Scrip- 
ture,” says Athan. ‘joining the two, 


‘has said ‘ Son,’ that the natural and 
“true offspring of the substance may be 


preached; but that no one may un- 
derstand a human offspring, signifying 
His substance a second time, it calls 
Him Word, and Wisdom, and Radi- 
ance.” Orat. i. § 28 [infra p. 221]. vid. 
p- 20, note t. vid. also iv. § 8. Euseb. 
contr. Mare. ii. 4. p. 54. 1514. Pel. Ep. 
iv. 141. SoS. Cyril says that we learn 
“from His being called Son that He is 
from Him, τὸ ἐξ αὐτοῦ ; from His being 
called Wisdom and Word, that He is in 
Him,”’7d ἐν αὐτῷ. Thesaur. iy. p. 51. 
However, 8. Athanasius observes, that 
properly speaking the one term implies 
the other, i. 6. in its fulness. ‘‘ Since 
the Son’s being is from the Father, 
therefore He is in the Father.” Orat. 
iii. § 3 [infra p. 402]. “If not Son, not 
Wordeither; andif not Word,not Son. 
For what is from the Father is Son; 
and what is from the Father, but the 
Word, ὅτ. Orat. iv. ὃ 24 fin. [infra 
p. 542]. On the other hand the heretics 
accused Catholics of inconsistency, or 
of a union of opposite errors, because 
they accepted all the Scripture images 
together. But Vigilius of Thapsus 
says, that “error bears testimony to 
truth, and the discordant opinions of 
misbelievers blend in concordance in 
the rule of orthodoxy.” contr. Eutych, 
ii. init. Grande miraculum, ut expug- 
natione sui veritas confirmetur. ibid. 

cire. init. vid. also i. init, and Bul 
ap. Phot. 225. p. 789, a 


ey 


Inconsistent to admit © of the” not “one in Substance.” 141 


merely heard of “ Word,” we should suppose Him, such as Cuap. 
is the word of man, unsubsistent!; but that, hearing that = a 
He is Son, we may acknowledge Him to be a living Word nis: 
and a substantive? Wisdom. Accordingly, as in saying” ey 
“offspring,” we have no human thoughts, and, though we ἔς 
know God to be a Father, we entertain no material ideas 
concerning Him, but while we listen to these illustrations and 
terms*, we think suitably of God, for He is not as man, so in 8p. 153, 
like manner, when we hear of “one in substance,” we ought "°° es 
to transcend all sense, and, according to the Proverb, un- proy, 93, 
derstand by the understanding that is set before us; so as to }. 
know, that not by will, but in truth, is He genuine from the 
Father, as Life from Fountain, and Radiance from Light. 
Else * why should we understand “offspring” and “son,” in 4 yia. 
no corporeal way, while we conceive of “one in substance” Fpiph. 
as after the manner of bodies? especially since these terms 73. 3. 
are not here used about different subjects, but of whom ** 
“offspring” is predicated, of Him is ‘fone in substance” 
also. And it is but consistent to attach the same sense to 
both expressions as applied to the Saviour, and not to inter- 
pret “ offspring,” as is fitting, and “one in substance” other- 
wise ; since to be consistent, ye who are thus minded and 
who say that the Son is Word and Wisdom of the Father, 
should entertain a different view of these terms also, and 
understand in separate senses Word, and in distinct senses 
Wisdom. But, as this would be extravagant, (for the Son, 
is the Father’s Word and Wisdom, and the Offspring from 
the Father is one and proper to His substance,) so the sense 
of “offspring” and ‘one in substance” is one, and whoso 
considers the Son an offspring, rightly considers Him also 
as “one in substance.” 

13. This is sufficient to shew that the phrase of “one in § 49, 
substance” is not foreign nor far from the meaning of these 
much loved persons ὅὉ, But since, as they allege ὅ, (for I have ὅν. 157, 
not the Epistle in question,) the Bishops who condemned rae 
Samosatene°® have laid down in writing that the Son is not Hilar. 
one in substance with the Father,and so it comes to pass that 8] ἀνα 


° There were three Councils held which contrary to the opinion of Pagi, Epiph. 
against Paul of Samosata, of the dates 5. Basnage, and Tillemont, Pearson Her. 73. 
of 264, 269, and an intermediate year. fixes at 265 or 266, 12, 

The third is spoken of in the text, 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 


SELEv. 


142 Dionysius used “ One in Substance,” if not Antiochenes. 


they, forreverenceand honour towards the aforesaid, thus feel 
about that expression, it will be to the purpose reverently to 
argue with them this point also. Certainly it is unbecom- 
ing to make the one company conflict with the other ; for all 
are fathers; nor is it religious to settle, that these have 
spoken well, and those ill; for all of them have gone to sleep 
in Christ. Nor is it right to be disputatious, and to compare 
the respective numbers of those who met in the Councils, or 
the three hundred may seem to throw the lesser into the 
shade; nor to compare the dates, lest those who preceded 
seem to eclipse those that came after. For all, I say, are 
Fathers ; and, any how the three hundred laid down nothing 
new, nor was it in any self-confidence that they became 
champions of words not in Scripture, but they started from 
their Fathers, as the others, and they used their words. For 
there were two Bishops of the name of Dionysius, much 
older than the seventy who deposed Samosatene, of whom 


~ one was of Rome, and the other of Alexandria; and a 


§ 44. 
1 γιὰ. 
de Decr. 
§ 25. 
p- 44. 
3 ἐπιχει- 
ρήματα 


charge had been laid by some persons against the Bishop of 
Alexandria before the Bishop of Rome, as if he had said 
that the Son was made, and not one in substance with the 
Father. This had given great pain to the Roman Council ; 
and the Bishop of Rome expressed their united sentiments 
in a letter to his namesake. ‘This led to his writing an ex- 
planation which he calls the Book of Refutation and Apology; 
and it runs thus: 


14. And! I have written in another Letter, a refutation of the 
false charge which they bring against me, that I deny that Christ 
is one in substance with God. For though I say that I have not 
found or read this term any where in holy Scripture, yet my re- 
marks? which follow, and which they have not noticed, are not in- 
consistent with that belief. For I instanced a human production, 
which is evidently homogeneous, and I observed that undeniably 
fathers differed from their children, only in not being the same indi- 
viduals; otherwise there could be neither parents nor children. 
And my Letter, as I said before, owing to present circumstances, 


Ἴ am unable to produce, or I weuld have sent you the very words I 


used, or rather a copy of it all; which, if I have an opportunity, 
I will do still. But I am sure from recolleetion, that I adduced 
many parallels of things kindred with each other, for instance, that 
a plant grown from seed or from root, was other than that from 
which it sprang, and yet altogether one in nature with it; and that 
a stream flowing from a fountain, changed its appearance and its 


ees ee ee a oe 


Apparent contradictions in Scripture. 143 


~ 


name, for that neither the fountain was called stream, nor the stream (yap. 
fountain, but both existed, and that the fountain was as it were _ IIL. 
father, but the stream was what was generated from the fountain. 


15. Thus the Bishop. If then any one finds fault with § 45. 
the Fathers at Niczea, as if they contradicted the decisions 
of their predecessors, he may reasonably find fault also with 
the Seventy, because they did not keep to the statements 
of their own predecessors ; for such were the two Dionysii 
and the Bishops assembled on that occasion at Rome. But 
neither these nor those is it religious to blame; for all 
were legates of the things of Christ, and all gave diligence 
against the heretics, and while the one party condemned 
Samosatene, the other condemned the Arian heresy. And 
rightly did both these and those define, and suitably to the 
matter in hand. Andas the blessed Apostle, writing to the 
Romans, said, The Law is spiritual, the Law is holy, and Rom. 7, 
the commandment holy and just and good ; (and soon after, 
What the Law could not do, in that it was weak,) but wrote Ib. 8, 3, 
to the Hebrews, The Law made no one perfect ; and to the πον: ὖ 
Galatians, By the Law no one is justified, but to Timothy, ot 3, 
The Law is good, if a man use it lawfully ; and no one ; om 1, 
would accuse the Saint of inconsistency and variation in 8: 
writing, but rather would admire how suitably ke wrote to 
each, to teach the Romans and the others to turn from the 
letter to the spirit, but to instruct the Hebrews and Gala- 
tians to place their hopes, not in the Law, but in the Lord 
who gave the Law ;—so, if the Fathers of the two Councils 
made different mention of the One in substance, we ought 
not in any respect to differ from them, but to investigate 
their meaning, and this will fully shew us the meaning of 
both the Councils. For they who deposed Samosatene, 
took One in substance in a bodily sense, because Paul had 
attempted sophistry and said, “ Unless Christ has of man 
become God, it follows that He is One in substance with 
the Father; and if so, of necessity there are three sub- 
stances, one the previous substance, and the other two from 
it;” and therefore guarding against this they said with 
good reason, that Christ was not One in substance’. For 


ΟΡ This is in fact the objection which stance, supr. § 16. when he ealls it the 
Arius urges against the One in sub- doctrine of Manichzus and Hieracas, 


144 Why the Council of Antioch declined “One in Substance.” 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 


SELEU. 


1 αὐτο- 
αληθὴς 


3 ἑνοειδῇ 
p. 148. 
ref. 7. 
John 10, 


2 


the Son is not related to the Father as he imagined. But 
the Bishops who anathematized the Arian heresy, under- 
standing Paul’s craft, and reflecting that the word “ One in 
substance,” has not this meaning when used of things im- 
material‘, and especially of God, and acknowledging that 
the Word was not a creature, but an offspring from the 
substance, and that the Father’s substance was the origin 
and root and fountain of the Son, and that He was of very 
truth! His Father’s likeness, and not of different nature, 
as we are, and separate from the Father, but that, as being 
from Him, He exists as Son indivisible, as radiance is with 
respect of Light, and knowing too the illustrations used in 
Dionysius’s case, the “ fountain,’ and the defence of “ One 
in substance,” and before this the Saviour’s saying, sym- 
bolical of unity ", I and the Father are one, and he that hath 


_ seen Me hath seen the Father, on these grounds reasonably 


asserted on their part, that the Son was One in substance. 
And as, according to a former remark, no one would blame 
the Apostle, if he wrote to the Romans about the Law in 
one way, and to the Hebrews in another; in like manner, 
neither would the present Bishops find fault with the 
ancient, in regard to their interpretation, nor again on the 
view of theirs and of the need of their so writing about the 
Lord, would the ancient censure the present. 


vid. p. 97, note 1. The same objection 
is protested against by S. Basil, contr. 
Eunom. i. 19. Hilar. de Trin. iy. 4. 
Yet, while S. Basil agrees with Athan. 
in his account of the reason of the 
Council’s rejection of the word, S. 
Hilary on the contrary reports that 
Paul himself accepted it, i.e. in a 
Sabellian sense, and therefore the 
Council rejected it. ‘‘ Male homoii- 
sien Samosatenus confessus est, sed 
numquid melius Arii negayerunt.” de 
Syn. 86. 

4 The Eusebians tried to establish 
a distinction between ὁμοούσιον and 
ὁμοιούσιον, “one in substance”’ and 
** like in substance,” of this sort ; that 
the former belonged to things ma- 
terial, and the latter to immaterial, 
Soz. iii. 18. a remark which in itself 
was quite sufficient to justify the 
Catholics in insisting on the former 
term. For the heretical party, starting 
with the notion in which their heresy 


in allits shades consisted, that the Son 
was a distinct being from the Father, 
and appealing to (what might be 
plausibly maintained) that spirits are 
incommeasurable with one another, 
or that each is sui simile, concluded 
that “dike in substance” was the only 
term which would express the rela- 
tion of the Son to the Father. Here 
then the word “‘ one in substance” did 
just enable the Catholics to join issue 
with them, as exactly expressing what 
the Catholics wished to express, viz. 
that there was no such distinction be- 
tween Them as made the term “ like ἢ 
necessary, but that Their relation to 
Each Other was analogous to that 
of a material offspring to a material 
parent, or that as material parent and 
offspring are individuals under one 
common species,so the Eternal Father 
and Son are Persons under one com- 
mon individual substance. 


Each Council acted with a reason. 145 


Cuar. 


16. Yes surely, each Council had a sufficient reason for - 


its own language; for since Samosatene held that the Son 
was not before Mary, but received from her the origin of 
His being, therefore the assembled Fathers deposed him and 
pronounced him heretic ; but concerning the Son’s Godhead 
writing in simplicity, they arrived not at accuracy concern- 
ing the One in substance, but, as they understood the word, 
so spoke they about it. For they directed all their thoughts 
to destroy the device of Samosatene, and to shew that the 
Son was before all things, and that, instead of becoming 
God from man, God had put on a servant’s form, and the 
Word had become flesh, as John says. This is how they 
dealt with the blasphemies of Paul; but when the party of 
Eusebius and Arius said that though the Son was before 
time, yet was He made and one of the creatures, and as to 
the phrase “ from God,” they did not believe it in the sense 
of His being genuine Son from Father, but maintained it as 
it is said of the creatures, and as to the oneness" of likeness ! ! vid. 
between the Son and the Father, did not confess that the ee 
Son is like the Father according to substance, or according 9 fin. 
to nature, but because of Their agreement of doctrines and 

of teaching*; nay, when they drew a line and an utter’ Ρ- 107, 
distinction between the Son’s substance and the Father, a 
ascribing to Him an origin of being, other than the Father, 

and degrading Him to the creatures, on this account the 
Bishops assembled at Niczea, with a view to the craft of the 
parties so thinking, and as bringing together the sense 
from the Scriptures, cleared up the point, by affirming the 
“One in substance ;” that both the true genuineness of the 

Son might thereby bé known, and that to things generated 


ΕΑ χὴν τῆς ὁμοιώσεως ἑνότητα : and 
850 ταὐτὸν τῇ ὁμοιώσει de Decr. § 20. 
p. 35; τὴν ἑνότητα τῆς φύσεως καὶ τὴν 
ταυτότητα τοῦ φωτός. ibid. § 24. p. 41 
init. ; also § 23. And Basil. ταὐτότητα 
τῆς φύσεως, Ep. 8.3: ταὐτότητα THs 
οὐσιάς. Cyril in Joan. lib. iii.c.v. p. 302. 
[p. 850 O.T.] Hence it is uniformly 
asserted by the Catholics that the Fa- 
ther’s godhead, θεότης, is the Son’s ; 
e.g. “the Father’s godhead being in 
the Son,” infr. ὃ 52 [p.155]; ἡ πατρικὴ 
φύσις advrov.Orat.i. ὃ 40 [infra p.287 | ; 
“worshipped κατὰ τὴν πατρικὴν ἰδιό- 
τητα. § 42 [infra p. 240] ; πατρικὴν 
αὐτοῦ θεότητα. ες fin. § 49 fin. ii. 
§ 18. § 73 fin. iii. § 26 ; ‘“‘the Father’s 
godhead and propriety js the being, τὸ 


εἶναι, of the Son,” iii. § 5 fin. [infra 
p- 406]. The Father’s godhead is the 
Son’s. τὸ πατρικὸν φῶς 6 vids. iii. § 53 
[p- 475]; μίαν τὴν θεότητα καὶ Td ἴδιον 
τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός. § 56 [p. 478]: 
“Α5 the water is the same which is 
poured from fountain into stream, so 
the godhead of the Father into the 
Son is intransitive and indivisible, ἀῤ- 
ῥευστῶς καὶ ἀδιαιρέτως. Expos. § 2. vid. 
p- 155, note f. This is the doctrine of 
the Una Res, which, being not defined 
in General Council till the fourth La- 
teran, many most injuriously accuse 
the Greek Fathers, as the two Gre- 
gories, of denying. That Council is 
not here referred to as of authority. 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 


SELEU. 


§ 46. 


1p. 52, 
note d. 


2 p. 52, 
note e. 


§ 47. 


3 vid. 
Ign. ad 
Eph. 7. 


146 As “One in Substance” so “ Ingenerate” variously used. 


might be ascribed nothing in common with Him, For the 
precision of this phrase detects their pretence, whenever 
they use the phrase “from God,” and gets rid of all the sub- 
tleties with which they seduce the simple. Forwhereas they 
contrive to put a sophistical construction on all other words 
at their will, this phrase only, as detecting their heresy, do 
they dread ; which the Fathers did set down as a bulwark ὅ 
against their irreligious speculations, one and all. 

17. Cease we then all contention, nor any longer conflict 
we with each other, though the Councils have differently 
taken the phrase “ One in substance,” for we have already 
assigned a sufficient defence of them ; and to it the following 
may be added:—We have not derived the word “ Ingener- 
ate” from Scripture, (for no where does Scripture call God 
Ingenerate,) yet since it has many authorities in its favour, 
I was curious about the term, and found that it too has 
different senses!. Some, for instance, call what is, but is 
neither generated, nor has any cause at all, ingenerate ; and 
others, the increate®. As then a person, having in his mind 
the former of these senses, viz. “ that which has no cause,” 
might say that the Son was not ingenerate, yet would not 
be blaming any one he perceived looking to the other mean- 
ing, “not a work or creature but an eternal offspring,” and 
affirming accordingly that the Son was ingenerate, (for 
both speak suitably with a view to their own object,) so, 
even granting that the Fathers have spoken variously con- 
cerning the One in substance, let us not dispute about it, 
but take what they deliver to us in a religious way, when 
especially their anxiety was directed in behalf of religion. - 
_ 18. Ignatius, for instance, who was appointed Bishop in 
Antioch after the Apostles, and became a martyr of Christ, 
writes concerning the Lord thus: “ There is one physician, 
fleshly and spiritual, generate and ingenerate, God in man, 
true life in death, both from Mary and from God? ;” whereas 
some teachers who followed Ignatius, write in their turn, 


85 ἐπιτείχισμα; in like manner ovtv- 
δεσμον πίστεως. Epiph. Ancor. 6. 
© Without the confession of the ‘ One 
in substance,’ ” says Epiphanius, “no 
heresy can be refuted ; for as a serpent 
hates the smell of bitumen, and the 
scent of sesame-cake, and the burning 
of agate, and the smoke of storax, so 
do Arius and Sabellius hate the notion 


of the sincere profession of the ‘ One 
in substance.’” Her. 69. 70. ‘* That 
term did the Fathers set down in their 
formula of faith, which they perceived 
to be a source of dread to their adyer- 
saries ; that they themselves might 
unsheath the sword which cut off the 
head of their own monstrous heresy.” 
Ambros. de Fid. iii. 15, 3 


. 


Ἂς iat 


We ought to enter into the Fathers’ meaning, not carp at τέ. 147 


“One is the Ingenerate, the Father, and one the genuine 
Son from Him, true offspring, Word and Wisdom of the 
Father.” Iftherefore we have hostile feelings towards these 
writers, then have we right to quarrel with the Councils ; 
but if, knowing their faith in Christ, we are persuaded that 
the blessed Ignatius was orthodox in writing that Christ was 
generate on account of the flesh, (for He was made flesh,) yet 
ingenerate, because He is not in the number of things made 
and generated, but Son from Father, and are aware too that 
the parties who have said that the Ingenerate is One, mean- 
ing the Father, did not mean to lay down that the Word was 
generated and made, but that the Father has no cause, but 
rather is Himself Father of Wisdom, and in Wisdom hath 
made all things that are generated, why do we not combine 
all our Fathers in religious belief, those who deposed Samo- 
satene as well as those who proscribed the Arian heresy, 
instead of making distinctions between them and refusing 
to entertain a right opinion of them? I repeat, that these, 
looking towards the sophistical explanation of Samosatene, 
wrote, “He is not one in substance";” and those with an 
apposite meaning, said that He was. For myself, I have 
written these brief remarks, from my feeling towards per- 
sons who were religious to Christ-ward; but were it possible 
to come by the Epistle which we are told that they wrote, 
I consider we should find further grounds for the aforesaid 
‘proceeding of these blessed men. For it is right and meet 
thus to feel, and to maintain a good understanding with the 
Fathers, if we be not spurious children, but have received 
the traditions from them, and the lessons of religion at 
their hands. 
19. Such then, as we confess and believe, being the sense 
of the Fathers, proceed we evenin their company to examine 


t The writer is not known. The _ text of Athanasius to allow of its satis- 


President of Magdalen has pointed out 
to the Editor the following similar pas- 
sagein S.Clement. ἐν μὲν τὸ ἀγέννητον, 
6 παντοκράτωρ θεὺς, ἕν δὲ καὶ τὸ προ- 
γεννηθὲν δι οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, καὶ 
χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. Strom. vi. 
7. p. 769. 

“ There is much to say on the sub- 
ject of the rejection of the ὁμοούσιον 
at this Council of Antioch; but it 
branches into topics too far from the 


factory discussion in this volume. The 
lamented Dr. Burton, in Mr, Faber’s 
Apostolicity of Trinitarianism, vol. 2. 
p- 302. is the last writer who has denied 
the rejection of the symbol ; but (as 
appears to the present writer, ) not on 
sufficient grounds. Reference is made 
toa Creed or Ecthesis, foundamong the 
acts of Ephesus, and said to have veen 
published against Paul; and on this 
some remarks are made in Note p.165, 


L2 


CuHapP. 
ΠΠῚ. 


-.----ς-.-. - 


§ 48. 


? supr. 
p. Il. 


3 ὁμοφυῆ 


3 μετου- 
σίας 


05 LS 
note f. 
John 10, 
30 


Ib. 14, 9. 


5 συμ- 
φωνία, p. 
107, note 
f. yet 
vid. 
Hipp. 
contr. 
Noet. 7. 


δ κινήσει 
vid. 
Cyril. 
contr. 
Jul. viii. 
p- 274. 
Greg. 
Nyss. 

de Hom. 
Op. p. 87. 
§ 49. 

7 évoet- 
δέσι, 

p. 144, 
ref. 2. 


148 “Of the Substance” implies “One in Substance.” 


. once more the matter, calmly and with a good understanding, 


with reference to what has been said before, viz. whether the 


. Bishops collected at Nicaea did not really exercise an ex- 


cellent judgment. For if the Word be a work and foreign 
to the Father’s substance, so that He is separated from the 
Father by the difference of nature, He cannot be one in 
substance with Him, but rather He is homogeneous by 
nature with the works, though He surpass them in grace’. 
On the other hand, if we confess that He is not a work but 
the genuine offspring of the Father’s substance, it would 
follow that He is inseparable from the Father, being con- 
natural 2, because He is begotten from Him. And being 
such, good reason He should be called One in Substance. 
Next, if the Son be not such from participation *, but is in 
His substance the Father’s Word and Wisdom, and this 
substance is the offspring of the Father’s substance *, and 
its likeness as the radiance is of the light, and the Son says, 
I and the Father are One, and, he that hath seen Me, hath 
seen the Father, how must we understand these words? or 
how shall we so explain them as to preserve the oneness of 
the Father and the Son? Now as to its consisting in agree- 
ment ὅ of doctrines, and in the Son’s not disagreeing with 
the Father, as the Arians say, such an interpretation will 
not stand; for both the Saints and still more Angels and 
Archangels have such an agreement with God, and there is 
no disagreement among them. For he who was in disagree- 
ment, the devil, was beheld to fall from the heavens, as the 
Lord said. Therefore if by reason of agreement the Father 
and the Son are one, there would be things generate which 
had this agreement with God, and each of these might say, 
Ι and the Father are One. But if this be shocking, and so it 
truly is, it follows of necessity that we must conceive of Son’s 
and Father’s oneness in the way of substance. For things 
generated, though they have an agreement with their Maker, 
yet possess it only by influence ὅ, and by participation, and 
through the mind; the transgression of which forfeits heaven. 
But the Son, being an offspring from the substance, is one in 
substance, Himself and the Father that begat Him. 

20. This is why He has equality with the Father by titles 
expressive of unity’, and what is said of the Father, is 


es, .. 


ae δ τῶ δὼ -,.. τ 


The Son has all things of the Father, but being the Father. 149 


said in Scripture of the Son also, all but His being called Cuav. 
Father*. For the Son Himself says, All things that the j janie 
Father hath are Mine; and He says to the Father, All Mine ΠΣ δ 
are Thine, and Thine are Mine;—as for instance ἴ, the name !».17,10. 
God; for the Word was God j—Almighty, Thus saith He agg ae 
that is, and that was, and that is to come, the Almighty ;— ate i 
the being Light, I am, He says, the Light;—the Operative apoc.1,8. 
Cause, All ae were made by Him, and, whatsoever I see 30 8, 
the Father do, I do also ;—the being Everlasting, His eternal tb. 1, 3. 
power and godhead, and, In the beginning was the Word, and, Ib. 5, i 
He was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh 20. 

‘into the world ;—the being Lord, for, The Lord rained fire oe τὸ 
and brimstone from the Lord, and the Father says, I am the Ges. 19, 
Lord, and, Thus saith the Lord, the Almighty God; and of, 18. 45. δ. 
the Son Paul speaks thus, One Lord Jesus Christ, thr ougiey 1 Cor. 8, 
whom all things. And on the Father Angels serve, and δ᾽ 

again the Son too is worshipped by them, And let all the Heb.1,6. 
Angels of God worship Him; and He is said to be Lord of 
Angels, for the Angels ministered unto Him, and the Son 4} oe 4, 
Man shall send His Angels. The being honoured as the | τ "24,31. 
Father, for that they may honour the Son: He says, as they am 5, 
honour the Father ;—being equal to God, He thought it not ἢ a 2, 
robbery to be equal with God;—the being Truth from the 6. 
True, and Life from the Living, as being truly from the 
Fountain of the Father ;—the quickening and raising the 

dead as the Father, for so we read in the Gospel. And of 

the Father it is written, The Lord thy Godis One Lord, and, Deut. 6, 
The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken, and hath called the τ 50, 1. 
earth; and of the Son, The Lord God hath shined upon us, ἊΣ 118, 
and, The God of gods shall be seen in Sion. And again of Τρ. 88, 7. 
God, Hsaias says, Who is a God like unto Thee, taking away a 


18. 


x By “the Son being equal to the 
Father,” is but meant that He is His 
*unyarying image ;” it does not 
imply any distinction of substance. 
**Perfectze zqualitatis significantiam 
habet similitudo.” Hil. de Syn. 73. 
But though He is in all things His 
Image, this implies some exception, 
for else He would not be like or equal, 
butthe same. ‘‘ Non est zequalitas in 
dissimilibus, nec similitudo est intra 
unum.” ibid. 72. Hence He is the 
Father’s image in all things except in 
being the Father, εἰκὼν φυσικὴ καὶ 


ἀπαράλλακτος κατὰ πάντα ὅμοια τῷ 
πατρὶ, πλὴν τῆ" ἀγεννησίας καὶ τῆς 
πατρότητος. Damase. de Imag. iii. 18. 
p. 904. vid. also Basil. contr. Eun. 
ii. 28. Theod. Inconfus. p. 91. Basil. 
Ep. 38. 7 fin. For the Son is the 
Image of the Father, not as Father, 
but as God. The Arians on the other 
hand, objecting the phrase ‘‘ unvary- 
ing image,’ asked why the Son was 
not in consequence a Father, and the 
beginning οἵ ἃ θεογονία. Athan. Orat. 
i, 21 [infra p. 210]. vid. infra, note z. 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
“AND 
SELEU. 


. Matt. 9, 
5. 

Mark 2, 
ile 

-1 Tim. 1, 
7 


“Ps. 24,7. 
Dan. 4, 
3 


Ib. 7,14. 


δ 50. 


1 ἀλλο- 
᾿πριού- 

διος 

3 ἴδια 


8 avo- 


μοιογε- 
vet 


Isa. 42, 
Ss 


John 10, 
33. 


Luke.11, 
15. 


150 The Son is One with the Father, because equal to Him. 


iniquities and passing over unrighteousness ? but the Son 
said to whom He would, Thy sins be forgiven thee; for in- 
stance, when, on the Jews murmuring, He manifested the 
remission by His act, saying to the paralytic, Rise, take up 
thy bed, and go unto thy house. And of God Paul says, To 
the King eternal; and again of the Son, David in the Psalm, 
Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and be ye lift up ye everlast- 
ing doors, and the King of glory shall come in. And Daniel 
heard it said, His Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom, and 
His Kingdom shall not be destroyed. And in a word, all 
that you find said of the Father, so much will you find said 
of the Son, all but His being Father, as has been said. 

21. If then any think of other origin, and other Father, 
considering the equality of these attributes, it is a mad 
thought. But if, since the Son is from the Father, all that 
is the Father’s is the Son’s as in an Image and Expression, 
let it be considered dispassionately, whether a substance 
foreign from the Father’s substance admit of such attri- 
butes; and whether such a one be other in nature and alien 
in substance!, and not one in substance with the Father. 
For we must take reverent heed, lest transferring what 15 
proper 5 to the Father to what is unlike Him in substance, 
and expressing the Father’s godhead by what is unlike in 
kind? and alien in substance, we introduce another sub- 
stance foreign to Him, yet capable of the properties of the 
first substance Y, and lest we be silenced by God Himself, 
saying, My glory I will not give to another, and be discovered 
worshipping this alien God, and be accounted such as were 
the Jews of that day, who said, Wherefore dost Thou, being 
a man, make Thyself God? referring, the while, to an- 
other source the things of the Spirit, and blasphemously 
saying, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub. But if 
this is shocking, plainly the Son is not unlike in sub- 
stance, but one in substance with the Father; for if what 


‘the Father hath is by nature the Son’s, and the Son 


y Arianism was placed in the peril- 
ous dilemma of denying Christ’s divi- 
nity, or introducing a second God. 
The Arians proper went off in the 
former side of the alternative, the 
Semi-arians on the latter; and Athan., 


as here addressing the Semi-arians, 


‘insists on the greatness of the latter _ 


error. This of course was the objec-~ 
tion which attached to the words 

ὁμοιούσιον ἀπαράλλακτος εἴκων, &e. 

when disjoined from the ὁμοούσιον ; 

and Eusebius’s language, supr. p. 63, 

note g, shews us that it is not an 

imaginary one. 


΄ 


nese 


- Ifthe Son by participation, He could not impart Sonship. 101 


Himself is from the Father, and because of this oneness Cuar. 
of godhead and of nature He and the Father are one, and * 
He that hath seen the Son hath seen the Father, reasonably 
is He called: by the Fathers “One in substance ;” for to 
what is other in substance, it belongs not to possess such 
prerogatives. 

22. And again, if, as we have said before, the Son is not § ol. 
such by participation!, but, while all things generated have, Ἵν Ὁ 
by participation, the grace of God, He is the Father’s Wisdom 
and Word, of which all things partake’, it follows that He 346 Deer. 
being the deifying and enlightening power of the Father, in tp ice 
which all things are deified and quickened, is not alien in e- 
substance from the Father, but one in substance. For by 
partaking* of Him, we partake* of the Father; because * μετα- 
that the Word is proper to the Father. Whence, if He was ee 
Himself too from participation, and not from the Father His * isles 
substantial Godhead and Image, He would not deify ὃ, being * δ θεω. 
deified Himself. For it is not possible that He, who but pile 
possesses from participation, should impart of that partaking ς 70. de 
to others, since what He has is not His own, but the Giver’s ; spr 
and what He has received, is barely the grace sufficient for p.2 ᾿ 
Himself. 

23. However, let us fairly enquire why it is that some, as 
is said, decline the “One in substance,” whether it does not 
rather shew that the Son is one in substance with the Father. 

They say then, as you have written, that it is not right to say 
that the Son is one in substance with the Father, because 
he who speaks of one in substance speaks of three, one sub- 
stance pre-existing, and that those who are generated from 
it are one in substance: and they add, “If then the Son be 
one in substance with the Father, then a substance must be 
previously supposed, from which they have been generated; 
and that the One is not Father and the Other Son, but they 
are brothers together*.” As to all this, though it be a Greek 


z And so Eunomius in S. Cyril, 
*©< Unless once the Son was not,’ saith 
he, ‘or if eternal, and co-existent with 
the Father, you make Him not a Son 
but a brother.’ The Father and the 
Son are not from any pre-existing 
origin, that they should be thought 
brothers, but the Father is origin of 


the Son, and brought forth the Son, 
and remaineth Father, and is not called 
Son of any; and the Son is Son, and 
remaineth what He is, and is not called 
brother of any by nature. What place 
then shall brotherhood have in such ?” 
Thesaur. pp. 22, 23. vid. Athan, Orat, 
i, § 14, 


152 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 
SELEv. 


“One in Substance” does not imply a whole and parts. 


interpretation, and what Greeks say have no claim upon us*, 
still let us see whether these things which are called one in 
substance and are collateral, as derived from one substance 
pre-supposed, are one in substance with each other, or with 
the substance from which they are generated. For if only 
with each other, then are they other in substance and unlike, 
when referred to that substance which generated them; for 
other in substance is opposed to one in substance; but if 
each be one in substance with the substance which generated 
them, it is thereby confessed that what is generated from any 
thing’, is one in substance with that which generated it; and 
there is no need of seeking for three substances, but merely 
to seek whether it be true that this is from that». For should 


8. vid. p. 52, note d. The word οὐσία 
in its Greek or Avistotelic sense seems 
to have stood for an individual sub- 
stance, numerically one, which is pre- 
dicable of nothing but itself. Impro- 
perly it stood for a species or genus. 
vid. Petay. de Trin. iv. 1. § 2. but as 
Anastasius observes in many places 
of his Viz dux, Christian theology 
innovated on the sense of Aristotelic 
terms. yid. c. 1. p. 20. 6. 6. p. 96. 6.9. 


_ p. 150. 6. 17. p. 308. There is some 


difficulty in determining how it in- 
novated. Anastasius and Theorian, 
Hodeg. 6. Legat. ad Arm. pp. 441, 2. 
says that it takes οὐσία to mean an 
universal or species, but this is nothing 
else than the second or improper Greek 
use. Rather it takes the word in a 
sense of its own, such as we have no 
example of in things created, viz. that 
of a Being numerically one, subsisting 
in three persons; so that the word is 
a predicable or in one sense universal, 
without ceasing to be individual; in 
which consists the mystery of the Holy 
Trinity. However, heretics, who re- 
fused the mystery, objected it to 
Catholics in its primary philosophical 
sense; and then, as standing for an 
individual substance, when applied to 
Father and Son, it either implied the 
parts of a material subject, or it in- 
volved no veal distinction of persons, 
i. e. Sabellianism. The former of these 
two alternatives is implied in the text 
by the “‘ Greek use ;”’ the latter by the 
same phrase as used by the conform- 
ing Semi-arians, A.D. 363. “ΝΟΥ, as 
if any passion were supposed of the 
ineffable generation, is the term ‘ sub- 
stance’ taken by the Fathers, &c. nor 


according to any Greek use. Socr. 
iii. 25. Hence such charges against 
Catholicism on the part of Arians as 
Alexander protests against, of either 
Sabellianism or Valentinianism, ok... 
ὥσπερ Σαβελλίῳ καὶ Βαλεντίνῳ δοκεῖ. 
Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 743. In like man- 
ner, Damascene, speaking of the Ja- 
cobite use of φύσις and ὑπόστασις says, 
‘Who of holy men ever thus spoke? 
unless ye introduce to us your St. Aris- 
totle, as a thirteenth Apostle, and 
prefer the idolater to the divinely 
inspired.” cont. Jacob. 10. p. 399. 
and so again Leontius, speaking of 
Philoponus, who from the Monophy- 
site confusion of nature and bypostasis 
was led into Tritheism. “He thus 
argued, taking his start from Aristo- 
telic principles ; for Aristotle says that 
there are of individuals particular sub- 
stances as well as one common.” de 
Sect. v. fin. 

> The argument, when drawn out, 
is virtually this: if, because two sub- 
jects are consubstantial, a third is pre- 
supposed of which they partake, then, 
since either of these two is consubstan- 
tial with that of which both partake, a 
new third must be supposed in which 
it and the pre-existing substance par- 
take, and thus an infinite series of 
things consubstantial must be sup- 
posed. The only mode (which he puts 
first) of meeting this, is to deny that 
the two thing's are consubstantial with 
the supposed third; but if so, they 
must be different in substance from it; 
that is, they must differ from that, as 
partaking of which, they are like each 
other,—which is absurd. yid. Basil. 
Ep. 52. n. 2. 


One in Substance” does not imply two substances. 153 
it happen that there were not two brothers, but that only 
one had come of that substance, he that was generated would 
not be called alien in substance, merely because there was 
no other from the substance than he; but though alone, he 
must be one in substance with him that begat him. For 
what shall we say about Jephthae’s daughter; because she 
was only-begotten, and he had not, says Scripture, other Jud. 11, 
child ; andagain, concerning the widow’s son, whom the Lord το 
raised from the dead, because he too had no brother, but 

was only-begotten, was on that account neither of these one 

in substance with the parent? Surely they were, for they 

were children, and this is a property of children with refer- 

ence to their parents. And in like manner also, when the 
Fathers said that the Son of God was from His substance, 
reasonably have they spoken of Him as one in substance. 

For the like property has the radiance compared with the 

light. Else it follows that not even the creation came out 

of nothing. For whereas men beget with passion’, so 1 Orat. i. 
again they work upon an existing subject matter, and other- ὃ 
wise cannot make. But if we do not understand creation 

in a human way °, when we attribute it to God, much less 
seemly is it to understand generation in a human way, or 

to give a corporeal sense to One in substance; instead of 
receding from things generate, casting away human images, 

nay, all things sensible, and ascending? to the Father’, Ped: ἡ 
lest we rob the Father of the Son in ignorance, and rank lida : 
Him among His own creatures. 

24, Further, if, in confessing Father and Son, we spoke § 52. 
of two origins or two Gods, as Marcion® and Valentinus*, or * 
said that the Son had any other mode of godhead, and was ᾿ eee 
not the Image and Expression of the Father, as being by ?- 


CHAP. 
111. 


© yid. de Decr. ὃ 11. supr. p. 18, 
note o: also Cyril, Thesaur. iv. p. 29: 
Basil. contr. Eun. ii. 23: Hil. de Syn. 
17. 
4 §, Basil says in like manner that, 
though God is Father κυρίως properly, 
(vid. Ath. Orat. i. 21 fin. and p. 16, 
note k. p. 18, note o. p. 56, note k.) 
yet it comes to the same thing if we 
were to say that He is τροπικῶς and 
ἐκ μεταφορᾶς, figuratively,such, contr. 
Eun. ii. 24; for in that case we must, 
as in other metaphors used of Him, 
(anger, sleep, flying,) take that part 


of the human sense which can apply 
to Him. Now γέννησις implies two 
things,—passion, and_ relationship, 
οἰκείωσιβ φύσεως; accordingly we must 
take the latter as an indication of the 
divine sense of the term. On the terms 
Son, Word, &c. being figurative, or il- 
lustrations, and how to use them, vid. 
also de Deer. § 12. supr. p. 20; Orat. 
i. § 26, 27; ii. § 32; iii. § 18.67; Basil. 
contr. Eunom. ii. 17; Hil. de Trin. iv. 
2. Vid. also Athan. ad Serap. i. 20. and 
Basil. Ep. 38. n. 5. and what is said of 
the office of faith in each of these. 


154 The Father and Son not two Gods, for the Son from the 2 


Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 


SELEU. 


Exod. 3, 
16. 


‘de Decr. Son from without !, 
§ 3l.and 


p. 14, 
note b. 


nature born from Him, then He might be considered un- 
like ; for such substances are altogether unlike each other. 
But if we acknowledge that the Father’s godhead is one and 
sole, and that of Him the Son is the Word and Wisdom; and, 
as thus believing, are far from speaking of two Gods, but 
understand the oneness of the Son with the Father to be, 
not in likeness of their teaching, but according to substance 
and in truth, and hence speak not of two Gods but of one 
God; there being but one Face ὃ of Godhead, as the Light 


is one and the Radiance ; (for this was seen by the Patriarch 


Jacob, as Scripture says, The sun rose wpon him when the 
Face of God passed by; and beholding this, and understand- 


ing of whom He was Son and Image, the holy Prophets say, 


The Word of the Lord came to me; and recognising the 


Father, who was beheld and revealed in Him, they were 


bold to say, The God of our fathers hath appeared unto me, 
the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob ;) this being SO, 
wherefore scruple we to call Him one in substance who is 


one with the Father, and appears as doth the Father, ac- 


cording to likeness and oneness of godhead? For if, as 


has been many times said, He has it not to be proper to the 


Father’s substance, nor to resemble, as a Son, we may well 
scruple: for if this be the illuminating and creative Power, 


specially proper to the Father, without whom He neither 


frames nor is known, (for all things consist through Him 
and in Him ;) wherefore, having cognizance of this truth, 
do we decline to use the phrase conveying it? For what 
is it to be thus connatural with the Father, but to be one 
in substance with Him? for God attached not to Him the 
as needing a servant ; nor are the works 
on a level with the Creator, and are honoured as He is, or 
to be thought one with the Father. Or let a man ven- 
ture to make the distinction, that the sun and the radiance 
are two lights, or different substances; or to say that the 
radiance accrued to it over and above, and is not a single 


© ἕνος ὄντος εἴδους θεότητος : the word 


᾿εἴδος. face or countenance, will come 
‘before us in Orat. iii. 16. It is generally 
‘applied to the Son, as in what follows, 
‘and is synonymous with hypostasis ; 


but it is remarkable that here it is 
almost synonymous with οὐσία οΥ φύσις. 
Indeed in one sense nature, substance, 


and hypostasis, are all synonymous, . 


i.e. as one and all denoting the Una 
Res, which is Almighty God. They 
differed, in that the word hypostasis 
regards the One God as He is the Son. 
The apparent confusion is useful then 
as reminding us of this ere pati t 
vid, the next note. 


as the sun and radiance not two lights. 155 
‘and uncompounded offspring from the sun ; ‘such, that sun 
‘and radiance are two, but the light one, because the radi- 
ance is an offspring from the Sun. But, whereas not more 
divisible, nay less divisible is the nature! of the Son towards 
the Father, and the godhead not accruing to the Son, but 
the Father’s godhead being in the Son, so that he that hath 
seen the Son hath seen the Father in Him; wherefore 
should not such a one be called One in substance ? 

25. Even this is sufficient to dissuade you from blaming 
those who have said that the Son was one in substance with 
the Father, and yet let us examine the very term “ One in 
substance,” in itself, by way of seeing whether we ought 
to use it at all, and whether it be a proper term, and is 
suitable to apply to the Son. For you know yourselves, 
and no one can dispute it, that Like is not predicated of 
substances, but of habits, and qualities ; for in the case of 
‘substances we speak, not of likeness, but of identity. Man, 


f φύσις, nature, is here used for per- 
son. This seems an Alexandrian use of 
the word. It is found in Alexander. ap. 
Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 740. And it gives 
rise to a celebrated question in the 
Monophysite controversy, as used in S. 
Cyril’s phrase μία φύσις σεσαρκωμένη. 
Κ΄. Cyril uses the word both for person 
and for substance successively in the 
following passage. ‘‘ Perhaps some one 
will say, ‘ How isthe Holy and Ador- 
able Trinity distinguished into three 
Hypostases, yet issues in one nature of 
Godhead ?’ Because the Same in sub- 
stance necessarily following the differ- 
ence of natures, recalls the minds of 
believers to one nature of Godhead.” 
contr. Nest. iii. p. 91. In this passage 
**One nature” stands for a reality; but 
‘“‘ three Natures” is the One Eternal 
Divine Nature viewed in that respect in 
which He is Three. And so S. Hilary, 
nature ex natura gignente nativitas ; 
de Syn. 17. and essentia de essentia, 
August. de Trin. vii. n. 3. and de seipso 
genuit Deus id quod est, de Fid. et 
Symb. 4.1. e. He is the Adorable θεότης 
or Godhead viewed as begotten. And 
Athan. Orat. iv. § 1. calls the Son ἐξ 
οὐσίας οὐσιώδη“. vid. supr. p. 148. ref. 
A. These phrases mean that the Son 
‘who is the Divine Substance, is from 
the Father who is the [same] divine 
substance. As (tospeak of what is ana- 
logous not parallel,) we might say that 


‘© man is father of man,” not meaning 
by man the same individual in both 
cases, but the same nature, so here we 
speak not of the same Person in the 
two cases, but the same Individuum. 
All these expessions resolve them- 
selves into the original mystery of the 
Holy Trinity, that Person and Indiyvi- 
duum are not equivalent terms, and 
we understand them neither more nor 
less than we understand it. In likeman- 
ner as regards the incarnation, when 
S. Paul says “" God was in Christ ;” he 
does not mean absolutely the Divine 
Nature, which is the proper sense of 
the word, but the Divine Nature as ex- 
isting in the Person of the Son. Hence 
too, (vid. Petay. de Trin. vi. 10. § 6.) 
such phrases as ‘‘ the Father begat the 
Son from His substance.” And in like 
manner Athan. just afterwards, speaks 
of “‘the Father’s Godhead being in the 
Son.” vid. supr. p. 145, note r. 

8 §. Athanasius, in saying that like 
is not used of substance, implies that 
the proper Arian senses of the ὅμοιον 
are more natural, and therefore the 
more probable, if the word came into 
use. These were, 1. likeness in will 
and action, as συμφωνία, of which infr. 
Orat. iii. 11: 2. likeness to the idea 
in God’s mind in which the Son was 
created. Cyril Thesaur. p. 134: 3. like- 
ness to the divine act or energy by 
which He was created. Pseudo-Basil. 


Crap. 


Il. 


§ 53. 


156 If we believe the Nicene sense, let us accept the words. 


Counc. for instance, is said to be like man, not in substance, but 
ae according to habit and character ; for in substance men are 
SeLev. one in nature. And again, man is not said to be unlike dog, 
but to be other in nature. Therefore, in speaking of Like 
‘perov- according to substance, we mean like by participation! ; _ 
τὰς (for Likeness is a quality, which may attach to substance,) 
“μετοχὴ and this is proper to creatures, for they, by partaking’, 
1 John are made like to God. For when He shall appear, says 
Ὁ» ἂν Scripture, we shall be like Him; like, that is, not in sub- 
stance but in sonship, which we shall partake from Him. 
®uerovola Tf then ye speak of the Son as being by participation *, 
then indeed call Him Like in substance; but thus spoken 
of, He is not Truth, nor Light at all, nor in nature God. 
For things which are from participation, are called like, not 
in reality, but from resemblance to reality; so that they 
may fail, or be taken from those who share them. And 
this, again, is proper to creatures and works. Therefore, if 
this be extravagant, He must be, not by participation, but 
in nature and truth Son, Light, Wisdom, God; and being 
by nature, and not by sharing, He would properly be called, 
not Like in substance, but One in substance. But what 
would not be asserted, even in the case of others, (for the ἡ 
Like has been shewn to be inapplicable to substance,) is it | 
not folly, not to say violence, to put forward in the case of 
the Son, instead of the “ One in substance ?”” 
ὃ 54, 20. This justifies the Nicene Council, which has laid down, t 
what it was becoming to express, that the Son, begotten 
from the Father’s substance, is one in substance with Him, 
And if we too have been taught the same thing, let us not 
fight with shadows, especially as knowing, that they who 
have so defined, have made this confession of faith, not to 
misrepresent the truth, but as vindicating the truth and 
religiousness towards Christ, and also as destroying the blas- 
4p.91, pbhemies against Him of the Ario-maniacs*. For this must 
note 4. be considered and noted carefully, that, in using unlike in 
substance, and other in substance, we signify not the true 
Son, but some one of the creatures, and an introduced and 
adopted Son, which pleases the heretics ; but when we speak 


contr. Eun. iy. p. 282; Cyril in Joan. course was but an evasion: 5. like in ΄ 
lib. 111. 6. ὅ. p. 304 [p. 852 0.1.1: 4.like all things, κατὰ πάντα, which was, as 
according to the Scriptures; which of they understood it, an evasion also. 


Exzhortation to maintain the truth and live in unity. 157 

uncontroversially of the One in substance, we signify a ὕπαρ. 

genuine Son born of the Father; though at this Christ’?s —'-_ 

enemies often burst with rage !. eae 
27. What then I have learned myself, and have heard 

men of judgment say, I have written in few words; but ye 

remaining on the foundation of the Apostles, and holding 

fast the traditions of the Fathers, pray that now at length 

all strife and rivalry may cease, and the futile questions of 

the heretics may be condemned, and all logomachy"; and 

the guilty and murderous heresy of the Arians may disap- 

pear, and the truth may shine again in the hearts of all, so 

that all every where may say the same thing, and think 

the same thing; and that, no Arian contumelies remain- 

ing, it may be said and confessed in every Church, One Eph. 4, 

Lord, one fuith, one baptism, in Christ Jesus our Lord, * 

through whom to the Father be the glory and the strength, 


unto ages of ages. Amen. 


h And so ταῖς Aoyouaxtas. Basil de 
Sp. S.n. 16. It is used with an allu- 
sion to the fight against the Word, as 
χριστομαχεῖν and θεομαχεῖν. Thus 
Aoyouaxety μελετήσαντες, καὶ λοιπὸν 
πνευματομαχοῦντες, ἔσονται μετ᾽ ὀλίγον 
νεκροὶ τῇ ἀλογίᾳ. Serap. iy. 1. 

i This sentiment will give opportu- 
nity for a note on the Semi-arians, 
which has been omitted in its proper 
place, § 41 and 43. vid. p. 141. ref. 5. 
There S. Athanasius calls certain of 
them “‘ brethren” and “beloved,” ἀγα- 
πητοί. S. Hilary too calls them ‘‘ sanc- 
tissimi viri.” de Syn. 80. On the other 
hand, Athan. speaks severely of Eusta- 
thius and Basil. Ep. Hg. 7. and Hilary 
explains himself in his notes upon his 
de Syn. from which it appears that he 
had been expostulated with on his con- 
ciliatory tone. Indeed all throughout 
he had betrayed a consciousness that 
he should offend some parties, e. g. 
§ 6. In ὃ 77, he had spoken of “having 
expounded the faithful and religious 
sense of ‘like in substance,’ which is 
called Homeeiision.” On this he ob- 
serves, note 3, “1 think no one need 
be asked to consider why I have said 
in this place ‘veligious sense of like in 
substance,’ except that I meant that 
there was also an irreligious ; and 
that therefore I said that ‘like’ was 
not only equal but the ‘same.’ vid. 
p. 139, note 1. In the next note he 
speaks of them as not more than hope- 


ful. Still it should be observed how 
careful the Fathers of the day were 
not to mix up the question of doctrine, 
which rested on Catholic tradition 
with that of the adoption of a certain 
term which rested on a Catholic in- 
junction. Not that the term was not 
in duty to be received, but it was to be 
received on account of its Catholic 
sense, and where the Catholic sense 
was held, the word might even by a 
sort of dispensation be waived. It is 
remarkable that Athanasius scarcely 
mentions the word ‘‘One in sub- 
stance ” in his Orations or Discourses 
which are to follow ; nor does it occur 
in S. Cyril’s Catecheses, of whom, as 
being suspected of Semi-arianism, it 
might have been required, before his 
writings were received as of authority. 
The word was not imposed upon Ur- 
sacius and Valens, A.D. 349, by Pope 
Julius ; nor in the Council of Aquileia 
in 381, was it offered by S. Ambrose to 
Palladiusand Seeundianus. S.Jerome’s 
account of the apology made by the 
Fathers of Ariminum is of the same 
kind. ‘‘ We thought,” they said,‘ the 
sense corresponded to the words, nor 
in the Church of God, where there is 
simplicity, and a pure confession, did 
we fear that one thing would be con- 
cealed in the heart, another uttered 
by the lips. We were deceived by our 
good opinion of the bad.” ad Lucif. 19. 


158 Letter of Constantius to the Council of Ariminum. - 


Postscript. 


28. After I had written my account of the Council}, I 
had information that the most irreligious ? Constantius had 
sent Letters to the Bishops remaining in Ariminum ; and I 
have taken pains to get copies of them from true brethren 
and to send them to you, and also what the Bishops an- 
swered; that you may know the irreligious craft of the 
Emperor, and the firm and unswerving purpose of the 
Bishops towards the truth. 


Interpretation of the Letter *. 


Constantius, Victorious and Triumphant, Augustus, to all Bishops 
who are assembled at Ariminum. 

That the divine and adorable Law is our chief care, your excel- 
lencies are not ignorant; but as yet we have been unable to receive 
the twenty Bishops sent by your wisdom, and charged with the 
legation from you, for we are pressed by a necessary expedition 
against the Barbarians; and as ye know, it beseems to have the soul 
clear from every care, when one handles the matters of the Divine 
Law. Therefore we have ordered the Bishops to await our return 
at: Adrianople ; that, when all public affairs are well-arranged, then 
at length we may hear and weigh their suggestions. Jet it not then 
be grievous to your constancy to await their return, that, when they 
come back with our answer to you, ye may be able to bring matters 
to a close which so deeply affect the well-being of the Catholic 
Church. : 


29. This was what the Bishops received at the hands of 
three messengers. 


Reply of the Bishops. 


The letter of your humanity we have received, most religious Lord 
Emperor, which reports that, on account of stress of public affairs, 
as yet you have been unable to attend to our Jegates; and in which 
you command us to await their return, until your godliness shall be 
advised by them of what we have defined conformably to our ances- 
tors. However, we now profess and aver at once by these presents, 
that we shall not recede from our purpose, as we also instructed our 
legates. We ask then that you will with serene countenance com- 
mand these letters of our mediocrity to be read before you; as well 
as will graciously receive those, with which we charged our legates. 
This however your gentleness comprehends as well as we, that great 


k These two Letters are both in Socr. ii. 37. And the latter is in Theod. 
Hist. ii. 15. p. 878. in a different version from the Latin original. 


She ἐς Rare ee Oh rl es RE 


Letter of the Council of Ariminum to Constantius, 159 


grief and sadness at present prevail, because that, in these your most 
happy days, so many Churches are without Bishops. And on this 
account we again request your humanity, most religious Lord Em- 
peror, that, if it please your religiousness, you would command us, 
before the severe winter weather sets in, to return to our Churches, 
that so we may be able, unto God Almighty and our Lord and 
Saviour Christ, His Only-begotten Son, to fulfil together with our 
flocks our wonted prayers in behalf of your imperial sway, as indeed 
we haye ever performed them, and at this time make them, 


CHapP, 


ΠῚ. 


NOTE on Chapter II. 


Concerning the Confessions at Sirmiwn. 


Ir has been thought advisable to draw up, as carefully as may 
be, a statement of the various Arian Confessions which issued at 
Sirmium, with the hope of presenting to the reader in a compen- 
dious form an intricate passage of history. 


΄ 


1. A.D. 351. Confession against Photinus, 
(First Sirmian. supr. p. 118.) 


This Confession was published at a Council of Eastern Bishops 
(Coustant. in Hil. p. 1174, note 1), and was drawn up by the whole 
body, Hil. de Syn. 37. (according to Sirmond. Diatr. 1. Sirm. p- 
366. Petavius de Trin. 1. 9. § 8. Animady. in Epiph. p. 318 init. 
and Coustant. in Hil. 1. c.) or by Basil of Aneyra (as Valesius con- 
jectures in Soz. iv. 22. and Larroquanus, de Liberio, p. 147.) or by 
Mark of Arethusa, Soer. ii. 30. but he confuses together the dates 
of the different Confessions, and this is part of his mistake (vid. 
Vales. in loe. Coustant. in Hil. de Syn. 1. 6. Petay. Animad. in 
Epiph. 1. ¢.). It was written in Greek. 

Till Petavius®, Socrates was generally followed in ascribing alk 
three Sirmian Confessions to this one Council, though at the same 
time he was generally considered mistaken as to the year. E. σ᾿, 
Baronius places them all in 357. Sirmond defended Baronius 
against Petavius (though in Faeund. x. 6. note c, he agrees with 
Petavius); and assigning the third Confession to 359, adopted the 
improbable conjecture of two Councils, the one Catholic and the 
other Arian, held at Sirmium at the same time, putting forth respec- 
tively the first and second Creeds somewhat after the manner of the 
contemporary rival Couneils of Sardica. Pagi, Natalis Alexander, 
Valesius, de Marca, Tillemont, S. Basnage, Montfaucon, Coustant, 
Larroquanus (de la Roque,) agree with Petavius in placing the 
Council at which Photinus was deposed, and the Confession published 
by it, in A.D. 351. Mansi dates it at 358. 


me dictum omnes arbitrentur. Petay. 
Animady. in Epiph. p. 300. Nos ex 
antiquis patribus primum illud odorati 


ἃ Dicam non jactantiz causa, sed ut 
eruditi lectoris studium excitem, for- 
tassis audacius, ab hine mille ac ducen- 


tis propemodum annis liquidam ac 
sinceram illorum rationem ignoratam 
fuisse. Quod nisi certissimis argu- 
mentis indiciisque monstrayero, nihil 
ego deprecabor, quin id yanissimé ἃ 


sumus, tres omnino conyentus Epis- 
coporum eodem in Sirmiensi oppido, 
non iisdem temporibus celebratos fu- 
isse. ibid. p. 113. 


ia 


Sirmian Confessions. 161 


This was the Confession which Pope Liberius signed according to 
Baronius, N. Alexander, and Coustant in Hil. note n. p. 1335—7, 
and as Tillemont thinks probable. 

In p. 114, note b. supr. the successive condemnations of Photinus 
are enumerated; but as this is an intricate point on which there is 
considerable difference of opinion among critics, it may be advisable 
to state them here, as they are determined by various writers. 

Petavius (de Photino Heretico, 1.), enumerates in all five Coun- 
cils:—1. at Constantinople, A.D. 336, when Marcellus was deposed, 
vid. supr. p. 109, note m. 2.At Sardica, A.D. 347. 3. At Milan, A.D. 
347. 4. At Sirmium, 349. 5. At Sirmium, when he was deposed, 
A.D. 351. Of these the 4th and 5th were first brought to light by 
Petavius, who omits mention of the Macrostich in 345. 

Petavius is followed by Natalis Alexander, Montfaucon (vit. 
Athan.), and Tillemont; and by De Marca( Diss. de temp. Syn. Sirm.), 
and S. Basnage (Annales), and Valesius, (in Theod. Hist. ii. 16. p. 
23. Soer. ii. 20.) as regards the Council of Milan, except that Vale- 
sius places it with Sirmond in 346; but for the Council of Sirmium 
in 349, they substitute a Council of Rome of the same date, while 
de Marea considers Photinus condemned again in the Eusebian Coun- 
cil of Milan in 355. De la Roque, on the other hand (Larroquan. 
Dissert. de Photino Her.), considers that Photinus was condemned, 
1. in the Macrostich, 346 [345]. 2. at Sardica, 347. 3. at Milan, 
348. 4. at Sirmium, 350. 5. at Sirmium, 351. 

Petavius seems to stand alone in assigning to the Council of Con- 
stantinople, 336, his first condemnation. 


2. A.D, 357. The Blasphemy of Potamius and Hesius, 
(Second Sirmian. supr. p. 122.) 


Hilary calls it by the above title, de Syn. 11. vid. also Soz. iv. 12. 
p- 554. He seems also to mean it by the blasphemia Ursacii et 
Valentis, contr. Const. 26. 

This Confession was the first overt act of disunion between Arians 
and Semi-Arians. 

Sirmond, de Marea and Valesius (in Soer. ii. 30.), after Pheba- 
dius, think it put forth by a Council; rather, at a Conference of a 
few leading Arians about Constantius, who seems to have been pre- 
sent; e.g. Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius. Soz.iv. 12. Vid. also Hil. 
Fragm. vi. 7. 

It was written in Latin, Socr. ii. 30. Potamius wrote very bar- 
barous Latin, judging from the Tract ascribed to him in Dacher. 
Spicileg. t. 3. p. 299, unless it be a translation from the Greek. vid. 
also Galland. Bibl. t. v. p. 96. Petavius thinks the Creed not written, 
but merely subscribed by Potamius (de Trin. i. 9. § 8) and Coustant. 
(in Hil. p. 1155, note f) that it was written by Ursacius, Valens, and 
Potamius. It is remarkable that the Greek in Athanasius is clearer 
than the original. 

This at first sight is the Creed which Liberius signed, because 

M 


ΝΌΤΕ 
Ἰ. 
ΟΝ 
Coonc. 
ARIM. 
AND 


SELEU. 


162 Sirmian Confessions. 


S. Hilary speaks of the latter as “ perfidia Ariana,” Fragm. 6. 
Blondel (Prim. dans l’Eglise, p. 484.), Larroquanus, &c. are of this 
opinion. And the Roman Breviary, Ed. Ven. 1482,and Ed. Par. 1543, 


in the Service for 5. Eusebius of Rome, August 14, says that “* Pope ἡ 


Liberius consented to the Arian misbelief,” Launnoi Ep. vy. 9. ο. 13. 
Auxilius says the same, ibid. vi. 14. Animady. 5. n. 18. Petavius 
grants that it must be this, 7f any of the three Sirmian (Animady. in 
Epiph. p. 316), but we shall see his own opinion presently. 


3. A.D. 357. The foregoing interpolated. 


A creed was sent into the East in Hosius’s name, Epiph. Her. 73. 
14. Soz. iv. 15. p. 558, of an Anomeean character, which the ““ blas- 
phemia” was not. And S. Hilary may allude to this when he speaks 
of the “ deliramenta Osii, et incrementa Ursacii et Valentis,” contr. 
Const. 23. An Anomcean Council of Antioch under Eudoxius of 
this date, makes acknowledgments to Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius, 
Soz. iv. 12, fin. as being agents in the Arianising of the West. 

Petavius and Tillemont consider this Confession to be the “ blas- 
phemia” interpolated. Petavius throws out a further conjecture, 
which seems gratuitous, that the whole of the latter part of the Creed 
is a later edition, and that Liberius only signed the former part. 
Animady. in Epiph. p. 316. 


4. A.D. 358. The Ancyrene Anathemas. 


The Semi-Arian party had met in Council at Ancyra in the early 
spring of 358 to protest against the ‘ blasphemia,” and that with 
some kind of correspondence with the Gallic Bishops who had just 
condemned it, Pheebadius of Agen writing a Tract against it, which 
is still extant. They had drawn up and signed, besides, a Synodal 
Letter, eighteen anathemas, the last against the ‘* One in substance.” 
These, except the last, or the last six, they submitted at the end of 
May to the Emperor who was again at Sirmium. Basil, Eustathius, 
Eleusius, and another, formed the deputation; and their influence 
persuaded Constantius to accept the Anathemas, and even to oblige 
the party of Valens, at whose ‘* blasphemia” they were levelled, to 
recant and subscribe them. 


5. A.D. 358. Semi-Arian Digest of Three Confessions. 


The Semi-Arian Bishops pursuing their advantage, composed a 
Creed out of three, that of the Dedication, the first Sirmian, and the 
Creed of Antioch against Paul 264—270, in which the ‘ One in sub- 
stance” is said to have been omitted or forbidden. Soz. iv. 15. This 
Confession was imposed by Imperial authority on the Arian party, 
who signed it. So did Liberius, Soz. ibid. Hil. Fragm. vi. 6.7; and 
Petavius considers that this is the subscription by which he lapsed. 
de Trin. i. 9. § 5. Animady. in Epiph. p. 316. and S. Basnage, in 
Ann. 358. 13. 

It is a point of controversy whether or not the Arians at this 
time suppressed the “blasphemia.” Socrates and Sozomen say 


ah a a ee EO Ee eee 


a 


OTN Pac NAW nh MN Sin RC 


δνω»».....-... 


Sirmian Confessions. 163 


that they made an attempt to recall the copies they had issued, and 
even obtained an edict from the Emperor for this purpose, but with- 
out avail. Soer. ii. 30 fin. Soz. iv. 6. p. 543. 

Athanasius, on the other hand, as we have seen, supr. p. 123, relates 
this in substance of the third Confession of Sirmium, not of the 
** blasphemia”’ or second. 

Tillemont follows Socrates and Sozomen ; considering that Basil’s 
influence with the Emperor enabled him now to insist on a retractation 
of the “ blasphemia.” And he argues that Germinius in 366, being 
suspected of orthodoxy, and obliged to make profession of heresy, 
was referred by his party to the formulary of Ariminum, no notice 
being taken of the “ blasphemia,” which looks as if it were sup- 
pressed; whereas Germinius himself appeals to the third Sirmian, 
which is a proof that it was not suppressed. Hil. Fragm. 15. Cou- 
stant in Hil. contr. Const. 26, though he does not adopt the opinion 
himself, observes, that the charge brought against Basil, Soz. iv. 
132. Hil. 1. 6. by the Acacians of persuading the Africans against 
the second Sirmian is an evidence of a great effort on his part at a 
time when he had the Court with him to suppress it. We have just 
seen Basil uniting with the Gallic Bishops against it. 


6. A.D. 359. The Confession with a date, 
(third Sirmian, supr. p. 83.) 


The Semi-Arians, with the hope of striking a further blow at their 
opponents by a judgment against the Anomceans, Soz. iv. 16 init. 
seem to have suggested a general Council, which ultimately became 
the Councils of Seleucia and Ariminum. If this was their measure, 
they were singularly owt-manceuvred by the party of Acacius and 
Valens, as we haye seen in Athanasius’s work. A preparatory Con- 
ference was held at Sirmium at the end of May in this year ; in which 
the Creed was determined which should be laid before the great 
- Councils which were assembling. Basil and Mark were the chief 
Semi-Arians present, and in the event became committed to an almost 
Arian Confession. Soz. iv. 16. p. 562. It was finally settled on the 
Eve of Pentecost, and the dispute lasted till morning. Epiph. Her. 73. 
22. Mark at length was chosen to draw it up, Soz. iv. 22. p. 573. 
yet Valens so managed that Basil could not sign it without an ex- 
planation. It was written in Latin, Soer. ii. 30. Soz. iv. 17. p. 563. 
Coustant, however, in Hil. Ρ- 1152, note i, seems to consider this 
dispute and Mark’s confession to belong to the same date (May 22) 
in the foregoing year; but p. 1363, note b, to change his opinion. 

Petayius, who, Animady. in Epiph. p. 318, follows Socrates in con- 
sidering that the second Sirmian is the Confession which the Arians 
tried to suppress, nevertheless, de Trin. i. 9. § 8, yields to the testi- 
mony of Athanasius in behalf of the third, attributing the measure to 
their dissatisfaction with the phrase “ Like in all things,” which 
Constantius had inserted, and with Basil’s explanation on subscribing 
it, and to the hopes of publishing a bolder creed which their increas- 
ing influence with Constantius inspired. He does not think it 

M 2 


Norte 
LG 
ON 
Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 


SELEU. 


Eusebians attempted to suppress the second Confession ; and conjec- 


164. Sirmian Confessions. 


impossible, however, that an attempt was made to suppress both. 
Coustant, again, in Hil. p. 1363, note b, asks when it could be that the 


tures that the ridicule which followed their dating of the third and their 
wish to get rid of the “ Like in all things,” were the causes of their 
anxiety about it. He observes too with considerable speciousness 
that Acacius’s second formulary at Seleucia (Confession ixth, supr. 
p- 123) and the Confession of Nice (xth, supr. p. 125) resemble 
second editions of the third Sirmian. Valesius in Soer. ii. 30, and 
Montfaucon in Athan. Syn. § 29, take the same side. 

Pagi in Ann. 357. n. 13. supposes that the third Sirmian was the 
Creed signed by Liberius. Yet Coustant, in Hil. p. 1335, note n, 
speaking of Liberius’s, “ perfidia Ariana,” as S. Hilary calls it, says, 
“Solus Valesius existimat tertiam [confessionem]| hic memorari:” 
whereas Valesius, making four, not to say five, Sirmian Creeds, un- 
derstands Liberius to have signed, not the third, but an intermediate 
one, between the second and third, as Petavius does, in Soz. iv. 15 
and 16. Moreover, Pagi fixes the date as A. D. 358. ibid. 

This Creed, thus drawn up by a Semi-Arian, with an Acacian or 
Arian appendix, then a Semi-Arian insertion, and after all a Semi- 
Arian protest on subscription, was proposed at Seleucia by Acacius, 
Soz. iy. 22. and at Ariminum by Valens, Socr. ii. 37. p. 132. 


7. A.D. 359. Nicene Edition of the third Sirmian, 
(Tenth Confession, supr. p. 125.) 


The third Sirmian was rejected both at Seleucia and Ariminum ; 
but the Eusebians, dissolving the Council of Seleucia, kept the Fathers 
at Ariminum together through the summer and autumn. Mean- 
while at Nice in Thrace they confirmed the third Sirmian, Soer. ii. 
37. p- 141, Theod. Hist. ii. 16, with the additional proscription of 
the word hypostasis ; apparently lest the Latins should by means of 
it evade the condemnation of the “‘ One in substance.” This Creed, 
thus altered, was ultimately accepted at Ariminum; and was con- 
firmed in January 360 at Constantinople; Socr. ii. 41. p. 153, Soz. 
iv. 24 init. 

Liberius retrieved his fault on this occasion; for, whatever was the 
confession he had signed, he now refused his assent to the Arimi- 


nian, and, if Socrates is to be trusted, was banished in consequence, 
Socr. ii. 37. p. 140. 


NOTE on page 147. 


On the alleged Confession of Antioch against Paul of 
Samosata. 


A number of learned writers have questioned the fact, testified by 
three Fathers, S. Athanasius, 8. Basil, and S. Hilary, of the rejection 
of the word ὁμοούσιον in the Antiochene Council against Paul be- 
tween A.D. 264—270. It must be confessed that both S. Athanasius 
and 5. Hilary speak from the statements of the Semi-Arians, without 
having seen the document which the latter had alleged, while S. Basil 
who speaks for certain lived later. It must also be confessed, that 
S. Hilary differs from the two other Fathers in the reason he gives 
for the rejection of the word. There is, however, a further argument 
urged against the testimony of the three Fathers of a different kind. 
A Creed, containing the word, is found in the acts of the Council of 
Ephesus 431, purporting to be a Definition of faith “‘ of the Nicene 
Council, touching the Incarnation, and an Exposition against Paul 
of Samosata.”” This Creed, which (it is supposed) is by mistake re- 
ferred to the Nicene Council, is admitted as genuine by Baronius, 
J. Forbes (Instr. Hist. Theol. i. 4. § 1), Le Moyne (Var. Sacer. t. 2. 
p- 255), Wormius (Hist. Sabell. p. 116—119: vid. Routh, Rell. t. 2. 
p- 523), Simon de Magistris (Pref. ad Dionys. Alex. p. xl), Feverlin 
(Diss. de P. Samos. § 9), Molkenbuhr (Dissert. Crit. 4), Kern 
(Disqu. Hist. Crit. on the subject), Dr. Burton in Faber’s Apostolicity 
of 'T'rinitarianism, vol. ii. p. 302. and Mr. Faber himself. As, how- 
ever, I cannot but agree with the President of Magdalen 1. ce. that 
the Creed is of a later date, (in his opinion, post lites exortas Nes- 
torianas,) or at least long after the time of Paul of Samosata, I will 
here set down one or two peculiarities in it which make me think so. 

The Creed is found in Harduin Concil. t. 1. p. 1640. Routh, 
Rell. t. 2. p. 524. Dionys. Alex. Oper. Rom. 1696 [1796]. p. 289. 
Burton, Testimonies, pp. 397—399. Faber, Trinitarianism, vol. 2. 
Ρ. 287. 

1. Now first, the Creed in question has these words: ὅλον ὅμο- 
ούσιον θεῷ καὶ μετὰ TOD σώματος, GAN οὐχὶ κατὰ τὸ σῶμα ὁμοούσιον τῷ 
θεῷ. Now to enter upon the use of the word ὁμοούσιον, as applied 
to the Holy Trinity, would be foreign to my subject ; and to refer to 
the testimony of the three Fathers, would be assuming the point at 
issue ; but still there are other external considerations besides, which 
may well be taken into account. 

(1) And first the Fathers speak of it as a new term,i.e. in Creeds. 
“To meet the irreligion of the Arian heretics, the Fathers framed 
the new name Homoiision.” August. in Joann. 97. n. 4 [p. 904 
O.T.|. He says that it was misunderstood at Ariminum “ propter 
novitatem yerbi” (contr. Maxim. ii. 3), though it was the legitimate 
“offspring of the ancient faith.” Vigilius also says, ‘an ancient 


Note 
Il. 
ON 

Counc. 

ARIM. 

AND 


SELEU. 


166 Alleged Confession of Antioch 


subject received the new name Homoision.” Disp. Ath. et Ar. t. v. 
p. 695. (the paging wrong.) Bibl. P. Col. 1618. [Bibl. Max. Vet. 
Patr. 8. 757 fin.| vid. Le Moyne. Var. Saer. 1. ὁ. 

(2) Next Sozomen informs us, Hist. iv. 1. (as we have seen 
above, p. 162.) that the Creed against Paul was used by the Semi- 


- Arians at Sirmium, A.D. 358, in order to the composition of the 


Confession, which Liberius signed. Certainly then, if this be so, we 
cannot suspect it of containing the ὁμοούσιον. 

(3) Again, we have the evidence of the Semi-Arians themselves to 
the same point in the documents which Epiphanius has preserved, 
Her. 73. They there appeal to the Council against Paul as an 
authority for the use of the word οὐσία, and thereby to justify their 
own ὁμοιούσιον ; which they would hardly have done, if that Council 
had sanctioned the ὁμοούσιον as well as οὐσία. But moreover, as we 
have seen, supr. p. 162, the last Canon of their Council of Ancyra 
actually pronounced anathema upon the ὁμοούσιον ; but if so, with 
what face could they appeal to a Council which made profession 
of it ? 

(4) And there is nothing improbable in the Antiochene Council 
having suppressed or disowned it; on the contrary, under their cir- 
cumstances it was almost to be expected. The Fathers concerned in 
the first proceedings against Paul, Dionysius, Gregory of Neocesarea, 
Athenodorus, and perhaps Firmilian, were immediate disciples of 
Origen, who is known to have been very jealous of the corporeal 
ideas concerning the Divine Nature which Paul (according to Atha- 
nasius and Basil) imputed to the word ὁμοούσιον. There were others 
of the Fathers who are known to have used language of a material 
cast, and from them he pointedly differs. Tertullian speaks of the 
Divine Substance as a corpus, in Prax. 7. and he adopts the Valen- 
tinian word προβολὴ. as Justin had used προβληθὲν γέννημα (vid. supr. 
p- 97, note h), whereas Origen in his controversy with Candidus, who 
was of that heresy, condemns it; and he speaks in strong language 
against the work of Melito of Sardis, περὶ ἐνσωμάτου θεοῦ, in Genes. 
Fragm.t.2.p.25,whom he accuses of teaching it. vid. also de Orat. 23. 
His love of Platonism would tend the same way, for the Platonists, in 
order to mark their idea of the perfection and simplicity of the Divine . 
Nature, were accustomed to consider It ‘‘ above substance.” 

Thus Plotinus calls the Divine Being the “origin of being and 
more excellent than substance.” 5 Ennead. ν. 11. and says that He 
* transcends all, and is the cause of them, but is not they.” ibid. c. 
ult. The views of physical necessity too, which the material system 
involved, led him to speak of His energy and will being His substance. 
6 Enn. viii. 13. And hence Origen; ‘ Nor doth God partake of 
substance, rather He is partaken, than partakes.” contr. Cels. vi. 64. 
And thus the word ὑπερούσιον is used by Pseudo-Dion. de div. nom. i. 
n. 2. whose Platonic tone of thought is well known; as by S. Maximus, 
‘“‘Properly substance is not predicated of God, for He is ὑπερούσιος." 
in Pseudo-Dion. de div. nom. vy. init. Vid. also Dam. F. Ὁ. i. 4. 
and 8. pp. 137. 147. while S. Greg. Naz. also speaks of Him as ὑπὲρ 
τὴν οὐσίαν. Orat. 6. 12. 


against Paul of Samosata. 167 


Nay further, in Joann. t. 20. 16. Origen goes so far as to object 
to the phrase ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς γεγεννῆσθαι τὸν υἱὸν, but: still 
assigning the reason that such a phrase introduced the notion of a 
μείωσις, or the like corporeal notions, into our idea of God. 

It is scarcely necessary to add, that there was no more frequent 
charge against the ὁμοούσιον in the mouths of the Arians, than that 
it involved the Gnostic and Manichzan doctrine of materiality in the 
Divine Nature. vid. supr. p. 17, note 1; p. 63, note h. 

Again we know also that S. Dionysius did at first decline or at 
least shrink from the word ὁμοούσιον, accepting it only when the 
Bishop of Rome urged it upon him. But an additional reason for 
such reluctance is found in the rise of Manichzism just in the time 
of these Councils against Paul, a heresy which adopted the word 
ὁμοούσιον in its view of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and that in 
a material sense; so that the very circumstances of the case exactly 
fall in with and bear out the account of their rejection of the word 
given by the two Fathers. 

(5) Nor is there any thing in 8. Hilary’s reason for it inconsistent 
with the testimony of S. Athanasius and S. Basil. Both accounts 
may be true at once. The philosophical sense of οὐσία, as we have 
seen, supr. p. 152, note a, was that of an individual or unit. When 
then the word ὁμοούσιος was applied to the Second Person in the 
Blessed Trinity, or He was said to be of one substance with the 
Father, such a doctrine, to those who admitted of no mystery in the 
subject, involved one of two errors, according as the οὐσία was 
considered a spiritual substance or a material. Either it implied that 
the Son of God was a part of God, or μέρος ὁμοούσιον, which was the 
Manichean doctrine; or if the οὐσία were immaterial, then, since it 
denoted an individual being, the phrase “ one in substance” involved 
Sabellianism. Paul then might very naturally have urged this 
dilemma upon the Council, and said, “ Your doctrine implies the 
ὁμοούσιον, which is Manichzan, unless it be taken, as I am willing to 
take it, in a Sabellian sense.” And thus it might be at once true as 
Athanasius says, that Paul objected, ‘‘ Unless Christ has of man be- 
come God, it follows that He is One in substance with the Father ; 
and if so, of necessity there are three substances, &c.” supr. § 40. 
and also, according to Hilary’s testimony “‘ Homousion Samosatenus 
confessus est ; sed nunquid melius Ariani negaverunt 2” de Syn. 86. 


, 2. The Creed also says, μετὰ τῆς θεότητος ὧν κατὰ σάρκα ὁμοούσιος 
ἡμῖν. 

There are strong reasons for saying that the phrase ὁμοούσιος ἡμῖν 
is of a date far later than the Council of Antioch. 

(1) Waterland considers the omission of the phrase in the Athan- 
asian Creed as an argument that it was written not lower than “‘Euty- 
chian times,” A.D. 451. ‘A tenet,” he observes of it, ‘ expressly 
held by some of the ecclesiastical writers before Eutyches’s time, but 
seldom or never omitted in the Creeds or Confessions about that time, 
or after. To be convinced,” he proceeds, “ of the truth of this... . 
article, one need but look into the Creeds and Formularies of those 


Nore 
Il. 
ΟΝ 

Counc. 

ARIM. 

AND 


SELEU. 


Note ἢ 


II. 
ON 
Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 


SELEv. 


168 Alleged Confession of Antioch 


times, viz. into that of Turribius of Spain in 447, of Flavian of Con- 
stantinople, as also of Pope Leo in 449, of the Chalcedon Council in 
451, of Pope Felix III, in 485, and Anastasius IT, in 496, and of the 
Church of Alexandria in the same year; as also into those of Pope 
Hormisdas, and the Churches of Syria, and Fulgentius, and the Em- 
peror Justinian, and Pope John II, and Pope Pelagius I, within the 
6th century. In all which we shall find either express denial of one 
nature, or express affirmation of two natures, or the doctrine of 
Christ’s consubstantiality with us, or all three together, though they 
are all omitted in the Athanasian Creed.” yol. iv. p. 247. 

(2) The very fact of Eutyches denying it seems to shew that the 
phrase was not familiar, or at least generally received, in the Church 
before. ‘‘ Up to this day,” he says in the Council of Constantinople, 
A.D. 448, “I have never said that the Body of our Lord and God 
was consubstantial with us, but 1 confess that the Holy Virgin was 
consubstantial with us, and that our God was inearnate of her.’’ Cone. 
τ. 2. p. 164, 5. [Harduin; t. 4. 1013 fin. ed. Col.] The point at 
issue, as in other controversies, seems to have been the reception or 
rejection of a phrase, which on the one hand was as yet but in local 
or private use, and on the other was well adapted to exclude the 
nascent heresy. ‘The Eutychians denied in like manner the word 
φύσις, which, it must be confessed, was seldom used till their date, 
when the doctrine it expressed came into dispute. And so of the 
phrase ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ, and of ὑπόστασις ; vid. Note, supr. p. 71. 

Now the phrase “ consubstantial with us’ seems to have been in- 
troduced at the time of the Apollinarian controversy, and was natu- 
rally the Catholic counter-statement to the doctrine of Apollinaris 
that Christ’s body was “ consubstantial to the Godhead ;” a doctrine 
which, as Athanasius tells us, ad Epict. 2. was new to the world when 
the Apollinarians brought it forward, and, according to Epiphanius, 
was soon abandoned by them, Her. 77, 25. It is natural then to 
suppose that the antagonist phrase, which is here in question, came 
into use at that date, and continued or was dropped according to the 
prevalence of the heretical tenet. Moreover both sections into which 
the Apollinarians soon split, seemed to have agreed to receive the 
phrase “‘ consubstantial with us,” and only disputed whether it con-— 
tinued to be predicable of our Lord’s body on and after its union with 
the divine Nature. vid. Leont. de fraud. Apollin. and this of course 
would be an additional reason against the general Catholic adoption of 
the phrase. It occurs however in the Creed of John of Antioch, 
A.D. about 431, on which 8. Cyril was reconciled to him. Rustic. 
contr. Aceph. p. 709. but this is only twenty-one years before the 
Council of Chalcedon, in which the phrase was formally received, as 
the ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ was received at Nicza. ibid. p. 805. 

The counter-statement more commonly used by the orthodox to 
that of the flesh being ὁμοούσιον θεότητι, was not ‘* consubstantial 
with us,” but “‘consubstantial with Mary.” S. Amphilochius speaks 
thus generally, “ It is plain that the holy Fathers said that the Son 
was consubstantial with His Father according to the Godhead and con- 
substantial with His Mother according to the manhood.” apud Phot. 


against Paul of Samosata. 169 


Bibl. p. 789. Proclus, A.D. 434, uses the word ὁμόφυλον, and still 
with “ the Virgin.” τῷ πατρὶ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα ὁμοούσιος, οὕτως ὃ αὐτὸς 
καὶ τῇ παρθένῳ κατὰ τὴν σάρκα ὁμόφυλος. ad Arm. p. 618, cire. init. 
vid. also p. 613 fin. p. 618. He uses the word ὁμοούσιον frequently 
of the Divine Nature as above, yet this does not suggest the other 
use of it. Another term is used by Athanasius, tov ἡνωμένον πατρὶ 
κατὰ πνεῦμα, ἡμῖν δὲ κατὰ σάρκα. apud Theod. Eranist. ii. p. 139. 
Or again that He took flesh of Mary, e.g. οὐκ ἐκ Μαρίας ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῆς 
ἑαυτοῦ οὐσίας σῶμα. ad Epict. 2. Or τέλειος ἄνθρωπος, e.g. Proel. 
ad Arm. p. 613. which, though Apollinaris denied, Eutyches allowed, 
Concil. t. 2. p. 157. Leon. Ep. 21. 

However, S. Eustathius (A.D. 325.) says that our Lord’s soul was 
ταῖς ψυχαῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὁμοούσιος, ὥσπερ καὶ ἡ σὰρξ ὁμοούσιος TH 
τῶν ἀνθρώπων σαρκί. ap. Theod. Eranist. i. p. 56. vid. also Leont. 
contr. Nestor. et Eutych. Ρ- 977. and S. Ambrose, ibid. Dial. ii. Ρ. 
139. ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, καὶ ὁμοούσιον ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν 
ἀνθρωπότητα, but the genuineness of the whole extract is extremely 
doubtful, as indeed the Benedictines almost grant. t. 2. p. 729. 
Waterland, Athan. Creed, ch. 7. p- 254. seems to think the internal 
evidence strong against its genuineness, but yields to the external ; 
and Coustant (App. Epist. Pont. Rom. p. 79) considers Leontius a 
different author from the Leontius de Sectis, on account of his mis- 
takes. Another instance is found in Theophilus ap. Theod. Eranist. 
li. p. 154. 

This contrast becomes stronger still when we turn to documents 
of the alleged date of the Confession. A letter of one of the Coun- 
cils 263—270, or of some of its Bishops, is still extant, and exhibits 
a very different phraseology. Instead of ὁμοούσιος ἡμῖν we find the 
vaguer expressions, not unlike Athanasius, &c. of the Son “ being 
made flesh and made man,” and “the Body from the Virgin,” and 
**man of the seed of David,” and “ partaking of flesh and blood.” 
Routh Rell. t.2. p.473. And the use of the word οὐσία is different ; 
and its derivatives are taken to convey the idea, neither of the divine 
nature of our Lord, nor the human, but of the divine nature sub- 
stantiated or become a substance, in the material world: almost as if 
under the feeling that God in Himself is above substance, as I had 
just now occasion to mention. E.g. Pseudo-Dionysius asks πῶς 6 
ὑπερούσιος ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀνθρωποφυιαῖς ἀληθείαις οὐσίωται. Myst. Theol. iii 
vid. also de Diy. Nom. i. 2. and Epist. 4. Hence Africanus says, 
οὐσίαν ὅλην οὐσιωθεὶς, ἄνθρωπος λέγεται. African. Chron. ap. Routh, 
t. 2. p. 125. In like manner the Antiochene Fathers insist, καθὸ 
Χριστὸς, ἕν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ὧν τῇ οὐσίᾳ. Routh Rel. t. 2. p. 474. and 
Malchion at the same Council accuses Paul of not admitting οὐσιῶσθαι 
ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ σωτῆρι τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ. ibid. p. 476. or that the Son 
was “substantially present in the whole Saviour.” vid. also p. 485. 
In all these passages οὐσία is used for nothing else than substance, 
whereas in the phrase ὁμοούσιον ἡμῖν it rather stands for φύσις or 
yévos. And so much was the former its meaning in the earlier times, 
that Hippolytus plainly denies that men are one substance one with 
another ; for he asks, μὴ πάντες ἕν σῶμά ἐσμεν κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν; contr. 
Noet. 7. And this moreover altogether agrees with what was said 


Note 
LE 
ON 

Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 


SELEU- 


ΝΟΤΕ 
II. 
ON 

Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 


SELEv. 


170 Alleged Confession of Antioch 


above, that in Paul’s argument against the ὁμοούσιον πατρὶ the word 
οὐσία was taken (and rightly) in what Aristotle as Anastasius (Hodeg. 
6. p. 96), and Theorian (Leg. p. 441), after him, assigns as the proper 
sense of the word, viz. an individual, and not a common nature. 


3. The Creed also speaks of our Lord as ἕν πρόσωπον σύνθετον ἐκ 
θεότητος οὐρανίου καὶ ἀνθρωπείας σαρκός. 

Now the word σύνθετον. in the Latin compositum, is found in the 
fragment of Malchion’s disputation in the Council. Routh Rell. t. 2. 
Ρ- 476. But πρόσωπον and σύνθετον πρόσωπον seem to me of a later 
date. 

The word persona, applied to our Lord in His two natures and 
in contrast with them, is to be found in Tertull. contr. Prax. 27. 
Though, however, it was not absolutely unknown to ecclesiastical 
authors, this is a very rare instance of its early occurrence. 

We also find Novatian de Trin. 21. speaking of the “ regula cirea 
Personam Christi;” and considering his great resemblance to Ter- 
tullian, it may be supposed that persona here denotes, not merely 
our Lord’s subsistence in the Holy Trinity, but in His two natures. 
But on the other hand, he uses Christus absolutely for the Second 
Person all through his Treatise, 6. g. 9. init. “ Regula veritatis docet 
nos credere post patrem etiam in Filium Dei Christum Jesum, 
Dominum Deum nostrum, sed Dei filium, &e.” Again, ““ Christus 
habet gloriam ante mundi institutionem.” 16. vid. also 13. where he 
speaks of Christ being made flesh, as if the name were synonymous 
with “ Word ” in the text, John i. 14. And, moreover, subsequently 
to ** persona Christi,” he goes on to speak of “ secundam personam 
post Patrem.” 26 and 31. vid. also 27. 

However, in spite of these instances, one might seem to say con- 
fidently, if a negative can be proved, that it was not in common use 
at soonest before the middle of the fourth century, and perhaps not 
till much later. 

(1) [have not discovered it in S. Athanasius’s treatises against 
Apollinarianism, which were written about 370, except in two places, 
which shall be spoken of presently. Nor in S. Gregory Naz.’s Ep. 
202. ad Nectar. and Ep. 101. 102. ad Cledon. Nor in δ. Gregory 
Nyssen. Fragm. in Apollinarem. Nor in Theodoret’s Eranistes, 
except in one place, ina Testimony, given to S. Ambrose, and which 
has already been mentioned as probably spurious. Nor is it found 
in the Creed of Damasus, by whom Apollinaris was condemned, vid. 
Epp. 2 and 3; nor among the testimonies of the Fathers cited at the 
Council of Ephesus ; nor in Epiphanius’s Creed; Ancor. 121. vid. 
also 75. 

(2) It is not used in passages where it might have been expected, 
but other modes of speech are usual instead; and that by a sort 
of rule, so as to make them almost technical, or with such variety 
of expression as pointedly to mark the omission; 6. ρ΄. for “ two 
natures and one Person” we always find οὐκ ἄλλο, ἄλλο, ---εἷς,-- ἕν,-- -ὃ 
αὐτός. &e. &e. 

S. Irenzeus :—Non ergo alterum filium hominis noyit Evangelium, 
nisi hune qui ex Maria, &e. et ewndem hune passum resurrex- 


against Paul of Samosata, 171 


isse... Etsi Ππρπὰ quidem confitentur weum Jesum Christum, 
...alterum quidem passum, et natum, &ce. et esse alferum eorum, 
&e. Her. iii. 16.n.5. 6 [p. 267 O.T]. unus quidem et idem existens, 
n. 7. per multa dividens Filium Dei. n. 8. unum et eundem, ibid. Si 
alter... alter, ... quoniam unum eum novit Apostolus, &c.n. 9. The 
passage upon the subject is extended to c. xxiv. 

S. Ambrose :—Unus in utraque [divinitate et carne] loquitur Dei 
Filius ; quia in eodem utraque natura est; et si idem loquitur, non 
uno semper loquitur modo. de fid. ii. 9. vid. 58. Non divisus sed 
unus ; quia utrumque unus, et unus in utroque .. . non enim alter 
ex Patre, alter ex Virgine, sed idem aliter ex Patre, aliter ex Virgine, 
de Incarn. 35. vid. 47. 75. and Non enim quod ejusdem substantize 
est, unus, sed unum est, 77. where persona follows of the Holy 
Trinity. 

S. Hilary :—WNon alius filius hominis quam qui filius Dei est neque 
alius in forma Dei quam qui in forma servi perfectus homo natus 
est; .... habens in se et totum verumque quod homo est, et totum 
verumque quod Deus est. de Trin. x. 19. Cum ipse il/e filius hominis 
ipse sit qui et filius Dei, quia totus hominis filius totus Dei filius 
sit, &c.... Natus autem est, non ut esset alius atque alius, sed ut 
ante hominem Deus, suscipiens hominem, homo et Deus possit 
intelligi. ibid. 22. Non potest... ita ab se dividuus esse, ne Christus 
sit; cum non alius Christus, quam qui in forma Dei, &ce. neque 
alius quam qui natus est, &c... . neque alius quam qui est mortuus, 
Χο. in celis autem non alius sit quam qui &c. ibid. ut non idem 
fuerit qui et, &c. ibid. 50. Totum ei Deus Verbum est, totum ei 
homo Christus est, . .. nee Christum aliud credere quam Jesum, nee 
Jesum aliud predicare quam Christum. 52. 

And in like manner S. Athanasius :—a)Aos, ἄλλος: ἕτερος, ἕτερος" 
εἷς καὶ αὐτός: ταὐτόν, ἀδιαίρετος, Orat. iv. § 15. and 29. ἄλλος, ἄλλος: 
§ 90. ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτόν. ὃ 31. οὐχ ὡς τοῦ λόγου κεχωρισμένου. ibid. 
τὸν πρὸς αὐτοῦ ληφθέντα, ᾧ καὶ ἠνῶσθαι πιστεύεται, ἄνθρωπον ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ 
χωρίζουσι. ibid. τὴν ἀνεκφραστὸν ἕνωσιν. ὃ 32. τὸ θεῖον ἕν καὶ ἁπλοῦν 
μυστήριον. ibid. τὴν ἑνότητα. ibid. ὅλον αὐτὸν ἄνθρωπόν τε καὶ θεὸν 
ὁμοῦ. § 35. vid. especially the long discussion in Orat. iii. § 30—58. 
where there is hardly a technical term. 

Other instances of ecclesiastical language are as follows :—Mediam 
inter Deum et hominum substantiam gerens. Lactant. Instit. iv. 13. 
θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος τέλειος ὁ αὐτός. Meliton. apud Routh, Rell. i. p. 
115. ex eo quod Deus est, et ex illo quod homo... permixtus et 
sociatus ...alterum vident, alterum non vident. Novat. de Trin. 25. 
vid. also 11, 14, 21, and 24. duos Christos... unum, alium. Pam- 
phil. Apol. ap. Routh, Rell. t. 4. p. 320. 6 αὐτός ἐστιν det πρὸς ἑαυτὸν 
ὡσαύτως ἔχων Greg. Nyss. t. 2. p. 696. ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτόν. Greg. Naz. 
Ep. 101. p. 85. ἄλλο μὲν καὶ ἄλλο τὰ ἐξ ὧν ὃ Σωτήρ. οὐκ ἄλλος δὲ Kat 
ἄλλος. p. 86. 

Vid. also Athan. contr. Apollin. i. 10 fin. 11 fin. 13 6. 16 b. ii. 1 init. 
5 6. 12 e. 18. cire. fin. Theoph. Alex. apud Theod. Eranist. ii. p. 154. 
Hilar. ibid. p. 162. Attic. ibid. p. 167. Jerom. in Joan. Ieros. 35. 

A corresponding phraseology and omission of the term “ person” 
is found in the undoubted Epistle of the Antiochene Fathers; τὸ ἐκ 


ΝΌΤΕ 
ΕΠ: 
ΟΝ 
Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 


SELEU. 


172 Alleged Confession of Antioch 


τῆς παρθένου σῶμα χωρῆσαν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς, 
τῇ θεότητι ἀἁ ἀτρέπτως ἥνωται καὶ τεθεοποίηται:" οὗ χάριν ὃ αὐτὸς θεὸς καὶ 
ἄνθρωπος κι το λ. Routh, Rell. t. 2. p. 473. οὕτω καὶ ὃ Χριστὸς πρὸ τῆς 
σαρκώσεως ὡς εἷς ὠνόμασται. καθὸ Χριστὸς ἕ εν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ὼν τῇ οὐσίᾳ. 
ibid. p. 474. εἰ ἄλλο μὲν .. ἄλλο δὲ... δύο υἱούς. ibid. p. 485. And 
so Malchion, Unus factus est... nnitage subsistens, &c. ibid. p. 476. 

(3) It is indisputable too that the word πρόσωπον is from time 
to time used of our Lord by the early writers in its ordinary vague 
sense, which is inconceivable if it were already received in creeds as 
an ecclesiastical symbol. 

E. g. S. Clement calls the Son the “person” or countenance, 
πρόσωπον, “ of the Father.” Strom. v. 6. p. 665. and Pedag. i. 7. 
p- 132. vid. also Strom. vii. 10. p. 886. And so ἐν προσώπῳ πατρὸς, 
Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 22 (vid. supr. p. 114, note ἃ). and even Cyril 
Alex. Dial. ν. p. 554. Vid. also Cyril. Catech. xii. 14 fin. ὁμοιοπρό- 
owrov. Chrysostom speaks of δύο πρόσωπα. i. 6. human and divine, 
διῃρημένα κατὰ τὴν ὑπόστασιν. in Hebr. Hom. iii. 1 fin. [p. 33 O.T.] 
where too he has just been speaking against Paul of Samosata, against 
whom the Creed which we are examining is alleged to have been 
written. vid. also Amphiloch. ap. Theod. Eranist. i. p. 67. who speaks 
of Christ as saying, ‘‘ My Father is greater than I,” ‘ from the flesh 
and not ἐκ προσώπου τῆς θεότητος." In these passages πρόσωπον seems 
to stand for character, as is not unusual in Athanasius, vid. supr. p. 
22. note z, where instances are given. And thus I would explain 
those passages referred to just above, in which he seems to use πρόσ- 
wrov for person, in Apoll. ii. 2. and 10. viz. ἐν διαιρέσει προσώπων, 
which Le Quien (in Damase. dialect. 43.) most unnecessarily calls an 
instance, and as he thinks solitary, of πρόσωπον being used for nature, 
though Athan. in one of the two passages explains the word himself, 
speaking of προσώπων ἢ ὀνομάτων. And this seems a truer explana- 
tion, though perhaps less natural, than to render it (supr. p. 22.) 
“not as if there were divisions of persons.” ‘These passages of 
Athan. might make us less decisive than Montfaucon as to the internal 
evidence against the fragment given in t. i. p. 1294. He says, after 
Sirmond in Facund. xi. 2. that it contains a doctrine “ab Athanasiana 
penitus abhorrentem ;” and this, because the Latin version, (another 
reason, but of a different kind, why it is difficult to judge of it,) 
speaks broadly of ‘‘duas personas, unam circa hominem, alteram 
cirea Verbum.” But besides the above instances, we find the same 
use in an extract from a work of Hippolytus preserved by Leontius, 
Hippol. t. 2. p. 45. where he speaks of Christ as δύο προσώπων μεσίτης, 
God and men. r 

Again S. Hilary speaks of utriusque nature personam. de Trin. 
ix. 14. ejus hominis quam assumpsit persona. in Psalm 63. n. 3. vid. 
also in Psalm 138. n. 5. and S. Ambrose, in persona hominis. de 
Fid. ii. n. 61. vy. n. 108. 124. Ep. 48. n. 4. From a passage quoted 
from Paschasius Diaconus, de Spir. ὃ ii. 4. p. 194. by Petavius (de 
Trin. iv. 4. § 3.) it seems that the use of the word persona in the 
sense of quality or state had not ceased even in the 6th century. 

*Further, it would seem as if the vague use of the word ** person,” 
as used in speaking of the Holy Trinity, which S. Theophilus and 


+ fa eter? ae 


ceo 


ΝΥ 


4. «πῶν hye Ἐξ ae: ells συν 


against Paul of Samosata. 173 


S. Clement above exemplify, on the whole ceased with the rise of 
the Sabellian controversy and the adoption of the word (as in Hippol. 
contr. Noet. 14.), as a symbol against the heresy. It is natural in 
like manner that till the great controversy concerning the Incarnation 
which Apollinaris began, a similar indistinctness should prevail in its 
use relatively to that doctrine. 

And hence S. Cyril in his 4th anathema is obliged to explain the 
word by the more accurately defined term hypostasis: εἴ τις προσώ- 
ποις δυσὶ, ἠγοῦν ὑποστάσεσι, K. τ. X- Vid. also the caution or protest 
of Vincentius Lirinens. Comm. 14. 

(4) Moreover, a contrast is observable between the later accounts 
or interpretations of early writings, and those writings themselves as 
far as we have them; words and phrases being imputed, which in the 
originals exist only in the ideas themselves intended by them. 

E.g. Ephrem of Antioch reports that S. Peter of Alexandria, 
S. Chrysostom, S. Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzen, &c. acknowledge the 
doctrine of ‘the union of two natures and one Subsistence and one 
Person.” ap. Phot. cod. 229. pp. 805—7. but Chrysostom, &c. uses 
the words and phrases, ἕνωσις, συνάφεια, ἕν ὃ θεὸς λόγος καὶ ἡ σάρξ; 
Nazianzen is silent about persona in his Ep. ad Cledon. to which 
Ephrem there refers, and Peter in all that remains of him uses such 
words as σὰρξ γενόμενος οὐκ ἀπελείφθη τῆς θεότητος" γέγονεν ἐν μητρᾷ 
τῆς παρθένου σάρξ᾽ θεὸς ἦν φύσει καὶ γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος φύσει. Routh 
Rell. t. 3. pp. 344—346. 

Again, let it be observed how S. Maximus comments upon 
S. Gregory Nazianzen’s words in the following passage: ‘* The great 
Gregory Theologus seems to me thus to teach in his great Apologetic, 
‘One, ἕν, out of both, and both through One,’ as if he would say, 
for as there is one out of both, that is, of two natures, One as a 
whole from parts according to the definition of hypostasis, so,” &ce. 
t. 2. p. 282. 

Instances of this kind, which are not unfrequent, make one suspi- 
cious of such passages of the Fathers as come to us in translation, as 
Theodoret’s and Leontius’s extract from S. Ambrose, of which notice 
has been taken above; especially as the common Latin versions in 
the current editions of the Greek Fathers offer parallel instances of 
the insertion of the words persona, &c. not in the original, merely for 
the sake of perspicuity. 

(5) It might be shewn too that according as alleged works of the 
Fathers are spurious or suspected, so does persona appear as one of 
their theological terms. The passage of S. Ambrose above cited is 
in point ; but it would carry us too far from the subject to illustrate 
this as fully as might be done; nor is it necessary. Another specimen, 
however, may be taken from S. Athanasius. The absence of πρόσωπον 
from his acknowledged works has already been noticed; but let us 
turn to the fragments at the end of vol. 1. of the Benedictine edition. 
E.g. p. 1279 is a fragment which Montfaucon says olet quidpiam 
peregrinum, et videtur maxime sub finem Eutychianorum heresin 
impugnare ; it contains the word πρόσωπον. And a third is the letter 
to Dionysius falsely ascribed to Pope Julius, in which as_ before 


ΝΟΤΕ 
Li: 
ON 

Counc. 

ARIM. 

AND 


SELEU. 


Note 
II. 
ON 


Counc. 


ARIM, 
AND 


SELEU. 


174 Alleged Confession of Antioch 


πρόσωπον occurs, τι. 2. Coust. Ep. Pont. Rom. Append. p. 62. And 
for a fourth we may refer to the ἔκθεσις τῆς κατὰ μέρος πίστεως ascribed 
to S. Gregory Thaumaturgus, one of the Antiochene Fathers, but 
which according to Eulogius ap. Phot. cod. 230. p. 846. is an Apol- 
linarian forgery; it too uses the word “ persona” of the union of 
natures in our Lord. And for a fifth to the Serm. in S. Thomam, 
which is quoted by the 6th General Council as 8. Chrysostom’s, but 
which Montfaucon and his other Editors consider spurious, and Tille- 
mont considers preached at Edessa, A.D. 402. It contains the word 
πρόσωπον. Ed. Ben. tom. 8. part 2. p. 14. 

(6) Too many words would have been spent on this point, were it 
not for the eminent writers who have maintained the genuineness of 
the Creed in question ; and in particular, were it not for the cireum- 
stance, which is at first sight of great cogency, that Tertullian, whose 
acquaintance with Greek theology is well known, not only contains 
in his contr. Prax. a fully developed statement of the ecclesiastical 
doctrine of the Incarnation, but uses the very word persona or 
πρόσωπον which has here been urged in disproof of the genuine- 
ness of the Creed under consideration. 

Such passages shall here be subjoined as contain the word in its 
ecclesiastical sense, as far as 1 have met with them. 

In the extracts of the letters of Apollinaris and his disciples who 
wrote against each other (A.D. 380) the word occurs ap. Leont. 
p- 1033 b. p. 1087 b. p. 1039 b. as well as the ὁμοούσιον ἡμῖν as 
noticed above. 

Also in an extract of Apollinaris, ap. Theod. Eranist. ii. p. 173. 

By an auctor against the Arians whom Sirmond called anti- 
quissimus. Opp. t. i. p. 229. 

By 8. Athanasius, that is, as quoted by Euthymius, ap. Petay. 
Inearn. ili. 15, note 19. 

By S. Gregory Nyss. ap. Damase. contr. Jacob. t. i. p. 424. 

By 5. Amphilochius, ap. Damase. ibid. et ap. Anast. Hod. 10. 
Ρ- 162. and ap. Ephrem ap. Phot. p. 828. 

In a Greek Version of 8. Ambrose, ap. Phot. p. 805. 

By S. Chrysostom, Ep. ad Cesar. fin. 

By Isidore Pelus, p. 94. Epist. i. 360. 

In Pelagius’s Creed, A.D. 418. in 5. August. Opp. t. 12. p. 210. 

By S. Augustine, contr. Serm. Arian. 8. Ep. ad Volusian. 137. n. 11. 
de Corr. et Grat. 30. and passim. 

By Proclus ad Armen. p. 615. 

After the third General Council, A.D. 431, of course the word 
becomes common. 

(7) It may be objected, that Paul of Samosata himself maintained 


_ a Nestorian doctrine, and that this would naturally lead to the adop- 


tion of the word πρόσωπον to represent our Lord’s unity in His two 
natures, as it had already been adopted 60 years before by Hip- 
polytus to denote His Divine subsistence against Noetus. But there 
is no good evidence of Paul’s doctrine being of this nature, though 
it seems to have tended to Nestorianism in his followers. I allude to 
a passage in Athan. Orat. iv. § 30 [infra pp. 549, 550], where he says, 


» 


against Paul of Samosata. 175 


that some of the Samosatenes so interpreted Acts x. 36, as if the Word 
was sent to “‘ preach peace through Jesus Christ.” As far as the frag- 
ments of the Antiochene Acts state or imply, he taught more or less, 
as follows :—that the Son’s pre-existence was only in the divine fore- 
knowledge, Routh Rell. t. 2. p. 466. that to hold His substantial pre- 
existence was to hold two Gods, ibid. p. 467. that He was, if not an 
instrument, an impersonal attribute, p. 469. that His manhood was not 
*‘unalterably made one with the Godhead,” p. 473. “that the Word 
and Christ were not one and the same,” p. 474. that Wisdom was in 
Christ as in the prophets, only more abundantly, as in a temple; that 
He who appeared was not Wisdom, p. 475. in a word as it is summed 
up, p. 484. that ““ Wisdom was born with the manhood, not substantially, 
but according to quality.” vid. also pp. 476. 485. All this plainly 
shews that he held that our Lord’s personality was in His Manhood, 
but does not shew that he held a second personality in His godhead ; 
rather he considered the Word impersonal, though the Fathers in 
Council urge upon him that he ought to hold two Sons, one from 
eternity, and one in time, p. 485. 

Accordingly the Synodal Letter after his deposition speaks of him 
as holding that Christ came not from Heaven, but from beneath. 
Euseb. Hist. vii. 30. S. Athanasius’s account of his doctrine is alto- 
gether in accordance (vid. supr. p. 16, note i.), that Paul taught that 
our Lord was a mere man, and that He was advanced to His divine 
power, ἐκ προκοπῆς. 

However, since there was a great correspondence between Paul and 
Nestorius, (except in the doctrine of the personality and eternity of 
the Word, which the Arian controversy determined and the latter 
held,) it was not unnatural that reference should be made to the 
previous heresy of Paul and its condemnation when that of Nestorius 
was on trial. Yet the Contestatio against Nestorius which commences 
the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, Harduin. Cone. t. i. p. 1272. [t. 3 
pp- 888, 889 ed. Col.] and which draws out distinctly the parallel 
between them, says nothing to shew that Paul held a double person- 
ality. And though Anastasius tells us, Hodeg. c. 7. p. 108. that the 
‘holy Ephesian Council shewed that the tenets of Nestorius agreed 
with the doctrine of Paul of Samosata,” yet in c. 20. pp. 323, 4. he 
shews us what he means by saying that Artemon also before Paul 
** divided Christ in two.” Ephrem of Antioch too says that Paul held 
that “‘ the Son before ages was one, and the Son in the last time an- 
other.” ap. Phot. p. 814. but he seems only referring to the words of 
the Antiochene Acts, quoted above. Again, it is plain from what 
Vigilius says in Eutych. t. v. p. 731. Ed. Col. 1618. (the passage is 
omitted in Ed. Par. 1624.) that the Eutychians considered that Paul 
and Nestorius differed ; the former holding that our Lord was a mere 
man, the latter a mere man only till He was united to the Word. And 
Marius Mercator says, “‘ Nestorius circa Verbum Dei, non ut Paulus 
sentit, qui non substantivunt sed prolatitium potenti Dei efficax 
Verbum esse definit.” p. 50. Ibas, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, 
though more suspicious witnesses, say the same, vid. Facund. vi. 3. iii. 
2. and Leontius de Sectis, iii. p. 504. 


Note 
Il. 
ON 
Counc. 
ARIM. 
AND 


SELEU. 


Norte 
ΤΙ: 
ΟΝ 


Counc. 


ARIM. 
AND 


SELEv. 


176 Alleged Confession of Antioch against Paul of Samosata. 


The principal evidence in favour of Paul’s Nestorianism consists 
in the Letter of Dionysius to Paul and his answer to Paul’s Ten 
Questions, which are certainly spurious, as on other grounds, so on 
some of those here urged against the professed Creed of Antioch, 
but which Dr. Burton in his excellent remarks on Paul’s opinions, 
Bampton Lectures, No. 102, admits as genuine. And so does the 
accurate and cautious Tillemont, who in consequence is obliged to 
believe that Paul held Nestorian doctrines; also Bull, Fabricius, 
Natalis Alexander, &c. In holding these compositions to be spurious, 
I am following Valesius, Harduin, Montfaucon, Pagi, Mosheim, 
Caye, Routh, and others. 


It might be inquired in conclusion, whether after all the Creed 
does not contain marks of Apollinarianism in it, which, if answered in 
the affirmative, would tend to fix its date. As, however, this would 
carry us further still from our immediate subject in this Volume, it 
has been judged best not to enter upon the question. Some in- 
dulgence may fairly be asked for what has been already said, from 
its bearing upon the history of the word ὁμοούσιον. 


FOUR DISCOURSES 


OF 8. ATHANASIUS, 


ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, 


ἊΣ ΕΑ TINS Ty DP Heke, ΑΥΤΆ NS: 


DISCOURSE I. 


CHAP. I, 


INTRODUCTION. 


Reason for writing ; certain persons indifferent about Arianism ; 


Arians not 


Christians, because sectaries always take the name of their founder, 


1. Or all other heresies which have departed from the truth 


CuHap. 


it is acknowledged, that they have but devised* a madness !, 
and their irreligiousness * has long since become notorious 1 p° 9. 


to all men. 


For, that» their authors went out from us, it note 6; 
2 5) 


plainly follows, as the blessed John has written, that they note 4 


never thought nor now think with us. 


Wherefore, as saith * P- 1, 
note a. 


the Saviour,in that they gather not with us, theyscatter with . 

the devil, and keep an eye on those who slumber, that, by 

this second sowing ὅ of their own mortal poison, they may ? p.5, 

have companions in death. But, whereas one heresy and Ποῖ * 
that the last, which hasnow risen as harbinger‘ of Antichrist, ὁ P- 79, 


8 ἐπινοήσασαι. Thisis almost a tech- 
nical word, and has occurred again 
and again already, as descriptive of 
heretical teaching in opposition to the 
received traditionary doctrine. It is 
also found passim in others writers. 
Thus Socrates, speaking of the decree 
of the Council of Alexandria, 362, 
against Apollinaris; ‘‘for not originat- 
ing, ἐπινοήσαντες. any novel devotion, 
did they introduce it into the Church, 


note 

but what from the beginning the Eeele- Ὁ 
siastical Traditiondeclared.” Hist. iii. 
7. The sense of the word ἐπίνοια which 
will come into consideration below, is 
akin to this, being the view taken by 
the mind of an object independent of 
(whether or not correspondent to) the 
object itself. 

> τὸ yap ἐξελθεῖν. 
i.e. τῷ and so infr. 
προσκυνεῖσθαι... 


Ν 


. - δῆλον ἂν εἴη, 
8.49. τὸ δὲ καὶ 
. δῆλον ἂν εἴη. 


Disc. 


Job 41, 
4. Sept. 


178 Arians, unlike former heretics, appeal to Scripture. 


the Arian, as it is called, considering that other heresies, 
her elder sisters, have been openly proscribed, in her cun- 
ning and profligacy, affects to array herself in Scripture 
language‘, like her father the devil, and is forcing her way 
back into the Church’s paradise,—that with the pretence of 
Christianity, her smooth sophistry (for reason she has none) 
may deceive men into wrong thoughts of Christ,—nay, since 
she hath already seduced certain of the foolish, not only to 
corrupt their ears, but even to take and eat with Eve, tillim 
their ignorance which ensues they think bitter sweet, and 
admire this loathsome heresy, on this account I havethought 
it necessary, at your request, to unrip the folds of its breast- 
plate, and to shew the ill-savour of its folly. So while those 
who are far from it, may continue to shun it, those whom it 
has deceived may repent; and, opening the eyes of their 
heart, may understand that darkness is not light, nor false- 
hood truth, nor Arianism good ; nay, that those?’ who call 


© vid. infr. § 4 fin. That heresies 
before the Arian appealed to Scripture 
we learnfrom Tertullian, de Prescr. 42. 
who warns Catholics against indul- 
ging themselves in their own view of 
isolated texts against the voice of the 
Catholic Church. yid. also Vincentius, 
who specifies obiter Sabellius and No- 
vatian. Commonit. 2. Still Arianism 
was contrasted with other heresies on 
this point, as in these two respects ; 
(1.) theyappealed to a seeret tradition, 
unknown, eyen to most of the Apos- 
tles, as the Gnosties, Iren. Heer. iii. 1 
[p. 205 O.T.], or they professed a gift 
of prophecy introducing fresh revela- 
tions, as Montanists, supr. p. 78. and 
Manichees, Aug. contr. Faust. xxxii.6. 
(2.) The Arians availed themselves of 
certain texts as objections, argued 
keenly and plausibly from them, and 
would not be driven from them. Orat. 
ii. § 18. ο. Epiph. Her. 69. 15. Or rather 
they took some words of Scripture, 
and made their own deductions from 
them; viz. ‘‘ Son,” “‘made,”’ ‘‘exalted,”’ 
&c. ‘* Making their private irreligious- 
ness as if a rule, they misinterpret all 
the divine oracles by it.” Orat. i. § 52 
[infra p.256]. vid. also Epiph. Her. 76. 
5 fin. Hence we hear so much of their 
θρυλληταὶ φωναὶ. λέξεις, ἔπη. ῥητὰ, Say- 
ings in general circulation, which were 
commonly founded on some particular 
text. e.g. infr. ὃ 22 [p. 213] “amply 


providing themselyes with words of 
craft, they used to go about, &c. πε- 
pinpxovto.” vid. supr. p. 22. note y. 
Also ἄνω καὶ κάτω περιφέροντες, de decr. 
§ 18. τῷ ῥήτῳτεθρυλλήκασι τὰ παντα- 
χοῦ. Orat. 2.8 18 [p. 507]. τὸ πολυθρύλ- 
λητον σόφισμα, Basil. contr. Eunom. 
ii. 14. τὴν πολυθρύλλητον διαλεκτικὴν, 
Nyssen. contr. Eun. iii. p. 125. τὴν 
θρυλλουμένην ἀποῤῥοήν. Cyril. Dial. iy. 
p. 505. τὴνπολυθρύλλητον povny.Socr. 
ii. 43. 

4 These Orations or Discoursesseem 
written to shew the vital importance 
of the point in controversy, and the 
unchristian character of the heresy, 
without reference to the word ὁμοού- 
σιον. He has insisted in the works | 
above translated, p. 130. ref. 2. that 
the enforcement of the symbol was 
but the rejection of the heresy, and 
accordingly he is here content to bring 
out the Catholic sense, as feeling that, 
if persons understood and embraced 
it, they would not scruple at the 
word. He seems to allude to what 
may ke called the liberal or indif- 
ferent feeling as swaying the per- 
son for whom he writes, also infr. § 
7 fin. § 9. § 10 init. § 15 fin. § 17. 
§ 21. § 23. He mentions in Apollin. 
i. 6. one Rhetorius, who was an Egyp- 
tian, whose opinion, he says, it was 
‘** fearful to mention.’ S. Augustine 


tells us that this man taught that ‘all 


Arians for Christ follow Arius. 179 


these men Christians, are in great and grievous error, aS Cuap. 
neither having studied Scripture, nor understanding Chris- 
tianity at all, and the faith which it contains. 

2. For what have they discovered in this heresy like to the 
religious Faith, that they vainly talk as if its supporters said 
no evil? This in truth is to call even Caiaphas! a Christian, is Decr. 
and to reckon the traitor Judas still among the Apostles, and ἢ § ao PAs 
to say that they who asked Barabbas instead of the Saviour 41; 527, 
did no evil, and to reeommend Hymenzeus and Alexander Pe 
as right-minded men, and as if the Apostle slandered them. 
But neither can a Christian bear to hear this, nor can he 
consider the man who dared to say it sane in his under- 
standing. For with them for Christ is Arius, as with the 
Manichees Manichzeus ; and for Moses and the other saints 
they have made the discovery of one Sotades*, a man whom ? 
even Gentiles laugh at, and of the daughter of Herodias. 
For of the one has Arius imitated the dissolute and effemi- 
nate tone, in the Thalias which he has written after him; 
and the other he has rivalled in her dance, reeling and 
frolicking in his blasphemies against the Saviour ; till the 
victims of his heresy lose their wits and go foolish, and 3 vid. Hil, 
change the Name of the Lord of glory into the likeness of beep 
the image of corruptible man*, and for Christians* come Rom. 1, 
to be called Arians, bearing this badge of their irreligion. ri 27 

3. For let them not excuse themselves ; 


§ 2. 


p. 94, 
note ἃ. 


nor retort their note h. 
disgrace on those who are not as they, calling Christians 
after the names of their teachers’, that they themselves may 


heresies were in the right path, and call us Homoiisians, as Donatists Ma- 


spoke. truth,” ‘‘ which,” he adds, ‘is 
so absurd as to seem to me incredible.” 

Heer. 72. vid. also Philastr. Her. 91. 
© He seems to allude to Catholics 
being called Athanasians ; vid. however 
p- 181, ref. 1. Two distinctions are 
drawn between such a title as applied 
to Catholics, and again to heretics, 
when they are taken by Catholics asa 
note against them. S. Augustine says, 
** Arians call Catholics Athanasians or 
Homoiisians, not other heretics too. 
But ye not only by Catholics but also 
by heretics, those who agree with you 
and those who disagree, are called 
Pelagians ; as even by heresies are 
Arians called Arians. But ye, and ye 
only, call us Traducianists, as Arians 
N 


carians, as Manichees Pharisees, and 
as the other heretics use various titles.” 
Op. imp. i. 75. It may be added that 
the heretical name adheres, the Cath- 
olic dies away. S. Chrysostom draws 
a second distinction, ‘**‘ Are we divided 
from the Church? have we heresi- 
archs? are we called from man? is 
there any leader to us, as to one there 
is Marcion, to another Manichzeus, to 
another Arius, to another some other 
author of heresy? for if we too have 
the name of any, still it is not those 
who began the heresy, but our supe- 
riors and governors of the Church. 
We have not ‘ teachers upon earth,’” 
ἕο, in Act. Ap. Hom. 33 fin. [p. 466 
O.T.] ' 

9 


- 


Disc. 


1 vid. 
however 
p- 179, 
note e, 
fin. 


§ 3. 


180 Self-condemned in that they are called after Arius 


appear to have that Name in the same way. Nor let them 
make a jest of it, when they feel shame at their disgraceful 
appellation; rather, if they be ashamed, let them hide their 
faces, or let them recoil from their own irreligion. For 
never at any time did Christian people take their title from 
the Bishops! among them, but from the Lord, on whom we 
rest our faith. Thus, though the blessed Apostles have 
become our teachers, and have ministered the Saviour’s 
Gospel, yet not from them have we our title, but from Christ 
we are and are named Christians. But for those who derive 
the faith which they profess from others, good reason is it 
they should bear their name, whose property they have 


become ἢ, 


f vid. foregoing note. Also, ‘‘ Let us 
become His disciples, and learn to live 
according to Christianity ; for whoso is 
called by other name besides this, is not 
of God.” Ignat. ad Magn. 10. Hege- 
sippus speaks of ‘‘ Menandrians, and 
Marcionites, and Carpocratians, and 
Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Sa- 
turnilians,”’ who “each in his own way 
and that a different one brought in 
his own doctrine.’ Euseb. Hist. iv. 22. 
“* There are, and there have been, my 
friends, many who have taught atheis- 
tic and blasphemous words and deeds, 
coming in the Name of Jesus; and 
they are called by us from the appella- 
tion of the men, whence each doctrine 
and opinion began. ... Some are called 
Marcians, others Valentinians, others 
Basilidians, others Saturnilians,” &e. 
Justin. Tryph. 35 [pp. 113, 114 0.71.1]. 
““They have a name from the author 
of that most impious opinion Simon, 
being called Simonians.” Tren. Her. i. 
23 [p.70 0.1.1. “When menare called 
Phrygians, or Noyatians, or Valenti- 
nians, or Marcionites, or Anthropians, 
or by any other name, they cease to be 
Christians ; for they have lost Christ’s 
Name, and clothe themselves in hu- 
man and foreign titles.” Lact. Inst.iv.30. 
“Αἰ Howare you a Christian, to whom 
it is not even granted to bear the name 
of Christian? fer you are not called 
Christian but Marcionite. M. And you 
are calledof the CatholicChurch; there- 
fore ye are not Christians either. A. 
Did we profess man’s name, you would 
have spoken to the point ; but if we are 
called from being all over the world, 
what is there bad in this?’”? Adamant. 


Yes surely; while all of us are and are called 


Dial. § 1. p. 809. ‘“‘ We never heard 
of Petrines, or Paulines, or Bartholo- 
means, or Thaddeans, but from the 
first there was one preaching of all 
the Apostles, not preaching them, but 
Christ Jesus the Lord. Wherefore also 
they all gave one name to the Church, 
not their own, but that of their Lord 
Jesus Christ, since they began to be 
called Christians firstat Antioch; which 
is the sole Catholic Church, having 
nought else but Christ’s, being a Church 
of Christians, not of Christs, but of 
Christians ; He being one, they from 
that one being called Christians. After 
this Church and her preachers, all 
others are no longer of the same cha- 
racter, making show by their own 
epithets, Manichzeans, and Simonians, 
and Valentinians, and Ebionites.” 
Epiph. Heer. 42. p. 366. ‘‘ This is the 
fearful thing, that they change the 
name of Christians of the Holy Church, 
which hath no epithet but the name of ἡ 
Christ alone, and of Christians, to be 
called by the name of Audius,” &e. ibid. 
70.15. vid. also Heer. 75. 6 fin. “Since 
one might properly and truly say that 
there is a ‘Church of evil doers,’ I 
mean the meetings of the heretics, the 
Marcionists, and Manichees, and the 
rest, the faith hath delivered to thee 
by way of security the Article, ‘And 
in One Holy Catholic Church,’ that 
thou mayest avoid their wretched 
meetings; and eyer abide with the 
Holy Church Catholic, in which thou 
wast regenerated. And if ever thou 
art sojourning in any city, inquire not 
simply where the Lord’s House is, (for 
the sects of the profane also make an 


181 


as other heretics after their leaders. 


Christians after Christ, Marcion broached a heresy time Cuar. 


since and was cast out; and those who continued with the 
Bishop who ejected him remained Christians; but those 
who followed. Marcion, were called Christians no more, 
but henceforth Marcionites. Thus Valentinus also, and 
Basilides, and Manicheus, and Simon Magus, have im- 
parted their own name to their followers; and are accosted 
as Valentinians, or as Basilidians, or as Manichees, or as 
Simonians ; and others, Cataphrygians from Phrygia, and 
from Novatus Novatians. So too Meletius, when ejected by 
Peter the Bishop and Martyr, called his party no longer 
Christians, but Meletians*; and so in consequence when 
Alexander of blessed memory had cast out Arius, those who 
remained with Alexander, remained Christians; but those 
who went out with Arius, left the Saviour’s Name to us who 
were with Alexander, and as to them they were henceforward 
denominated Arians. Behold then, after Alexander’s death 
too, those who communicate with his successor Athanasius, 
and those with whom the said Athanasius communicates, 
are instances of the same rule; none of them bear his 
name!, nor is he named from them, but all in like manner, 1 via. 

and as is usual, are called Christians. Forthough we have however 


Ρ 179: 
note 6. 


Mountaineers, Campestrians, know 


attempt to call their own dens, houses | 
that it is not Christ’s Church, but 


of the Lord,) nor merely where the 


Church is, but where is the Catholic 
Church. For this is the peculiar name 
of this Holy Body,’ &c. Cyril Cat. 
XVill. 26 [p. 252 O.T.]. “Were I by 
chance to enter a populous city, I 
should in this day find Marcionites, 
Apollinarians, Cataphrygians, Nova- 
tians,and other such, who called them- 
selyes Christian ; by what surname 
should I recognise the congregation 
of my own people, were it not called 
Catholic? .... Certainly that word 
* Catholic’ is not borrowed from man, 
which has survived through so many 
ages, nor as the sound of Marcion or 
Apelles or Montanus, nor takes here- 
tics for its authors.. Christian is my 
name, Catholic my surname.’’ Pacian. 
Ep. 1 [pp. 321, 322 0.T.]. “If you 
ever hear those who are called Chris- 
tians, named, not from the Lord 
Jesus Christ, but from some one 
else, say Marcionites, Valentinians, 


the synagogue of Antichrist.” Jerom. 
ady. Lucif. fin. 

Ε vid. supr. p. 89,notem. Meletius 
was Bishop of Lycopolis in the The- 
bais, in the first year of the fourth cen- 
tury. He was convicted of sacrificing 
to idols in the persecution, and deposed 
by a Council under Peter, Bishop of 
Alexandria, and subsequently martyr. 
Meletius separated from his commu- 
nion, and commenced a schism ; at the 
time of the Nicene Council it included 
as many as twenty-eight or thirty Bi- 
shops ; in the time of Theodoret, a 
century and quarter later, it included 
a number of Monks, Though not 
heterodox, they supported the Arians 
on their first appearance, in their con- 
test with the Catholics. The Council 
of Nicwza, instead of deposing them, 
allowed their Bishops a titular rank in 
their sees, but forbade them to exercise 
their functions. 


Disc. 
I: 


§ 4. 


vid. 
Ecclus. 
4, 24, 


182 For Scripture the Arians follow the Thalia. 


a succession of teachers and become their disciples, yet, 
because we are taught by them the things of Christ, we 
both are, and are called, Christians all the same. But those 
who follow the heretics, though they have innumerable suc- 
cessors in their heresy, yet for certain bear the name of him 
who devised it. Thus, though Arius be dead, and many of 
his party have succeeded him, yet those who think with 
him, as being known from Arius, are called Arians. And, 
what is a remarkable evidence of this, those of the Greeks 
who even at this time come into the Church, on giving 
up the superstition of idols, take the name, not of their 
catechists, but of the Saviour, and are henceforth for Greeks 
called Christians; while those of them who go off to the 
heretics, and again all who from the Church change to this 
heresy, abandon Christ’s name, and at once are called 
Arians, as no longer holding Christ’s faith, but having 
inherited Arius’s madness. 

4. How then can they be Christians, who for Christians 
are Ario-maniacs"? or how are they of the Catholic Church, 
who have shaken off the Apostolical faith, and become 
authors of what is new and evil? who, after abandoning 
the oracles of divine Scripture, call Arius’s Thalias a new 
wisdom ? and with reason too, for they are announcing a 
new heresy. And hence a man may marvel, that, whereas 
many have written many treatises and abundant homilies 
upon the Old Testament and the New, yet in none of them 
is a Thalia found ; nay nor among the more respectable of 
the Gentiles, but among those only who sing such strains 
over their cups, amid cheers and jokes, when men are merry, 
that the rest may laugh; till this marvellous Arius, taking 
no grave pattern, and ignorant even of what is respectable, 
while he stole largely from other heresies, would be original 
in the ludicrous, with none but Sotades for his rival. For 
what beseemed him more, when he would dance forth against 
the Saviour, than to throw his wretched words of irreligion 
into dissolute and abandoned metres? that, while a MAN, 


* vid. p. 91, note q. Manes also Catech. vi. 20 [p. 70 O.T.]. vid. also 
was called mad; “Thou must hate ibid. 24 fin.—a play upon the name, 
all heretics, but especially him who yid. p. 114, note b. 
even in name is a maniac.” Cyril. 


- 


In vain to appeal to Scripture, when doctrine is heretical. 188 


as Wisdom says, is known from the utterance of his word, Cnar. 
so from those numbers should be seen the writer’s ef- : 
feminate soul and corruption of thought’. In truth, that 
crafty one did not escape detection ; but, for all his many 
writings to and fro, like the serpent, he did but fall into the 

error of the Pharisees. They, that they might transgress 

the Law, pretended to be anxious for the words of the Law, 

and that they might deny the expected and then present 

Lord, were hypocritical with God’s name, and were con- 
victed of blaspheming when they said, Why dost Thou, being John 10, 
aman, make Thyself God, and sayest, I and the Father are as 
one? And so too, this counterfeit and Sotadean Arius, feigns 1 p. 178, 
to speak of God, introducing Scripture language', but is on ποτ * 


i It is very difficult to gain a clear lost.” Harduin. Cone. t. i. p. 457. 


idea of the character of Arius. Atha- 


nasius speaks as if his Thalia was but 
a token of his personal laxity, and cer- 
tainly the mere fact of his haying 
written it seems incompatible with any 
remarkable seriousness and strictness. 
Yet Constantine and Epiphanius speak 
of him in very different terms, yet each 
in his own way, in the following ex- 
tracts. [{ is possible that Constantine 
is only declaiming, for his whole in- 
vective is like a school exercise or fancy 
composition. Constantine too had not 
seen Arius at the time of this invective 
which was prior to the Nicene Council, 
and his account of him is inconsistent 
with itself, for he also uses the very 
strong and broad language about Arius 
quoted supr. p. 94, note a. “‘ Look then, 
look all men, what words of lament he 
is now professing, being held with the 
bite of the serpent ; how his veins and 
flesh are possessed with poison, and 
are in a ferment of severe pain; how 
his whole body is wasted, and is all 
withered and sad and pale and shak- 
ing, and all that is miserable, and 
fearfully emaciated. How hateful to 
see, and filthy is his mass of hair, how 
he is half dead all over, with failing 
eyes, and bloodless countenance, and 
woe-begone! so that all these things 
combining in him at once, frenzy, 
madness, and folly, for the counten- 
ance of the complaint, have made thee 
wild and savage. But not having any 
sense, what bad plight he is in, he 
cries out, ‘I am transported with de- 
light, and I leap and skip for joy, and 
I fly:* and again, with boyish impet- 
uosity, ‘Be it so,’ he says, ‘we are 


Perhaps this strange account may be 
taken to illustrate the words ‘* mania” 
aud‘ Ario-maniacs.”’ S. Alexander too 
speaks of Arius’s melancholic tempera- 
ment, μελαγχολικοῖς ἡρμοσμένης δόξης 
κενῆς. Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 741. 5. Ba- 
sil also speaks of the Eunomians as εἰς 
λαμπρὰν μελαγχολίαν παρενεχθέντας. 
contr. Eun. ii. 24. Elsewhere he speaks 
of the Pneumatomachists as worse 
than μελαγχολῶντες. deSp. S. 41. Epi- 
phanius’s account of Arius is as fol- 
lows :—*‘ From elation of mind the old 
man swerved from the mark. He 
was in stature very tall, downcast in 
visage, with manners like wily ser- 
pent, captivating to every guileless 
heart by that same crafty bearing. 
For ever habited in cloke and vest, he 
was pleasant of address, ever persuad- 
ing souls and flattering ; wherefore 
what was his very first work but to 
withdraw from the Church in one body 
as many as seven hundred women 
who professed virginity?’ Heer. 69. 3. 
Arius is here said to have been tall ; 
Athanasius, on the other hand, would 
appear to have been short, if we may 
so interpret Julian’s indignant descrip- 
tion of him, μηδὲ ἀνὴρ, ἀλλ᾽ ἀνθρωπί- 
σκος εὐτελής. “not even a man, but 
a common little fellow.” Ep. 51. Yet 
8. Gregory Nazianzen speaks of him 
as “high in prowess, and humble in 
spirit, mild, meek, full of sympathy, 
pleasant in speech, more pleasant in 
manners, angelical in person, more 
angelical in mind, serene in his re- 
bukes, instructive in his praises,” &c, 
ὅς. Orat. 2]. 9. 


Disc. 


184 


Arianism an Atheism. 


all sides recognised as godless * Arius, denying the Son, and 
reckoning Him among the creatures. . 


k And so godless or atheist Ae- 
tius, supr. p. 81. vid. p. 3, note f. for 
an explanation of the word. In like 
manner Athan. says, ad Serap. iii. 2. 
that if a man says ‘‘ that the Son is a 
creature, who is Word and Wisdom, 
and the Expression, and the Radiance, 
whom whoso seeth seeth the Father,” 
he falls under the text, ‘‘Whoso de- 
nieth the Son, the same hath not the 
Father.” ““ Such a one,” he continues, 
** willin no long time say, as the fool, 
There is no God.” Τὴ like manner he 
speaks of those who think the Son to be 
the Spirit as “ without (ἔξω) the Holy 
Trinity, and atheists.” (Serap. iv. 6.) 
because they really do not believe in 
the God that is, and there is none 
other but He. And so again, “" As 
the faith delivered [in the Holy 
Trinity] is one, and this unites us to 
God, and he who takes ought from the 
Trinity, and is baptized in the sole 
Name of the Father or of the Son, or 


in Father and Son without the Spirit, 
gains nothing, but remains empty and 
incomplete, both he and the professed 
administrator, (for in the Trinity is 
the completion, [initiation,]) so w10- 
so divides the Son from the Father, or 
degrades the Spirit to the creatures, 
hath neither the Son nor the Father, 
but is an atheist and worse than an 
infidel and any thing but a Christian.” 
Serap. i. 80. Eustathius speaks of the 
Ariansas ἀνθρώπους ἀθέους,» ΠΟ wereat- 
temptingxparjjca: τοῦ θείου. ap. Theod. 
Hist. i. 7. p. 760. Naz. speaks of the 
heathen πολύθεος ἀθεΐα. Orat. 25.15. 
and he calls faith and regeneration “ἃ 
denial of atheism, ἀθεΐας, and a con- 
fession of godhead, θεότητος." Grat.23. 
12. He calls Lucius, the Alexandrian 
Anti-pope, on account of his eruelties, 
“this second Arius, the more copio is 
river of the atheistic spring, τῆς ἀθέου 
πηγῆς." Orat. 25. 11. Palladius, the 
Imperial officer, is ἀνὴρ ἄθεος. ibid. 12. 


Gs, LE 


EXTRACTS FROM THE THALIA OF ARIUS. 


Arius maintains that God became a Father, and the Son was not always; 
the Son out of nothing; once He was not; He was not before His gene- 
ration ; He was created; named Wisdom and Word after God's attributes ; 
made that He might make us; one out of many powers of God ; alterable ; 
exalted on God’s foreknowledge what He was to be; not very God; but 
called so as others by participation ; foreign in substance from the Father ; 
does not know or see the Father ; does not know Himself. 


1. Now the commencement of Arius’s Thalia and flip- Cuar. 

pancy, effeminate in tone and nature, runs thus :— ἜΝ 

* According to faith of God’s elect, God’s prudent ones, 

Holy children, rightly dividing, God’s Holy Spirit receiving, 

Haye | learned this from the partakers of wisdom, 

Accomplished, divinely taught, and wise in all things. 

Along their track, have I been walking, with like opinions, 

I the very famous, the much suffering for God’s glory ; 

And taught of God, I have acquired wisdom and knowledge.” 


And the mockeries which he utters in it, repulsive and 
most irreligious, are such as these':—“ God was not always ! de Syn. 
a Father;” but “once God was alone and not yet a Father, ὃ i 
but afterwards He became a Father.” ‘The Son was not a 
always;”’ for, whereas all things were made out of nothing, 
and all existing creatures and works were made, so the 
Word of God Himself was “made out of nothing,” and 
£ once He was not,” and “‘ He was not before His genera- 
tion,” but He as others “had an origin of creation.” “For 
God,” he says, “ was alone, and the Word as yet was not, 
nor the Wisdom. Then, wishing to frame us, thereupon He 
made a certain one, and named Him Word and Wisdom 
and Son, that He might form us by means of Him.” 
Accordingly, he says that there are two wisdoms, first, 


Disc. 


186 Arius’s Thalia 


the attribute coexistent with God, and next, that in this 
Wisdom the Son was generated, and was only named Wis- 
dom and Word as partaking of it. ‘ For Wisdom,” saith 
he, “by the will of the wise God, had its existence in 
Wisdom.” In like manner, he says, that there is another 
Word in God besides the Son, and that the Son again as 
partaking of it, is named Word aud Son according to grace. 
And this too is an idea proper to their heresy, as shewn in 
other works of theirs, that there are many powers; one of 
which is God’s own by nature and eternal; but that Christ, 
on the other hand, is not the true power of God; but, as 


; uF Syn. others, one of the so-called powers, one of which, namely, 


> P- 
ine 
Joel 2, 
Be 


Ps. 24, 
10 


the locust and the caterpillar ', is called in Scripture, not 
merely the power, but the great power. The others are 
many and are like the Son, and of them David speaks in the 
Psalms, when he says, The Lord of hosts or powers. And 
by nature, as all others, so the Word Himself is alterable, 
and remains good by His own free will, while He chooseth; 
when, however, He wills, He can alter as we can, as being 
of an alterable nature. For “therefore,” saith he, “as 
foreknowing that He would be good, did God by anticipa- 
tion bestow on Him this glory, which afterwards, as man, 
He attained from virtue. Thus in consequence of His works 
fore-known’, did God bring it to pass that He, being such, 
* should come to be.” 

2. Moreover he has dared to say, that “the Word is not 
the very God;” “though He is called God, yet He is not 
very God,” but “by participation of grace, He, as others, 
is God only in name.”’ And, whereas all beings are foreign 
and different from God in substance, so too is “the Word 
alien and unlike in all things to the Father’s substance and 
propriety,” but belongs to things generated and created, 
and is one of these. Afterwards, as though he had succeeded 
to the devil’s recklessness, he has stated in his Thalia, that 
“even to the Son the Father is invisible,” and “the Word 
cannot perfectly and exactly either see or know His own 
Father ;”? but even what He knows and what He sees, He 
knows and sees “in proportion to His own measure,” as we 
also know according to our own power. For the Son, too, 
he says, not only knows not the Father exactly, for He fails 


excites horror. 187 
in comprehension*, but “ He knows not even His own sub- (παρ. 
stance;”—and that “the substances of the Father and sll, 
the Son and the Holy Ghost, are separate in nature, and 
estranged, and disconnected, and alien 1, and without par- ae = 
ticipation of each other?;” and, in his own words, “utterly.2 p. 95, 
unlike from each other in substance and glory, unto infinity.”” note 4. 
Thus as to “likeness of glory and substance,” he says that 
the Word is entirely diverse from both the Father and the 
Holy Ghost. With such words hath the irreligious spoken; 
maintaining that the Son is distinct by Himself, and in 
no respect partaker of the Father. These are portions of 
Arius’s fables as they occur in that jocose composition. 

3. Who is there that hears all this, nay, the metre of the ὃ 7; 
Thalia, but must hate, and justly hate, this Arius jesting 
on such matters as on a stage*®? who but must regard him, 3 Ep. 
when he pretends to name God and speak of God, but as Eneych 
the serpent counselling the woman? who, on reading what Epiph. 
follows in his work, but must discern in his irreligious ven 73. 
doctrine that error, into which by his sophistries the serpent — 
in the sequel seduced the woman? who at such blasphemies 
is not transported? The heaven, as the Prophet says, was Jer. 2, 
astonished, and the earth shuddered at the transgression of 12. Sept. 
the Law. But the sun, with greater horror once, impatient 
of the bodily contumelies, which the common Lord of all 
voluntarily endured for us, turned away, and recallmg his 
rays made that day sunless. And shall not all human kind 


a Vid. supr. p. 96, note f. κατάληψις 
was originally a Stoical word, and even 
when considered perfect, was, properly 
speaking, attributable only to an imper- 
fect being. For it is used in contrast 
to the Platonic doctrine of 75ea:, to ex- 
press the hold of things obtained by 
the mind through the senses ; it being 
a Stoical maxim, nihil esse in intellectu 
quod non fuerit prius in sensu. In this 
sense it is also used by the Fathers, to 
mean real and certain knowledge after 
inquiry, though it is also ascribed to 
Almighty God. As to the position of 
Arius, since we are told in Scripture 
that none “ knoweth the things of a 
man saye the spirit of man which is 
in him,” if κατάληψις be an exact and 
complete knowledge of the object of 
contemplation, to deny that the Son 


comprehended the Father, was to deny 
that He was in the Father, i.e. the doc- 
trine of the περιχώρησι5. p. 95, note d. 
or to maintain that He was a distinct, 
and therefore a created, being. On the 
other hand Scripture asserts that, as 
the Holy Spirit which is in God, 
“searcheth all things, yea, the deep 
things of God,” so the Son, as being 
“in the bosom of the Father,” alone 
“hath declared Him.” vid. Clement. 
Strom. y. 12. And thus Athan. speak- 
ing of Mark xiii. 32, “‘ If the Son is in 
the Father, and the Father in the Son, 
and the Father knows the day. and 
the hour, it is plain that the Son too, 
being in the Father, and knowing the 
things in the Father, Himself also 
knows the day and the hour.” Orat. 
iii. 44 [infra p. 463]. 


Disc. 
I. 


Hos. 7, 
13. 


Tb. 15. 
Sept. 


1p. 49, 
note o. 


2216; 
note n. 
2p. 177, 
ref, 4. 


Aldo; 
ref. 4. 


188 A Council’s decision sufficient, even without argument. 


at Arius’s blasphemies be struck speechless, and stop their 
ears, and shut their eyes, to escape hearing them or seeing 
their author? Rather, will not the Lord Himself have 
reason to denounce men so irreligious, nay, so unthankful, 
in the words which He hath already uttered by the prophet 
Hosea, Woe unto them, for they have fled from Me; destruc- 
tion upon them, for they have transgressed against Me; though 
1 have redeemed them, yet they have spoken lies against Me. 
And soon after, They imagine mischief against Me; they turn 
away to nothing. For to turn away from the Word of God, 
which is, and to fashion to themselves one that is not, is to 
fall to what is nothing. For this was why the Ecumenical! 
Council, when Arius thus spoke, cast him from the Church, 
and anathematized him, as impatient of such irreligion. 
And ever since has Arius’s error been reckoned for a 
heresy more than ordinary, being known as Christ’s foe, 
and harbinger® of Antichrist. Though then so great a 
condemnation be itself of special weight to make men flee 
from that irreligious heresy”, as I said above, yet since 
certain persons called Christian, either in ignorance or 
pretence, think it as I then said, little different from the 
Truth, and call its professors Christians‘; proceed we to 
put some questions to them, according to our powers, 
thereby to expose the unscrupulousness of the heresy. 
Perhaps, when thus encountered, they will be silenced, and 
flee from it, as from the sight of a serpent. 

b And so Vigilius of the heresies heretici sunt pronunciati, orthodoxo- 
about the Incarnation, Etiamsi in er- rumsecuritati sufficeret. contr. Eutych. 


roris eorum destructionem nulliconde- i. p. 494. 
rentur libri, hoc ipsum solum, quod. 


CHAP. ΠῚ 


THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. 


The Arians affect Scripture language, but their doctrine new, as well as 
unscriptural. Statement of the Catholic doctrine, that the Son is proper 
to the Father’s substance, and eternal. Restatement of Arianism in 
contrast, that He is a creature with a beginning: the controversy comes 
to this issue, whether one whom we are to believe in as God, can be so 
in name only, and is merely a creature. What pretence then for being 
indifferent in the controversy? The Arians rely on state patronage, and 
dare not avow their tenets. 


1. Ir then the use of certain phrases of divine Scripture 
changes, in their opinion, the blasphemy of the Thalia into 
blessing, of course they ought also to deny Christ with the 
present Jews, when they see how they study the Law and 
the Prophets ; perhaps too they will deny the Law! and the 
Prophets like Manichees ἃ, because the latter read some por- 
tions of theGospels. Ifsuch bewilderment and empty speak- 
ing be from ignorance, Scripture will teach them, that the 
devil, the author of heresies, because of the ill-savour which 
attaches to evil, borrows Scripture language, as a cloak 
wherewith to sow the ground with his own poison, and to 
seduce the simple. ‘Thus he deceived Eve; thus he framed 
former heresies ; thus he has persuaded Arius at this time 
to make a show of speaking against those former ones, that 
he may introduce his own without observation. And yet, 
after all, the man of craft hath not escaped. For being 
irreligious towards the Word of God, he lost his all at 
once 5, and betrayed to all men his ignorance of other here- 
5165 too; and haying not a particle of truth in his belief, 


5. Faustus, in August. contr. Faust. 
ii. 1. admits the Gospels, (vid. Beau- 
sobre Manich. t. i. p. 291, &c.) but 
denies that they were written by the 
reputed authors. ibid. xxxii. 2. but 
nescio quibus Semi-judeis. ibid. xxxiii. 
3. Accordingly they thought them- 
selves at liberty to reject or correct 
parts of them. They rejected many of 
the facts, e.g. our Lord’s nativity, cir- 


cumcision, baptism, temptation, &c. 
ibid. xxxii. 6. 

b All heresies seem connected to- 
gether and to run into each other. 
When the mind has embraced one, it 
is almost certain to run into others, 
apparently the most opposite, it is 
quite uncertain which. Thus Arians 
were a reaction from Sabellians, yet 
did not the less consider than they that 


CHapP. 
ILI. 


ἃ 8. 


1p. 180, 
refs 1. 


29. 2; 
note 6. 


Disc. 


1 ἐνσάρ- 
κου παρ- 
ουσίας 


2p. 12, 
note y. 


190 Arianism involved misbelief as regards all doctrines. 


does but pretend to it. For how can he speak truth con- 
cerning the Father, who denies the Son, that reveals con- 
cerning Him? or how can he be orthodox concerning the 
Spirit, while he speaks profanely of the Word that supplies 
the Spirit? and who will trust him concerning the Resur- 
rection, denying, as he does, Christ for us the first-begotten 
from the dead? and how shall he not err in respect to His 
incarnate presence!, who is simply ignorant of the Son’s 
genuine and true generation from the Father? For thus, 
the former Jews also, denying the Word, and saying, We 
have no king but Cesar, were forthwith stripped of all they 
had, and forfeited the light of the Lamp, the odour of oint- 
ment, knowledge of prophecy,and the Truth itself; till now 
they understand nothing, but are walking as in darkness. 
For who was ever yet a hearer of such a doctrine”? or whence 
or from whom did the abettors and hirelings° of the heresy 


God was but one Person, and that 
Christ was a creature, supr. p. 41, note 
e. Apollinaris was betrayed into his 
heresy by opposing the Arians, yet his 
heresy started with the tenet in which 
the Arians ended, that Christ had no 
human soul. His disciples became, and 
even naturally, some of them Sabel- 
lians, some Arians. Again, beginning 
with denying our Lord a soul, he came 
to deny Himabody, like the Manichees 
and Docetz. The same passages from 
Athanasius will be found to refute both 
Eutychians and Nestorians, though 
diametrically opposed to each other: 
and these agreed together, not only in 
considering nature and person identi- 
cal, but, strange to say, in holding, 
and the Apollinarians too, that our 
Lord’s manhood existed before its 
union with Him, which is the special 
heresy of Nestorius. Again, the Nes- 
torians were closely connected with 
the Sabellians and Samosatenes, and 
the latter with the Photinians and 
modern Socinians. And the Nestorians 
were connected with the Pelagians ; 
and Aerius, who denied Episcopocy 
and prayers for the dead, with the 
Arians; and his opponent the Semi- 
arian Eustathius with the Encratites. 
One reason of course of this peculiarity 
of heresy is, that when the mind is 
once unsettled, it may fall into any 
error. Another is that it is heresy ; all 
heresies being secretly connected, as 


in temper, so in certain primary prin- 
ciples. And, lastly, the Truth only is 
a real doctrine, and therefore stable ; 
every thing false is of a transitory na- 
ture and has no stay, like reflections 
in a stream, one opinion continually 
passing into another, and creations 
being but the first stages of dissolu- 
tion. Hence so much is said in the 
Fathers of orthodoxy being a narrow 
way. Thus S. Gregory speaks of the 
middle and ‘‘ royal” way. Orat. 32. 6. 
also Damase. contr. Jacob. t. 1. p. 398. 
vid. also Leon. Ep. 85.1. p. 1051. Ep. 
129. p. 1254. ‘levissima adjectione 
corrumpitur.”’ also Serm. 25. 1. p. 88. 
also Vigil. in Eutych. i. init. Quasi 
inter duos latrones crucifigitur Domi- 
nus, &c. Noyat. Trin. 30. vid. the pro- 
mise, ‘‘ Thine ears shall hear a word 
behind thee, saying, This is the way, 
walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right 
hand, and when ye turn to the left.” 
[RBS sole 

© δωροδόκοι. and so κέρδος τῆς φιλο- 
χρηματίας, infr. § 53. He mentions 
προστασίας φίλων, § 10. And so 5. 
Hilary speaks of the exemptions from 
taxes which Constantius granted the 
Clergy as a bribe to Arianize; “ You 
concede taxes as Cesar, thereby to 
invite Christians to a denial ; you 
remit what is your own, that we may 
lose what is God’s.” contr. Const. 10. 
And again, of resisting Constantius 
as hostem blandientem, qui non dorsa 


What comes notfromthe fathersis of the predicted Apostasy. 191 


gain it? who thus expounded to them when they were at Cnar. 
school!? who told them, “‘ Abandon the worship of the crea- 
tion, and then draw near and worship a creature and a 
work ‘?” But if they themselves own that they have heard it Syn. 
now for the first time, how can they deny that this heresy is »_ 84. 


foreign, and not from our fathers 2° 


But what is not from 


Π|. 
lp. 76, _ 


note i; 


2p. 78, 


note oO. 


our fathers, but has come to light in this day, how can it be s ὕγιαι- 


but that of which the blessed Paul has foretold, that in the ἜΣ 
latter times some shall depart from the sound? faith, giving’i. 6. 


heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, in the hy- , 


pocrisy of liars ; cauter ized in their own conscience, 


turning from the truth ©? 


2. For, behold, we take divine Scripture, and thence dis- 
course with freedom of the religious Faith, and set it up asa 
light upon its candlestick, saying :—Very Son of the Father, 
natural and genuine, properto His substance, Wisdom Only- 
begotten, and Very and Only Word of God is He; not a 
creature or work, but an offspring proper to the Father’s 
substance. Wherefore He is very God, existing one in sub- 


stance * with the very Father ; 


cedit, sed yentrem palpat, non pro- 
scribit ad vitam, sed ditat in mor- 
tem, non caput gladio desecat, sed 
animum auro occidit. ibid. 5. vid. 
Coustant. in loc. Liberius says the 
same, Theod. Hist. ii. 138. And 8S. Gre- 
gory Naz. speaks of φιλοχρύσους μᾶλ- 
λον ἢ φιλοχρίστους. Orat. 21. 21. On 
the other hand, Ep. Ag. 22. Athan. 
contrasts the Arians with the Mele- 
tians, as not influenced by secular 
views. But it is obvious that there 
were, as was natural, two classes of 
men in the heretical party ;—the fana- 
tical class who began the heresy and 
were its real life, such as Arius, and 
afterwards the Anomeans, in whom 
misbelief was a ‘‘ mania;’’ and the Eu- 
sebians, who cared little for a theory of 
doctrine or consistency of profession, 
compared with their own aggrandize- 
ment. With these must be counted 
numbers, who conformed to Arianism 
lest they should suffer temporal loss. 

4 vid. p. 3, note f. fin. This consider- 
ation, as might be expected, is insisted 
on by the Fathers, vid. Cyril. Dial. iv. 
p- 511, ἄς. v. p. 566. Greg. Naz. 40. 
42; Hil. Trin. viii. 28 ; Ambros. de fid. 
i. ἢ, 69 and 104. 


while other beings, to whom * 


© This passage is commonly taken by 
the Fathers to refer to the Oriental 
sects of the early centuries, who ful- 
filled one or other of those conditions 
which it specifies. It is quoted against 
the Marcionists by Clement. Strom. 
iii. 6. Of the Carpocratians apparently, 
Iren. Her. i. 25 [p. 75 O.T.] ; Epiph. 
Her. 27.5. Of the V alentinians, Epiph. 
Her. 31. 34. Of the Montanists and 
others, ibid. 48. 8. Of the Saturnilians 
(according to Huet.) Origen in Matt. 
xiv. 16. Ofapostolic heretics, Cyril. Cat. 
iv. 27. Of Marcionites, Valentinians, 
and Manichees, Chrysost. de Virg. 5. 
Of Gnosties and Manichees, Theod. 
Heer. ii. pref. Of Encratites, ibid. y. 
fin. Of Eutyches, Ep. Anon. 190. (apud 
Garner. Diss.v. Theod. p.901.) Pseu- 
do-Justin seems to consider it fulfilled 
in the Catholics of the fifth century, as 
being Anti-pelagians. Quest. 22. vid. 
Bened. note in loc. Besides Athanasius, 


no early author occurs to the writer of 


this, by whom it is referred to the 
Arians, except S. Alexander’s Letter 
ap. Soer i. 6. and, if he may hazard the 
conjecture, there is much in that letter 
like Athan,’s own writing. 


t 


1 Pi: 4, 


and τ ii 14. 


δ 9. 


ὁμοού- 
σιος 


ae 


Tde Deer. πῶς 
§ 14 fin.; 
de Syn. 
δ. 15]. 
Joba 14, 
9, 


2p. 25, 
note c. 


192 Contrast between Scripture doctrine and Arian. 


He said, I said ye are Gods, had this grace from the Father, 
only by participation * ofthe Word,through the Spirit. For 
He is the expression of the Father’s Person, and Light from 
Light, and Power, and very Image of the Father’s substance. 
For this too fies: Lord has said, He that hath seen Me, hath 
seen the Father. And He ever was and is, and never was 
not. For the Father being everlasting, His Word and His 
Wisdom must be everlasting ?. 

3. On the other hand, τ have these persons to shew 
us from the infamous Thalia? Or, first of all, let them study 
it themselves, and copy the tone of the writer; at least the 
mockery which they will encounter from othets may instruct 
them how low they have fallen ; and then let them proceed 
to explain themselves. For what can they say from it, but 
that “God was not always a Father, but became so after- 
wards; the Son was not always, for He was not before His 
generation ; He is not from the Father, but He, as others, 
has come into subsistence out of fee He is not proper 
to the Father’s substance, for He is a cr hatte and work ?” 
And “ Christ is not very God, but He, as others, was made 
God by participation ; the Son has not exact knowledge of 
the Father, nor does the Word see the Father perfectly ; 
and neither exactly understands nor knows the Father. 
He is not the very and only Word of the Father, but is in 
name only called Word and Wisdom, and is called by grace 
Son and Power. He is not unalterable, as the Father is, 
but alterable in nature, as the creatures, and He comes short 
of perfect knowledge of the Father for comprehension.” 
Wonderful this heresy, not plausible even, but making 
speculations against Him that is, that He be not, and every 
where putting forward blasphemy for blessing! Were any 
one, after inquiring into both sides, to be asked, whether 
of the two he would follow in faith, or whether of the two 
spoke fitly of God,—or rather let them say themselves, these 
abetters of irreligion, what, if a man be asked concerning 
God, (for the Word was God,) it were fit to answer’. For 
from this one question the whole case on both sides may be 


f That is, “ Let them tell us, is it such is the Word, viz. that He was 
right to predicate this or to predicate from eternity or was created,” &c. &e. 
that of God, (of One who is God,) for 


The Arians dared not avow their tenets. 193 


determined, what is fitting to say,—He was, or He was not; Cua. 
always, or before His birth; eternal, or from this and from ae 
then ; true, or by ΠΝ and from participation and in Selon 
fries, to call Him one of things generated, or to unite Him vid. 
to the Father; to consider Him unlike the Father in sub- pe a 
stance, or like and proper to Him; a creature, or Him 
through whom the creatures were generated ; that He is the 
Father’s Word, or that there is another Word beside Him, 
and that by this other He was generated, and by another 
Wisdom ; and that He is only named Wisdom and Word, 
and is become a partaker of this Wisdom, and second to it ? 

4. Which of the two theologies sets forth our Lord Jesus § 10. 
Christ as God and Son of the Father, this with which ye 
have burst forth, or that which we have spoken and maintain 
from the Scriptures? Ifthe Saviour be not God, nor Word, 
nor Son, you shallhave leave to say what youwill, and so shall 
the Gentiles, and the present Jews. But if He be Word of 
the Father and true Son, and God from God, and over all Rom. 9, 
blessed for ever, is it not becoming to obliterate and blot out > 
those other phrases and that Arian Thalia, as but a pattern 
of evil, a store of all irreligion, into which, whoso falls, know- pProy. 9, 
eth not that the dead are there, and that her quests are in the 18. 
depths of hell? This they know themselves, and in their craft 
they conceal it, not having the courage to speak out, but 
uttering something else*. For should they speak, a con-? p, 10, 
demnation would follow; and should they be suspected, ΠΡΟΣ 
proofs from Scripture mill be cast * at them from every side. note τ 
Wherefore, in their craft, as children of this world, after abso? 
feeding their so-called lamp from the wild olive, and fearing 
lest it should soon be quenched, (for it is said, the light of Jov 18, 
the wicked shall be put out,) they hide it under the bushel * of ὅ- 
their hypocrisy, and make a different profession, and boast ἘΠῚ 18. 
patronage of friends and authority of Constantius’, that what sp. 4, 
with their hypocrisy and their boasts, those vies come to note h; 
them may be kept from seeing how foul their heresy is. Sa 
Is it not detestable even in this, that it dares not speak out, 
but is kept hid by its own friends, and fostered as serpents ὃ συνεφό- 
are? for from what sources have they got together ® these ae 
words ? or from whom have they received what they venture ὃ = 
to say’? Not any one man can τω specify who has supplied | Be} 


Ep. ig. 


es, 


194 Arianism not in Scripture, but from Satan. 


Disc. it. For whois there in all mankind, Greek or Barbarian, who 
-___ ventures to rank among creatures One whom he confesses 
the while to be God, and says, that He was not till He was 
made? or who is there, who to the God in whom he has 
Matt.3, put faith, refuses to give credit, when He says, This is My 
oe Beloved Son, on the pretence that He is not a Son, but a 
creature? rather, such madness would rouse an universal 
indignation. Nor does Scripture afford them any pretext; 
for it has been often shewn, and it shall be shewn now, that 
their doctrine is alien to the divine oracles. Therefore, since 
all that remains is to say that from the devil came their 
1p.5, mania, (for of sach opinions he alone is sower ',) proceed we 
note k. to resist him ;—for with him is our real conflict, and they are 
but instruments ;—that, the Lord aiding us, and the enemy, 
as he is wont, being overcome with arguments, they may be 
put to shame, when they see him without resource who sow- 
ed this heresy in them, and may learn though late, that, as 

P. M9, being Arians, they are not Christians *. 

ef. 4. 


2 
r 


CHAP. IV. 


THAT THE SON IS ETERNAL AND INCREATE, 


These attributes, being the points in dispute, are first proved by direct texts 
of Scripture. Concerning the “eternal power” of God in Rom. i. 20, 
which is shewn to mean the Son. Remarks on the Arian formula, ‘“‘ Once 
the Son was not,”’ its supporters not daring to speak of “‘a time when the 
Son was not.” 

1. Ar his suggestion then ye have maintained and ye 
think, that “ there was once when the Son was ποῦ; this is 
the first cloke of your views of doctrine which has to be 
stripped off. Say then what was once when the Son was 
not, O slanderous and irreligious men*? If ye say the Father, 
your blasphemy is but greater; for it is impious to say that 
He was “once,” or to signify Him by the word “ once.” 
For He is ever, and is now, and as the Son is, so is He, and 
is Himself He that is, and Father of the Son. But if ye say 
that the Son was once, when He Himself was not, the answer 
is foolish and unmeaning. For how could He both be and 
not be? In this difficulty, you can but answer, that there 
was a time, when the Word was not; for your very adverb 
“once” naturally signifies this. And your other, “The 
Son was not before His generation,” is equivalent to saying, 
“There was once when He was not,” for both the one and 
the other signify that there is a time before the Word. 

2. Whence then this your discovery? Why do ye, as the 
heathen rage, and imagine vain words against the Lord and 


® Athan. observes that this formula 
of the Arians is a mere evasion to 
escape using the word “time.” vid. 
also Cyril. Thesaur. iv. pp. 19, 20. 
Else let them explain,—‘*‘ There was,” 
what “when the Son was not?” or 
what was before the Son? since He 
Himself was before all times and ages, 
which He created (supr. p. 50, note n). 
Thus, if “when” be a word of time, 
He it is who was “when” He was not, 
which is absurd. Did they mean, how- 


ever, that it was the Father who “‘ was” 
before the Son? This was true, if 
“before” was taken, not to imply 
time, but origination or beginning. 
And in this sense the first verse of S. 
John’s Gospel may be interpreted “In 
the Beginning,” or Origin, i.e. in 
the Father ‘‘ was the Word.” Thus 
Athan. himself understands that text, 
Orat. iv. § 1. vid. also Orat. iii. § 9; 
Nyssen. contr. Eunom. iii. p. 106; 
Cyril. Thesaur. 32. p. 312. 


(Oar 


Cap. 
IV 


Sal: 


Psa le 


Disc. 


John1,1 
Apoc. 1], 
4. 


Rom. 9, 
5. 


Ib. 1, 20 


1 Cor. 1, 


24. 


2 Cor. 3, 


16. 17. 


- and “ co-existent always with the Father.” 


196 Texts for the eternity of the Son. 


against His Christ? for no holy Scripture has used such 
language of the Saviour, but rather “always” and “eternal” 
For, In the be- 
ginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the 
Word was God. And in the Apocalypse he? thus speaks ; 
Who is and who was and who is to come. Now who can 
rob “who is” and “who was” of eternity? This too in 
confutation of the Jews hath Paul written in his Hpistle to 
the Romans, Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ, who is 
over all, God blessed for ever ; while silencing the Greeks, 
. he has said, The visible things of Him from the creation of 
the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that 
are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead; and what 
the Power of God is‘, he teaches us elsewhere himself, Christ 
the Power of God and the Wisdom of God. Surely in these 
words he does not designate the Father, as ye often whisper 
one to another, affirming that the Father is His eternal 
power. ‘This is not so; for he says not, “ God Himself is 
the power,” but “ His is the power.” Very plain is it to 
all that “ His” is not “ He;” yet not something alien but 


rather proper to Him. 


3. Study too the context and turn to the Lord; now the 


Lord is that Spirit’; and ye will see that it is the Son who 


Ὁ τάδε λέγει. Our translation of the 
New Testament renders such phrases 
similarly,‘‘he.” 5:dA¢yer“* wherefore he 
saith,” but in the margin “‘it.” Eph. y. 
14. εἴρηκε περὶ τῆς ἑβδόμης οὕτω, “he 
spake.”’ Heb. iy..4. And we may take 
in explanation ‘‘ As the Holy Ghost 
saith, To-day,” &c. Heb. iii. 7. Or un- 
derstand with Athan. διελέγξει λέγων 
6 Παῦλος, infr. § 57. ὡς εἶπεν δ᾽ Ἰωάννης, 
Orat. iii. § 30. vid. also iv. § 31. On 
the other hand, “as the Scripture hath 
said,” John vii. 42: ** what saith the 
Scripture 2” Rom. iy. 3: “ that the 
Scripture saith in vain,” James iy. 5. 
And so Athan. oidev 7 θεία γραφὴ 
Aéyouca.infr. §56; ἔθος τῇ θειῇ γραφῇ... 
φησί. Orat. iv. § 27 ; λέγει ἡ γραφή. de 
decr. § 22; φησὶν ἡ γραφή. de Syn. ὃ 
52. 


¢ Athan. has so interpreted this text 
supr. p. 149. vid. Justinian’s Comment 
for its various interpretations. It was 
either a received interpretation, or had 
been adduced at Nica, for Asterius 
had some years before these Discourses 


replied to it, vid. supr. p. 101, and 
Orat. ii. καὶ 37 [infra p. 332]. 

Δ §. Athanasius observes, Serap. i. 
4—7. that the Holy Ghost is never in 
Scripture called simply ““ Spirit’? with- 
out the addition “ of God” or ‘ of the 
Father ”’ or “from Me” or of the ar- 
ticle, or of ‘* Holy,” or ‘* Comforter,” 
or “ of truth,” or unless He has been 
spoken of just before. Accordingly this 
text is understood of the third Person 
in the Holy Trinity by Origen, contr. 
Cels. vi. 70; Basil de Sp. S. n. 52; 
Pseudo-Athan.decomm.ess. 6. On the 
other hand, the word πνεῦμα,“ Spirit,” 
is used more or less distinctly for 
our Lord’s Divine Nature whether in 
itself or as incarnate, in Rom. i. 4, 
1 Cor. xy. 45, 1 Tim. iii. 16, Hebr. ix. 
14, 1 Pet. iii. 18, John vi. 63, δα. 
Indeed the early Fathers speak as if 
the ** Holy Spirit,’ which came down 
upon S. Mary might be considered the 
Word. E.g. Tertullian against the 
Valentinians, ‘‘If the Spirit of God 
did not descend into the womb fo par- 


The Son is the Futher’s Eternal Power and Godhead. 197 


is signified. For after making mention of the creation, he Cua. 
naturally speaks of the Framer’s Power as seen in it, which τς 
Power, I say, is the Word of God, by whom all things Sara 
were made. If indeed the creation is sufficient of itself 
alone, without the Son, to make God known, see that you 
fall not into the further opinion that without the Son it 
came to be. But if through the Son it came to be, and 
im Him all things consist, it must follow that he who con- Col. 1, 
templates the creation rightly, is contemplating also the "ἢ 
Word who framed it, and through Him begins to apprehend eg 
the Father'. And if, as the Saviour also says, No one Gent. 
knoweth the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son Matt. 11, 
shall reveal Him, and if on Philip’s asking, Shew us the at 4, 
Father, He said not, “ Behold the creation,” but, He that g, 9. 
hath seen Me, hath seen the Father, reasonably doth Paul, 
while accusing the Greeks of contemplating the harmony 
and order of the creation without reflecting on the Framing 
Word within it; (for the creatures witness to their own 
Framer ;) and wishing that through the creation they might 
apprehend the true God, and abandon their worship of it, 
reasonably hath he said, His Hternal Power and Godhead, Rom. 1, 
thereby signifying the Son. ail: 

4, And where the sacred writers say, “ Who exists before 
the ages,” and By whom He made the ages, they thereby as Heb. 1, 
clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, 3: 
even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if 
Hsaias says, The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends Is. 40, 
of the earth; and Susanna said, O Hverlasting God; and 28: 


Hist. Sus. 
take in flesh from the womb, why did The same use of “Spirit” for the Word 42: 
He descend at all?” de carn. Chr. 19. 


or Godhead of the Word, is also found 
vid. also ibid. 5 and 14. contr. Prax. 


in Tatian. ady. Gree. 7. Athenag. Leg. 
26. Just. Apol.i.33 [p. 26 0.1.1]. [ren. 


Her. v. 1 [p. 451 O.T.]. Cypr. Idol. 
Van. 6.(p. 19. Oxf. Tr.) Lactant. In- 
stit. iv. 12. vid. also Hilar. Trin. ii 
27; Athan. λόγος ἐν τῷ ΒΕ ΟΝ ἔπλατ- 
τε τὸ σῶμα. Serap. i . dl fin. ev τῷ 
λόγῳ ἦν τὸ πνεῦμα. ibid. iii. 6. And 
more distinctly even as late as S. Max- 
imus, αὐτὸν ἀντὶ σπορᾶς συλλαβοῦσα 
τὸν λόγον, κεκύηκε t. 2. p. 309. The 
earliest ecclesiastical authorities are S. 
Ignatius ad Smyrn. init. and S. Her- 
mas (even though his date were A.D. 
150.) whoalsosays plainly, Filiusautem 
Spiritus Sanctus est. Past. iii. 5. ἢ, 5. 


10. Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 10. fren. Heer. 
iv. 86. Tertull. Apol. 28 [p. 60 O.T.]. 
Lact. Inst. iv. 6. 8. Hilar. Trin. ix. 3. 
and 14. Eustath. apud Theod. Eran. 
iii. p. 235. Athan. de Incarn. 22 (if it 
be Athan.’s).contr.Apoll.i.8.Apollinar. 
ap. Theod. Eran. i. p.71.and the Apol- 
linarists passim. Greg. Naz. Ep. 101. 
adCledon. p. 85. Ambros. Inearn. 63. 
Severian. ap. Theod. Eran. ii. p. 167. 
Vid. Grot. ad Mare. ii.8 ; Bull, Def. F. 
N.i.2.§ 5; Coustant. Pref. in Hilar. 
57, Χο. Montfaucon in Athan. Serap. 
iv. 19. [seealso Tertullian, de Orat. init. 
and note H in Oxford Tr. pp. 322. sqq.] 


198 Further texts for the eternity of the Son. 


Baruch wrote, I will ery unto the Everlasting in my days, 


_— and shortly after, My hope is in the Everlasting, that He 


ie 


Gen.2, 5. 


will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One ; 
yet forasmuch as the Apostle, writing to the Hebrews, says, 


- Who being the radiance of His glory and the Expression of 


His Person; and David too in the eighty-ninth Psalm, And 


. the brightness of the Lord be upon us, and, In Thy Light 


shall we see Light, who has so little sense as to doubt of the 
eternity of the Son!? for when did man see light without 
the brightness of its radiance, that he may say of the Son, 
“There was once, when He was not,” or “ Before His 
generation He was not.” 

5. And the words addressed to the Son in the hundred 
and forty-fourth Psalm, Thy kingdom is a kingdom of all 
ages, forbid any one to imagine any interval at all in which 
the Word did not exist. For if every interval is measured 
by ages, and ofall the ages* the Word is King and Maker, 
therefore, whereas no interval at all exists prior to Him ®, 
it were madness to say, ‘There was once when the Ever- 
lasting ® was not,” and “ From nothing is the Son.” 

6. And whereas the Lord Himself says, [ am the Truth, 
not “1 became the Truth;” but always, J am,—I am the 
Shepherd,—Lam the Light,—and again, Call ye Me not, Lord 


‘ and Master? and ye call Me well, for so 1 am, who, hearing 


such language from God, and Wisdom, and Word of the 
Father, speaking of Himself, will any longer hesitate about 
its truth, and not forthwith believe that in the phrase I am, 
is signified that the Son is eternal and unoriginate ? 

7. It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures de- 
clare the Son’s eternity; it is equally plain from what follows 
that the Arian phrases “ He was not,” and “before” and 
“when,” are in the same Scriptures predicated of creatures. 
Moses, for instance, in his account of the generation of our 
system, says, And every plant of the field, before it was in the 


© Vid. p. 30, noten. The subject is Angels. This had been a philosophi- 


treated at length in Greg. Nyss. contr. 
Eunom. i. t. 2. Append. p. 98—101. 
vid. also Ambros. de Fid. i.8—11]. As 
time measures the material creation, 
“ages” were considered to measure 
the immaterial, as the duration of 


cal distinction, Timzeus says εἰκών ἐστι 
χρόνος τῷ ἀγεννάτῳ χρόνῳ, ὃν αἰῶνα 
ποταγορεύομες. Vid. also Philon. Quod 
Deus Immut. 6. Euseb. Laud. C. 1 
prope fin., p. 501. Naz. Or. 38, 8. 


Scripture uses “was not before” of creatures. 199 


earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the Lord God Cwap. 
had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not ΤΥ: 
a man to till the ground. And in Deuteronomy, When the Deut. 
Most High divided to the nations. And the Lord said in His ie or, 
own Person!, If ye loved Me, ye would rejoice because I said, τοῦ 

I go unto the Father, for My Father is greater than I. Pipe ὁ 
And now I have told you before it come to pass, that when 

it is come to pass, ye might believe. And concerning the crea- 

tion He says by Solomon, Or ever the earth was, when there Proy. 8, 
were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no 39: 
fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were 
settled, before the hills, was I brought forth. And, Before Jonn, 
Abraham was, Iam. And concerning Jeremias He says, °° 
Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee. And David Jer. 1, 5. 
in the Psalm says, Before the mountains were brought forth, Ps. 90, 2. 
or ever the earth and the world were made, Thow art God 

from everlasting and world without end. And in Daniel, 
Susanna cried out with a loud voice and said, O everlasting Hist. 
God, that knowest the secrets, and knowest all things before δ5' 4? 
they be. ‘Thus it appears that the phrases “ once was not,” 

and ‘before it came to be,” and “when,” and the like, 
belong to things generate and creatures, which come out 

of nothing, but are alien to the Word. But if such terms 

are used in Scripture of things generate, but, “ever” of 

the Word, it follows, Ὁ ye God’s enemies, that the Son 

did not come out of nothing, nor is in the number of gene- 

rated things at all, but is the Father’s Image and Word 
eternal, never having not been, but being ever, as the eter- 

nal Radiance 5 of a Light which is eternal. Why imagine 2p. 39, 
then times before the Son? or wherefore blaspheme the note b. 
Word as after times, by whom even the ages were made*? for 3, 108, 
how did time or age at all subsist when the Word, as you note h. 
say, had not appeared, through whom all things were made Jobn 1, 
and without whom not one thing was made? Or why, when 

you mean time, do you not plainly say, “a time was when the 

Word was not ?”’ but you drop the word “ time”’ to deceive 

the simple, why you do not at all conceal your own feeling, 

nor, even if you did,could you escape discovery. For you still 
simply mean times, when you say, “There was when He was 

not,” and “ He was not before His generation.” 


CHAP. V. 


SUBJECT CONTINUED. 


Objection, that the Son’s eternity makes Him co-ordinate with the Father, 
introduces the subject of His Divine Sonship, as a second proof of His 
eternity. The word Son is introduced in a secondary, but is to be under- 
stood in real sense. Since all things partake of the Father in partaking 
of the Son, He is the whole participation of the Father, that is, He is the 
Son by nature; for to be wholly participated is to beget. 


1. WueEn these points are thus proved, their profaneness 
goes further. ‘ If there never was, when the Son was not,” 
say they, “ but He is eternal, and co-exists with the Father, 
call Him no more the Father’s Son, but brother*.”” O insen- 
sate and contentious! For if we said only that He was eter- 
nally with the Father, and not His Son, their pretended 
scruple would have some plausibility ; but if, while we say 
that He is eternal, we also confess Him to be Son from the 
Father, how can He that is begotten be considered brother 
of Him who begets? And if our faith is in Father and Son, 
what brotherhood is there between them? and how can the 
Word be called brother of Him whose Word Heis? Thisis 
not an objection of men really ignorant, for they comprehend 
how the truth lies; but it isa Jewish pretence, and that from 
those who, in Solomon’s words, through desire separate them- 
selves from the truth. For the Father and the Son were not 
generated from some pre-existing origin’, that we may 

«That this was an objection urged 


by Eunomius, has already been men- 
tioned from S. Cyril, supr. p.151, note 


the Anomeean arguments as he heard 
them reported. vid. de Syn. 1. c. where 
he says, ‘‘they say, as you have writ- 


z. It isimplied also in the Apology of 
the former, ὃ 24. and in Basil. contr. 
Eunom. ii. 28. Aetius was in Alex- 
andria with George of Cappadocia, 
A. D. 356—8. and Athan. wrote these 
Discourses in the latter year, as the 
de Syn. at the end of the next. It is 
probable then that he is alluding to 


ten,” 851. Ανόμοιος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν 15 men- 
tioned infr. ὃ 17. As the Arians here 
object that the First and Second Per- 
sons of the Holy Trinity are ἀδελφοὶ, 
so did they say the same in the course 
of the controversy of the Second and 
Third. vid. Athan. Serap. i. 15. iv. 2. 


Our Lord eternal, because the Son. 201 


account Them brothers, but the Father is the Origin of the 
Son and begat Him; and the Father is Father, and not 
the Son of any ; and the Son is Son, and not brother. 

2. Further, if He is called the eternal offspring” of the 
Father, He is rightly so called. For never was the sub- 
stance of the Father imperfect}, that what is proper to it’ ἀτελής 
should be added afterwards”; nor, as man from man, has ? émovp- 
the Son been begotten, so as to be later than His Father’s ΠΤ 
existence, but He is God’s offspring, and as being proper 87, note 
Son of God, who is ever, He exists eternally. For, whereas ™ 
it is proper to men to beget in time, from the imperfection 
of their nature ὃ, God’s offspring is eternal, for His nature ¢ infr. 

; , § 26 fin. 
is ever perfect ἃ, If then He is not a Son, but a work made gupr. 


out of nothing, they have but to prove it; and then they bee 
are at liberty, as if speculating about a creature, to cry out, 


CHAP. 
V. 


>’ In other words, by the Divine 
γέννησις is not meant anact butan eter- 
naland unchangeable fact, in the Divine 
Essence. Arius, not admitting this, 
objected at the outset of the contro- 
versy to the phrase ‘always Father, 
always Son,” Theod. Hist. i. 4. p. 749. 
and Eunomius argues that, ‘if the Son 
is co-eternal withthe Father, the Father 
was never such in act, ἐνεργὸς, but was 
apyés.”’ Cyril. Thesaur. v.p. 41. S. Cyril 
answers that works, ἔργα, are made 
ἔξωθεν. from without; but that ourLord, 
as S. Athanasius here says, is neither 
a ‘ work” nor ‘‘ from without.” And 
hence he says elsewhere that, while 
men are fathers first in posse then in 
act, God is δυνάμει τε καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ πα- 
τήρ. Dial. 2. p. 458. (vid. supr. p. 65. 
note m.) Victorinusin like manner,says, 
that God is potentia et actione Deus 
sed in eterna; Ady. Ar. i. p. 202. and 
he quotes S. Alexander, speaking ap- 
parently in answer to Arius, of a sem- 
per generans generatio. And Arius 
scoffs at ἀειγεννὴς and ἀγεννητογενής. 
Theod. Hist. i. 4. p. 749. And Origen 
had said, 6 σωτὴρ ἀεὶ γεννᾶται. ap. 
Routh. Reliq. t. 4. p. 304. and S. Di- 
onysius calls Him the Radiance, avap- 
xov καὶ aevyevés. Athan. S. D. 15. 5. 
Augustine too says, Semper gignit 
Pater, et semper nascitur Filius. Ep. 
238. ἢ. 24. Petay. de Trin. ii. 5. n. 7. 
quotes the following passage from 
Theodorus Abucara, ‘‘ Since the Son’s 
generation does but signify His having 
His existence from the Father, which 


He has ever, therefore He is ever be- 
gotten. For it became Him, who is 
properly (κυρίως) the Son, ever to be 
deriving His existence from the Father, 
and not as we who derive its commence- 
ment only. In us generation is a way 
to existence; in the Son of God it 
denotes the existence itself; in Him 
it has not existence for its end, but it 
is itself an end, τέλος, and is perfect, 
τέλειον.᾽ Opuse. 26. 

ὁ yid. foregoing note. A similar pas- 
sage is found in Cyril. Thesaur. y. p. 
42, Dial. ii. fin. This was retorting 
the objection ; the Arians said, ‘* How 
can God be ever perfect, who added to 
Himself a Son?” Athan. answers, 
““How can the Son not be eternal, 
since God is ever perfect ?” vid. Greg. 
Nyssen. contr. Eunom. Append. p. 142. 
Cyril. Thesaur. x. p. 78. As to the 
Son’s perfection, Aetius objects ap. 
Epiph. Her.76. pp. 925, 6, that growth 
and consequent accession from without 
were essentially involved in the idea of 
Sonship; whereas S. Greg. Naz. speaks 
of the Son as not ἀτελῆ πρότερον, εἶτα 
τέλειον, ὥσπερ νόμος τῆς ἡμετέρας γενέ- 
σεως. Orat. 30. 9 fin. In like manner, 
S. Basil argues against Eunomius, that 
the Son is τέλειος, because He is the 
Image, not as if copied, which is a 
gradual work, but as a χαρακτὴρ, or 
impression of a seal, or as the know- 
ledge communicated from master to 
scholar, which comes to the latter and 
exists in him perfect, without being lost 
to the former. contr. Eunom. ii. 16 fin. 


202 Lfour Lord is not from the Father’s substance, He is not a Son. 


Disc. “There was once when He was not ;” for things which are 
τ generate were not, and came to be. But if He is Son, as 
the Father says, and the Scriptures proclaim, and “Son” 
is nothing else than what is generated from the Father ; 
and what is generated from the Father is His Word, and 
Wisdom, and Radiance ; what is to be said but that, in main- 
taining ‘Once the Son was not,” they rob God of His Word, 
like plunderers, and openly predicate of Him that He was 
2p 20, once without His proper Word and Wisdom, and that the 
Ρ. 25, — Light was once without radiance, and the Fountain was once 
barren! and dry*? For though they pretend alarm at the 
τὸν θεὸν, name of time, because of those who reproach them with it, 
nite eu. and say, that He was before times, yet whereas they assion 
ἜΣΤΙ certain periods, in which they imagine He was not, they are 
yovres, ost irreligious still, as equally suggesting times, and im- 

Bos: puting to God’s nature® an absence of His rational Word+#. 
§ 15, 9. But if on the other hand, while they acknowledge with 
us the name of “ Son,” from an unwillingness to be publicly 
and generally condemned, they deny that the Son is the 
proper offspring of the Father’s substance, on the ground that 
5 de this must imply parts and divisions®; what is this but to deny 
_ that He is very Son, and only in name to call Him Son at 
pp. 16— all? Andis it not a grievous error, to have material thoughts 
about what is immaterial, and because of the weakness of 
their proper nature to deny what is natural and proper to the 
"ὥρα Father? It does but remain ®, that they should deny Him 
notee. also, because they understand not how God is”, and what the 
oan ‘ Father is, now that, foolish men, they measure by thenselves 
' πο Offspring of the Father. And persons in such a state 
of mind as to consider that there cannot be a Son of God, 
demand our pity; but they must be interrogated and ex- 

posed for the chance of bringing them to their senses. 

4. If then, as you say, “the Son is from nothing,” and 
“was not before His generation,” He, of course, as well as 
others, must be called Son and God and Wisdom only by 
participation ; for thus all other creatures consist, and by 
sanctification are glorified. You have to tell us then, of what 
8. de Syn. He is partaker®. ΑἸ] other things partake the Spirit, but He, 
Noyes according to you, of what is He partaker? of the Spirit? Nay, 


. 148, : 
151. rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son, as He Himself 


To be begotten is to participate wholly. 209 


says; and it is not reasonable to say that the latter is Cuap. 
sanctified by the former. Therefore it is the Father that ἘΣΎ ΕΣ 
He partakes; for this only remains to say. But this, 

which is participated, what is it or whence!? If it be'p. 15, 
something external provided by the Father, He will not woot 
now be partaker of the Father, but of what is external to 

Him; and no longer will He be even second after the Father, 

since He has before Him this other; nor can He be called 

Son of the Father, but of that, as partaking which, He has 

been called Son and God. And if this be extravagant and 
irreligious, when the Father says, This is My Beloved Son, Matt. 8, 
and when the Son says that God is His own Father, it fol- wy 
lows that what is partaken is not external, but from the 
substance of the Father. And as to this again, if it be 
other than the substance of the Son, an equal extravagance 
will meet us; there beg in that case something between 
this that is from the Father and the substance of the Son, 
whatever that be’. 

5. Such thoughts then being evidently extravagant and 
untrue, we are driven to say that what is from the substance 
of the Father, and proper to Him, is entirely the Son; for 
it is all one to say that God is wholly participated, and 
that He begets; and what does begetting signify but a 
Son? And thus of the Son Himself, all things partake 
according to the grace of the Spirit coming from Him’; ast 


ἃ 16. 


4 Here is taught us the strict unity urged against the Catholics by Aetius, p. 57. 


of the Divine Substance. When it is 
said that the First Person of the Holy 
Trinity communicates divinity to the 
Second, it is meant that that one Es- 
sence which is the Father, also is the 
Son. Hence the force of the word 
ὁμοούσιον, Which was in consequence 
accused of Sabellianism, but was dis- 
tinguished from it by the particle ὁμοῦ, 
“together,” which implied a difference 
as well as unity ;—whereas ταὐτοούσιον 
or συνούσιον implied, wifh the Sa- 
bellians, an identity or a confusion. 
The Arians, on the other hand, as in 
the instance of Eusebius, &c. supr. p. 
63, note g; p. 116, note h; considered 
the Father and the Son two οὐσίαι. 
The Catholic doctrine is that, though 
the Divine Substance is both the Fa- 
ther Ingenerate and also the Only- 
begotten Son, it is not itself ἀγέννητος 
or yevynth; which was the objection 


Epiph. Her. 76.10. Thus Athan. says, 
de Deer. ὃ 30. “‘ He has given theau- 
thority of all things to the Son, and, 
haying given it, is once more, πάλιν, 
the Lord of all things through the 
Word.” supr. p.55. Again, “the Father 
having giyen all things to the Son, 
has all things once again πάλιν... 
for the Son’s Godhead is the Godhead 
of the Father.” Orat. iii. § 36 fin. [infra 
pp- 452, 493]. Hence ἡ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς 
εἰς τὸν υἱὸν θεοτὴς ἀῤῥεύστως Kal ἀδιαι- 
ρέτως τυγχάνει. Expos. Ε΄. 2. vid. supr. 
p- 145, note r. ** Vera et ερέίρυπα sub- 
stantia, in Se tota permanens, totam se 
coeterne yeritati nativitatis indul- 
sit.” FPulgent. Resp. 7. And S. Hilary, 
“ Filius in Patre est et in Filio Pater, 
non per transfusionem, refusionemque 
mutuam, sed per viventis nature per- 
fectam nativitatem.” Trin. vii. 31. 


204 Generation does notimply division or affection of substance. 


Disc. and this shews that the Son Himself partakes of nothing, 
I but what is partaken from the Father, is the Son; for, as 
partaking of the Son Himself, we are said to ΠΈΣΕ, of 
3 clio God ; and this is what Peter said, that ye may be partakers 1 
1 Cor. 3, in α divine nature; as says too the Apostle, Know ye not, 
ae 6, that ye are a temple of God? and, We are the temple of the 
16. living God. And beholding the Son, we see the Father ; 
vid de ἴον the thought? and comprehension of the Son, is eae 
Syn.§ ledge concerning the Father, because He is His proper 
pal. offspring from His substance. And since to be partaken 
no one of us would ever call affection or division of God’s 
substance, (for it has been shewn and acknowledged that 
God is participated, and to be participated is the same 
thing as to beget;) therefore that which is begotten is 
neither affection nor division of that blessed substance. 
Hence it is not incredible that God should have a Son, the 
Offspring of His own substance; nor do we imply affection 
or division of God’s substance, when we speak of “Son” 
and “Offspring ;”’ but rather, as acknowledging the genuine, 
and true, and Only-begotten of God, so we believe. 
6. If then, as we have stated and are shewing, what is the 
Offspring of the Father’s substance be the Son, we cannot 
3supr. hesitate, rather, we must be certain, that the same® is the 
P- 2, Wisdom and Word of the Father, in and through whom He 
p 41, creates and makes all things; and His Brightness too, in 
whom He enlightens all things, and is revealed to whom He 
will; and His Expression and Image also, in whom He is 
John 10, CoOutemplated and known, wherefore He and His Father are 
30. one, and whoso looketh on Him, looketh on the Father; 
and the Christ, in whom all things are redeemed, and the 
new creation wrought afresh. And on the other hand, the 
Son being such Offspring, it is not fitting, rather it is full 
of peril, to say, that He is a work out of nothing, or that He 
was not before His generation. For he who thus speaks 
of that which is proper to the Father’s substance, already 
4p.3, blasphemes the Father Himself*; since he really thinks of 
note f- Him what he falsely imagines of His offspring. 


pane tiah ae hl can ore aie 


ee he 


aut. 


a Ὅν me 


CHAP. VI. 


SUBJECT CONTINUED. 


Third proof of the Son’s eternity, viz. from other titles indicative of His 
consubstantiality ; as the Creator; as One of the Blessed Trinity; as 
Wisdom ; as Word; as Image. ‘Tf the Sona perfect Image of the Father, 
why is He not a Father also? because God, being perfect, is not the origin 
ofarace. Only the Father a Father because the Only Father, only the 
Son a Son because the Only Son. Men are not really fathers and really 
sons, but shadows of the True. The Son does not become a Father, because 
He has received from the Father, to be immutable and eyer the same. 


1. Tuts thought is of itself a sufficient refutation of the 
Arian heresy ; however, its heterodoxy will appear also from 
the following :—If God be Maker and Creator, and create 
His works through the Son, and we cannot regard things 
which come to be, except as being through the Word, is it 
not blasphemous, God being Maker, to say, that His Fram- 
ing Word and His Wisdom once was not? it is the same as 
saying, that God is not Maker, if He had not His proper 
Framing Word which is from Him, but that That by which 
He frames, accrues to Him from without!, and is alien from 
Him, and unlike? in substance. 

2. Next, let them tell us this,—or rather learn from it 
how irreligious they are in saying, “ Once He was not,” and, 
“ He was not before His generation ;”—for if the Word is 
not with the Father from everlasting, the Trinity*® is not 
everlasting ; but a One* was first, and afterwards by addi- 


CuHap. 
VI 


§ 17. 


1p. 43, 
note b. 
2 ἀνό- 
fotos 


3 rpids. 


4 μονάς. 


tion it became a Three*®; and so as time went on, it seems ὅ τριάς. 


what we know concerning God grew and took shape®. And 
further, if the Son is not proper offspring of the Father’s 
substance, but of nothing has come to be, then of nothing the 
Trinity consists, and once there was not a Three, but a One; 
and a Three once with deficiency, and then complete; defi- 
cient, before the Son was generated, complete when He had 


6 vid. 
Orat. iv. 
§ 13. 


Disc. 
I. 
1p. 191, 
note d. 


§ 18. 


2 de Decr. 
§ 31, 
p. 56. 


206 If the Son not eternal, the Holy Trinity not eternal. 


come to be; and henceforth a thing generated is reckoned 
with the Creator, and what once was not has divine wor- 
ship and glory with Him who was ever!. Nay, what is more 
serious still, the Three is discovered to be unlike Itself, con- 
sisting of strangeandalien natures andsubstances. Andthis, 
in other words, is saying, that the Trinity has a generated 
consistence. Whatsort ofa worship then is this, which is not 
even like itself, but is in process of completion as time goes 
on, and is now not thus, and then again thus ? For probably 
it will receive some fresh accession, and so on without limit, 
since at first and at starting it took its consistence by way of 
accessions. And so undoubtedly it may decrease on the con- 
trary, for what is added plainly admits of being subtracted. 
3. But this is not so: perish the thought; the Three is not 
generated ; but there is an eternal and one Godhead in a 
Three, and there is one Glory of the Holy Three. And ye 
presume to divide it into different natures ; the Father being 
eternal, yet ye say of the Word which is seated by Him, 
“ Once He was not;” and, whereas the Son is seated by the 
Father, yet ye think to place Him far from Him. The Three 
is Creator and Framer, and ye fear not todegrade It to things 
which are from nothing; ye scruple not to equal servile 
beings to the nobility of the Three, and to rank the King, 
the Lord of Sabaoth, with subjects”. Cease this confusion 
of thingsunassociable, or rather of things which are not with 
Him who is. Such statements do not glorify and honour 
the Lord, but the reverse; for he who dishonours the Son, 
dishonours also the Father. For if theological doctrine is 
now perfect in a Trinity, and this is the true and only wor- 
ship of Him, and this is the good and the truth, it must 
have been always so, unless the good and the truth be 
something that came after, and theological doctrine is com- 
pleted by additions. I say, it must have been eternally so ; 
but if not eternally, not so at present either, but at present 


$0, as you suppose it was from the beginning,—I mean, not 


a Trinity now. But such heretics no Christian would bear ; 
it belongs to Greeks, to introduce a general Trinity, and to 
level It with things generate; for these do admit of de- 
ficiencies and additions ; but the faith of Christians acknow- 
ledges the blessed Trinity as unalterable and perfect and 


Names “ Wisdom,” “Fountain, “Word,” imply eternity? 207 


ever what It was, neither adding to It what is more, or Caan, 
imputing to It any loss, (for both ideas are irreligious,) 
and therefore it dissociates it from all things generated, 
and it guards as indivisible and worships the unity of the 
Godhead Itself; and shuns the Arian blasphemies, and con- 
fesses and acknowledges that the Son was ever; for He 
is eternal, as is the Father, of whom He is the Hternal 
Word,—to which subject let us now return again. 

4. If God be, and be called, the Fountain of wisdom and § 19. 
life,—ds He says by Jeremiah, They have forsaken Me the Jer.2,13. 
Fountain of living waters ; and again, A glorious high throne τυ. 17, 
from the beginning, is the place of our sanctuary ; O Lord, the 13. 18. 
Hope of Israel, all that forsake Thee shall be ashamed, and 
they that depart from Me shall be written in the earth, because 
they have forsaken the Lord, the Fountain of living waters ; 
and in the book of Baruch it is written, Thou hast forsaken Bar. 3, 
the Fountain of wisdom,—this implies that life and wisdom ᾿3 
are not foreign to the Substance of the Fountain, but are 
proper to It, nor were at any time without existence’, but ᾿ ἀνύ- 
were always. Now the Son is all this, who says, I am the Jorn 4, 
Life, and, I Wisdom dwell with prudence. Is it not then ir- oe 
religious to say, “ Once the Son was not?” for it is all one 12. 
with saying, “ Once the Fountain was dry, destitute of Life 
and Wisdom.” But a fountain it would then cease to be ; 
for what begetteth not from itself, is not a fountain ὅ. What ? p. 202, 
a load of extravagance ! for God promises that those who rf. 
do His will shall be as a fountain which the water fails not, 
saying by Isaiah the prophet, And the Lord shall satisfy τς 58, 
thy soul in drought, and make thy bones fat; and thou shalt ἢ 
be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose 
waters fail not. And yet these, whereas God is called and is 
a Fountain of wisdom, dare to insult Him as barren? and void 3 ἄγονον 
of His proper Wisdom. But their doctrine is false; truth 
witnessing that God is the eternal Fountain of His proper 
Wisdom ; and, if the Fountain be eternal, the Wisdom also 
must needs be eternal. For in It were all things made, as 
David saysin the Psalm, In Wisdom hast Thow made them Ps. 104 
all; and Solomon says, The Lord by Wisdom hath formed a 
the earth, by understanding hath He established the heavens. ΤΩ 

5. Andthis Wisdom isthe Word, and by Him, as John says, 


ov. 3, 


a hing “.: 


2de Decr. 
§ 30. 
supr. 
p. 54. 


3 de Decr. 
§ 17. 
p. 28. 


4 ἀνύ- 
παρκτον 


208 Our Lord not one of “ all”? things. 


all things were made, and without Him was made not one 
And this Word is Christ; for there is One God, the 
Father, from whom are all things, and we for Him; and 
One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and 
we through Him. And if all things are through Him, He 
Himself is not to be reckoned with that “all.” For he who 
dares ! to call Him, through whom are all things, one of that 
“all,” surely will have like speculations concerning God, from 
whom are all. But ifhe shrinks from this as extravagant, and 
excludes God from that all, it is but consistent that he should 
also exclude from that all the Only-Begotten Son, as being 
proper to the Father’s substance. And, if He be not one of 
the 41] 3, it is sin to say concerning Him, “ He was not,” and 
“He was not before His generation.” Such words may be 
used of the creatures; but as to the Son, Heis such as the 
Father is, of whose substance He is proper Offspring, Word, 
and Wisdom ?. For this is proper to the Son, as regards the 
Father, and this shews that the Father is proper to the Son ; 
that we may neither say that God was ever without His Rational 
Word”, nor that the Son wasnon-existing*. For wherefore a 


® The words ‘‘that was made” which 
ends this verse were omitted by the 
ancient citers of it, as Irenzeus, Cle- 
ment, Origen, Eusebius, Tertullian, 
nay, Augustine; but because it was 
abused by the Eunomians, Macedoni- 
ans, &c. as if derogatory to the divinity 
of the Holy Spirit, it was quoted in full, 
as by Epiphanius (Ancor. 75), who goes 
so far as to speak severely of the an- 
cient mode of citation. vid. Fabric. and 
Routh.ad Hippol. contr. Noet.12. [The 
CodexAlex.andsome otheruncial MSS. 
punctuatesoasto join these words tothe 
following verse; so does S. Cyril Alex. ] 

> ἄλογον. vid. supr. p. 25, note ὁ, 
where other instances are given from 
Athan. and Dionysius of Rome; also 
p. 2, note 6. vid. also Orat. iv. 2. 4. 
Sent. D. 23. Origen, supr. p. 48. 
Athenag. Leg. 10. Tat. contr. Gree. 
5.Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 10. Hipp. contr. 
Noet. 10. Nyssen. contr. Eunom. vii. 
p- 215. viii. pp. 230, 240. Orat. Catech. 
1.Naz. Orat. 29. 17 fin. Cyril. Thesaur. 
xiv. p. 145. (vid. Petay. de Trin. vi. 
9.) It must not be supposed from these 
instances that the Fathers meant that 
our Lord was literally what is called 
the attribute of reason or wisdom in 
the Divine Essence, or in other words 
that He was God merely viewed as He 


is wise ; which would be a kind of Sa- 
bellianism. But, whereas their op- 
ponents said that He was but called 
Word and Wisdom after the attribute, 
(vid. supr. p. 95, note c,) they said that 
such titles marked, not only a typical 
resemblance to the attribute, but so full 
a correspondence and (as it were) coin- 
cidence in nature with it, that whatever 
relation that attribute had to God, such 
in kind had the Son ;—that the attri- 
bute was His symbol, and not His mere 
archetype ; that our Lord was eternal 
and proper to God, because that attri- 
bute was, which was His title, vid. 
Athan. Ep. Ag. 14 [Hist. tracts pp. 
142, 143 O.T.], that our Lord was that 
Essential Reason and Wisdom,— not 
by which the Father is wise, but with- 
out which the Father was not wise ;— 
not, that is, in the way of a formal 
cause, but in fact. Or, whereas the 
Father Himself is Reason and Wis- 
dom, the Son is the necessary result of 
that Reason and Wisdom, so that, to 
say that there was no Word, would im- 
ply there was no Divine Reason ; just 
as a radiance implies a light; or, as Pe- 
tavius remarks, |. c. quoting the words 
which follow shortly after in the text, 
the eternity of the Original implies the 
eternity of the Image ; τῆς ὑποστάσεως 


Tf our Lord the Image of the Father, He is from His substance, 209 


Son,if not from Him? or wherefore Word and Wisdom, ifnot Cuap. 

ever proper to Him? When then was God without Him who —Y!-_ 

is proper to Him? or how cana man consider that which is on 

proper, as foreign and alien ἢ in substance ? for other things, 1 ἀλλο- 

according to the nature of things generate, are without like- Τριου- 

ness in substance with the Maker ; but are external to Him, ane 

made by the Word at His grace and will, and thus admit of ee 

ceasing to be, ifit so pleases Him who made them®; forsuch ὁ ὁ 

is the nature of things generate *. But as to what is proper? infr. 

to the Father’s substance, (for this we have already found to be Ὁ 

be the Son,) what daring is it and irreligion to say that 

“ This comes from nothing,” and that “ It was not before 

generation,” but was adventitious*, and can at some time ὅ ἐπισυμ- 

cease to be again? ae ; 
6. Leta person only dwell upon this thought, and he will note y. 

discern how the perfection and the plenitude of the Father’s 

substance is impaired by this heresy ; however, he will see its 

extravagance still more clearly, if he considers that the Son 

is the Image and Radiance of the Father, and Expression, 

and Truth. For if, when Light exists, there be withal its 

image, viz. Radiance, anda Subsistence existing, there be of 

it the entire Expression, and a Father existing, there be 

His Truth, viz. the Son‘; let them consider what depths ‘ «the 

of irreligion they fall into, who make time the measure of pate se a 

the Image and Countenance of the Godhead. For if the by 

Son was not before His generation, Truth was not always in Mont. 

God, which it were a sin to say ; for, since the Father was, 

there was ever in Him the Truth, which is the Son, who says, 

Lam the Truth. And the Subsistence existing, of course John 14, 

there was forthwith its Expression and Image; for God’s © 

Image is not delineated from without’, but God Himself hath 


beginning, so can He have no end; 


Ὁ / t 29. ee ”~ 
ὑπαρχούσης, πάντως εὐθὺς εἶναι δεῖ τὸν 
for He is in, and and one with, the 


χαρακτῆρα καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα ταύτης, ὃ 20. 


vid. also infr. § 31. de Decr. § 13. p. 
21. § 20, 23. pp. 35, 40. Theod. Hist. 
i. 3. p. 737. 

¢ This was but the opposite aspect 
of the tenet of our Lord’s consubstan- 
tiality or eternal generation. For if 
He came into being at the will of God, 
by the same will He might cease to 
be; but if His existence is uncondi- 
tional and necessary, as God’s attri- 
butes might be, then as He had no 


Father, who has neither beginning 
nor end. On the question of the ‘ will 
of God” asit affects the doctrine, yid. 
Orat. iii. § 59, &e. 

4 Athan. argues from the very name 
{mage for our Lord’s eternity. An 
Image, to be really such, must be an 
expression from the Original, not an 
external and detached imitation. vid. 
supr. note b. infr. § 26. p. 217. Hence 
S. Basil, ‘‘ He is an Image not made 


__**__ Son Himself says, 1 was His delight. 


§ 21. 


John 14, 
9. 


lde 
Decr. § 


16, pp. 
25, 26. 


210 The title Image” implies eternity. 

begotten it; in which seeing Himself, He has delight, as the 
When then did the 
Father not see Himself in His own Image? or when had 
He not delight, that a man should dare to say, “the Image 
is out of nothing,” and “The Father had not delight before 
the Image was generated ?”” and how should the Maker and 
Creator see Himself in a created and generated substance ? 
for such as is the Father, such must be the Image. Proceed 
we then to consider the attributes of the Father, and we 
shall come to know whether this Image is really His. The 
Fatheris eternal,immortal, powerful, light, King, Sovereign, 
God, Lord, Creator, and Maker. These attributes must be 
in the Image, to make it true that he that hath seen the Son 
hath seen the Father. Ifthe Son be not all this, but, as the 
Arians consider, a thing generate, and not eternal, this is 
not a true Image of the Father, unless indeed they give up 
shame, and go on to say, that the title of Image, given to 
the Son, is not a token of asimilarsubstance °, but His name! 
only. But this, on the other hand, O ye Christ’s enemies, 
is not an Image, nor is it an Expression. For what is the 
likeness of what is out ofnothing to Him who brought what 
was nothing into being? or how can that which is not, be 
like Him thatis, being short of Him in once not being, and 
in its having its place among things generate ? 

7. However, such the Arians wishing Him to be, have con- 
trived arguments such as this;—“If the Son is the Father’s 
offspring and image, and is like in all things * to the Father, 
then it necessarily holds that as He is begotten, so He 
begets, and He too becomes father of ason. And again, he 
who is begotten from Him, begets in his turn, and so on 


with the hand, or a work of art, but 
aliving Image,” &c. supr. p. 106, note 
ἃ. vid. also contr. Eunom. ii. 16, 17. 
Epiph. Her. 76,3. Hilar. Trin. vii. 41 
fin. Origen observes that man, on the 
contrary, is an example of an external 
or improper image of God. Periarch, 
i. 2.§ 6. It might have been more 
direct to have argued from the name 
of Image to our Lord’s consubstanti- 
ality rather than eternity, as, e.g. S. 
Gregory Naz. “ He is Image as one in 
substance, ὁμοούσιον, ... for this is the 
nature of an image, to be a copy of 
the archetype.” Orat. 380. 20. vid. also 
de Deer. ὃ 20,23. supra, pp. 35, 40. but 


for whatever reason Athan. avoids the 
word ὁμοούσιον, in these Discourses. 
S. Chrys. on Col. i. 15. [pp. 212, 213 
O.T.] 

© ὁμοίας οὐσίας.. And so § 20 init. 
ὕμοιον κατ᾽ οὐσίαν, and ὅμοιος τῆς 
οὐσίας, § 26. ὅμοιος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν, iii. 26. 
and ὅμοιος κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ πατρός. 
Ep. ΖΞ 9.17. Also Alex. Ep. Encycl. 2. 
Considering what he says in the de 
Syn. ὃ 38, &c. supr. p. 186, note g, 
in controversy with the Semi-arians 
a year or two later, this use of their 
formula, in preference tothe ὁμοούσιον, 
(vid. foregoing note,) deseryes our 
attention. 


-_| 


» ἢ 


Why the Father only ὦ Father and the Son only a Son. 211 


without limit; for this is to make the Begotten like Him that Cuap. 
begat Him.” Authors of blasphemy, verily, are these foes of —V!— 
God!! who, sooner than confess that the Son is the Father’s 1 θεομά- 
Image ‘, conceive material and earthly ideas concerning the *0,P. © 
Father Himself, ascribing to Him severings? and effluences®? τομὰς, 
and influences. If then God be as man, let Him be also a hes 
parent as man, so that His Son should be father of another, * ἀποῤ- 
and so in succession one from another, till the series they om 
imagine grows into a multitude of gods*. But if God be rive 
not as man, as He is not, we must not impute to Him the * ” 
attributes of man. For brutes and men, after a Creator has 

begun them, are begotten by succession; and the son, haying 

been begotten of a father who was a son, becomes accord- 

ingly in his turn a father to a son, in inheriting from his 

father that by which he himself has come to be. Hence in 

such instances there is not, properly speaking, either father 

or son, nor do the father and the son stay in their respec- 

tive characters, for the son himself becomes a father, being 


£ The objection is this, that, if our 
Lord be the Father’s Image, He ought 
to resemble Him in being a Father. 
S. Athanasius answers that God is not 
as man; with us a son becomes a 
father because our nature is ῥευστὴ. 
transitive and without stay, ever shift- 
ing and passing on into new forms and 
relations ; but that God is perfect and 
eyer the same, what He is once that 
He continues to be; God the Father 
remains Father, and God the Son 
remains Son. Moreover men become 
fathers by detachment and transmis- 
sion, and what is received is handed on 
in a succession; whereas the Father, 
by imparting Himself wholly, begets 
the Son; and a perfect nativity finds 
its termination in itself. The Son has 
not a Son, because the Father has not 
a Father. Thus the Father is the only 
true Father, and the Sononlytrue Son; 
the Father only a Father, the Son only 
a Son; being reaily in Their Persons 
what human fathers are but by office, 
character, accident, and name; vid. 
supr. p.18,note 0. Andsince the Father 
is unchangeable as Father, in nothing 
does the Son more fulfil the idea of a 
perfect Imagethan in being unchange- 
able too. Thus S. Cyril also, Thesaur. 
10. p. 124. And this perhaps may 
illustrate a strong and almost start- 


ling implication of some of the Greek 
Fathers, that the First Person in the 
Holy Trinity, considered as Father, is 
not God. E. g. εἰ δὲ θεὸς 6 υἱὸς, οὐκ 
ἐπεὶ vids’ ὁμοίως καὶ 6 πατὴρ, οὐκ ἐπεὶ 
πατὴρ, θεύς᾽ ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ οὐσία τοιάδε, εἷς 
ἐστὶ πατὴρ καὶ ὃ υἱὸς θεός. Nyssen. t. i. 
p- 915. vid. Petay. de Deoi. 9. § 18. 
Should it be asked, “* What is the Fa- 
ther if not God?” it is enough to an- 
swer, ‘the Father.’? Men differ from 
each other as being individuals, but 
the characteristic difference between 
Father and Son is, not that they are 
individuals, but that they are Father 
and Son. In theseextreme statements 
it must be ever borne in mind that we 
are contemplating divine things ac- 
cording to our notions, not in fact: 
i. e. speaking of the Almighty Father, 
as such ; there being no real separa- 
tion between His Person and His Sub- 
stance. It may be added, that, though 
theologians differ in their decisions, it 
would appear that our Lord is not the 
Image of the Father’s person, but of 
the Father’s substance; in other words, 
not of the Father considered as Father, 
but considered as God. That is, God 
the Son is like and equal to God the 
Father, because theyare both the same 
God; vid. p. 149, note x. also next 
note. 


p 2 


212 Because the Father the only Father and the Son the only Son. 


Disc. 
I. 


1 ἀποῤ- 
ῥοίας 


son of his father, but father of his son. But it is not so m 
the Godhead ; for not as man is God; for the Father is not 
from father ; therefore doth He not beget one who shall 
beget; nor is the Son from effluence’ of the Father, nor is 
He begotten from a father that was begotten; therefore 
neither is He begotten so as to beget. Thus it belongs to 
the Godhead alone, that the Father is properly § father, and 
the Son properly son, and in Them, and Them only, does 
it hold? that the Father is ever Father and the Son ever 
Son. Therefore he who asks why the Son has not a son, 
must inquire why the Father had nota father. But both 
suppositions are indecent and irreligious exceedingly. For 
as the Father is ever Father and never could be Son, so the 
Son is ever Son and never could be Father. For in this 
rather is He shewnto be the Father’s Expression and Image, 
remaining what He is and not changing, but thus receiving 
from the Father to be one andthe same. If then the Father 
change, let the Image change; for so is the Image and 
Radiance in its relation towards Him who begat It. But 
if the Father is unalterable, and what He is that He con- 
tinues, necessarily does the Image also continue what He 
is, and will not alter. Now He is Son from the Father ; 
therefore He will not become other than is proper to the 
Father’s substance. Idly then have the foolish ones devised 
this objection also, wishing to separate the lnage from the 
Father, that they might level the Son with things generated. 


& κυρίως, vid. p. 18, note 0. Else- son, yetis he called father of another ; 


where Athan. says, “The Father being 
one and only is Father of a Son one and 
only ; and in the instance of Godhead 
only have the names Father and Son 
stay, and are ever; for of men if any 
one be called father, yet he has been 
son of another; and if he™be called 


so that in the case of men the names 
father and son do not properly, κυρίως, 


hold.” ad Serap. i. 16. also ibid. iy. 


4 fin. and 6. vid. also κυρίως, Greg. 
Naz. Orat. 29. 5. ἀληθῶς, Orat. 25, 
16. ὄντως, Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 5. 
p. 215. 


CHAP. VII. 


OBJECTIONS TO THE. FOREGOING PROOF. 


Whether, in the generation of the Son, God made One that was already, or 
One that was not. 


1. Rankine Him among these, according to the teaching Cuapr. 
of Eusebius, and accounting Him such as the things which 
come into being through Him, the Arians revolted from the 
truth, and used, when they commenced this heresy, to go 


about with dishonest phrases which they had got together!; 1p 193 
ref. 6. 


nay, up to this time some of them *, when they fall in with 
boys in the market-place, question them, not out of divine 


Scripture, but thus, as if bursting with the abundance of their Matt. 12, 


heart ;—“‘ He who is, did He make him who was not, from 
Him who is, or him who was? therefore did He make the 


® This miserable procedure, of mak- 
ing sacred and mysterious subjects a 
matter of popular talk and debate, 
which is a sure mark of heresy, had 
received a great stimulus about this 
time by the rise of the Anomeans. 
Eusebius’s testimony to the profane- 
ness which attended Arianism upon its 
rise, has been given aboye, p. 75, note 
h. The Thalia is another instance of 
it. S. Alexander speaks of the inter- 
ference, eyen judicial, in its behalf 
against himself, of disobedient women, 
δι’ ἐντυχίας γυναικαρίων ἀτάκτων ἃ ἢπά- 
τησαν, and of the busy and indecent 
gadding about of the younger, ἐκ τοῦ 
περιτροχάζειν πᾶσαν ἀγυιὰν ἀσέμνως. 
ap. Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 730, also p. 
747 ; also of the men’s buffoon conver- 
sation, p.731. Socrates says that ‘‘in 
the Imperial Court, the officers of the 
bedchamber held disputes with the 
women, and in the city in every house 
there was a war of dialectics.”’ Hist. ii. 
2. This mania raged especially in 
Constantinople, and S. Gregory Naz. 
speaks of ““ Jezebels in as thick a crop 
as hemlock ina field.” Orat. 35. 3. vid. 


supr. p. 91, note q. He speaks of the 
heretics as ‘aiming at one thing only, 
how to make good or refute points of 
argument,” making “ every market- 
place resound with their words, and 
spoiling every entertainment with their 
trifling and offensive talk.” Orat. 27. 
2. The most remarkable testimony of 
the kind though not concerning Con- 
stantinople, is given by S. Gregory 
Nyssen,and often quoted, ‘“ Men of yes- 
terday and the day before, mere me- 
chanics, off-hand dogmatists in theo- 
logy, servants too and slaves that have 
been flogged, runaways from servile 
work, are solemn with us and philoso- 
phical about things incomprehensible 
.... With such the whole city is 
full; its smaller gates, forums, squares, 
thoroughfares ; the clothes-yenders, the 
money-lenders, the victuallers. Ask 
about pence, and he will discuss the 
Generate and Ingenerate ; inquire the 
price of bread, he answers, Greater is 
the Father, and the Son is subject; say 
that a bath would suit you, and he de- 
fines that the Son is out of nothing.” 
t, 2. p. 898. 


VII. 


’ 


214 As God exists without place, and creates without materials, 


Disc, 
I. 


Rom. 1, 


Son, whereas He was, or whereas He was not?” Andagain, 
“Ts the Ingenerate’ one or two?” and ‘‘ Has He free will, 
and yet ἘΞ not alter at His own choice, as being of an 
alterable nature? for Heis notas a stone to remain by Him- 
self unmoveable.” Next they turn to women, and address 
them in turn in this womanish language; ‘ Hadst thou a 
son before bearing? now, as thou hadst not, so neither was 
the Son of God before His generation.” In such language 
do the disgraceful men sport and revel, and liken God to 
men, pretending to be Christians, but changing God’s glory 
into an image made like to corruptible man’. 

2. Words so senseless and dull deserve no answer at all; 
however, lest their heresy appear to have any foundation, it 
may be right, though we go out of the way for it, to refute 
them even here, especially on account of the women who are 
so readily deceived by them. When they thus speak, they 
should inquire of an architect, whether he can build without 
materials; and if he cannot, whether it follows that God 
could not make the universe without materials*. Or they 
should ask every man, whether he can be without place; and 
if he cannot, whether it follows that God is in place®; that 
so they may be brought to shame even by their audience. Or 
why is it that, on hearing that God has a Son, theydeny Him 
by the parallel of themselves ; whereas, if they hear that 
He creates and makes, no longer do they object their human 
ideas? they ought in creation also to entertain the same, and 
to supply God with materials, and so deny Him to be Crea- 
tor, till they end in herding with Manichees. Butif the bare 
idea of God transcends such thoughts, and, on very first 
hearing, a man believes and knows that He is in being, not 
as we are, and yet in being as God, and creates not as man 
creates, but yet creates as God, it is plain that He begets 
also not as men beget, but begets as God. For God does 


> This objection is found in Alex. 
Ep. Encyel. 2 2. 6 ὧν θεὸς τὸν μὴ ὄντα ἐκ 
τοῦ μὴ ὄντος. Again, ὄντα γεγέννηκε ἢ 
οὐκ ὄντα. Greg. Orat. 29. 9, who an- 
swers it. Bscude Basie contr. Eunom. 
iy. p. 281. Basil calls the question 
eee contr. Eunom. ii. 14. 
It will be seen to be but the Arian 
formula of ‘* He was not before His 
generation,” in another shape ; being 


but this, that the very fact of His being 
begotten or a Son, implies a begin- 
ning, that is, a time when He was 
not; it being by the very force of the 
words absurd to say that ‘ God begat 
Him that was,” or to deny that ““ God 
begat Him that was nof.” For the 
symbol, οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῇ, vid. note 
at the end of this Discourse. 


so He begets without time. 215 


not make man His pattern; but rather we men, for that Cuapr. 
God is properly, and alone truly!, Father of His Son, are ip 56. 
also called fathers of our own children; for of Him is every note k. 
fatherhood in heaven and earth named. And their positions, a 3, 
while unscrutinized, have a shew of sense; but if any one 
scrutinize them by reason, they will but bring on them 
derision and mockery. 

3. For first of all, as to their first question, which is such as § 24. 
this, how dull and vague itis! they do not explain who it is 
they ask about, so as to allow of an answer, but they say ab- 
stractedly, “He whois,” “him who is ποὺ.᾽ Who then “is,” 
and what “are not,’ O Arians? or who “is,” and who “is 
not ?” what are said “‘to be,” what “not to be?” for He that 
is, can make things which are not, and which are, and which 
were before. For instance, carpenter, and goldsmith, and 
potter, each, according to his own art, works upon ma- 
terials previously existing, making what vessels he pleases ; 
and the God of all Himself, having taken the dust of the 
earth existing and already brought to be, fashions man; that 
very earth, however, whereas it was not once, He has at one 
time made by His own Word. If then this is the meaning 
of their question, the creature on the one hand plainly was 
not before its generation, and men, on the other, work the 
existing material ; and thus their reasoning is inconsequent, 
since both “what is”? becomes, and “ what is not”’ becomes, 
as these instances shew. Butif they speak concerning God 
and His Word, let them complete their question and then 
ask, Was the God “whois” ever withoutrational Word?? and, " ἄλογος 
whereas He is Light, was He ray-less? or was He always Be 
Father of the Word? Or again in this manner, Has the Fa- 
ther “ who is’? made the Word “who is not,” or has He ever 
with Him His Word, asthe proper offspring of His substance? 
This will shew them that they do but presume and venture 
on sophisms about God and Him who is from Him. Who 
indeed can bear to hear them say that God was ever without 
rational Word? this is what they fall into a second time, 
though endeavouring in vain to escape it and to hide it with 
their sophisms. Nay, one would fain not hear them disputing 
at all, that God was not always Father, but became so after- 
wards, (which is necessary for their fantasy, that His Word 


Disc. 
I. 
John I, 1. 
Heb. 1,3. 
Rem. 9, 


δ. 
§ 25. 


lyid. 
Basil. 
contr. 
Eunom. 
11 7: 


9 ΄ 
2 γέγονεν 


3 Ld 
γένηται 


, 
4 ἐπιγέ- 


γονεν 


216 If the Son not eternal, neither is the Father. 


once was not,) considering the number of the proofs al- 
ready adduced against them; while John besides says, The 
Word was, and Paul again writes, Who being the brightness 
of His glory, and, Who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. 

4. They had best have been silent ; but since it is other- 
wise, it remains to meet their shameless question with a bold 
retort’. Perhaps on seeing the counter absurdities which 
beset themselves, they may cease to fight against the truth. 


After many prayers® then that God would be gracious to us, 


thus we might ask them in turn; God who is, has He so 
become *, whereas He was not? or is He also before His ge- 
neration “ἢ whereas He is, did He make Himself, or is He of 
nothing, and being nothing before, did He suddenly appear 
Himself? Indecent is such an enquiry, yea, indecent and 
very blasphemous, yet parallel with theirs; for the answer 
they make, abounds in irreligion. But if it be blasphemous 
and utterly irreligious thus to inquire about God, it will be 
blasphemous too to make the like inquiries about His Word. 

5. However, by way of exposing a question so senseless 
and so dull, it is necessary to answer thus :—whereas God 
is, He was eternally; since then the Father is ever, His 
Radiance ever is, which is His Word. And again, God who 
is, hath from Himself His Wordwho also is; and neither hath 
the Word been added‘, whereas He was not before, nor was 
the Father once without a Word. For this assault upon the 
Son makes the blasphemy recoil upon the Father; as if He 
devised for Himself a Wisdom, and Word, and Son from 
without’; for whichever of these titles you use, you denote 
the offspring from the Father, as has been said. So that 
this their objection does not hold; and naturally ; for denying 
the Word they in consequence ask questions which are ir- 
rational ®, As then if a person saw the sun, and then inquired 
concerning its radiance, and said, *‘ Did that which is make 


¢ This cautious and reverent way 


of speaking is a characteristic of S. 


Athanasius. “1 had come to the re- 
solution to be silent at this time, but 
on the exhortation of your holiness, &e. 
I have in few words written this Epis- 
tle,andeyen this hardly, of which doyou 
supply the defects,” ἕο. adSerap. i. 1. 
vid. ii. init.ad. Epict. 13 fin.ad Max. init. 
Preef. ad Monach. ‘* The unwearied ha- 


bit of the religiousman isto worship the 
All(7d πᾶν) in silence,andto hymn God 
his Benefactor with thankful cries, ... 
but since,” ἅς. contr. Apoll. i. init. “1 
must ask another question, bolder, yet 
with a religious intention; be propi- 
tious, Ὁ Lord, &c.” Orat. iii. 63 [infra 
p- 490]. vid. p. 20, ref. 1. p. 25, note 
c. p. 153, note d. 


Did the Father need an instrument to create, He not perfect. 217 


that which was, or that which was not,” he would be held Cuar. 
not to reason sensibly, but to be utterly mazed, because he ἘΠΕ 
fancied what is from the Light to be external to it, and was 
raising questions, when and where and whether it were 
made; in like manner, thus to speculate concerning the Son 
and the Father and thus to inquire, is far greater madness, 
for it is to conceive of the Word of the Father as external 
to Him, and to image the natural offspring as a work, with 
the avowal, “ He was not before His generation.” 

6. Nay, let them over and above take this answer to their 
question ;—The Father who was, made the Son who was, for 
the Word was made flesh ; and, whereas He was Son of John 1, 
God, He made Him in consummation of the ages also Son ἐδ 
of Man, unless forsooth, after Samosatene, they affirm that 
He did not even exist at all, till He became man. 

7. This is sufficient from us in answer to their first ques- § 26, 
tion; and now on your part, O Arians, remembering your 
own words, tell us whether He who was needed Him who was 
not for the framing of the universe, or Him who was? Ye 
said that He made for Himself His Son out of nothing, as 
an instrument whereby to make the universe. Which then is 
superior, that which needs or that which supplies the need ? 
or does not each supply the deficiency of the other? Ye 
rather prove the weakness of the Maker,if He had not power 
of Himself to make the universe, but provided for Himself 
an instrument from without 4, as carpenter might do or ship- 
wright, unable to work any thing, without axe and saw? 
Can any thing be more irreligious! yet why should one 
dwell on its heinousness, when enough has gone before to 
shew that their doctrine is a mere fantasy ? 


4 ὄργανον, vid. p. 12, notez.p.118. Eccles. Theol. i. 8. supr. p. 62, note f. 
note n. p. 62, notef.» This wasalleged and by the Anomeans, supr. p. 12, 
by Arius, Socr. i. 6. and by Eusebius, note x. 


Disc. 
Ι. 


CELAP: | VERE 


OBJECTIONS CONTINUED. 


Whether we may decide the question by the parallel of human sons, which 
are born later than their parents. No, for the force of the analogy lies in 
the idea of connaturality. Time is not involved in the idea of Son, but is 
adventitious to it, and does not attach to God, because He is without parts 
and passions. The titles Word and Wisdom guard our thoughts of Him 
and His Son from this misconception. God not a Father, as a Creator, in 
posse from eternity, because creation does not relate to the substance of God, 
as generation does. 


1. Nor is answer needful to their other very simple and 
foolish inquiry, which they put to women; or none besides 
that which has been already given, namely, that it is not 
suitable to measure divine generation by the nature of men, 
However, that as before they may pass judgment on them- 
selves, it is well to meet them on the same ground, thus :— 
Plainly, if they inquire of parents concerning their son, let 
them consider whence is the child which is begotten. For, 
granting the parent had not a son before his begetting, still, 
after having him, he had him, not as external or as foreign, 
but as from himself, and proper to his substance and his 
unvarying image, so that the former is beheld in the latter, 
and the latter is contemplated in the former. If then they 
assume from human examples that generation implies time, 
why not from the same infer that it implies the Natural 
and the Proper?, instead of extracting serpent-like from the 
earth only what turns to poison? Those who ask of parents, 


@ supr.p.10,noteu. The question Arians on the other hand said, that 


was, Whatwas thatsense of Son which 
would apply to the Divine Nature ? 
The Catholies said that its essential 
meaning could apply, viz. consubstan- 
tiality, whereas the point of posteriority 
to the Father depended on a condition, 
time, which could not exist in the in- 
stance of God. p. 16, note Καὶ The 


to suppose a true Son, was to think of 
God irreyerently,as implying division, 
change, &c. ‘The Catholics replied 
that thenotion of materiality was quite 
as foreign from the Divine Essence as 
time, and as the Divine Sonship was 
eternal, so was it also clear both of 
imperfection or extension. 


God’s Son like man’s, in connaturality, not in point of time. 


and say, “ Hadst thou a son before thou didst beget him ?” 
should add, “ And if thou hadst a son, didst thou purchase 
him from without as a house or any other possession ! ?”” And 
then thou wouldest be answered, “ He is not from without, 
but from myself.’ For things which are from without are 
possessions, and pass from one to another; but my son is 
from me, proper and similar to my substance, not become 
mine from another, but begotten of me; wherefore I too am 
wholly in him, while [remain myself what lam”. For so 
it is; though the parent be distinct in time, as being man, 
who himself has come to be in time, yet he too would have 
had his child ever coexistent with him, but that his nature 
was a restraint and made it impossible. For Levi too was 
already in the loins of his great-grandfather, before his own 
generation, and his grandfather begot him. When then the 
man comes to that age at which nature supplies the power, 
immediately, with nature unrestrained, he becomes father of 
the son from himself. Therefore, if on asking parents about 
children, they get for answer, that children which are by 
nature are not from without, but from their parents, let them 
confess in like manner concerning the Word of God, that 
He is simply from the Father. Andif they make a question 
of the time, let them say what is to restrain God (for it is 


> It is from expressions such as this 
that the Greek Fathers haye been ac- 
cused of tritheism. The truth is, every 
illustration, as being incomplete on one 
or other side of it, taken byitself, tends 
to heresy. The title Son by itself sug- 
gests a second God, as the title Worda 
mere attribute, and the title Instru- 
ment a creature. All heresies are par- 
tial 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 compre- 
hensive doctrine, and in consequence 
necessarily mysterious and open to 
misconception. vid. p. 43, note d. p. 
140, note n. When Athan. implies 
that the Eternal Father is in the Son, 
though remaining what He is, as a 
man in his child, he is intent only upon 
the point of the Son’s connaturality 
and equality, which the Arians denied. 
In like manner he says in a later Dis- 
course, “In the Son the Father’s god- 
head is beheld. The Emperor’s count- 


enance and form are in his Image, 
and the countenance of his Image is 
in the Emperor. For the Emperor’s 
likeness in his Image is an unvarying 
likeness, ἀπαράλλακτος, so that he 
who looks upon the Image, in it sees 
the Emperor, and again he who sees 
the Emperor, recognises that he is in 
the Image. The Image then might 
say, ‘land the Emperor are one.’”’ 
Orat. iii. § 5 [infra p. 405]. And thus 
the Auctor de Trin. refers to ** Peter, 
Paul, and Timothy having three sub- 
sistencies and one humanity.” i. p. 
918. S. Cyrileven seems to deny that 
each individual man may be consider- 
ed a separate substance except as the 
Three Persons are such (Dial. i. p. 
409): and 8. Gregory Nyssen is led to 
say that, strictly speaking, the abstract 
man, which is predicated of separate 
individuals, is still one, and this with 
a view of illustrating the Divine Unity. 
ad Ablab. t. 2. p. 449. vid. Petay. de 
Trin, iv. 9: 


219 


CHAP. 
VIII. 


Vp, 21, 


2p. 210, 
note 6. 


7. 


~ Disc. 
if: 


1p. 20. 


§ 28. 


220 As Son images connaturality, so Radiance co-existence, 


necessary to prove their irreligion on the very ground on 
which their scoff is made), let them tell us, what is there to 
hinder God from being always Father of the Son; for that 
what is begotten must be from its father is undeniable. 

2, Moreover, they will pass judgment on themselves in 
attributing such things to God, if, as they questioned 
women on the subject of time, so they inquire of the sun con- 
cerning its radiance, and of the fountain concerning its issue?. 
They will find that these, though an offspring, always exist 
with those things from which they are*. And if parents, 
such as these, have in common with their children nature 
and duration, why, if they suppose God inferior to things 
that come to be“, do they not openly say out their own irre- 
ligion? But if they do not dare to say this openly, and the 
Son is confessed to be, not from without, but a natural off- 
spring from the Father, and that there 15 nothing which is 
a hindrance to God, (for not as man is He, but more than the 
sun, or rather the God of the sun,) it follows that the W ord co- 
exists with the Father both as from Him and as ever, through 
whom the Father caused that all things which were not 
should be. That then the Son comes not of nothing but is 
eternal and from the Father, is certain even from the nature 
of the case ; and the question of the heretics to parents ex- 
poses their perverseness ; for they confess the pointof nature, 
and now have been put to shame on the point of time. 

3. As we said above, so now we repeat, that the divine 
generation must not be compared to the nature of men, nor 
the Son considered to be part of God, nor generation to 
imply any passion whatever; God is not as man; for 
men beget passibly, having a transitive nature, which 
waits for periods by reason of its weakness. But with 
God this cannot be; for He is not composed of parts, 
but being impassible and simple, He is impassibly and 


© The question is not, whether in 
matter of fact, in the particular case, 
the rays would issue after, and not 
with the first existence of the luminous 
body ; for the illustration is not used 
to shew how such a thing may be, or 
to give an instance of it, but to con- 
vey to the mind a correct idea of what 
it is proposed to teach in the Catholic 
doctrine. 


4S. Athanasius’s doctrine is, that, 
God containing in Himself ail perfec- 
tion, whatever is excellent in one 
created thing above another, is found 
in its perfection in Him. If then such 
generation as radiance from light is 
more perfect than that of children 
from parents, that belongs, and tran- 
scendently, to the All-perfect God, 


and « Word” immateriality. 221 
indivisibly Father of the Son*. This again is strongly 
evidenced and proved by divine Scripture. For the Word 
of God is His Son, and the Son is the Father’s Word and 
Wisdom; and Word and Wisdom is neither creature nor 
part of Him whose Word He is, nor an offspring passibly 
begotten. Uniting then the two titles, Scripture speaks of 
« Son,” in order to herald the offspring of His substance 
natural and true; and, on the other hand, that none may 
think of the Offspring humanly, while signifying His sub- 
stance, it also calls Him Word, Wisdom, and Radiance ; to 
teach us that the generation was impassible, and eternal, and 
worthy of God®. What affection then, or what part of the 
Father is the Word and the Wisdom and the Radiance? 
So much may be impressed even on these men of folly ; for 
as they asked women concerning God’s Son, 50 ὅ let them 
inquire of men concerning the Word, and they will find that 
the word which they put forth is neither an affection of 
them nor apart of their mind. But if such be the word of 
men, who are passible and partitive, why speculate they 
about passions and parts in the instance of the immaterial 
and indivisible God, that under pretence of reverence ‘ they 


may deny the true and natural generation of the Son? 


e This is a view familiar to the Fa- 
tliers, viz. that in this consists our 
Lord’s Sonship, that He is the Word, 
or as 5, Augustine says, Christum ideo 
Filium quia Verbum. Aug. Ep. 120. 
11. “If God is the Father of a Word, 
why is not He which is begotten a 
Son?” de Deer. § 17. supr. p. 27: “If 
I speak of Wisdom, I speak of His 
offspring ;”? Theoph. ad Autolye. 1.8: 
“The Word, the genuine Son of 
Mind;” Clem. Protrept. p. 58. Peta- 
vius discusses this subject accurately 
with reference to the distinction be- 
tween Divine generation and Divine 
Procession. de Trin. vii. 14. 

Γ Heretics have frequently assigned 
reverence as the cause of their oppo- 
sition to the Church; and if even 
Arius affected it, the plea may be ex- 
pected in any other. “Ὁ stultos et 
impios metus,” says ὃ. Hilary, ‘‘et ir- 
religiosam de Deo sollicitudinem.” de 
Trin. iy. 6. It was still more common- 
ly professed in regard to the Catholic 
doctrine of the Incarnation. Thus 
Manes, Absit ut Dominum nostrum 


Jesum Christum per naturalia mulieris 
descendisse confitear ; ipse enim tes- 
timonium dat, quia de sinibus Patris 
descendit. Archel. Disp. p. 185. ** We, 
as saying that the Word of God is 
incapable of defilement, even by the 
assumption of mortal and vulnerable 
flesh, fear not to believe that He is 
born of a Virgin; ye’? Manichees, 
“because with impious perverseness 
ye believe the Son of God to be capa- 
ble of it, dread to commit Him to the 
flesh.” August. contr. Secund. 9. Faus- 
tus “is neither willing to receive Jesus 
of the seed of Dayid, nor made of a 
woman .... nor the death of Christ it- 
self, and burial, and resurrection, &c.” 
August. contr. Faust. xi. 3. As the 
Manichees denied our Lord a body, so 
the Apollinarians denied Him arational 
soul, still under pretence of reverence, 
because, as they said, the soul was 
necessarily sinful. Leontius makes this 
their main argument, 6 νοῦς ἁμαρτητι- 
κός ἐστι. de Sect. iv. p. 507. vid. also 
Greg. Naz. Ep. 101. ad Cledon. p. 89 ; 
Athan. in Apoll. i. 2. 14. Epiph. Ancor. 


Cuap. 
VIII. 


ios LEE 


2 p. 140, 
note n. 


3 Orat. 
iii. 67. 


Disc. 


2 vid. 


Orat. iii. 


§ 59, 
&e, 


222 The Eternal Son is not of will, but of nature. 

4. Enough was said above to shew that the offspring from 
God is not an affection ; and now it has been shewn in par- 
ticular that the Word is not begotten according to affection, 
The same may be said of Wisdom; God is not as man; nor 
must they here think humanly of Him. For, whereas men 
are capable of wisdom, God partakes in nothing, but is 
Himself the Father of His own Wisdom, of which whoso par- 
takes is given the name of wise. And this Wisdom is nota 
passion, nor a part, but an Offspring proper to the Father. 
Wherefore He is ever Father, nor is the character of Father 
adventitious ! to God, lest He seem alterable ; for if it is good 
that He be Father, yet He has not ever been Father, then 
good has not ever been in Him. 

5. But, observe, say they, God was always a Maker, nor is 
the power of framing adventitious to Him; does it followthen, 
that, because He is the Framer of all, therefore His works 
also are eternal, and is it wicked to say of them too, that 
they were not before generation? Senseless are these Arians; 
for what likeness is there between Son and Work, that they 
should parallel a father’s with a maker’s function? How is it 
that, with that difference between offspring and work, which 
has been shewn, they remain so ill-instructed ? Let it be re- 
peated then, that a work is external to the nature, but a son 
is the proper offspring of the substance; it follows that a 
work need not have been always, for the workman frames it 
when he will; but an offspring is not subject to will, but is 
proper to the substance*. And a man may be and may be 


79. 80. Athan. &c. call the Apollinarian 
doctrine Manichean in consequence. 
vid. in Apoll. ii 8.9. &e. Again, the 
Eranistes in Theodoret, who adyo- 
cates a similar doctrine, will not call our 
Lord man. ‘I consider it important 
to acknowledge an assumed nature, 
but to call the Saviour of the world 
man is to impair our Lord’s glory.’ 
Eranist. ii. p. 83. Eutyches, on the 
other hand, would call our Lord man, 
but refused to admit His human na- 
ture,and still with the same profession. 
** Ego,” he says, “‘sciens sanctos et 
beatos patres nostros refutantes dua- 
rum naturarum yocabulum, et non 
audens de natura tractare Dei Verbi, 
qui in carnem yenit, in veritate non in 
phantasmate homo factus,” &c. Leon. 


Ep. 21. 1 fin. ‘‘ Forbid it,” he says 
at Constantinople, ‘that I should say 
that the Christ was of two natures, or 
should discuss the nature, φυσιολογεῖν, 
of my God.” Concil. t. 2. p.157 [in 
Act. prima cone. Chale. t. iv. 1001 ed. 
Col.]. And so in this day popular Tracts 
have been published, ridiculing S. 
Luke’s account of our Lord’s nativity 
under pretence of reverence towards 
the God of all, and interpreting Serip- 
ture allegorically on Pantheistie prin- 
ciples. A modern argument for Uni- 
versal Restitution takes the same 
form ; ““ Do not we shrink from the 
notion of another’s being sentenced 
to eternal punishment; and are we 
more merciful than God 2” vid. Matt. 
Xvi. 22, 23. 


Not God cannot make, but creatures cannot be made, eternally. 223 


called Maker, though the works are not as yet; but father παρ. 
he cannot be called: nor can he be, unless a son exist. And VY! 
if they curiously inquire why God, though always with the 
power to make, does not always make, (lea this also be 

the presumption of madmen, for who hath known the mind o ie 
the Lord, or who hath been His Counsellor ? or how shall the jp. 9, 20. 
thing formed say to the potter, why hast thou made me thus ὃ 
however, not to leave even a weak argument unnoticed,) they 

must be told, that although God always had the power to 
execute, yet the things generated had not the power of being 
eternal’. For they are out of nothing, and therefore were 

not before their generation; but things which were not before 

their generation, how could these co-exist with the ever- 
existing God? Wherefore God, looking to what was good 

for them, then made them all when He saw that, when pro- 
duced, they were able to abide. And as, though He was 
able, even from the beginning in the time of Adam, or Noe, 

or Moses, to send His own Word, yet He sent Him not until 

the consummation of the ages; for this He saw to be good 

for the whole creation, so also things generated did He make 
when He would, and as was good for them. But the Son, 

not being a work, but proper to the Father’s offspring, always 

is; for, whereas the Father always is, so what is proper to 

His substance must always be; and this is His Word and 

His Wisdom. And that creatures should not be in exist- 
ence, does not disparage the Maker; for He hath the power 

of framing them, when He wills; but for the offspring not 

to be ever with the Father, is a disparagement of the per- 
fection of His substance. Wherefore His works were framed, 
when He would, through His Word; but the Son is ever 

the proper offspring of the Father’s substance. 


5 Athan.’s argument is as follows: 
that, as it is of the essence of a son to 
be connatural with the father, so is it 
of the essence of a creature to be of 
nothing, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων; therefore, while 
it was not impossible from the nature 
of the case, for Almighty God to be 
always Father, it was impossible for 
the same reason that He should be 
always a Creator. vid. infr. § 58 
[p. 263} : where he takes, ‘* They shall 


perish,” in the Psalm, not as a fact 
but as the definition of the natwre of 
a creature. Alsoii. § 1 [infra p. 282], 
where he says, “1 is proper to crea- 
tures and works to have said of them 

ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων and οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῇ. 
vid. Cyril. Thesaur. 9. p. 67. Dial. ii. 
p- 460. on the question of being a 
Creator in posse, vid. supra, p. 65. 
note m. 


Disc. 
ie 


§ 30. 


CHAP. IX. 


OBJECTIONS CONTINUED. 


Whether is the Ingenerate one or two? 


Inconsistent in Arians to use an 


unscriptural word; necessary to define its meaning. Different senses of 


the word. 


if ‘‘ without beginning or creation,’ there are two. 


If it means ‘‘ without Father,” there is but One Ingenerate ; 


Inconsistency of 


Asterius. ‘‘ Ingenerate”’ a title of God, not in contrast with the Son, but 


with creatures, as is ‘‘ Almighty,” or ‘ Lord of powers.” 


Father” is 


the truer title, as not only Scriptural, but implying a Son, and our 


adoption as sons. 


1. TuEsE considerations encourage the faithful, and dis- 
tress the heretical, perceiving, as they do, their heresy over- 
thrown thereby. Moreover, their further question “whether 


the Ingenerate be one or two*, 
views, how treacherous and fall of guile. 


2” shews how false are their 


Not for the 


Father’s honour ask they this, but for the dishonour of the 
Word. Accordingly, should any ous not aware of their 
craft, answer, “ the Ingenerate is one,” forthwith they spirt 

out their own venom, saying, “ Therefore the Son is among 
things generate, and well have we said, He was not before 


His generation.” 


4 The word ἀγέννητον was in the 
philosophical schools synonymous with 
“Ασα; hence byasking whether there 
were two Ingenerates, the Anomceans 
implied that there were two Gods, if 
Christ was God in the sense in which 
the Father was. Hence Athan. retorts, 
φάσκοντες, οὐ λέγομεν δύο ἀγένητα, 
λέγουσι δύο θεούς. Orat. iii. 16 {infra 
p- 423] ; alsoii.38. Plato used ayév- 
ynTov of the Supreme God (supr. p. 
51, note b) ; the Valentinians, Tertull. 
contr. Val. 7; and Basilides, Epiph. 
Her. 31.10. 'S. Clement uses it , Supr. 
p. 147, note t; and S. Ignatius applies 
it to the Son, Ρ- 147. S. Dionysius 
Alex. puts as an hypothesis in contro- 
versy the very position of the Ano- 
meeans, on which their whole argu- 
ment turned. ap. Euseb. Preep. vii. 19. 
viz. that 7 ἀγεννησία is the very οὐσία 
of God, not an attribute. Their view 


Thus they make any kind of disturbance 


is drawn out at length in Epiph. Her. 
76. 5. Athanasius does not go into 
this question, but rather confines him- 
self to the more popular form of it, viz. 
the Son is by His very name not ἀγέν- 
yntos, but γεννητὸς, but all γεννητὰ 
are creatures ; which he answers, as 
de Decr. ὃ 28. supr. p.53, by saying 
that Christianity had bt ought i inanew 
idea into theology, viz. the sacred doc- 
trine of a true Son, ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας. This 
was what the Ari ians had originally 
denied, ἐν τὸ ἀγέννητον ἐν δὲ τὸ ὑπ᾽ 
αὐτοῦ ἀληθῶς, καὶ οὐκ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας 
αὐτοῦ. Euseb. Nic. ap. Theod. Hist. i. 
5. When they were urged what ac- 
cording to them was the middle idea 
to which the Son answered, if they 
would not accept the Catholic, they 
would not define but merely said, yev~ 
νημα, GAN οὐκ ὡς ἕν τῶν γεννημάτων, 
vid. p. 10, note τι. 


Different senses of the word “ Ingenerate.” 225 


and confusion, provided they can but separate the Son from Cuap. 
the Father, and reckon the Framer of all among His works. ee 
Now first they may be convicted on this score, that, while 
blaming the Nicene Bishops for their use of phrases not 
in Scripture, though these not injurious, but subversive 
of their irreligion, they themselves went off upon the same 
fault, that is, using words not in Scripture’, and those in pools 
contumely of the Lord, knowing neither what they say nor ἜΝ 
whereof they affirm. For instance, let them ask the Greeks, 7 
who have been their instructors, (for it is a word of their 
invention, not Scripture,) and when they have been instruct- 
ed in its various significations, then they will discover that 
they cannot even question properly, on the subject which 
they have undertaken. For they have led me to ascertain” *P. 52, 
that by “ ingenerate” is meant what has not yet come to be, note d. 
but is possible to be,as wood which is not yet become, but 
is capable of becoming, a vessel ; and again what neither has 
nor ever can come to be, asa triangle quadrangular, and an 
even number odd. For neither has nor ever can a triangle 
become quadrangular; nor has ever, nor can ever, even 
become odd. Moreover, by “ ingenerate,” is meant, what 
exists, but not generated from any, nor having a father 
at all. Further, Asterius, that unprincipled sophist, the pa- 
tron too of this heresy, has added in his own treatise, that 
what is not made, but is ever, is “ingenerate’”’ They 
ought then, when they ask the question, to add in what sense 
they take the word “ ingenerate,” and then the parties ques- 
tioned would be able to answer to the point. 

2. But if they still are satisfied with merely asking, “Is § 31. 
the Ingenerate one or two?” they must be told first of all, 
as ill-educated men, that many are such and nothing is such, 
many which are capable of generation, and nothing is not 


b The two first senses here given occur, how Athan. used his former 
answer to the two first mentioned, de writings and worked over again his 
Decr. § 28. and, as he there says, are former ground, and simplified or cleared 
plainly irrelevant. The third in ‘the de what he had said. In the de Deer. 
Decr. which, as he there observes, is A. D. 350, we have three senses of 
ambiguous and used for a sophistical ἀγέννητον, two irrelevant and the third 
purpose, is here divided into third and ambiguous ; here in Orat. 1. (8: 58,) he 
fourth, answering to the two senses divides the third into two; in the de 
which ‘alone are assigned inthe de Syn. Syn. (859,) he rejects and omits the 
§ 46. and on them the question turns. two first, leaving the two last, which 
This is an instance, of which many are the critical senses. 


Q 


Disc. 


1p. 209, 
note d. 


§ 82. 


226 ' Its different senses distinguished. 


capable, as has been said. But if they ask according as 
Asterius ruled it, as if “ what is not a work but was always” 
were ingenerate, then they must constantly be told that the 
Son as well as the Father must in this sense be called in- 
generate. For He is neither in the number of things gene- 
rated, nor a work, but has ever been with the Father, as 
has already been shewn, in spite of their many variations 
for the sole sake of testifying against the Lord, “He is of 
nothing” and “ He was not before His generation.” When 
then, after failing at every turn, they betake themselves to 
the other sense of the question, “existing but not generated 
of any nor having a father,” we shall tell them that the 
Ingenerate in this sense is only one, namely the Father ; and 
they will take nothing by their question*®. For to say that 
God is in this sense Ingenerate, does not shew that the Son 
is a thing generate, it being evident from the above proofs 
that the Word is such as He is who begat Him. Therefore 
if God be ingenerate, His Image is not generate, but an 
Offspring !, which is His Word and His Wisdom. For what 
likeness has the generate to the Ingenerate ? (one must not 
weary to use repetition ;) for if they will have it that the 
one is like the other, so that he who sees the one beholds 
the other, they are like to say that the Ingenerate is the 
image of creatures ; the end of which is a confusion of the 
whole subject, an equalling of things generated with the 
Ingenerate,and a denial of the Ingenerate by measuring Him 
with the works; and all to reduce the Son into their number. 

3. However, I suppose even they will be unwilling to pro- 
ceed to such lengths, if they follow Asterius the sophist. 
For he, earnest as he is in his advocacy of the Arian heresy, 
and maintaining that the Ingenerate is one, runs counter to 
them in saying, that the Wisdom of God is ingenerate and 


- unoriginate also ; the following is a passage out of his work?: 
. “The Blessed Paul said not that he preached Christ the 
- power of God or the wisdom of God, but, without the article, 


God’s power and God’s wisdom; thus preaching that the 
proper power of God Himself, which is natural to Him and 
© These two senses of ἀγέννητον ἢ- ν, ἀγέννητον and ἀγένητον. vid. Da- 


begotten and unmade were afterwards masce. F. O. i. 8. p.135. and Le Quien’s 
expressed by the distinction of yy and note. 


227 


Admission of Asterius unfavourable to the Arians. 


co-existent with Him ingenerately, is something besides.” 
And again, soon after: ‘‘ However, His eternal power and 
wisdom, which truth argues to be unoriginate and ingene- 
rate; this must surely be one.” For though misunderstand- 
ing the Apostle’s words, he considered that there were two 
wisdoms ; yet, by speaking still of a wisdom co-existent with 
Him, he declares that the Ingenerate is not simply one, but 
that there is another ingenerate with Him. For what is co- 
existent, co-exists not with itself, but withanother. If then 
they agree with Asterius, let them never ask again, “Is the 
Ingenerate one or two,” or they will have to contest the 
point with him ; if, on the other hand, they differ even from 
him, let them not take up their defence upon his treatise, 
lest, biting one another, they be consumed one of another. 

4. So much on the point of theirignorance; but who can 
say enough on their want of principle ? who but would justly 
hate them while possessed by such a madness ? for when they 
were no longer allowed to say “out of nothing” and “ He 
was not before His generation,” they hit upon this word 
“ingenerate,” that, by saying among the simple that the 
Son was generate, they might imply the very same phrases 
“out of nothing,’ and “ He once was ποῦ; for in such 
phrases things generate and creatures are implied. If they 
have confidence in their own positions, they should stand to 
them, and not change about so variously '; but this they will 
not, from an idea that success is easy, if they do but shelter 
their heresy under colour of the word “ingenerate.” Yet 
after all, this term is not used in contrast with the Son, 
clamour as they may, but with things generate; and the like 
may be found in the words “ Almighty” and “ Lord of the 
Powers ἃ. For if we say that the Father has power and 
mastery over all things by the Word, and the Son rules the 
Father’s kingdom, and has the power of all, as His Word, 
and as the Image of the Father, it is quite plain that neither 
care with which he made his doctrinal 


statements, though they seem at first 
sight written off. It also accounts for 


4 The passage which follows is 
written with his de Decr. before him. 
At first he but uses the same topics, 


but presently he incorporates into this 
Discourse an actual portion of his 
former work, with only such altera- 
tions as an author commonly makes in 
transcribing. This, which is not un- 
frequent with Athan. shews us the 


Q 


the diffuseness and repetition which 
might be imputed to his composition, 
what seems superfluous being often 
only the insertion of an extract from 
a former work. 


2 


CHAP. 
IX. 


Gal. 5, 
15. 


Disc. 
1. 


§ 34. 


228 God Ingenerate relatively to works, Father relatively to Son. 


here is the Son reckoned among that all, nor is God called 
Almighty and Lord with reference to Him, but to those 
things which through the Son come to be, and over which 
He exercises power and mastery through the Word. And 
therefore the Ingenerate is specified not by contrast to the 
Son, but to the things which through the Son come to be. 
And excellently : since God is not as things generate, but 
is their Creator and Framer through the Son. And as the 
word “ Ingenerate” is specified relatively to things gene- 
rate, so the word “ Father” is indicative of the Son. And 
he who names God Maker and Framer and Ingenerate, re- 
gards and apprehends things created and generated ; and he 
who cails God Father, thereby conceives and contemplates 
the Son. And hence one might marvel at the obstinacy 
which is added to their irreligion, that, whereas the term 
“ingenerate” has the aforesaid good sense, and admits of 


. being used religiously ', they, in their own heresy, bring it 


forth for the dishonour of the Son, not having read that he 
who honoureth the Son honoureth the Father, and he who 
dishonoureth the Son, dishonoureth the Father. If they had 
any concern at all © for reverent speaking and the honour due 
to the Father, it became them rather, and this were better 
and higher, to acknowledge and call God Father, than to give 
Him this name. For, in calling God ingenerate, they are, as 
I said before, calling Him from His works, and as Maker 
only and Framer, supposing that hence they may imply 
that the Word is a work after their own pleasure. But 
that he who calls God Father, names Him from the Son, 
being well aware that if there be a Son, of necessity through 
that Son all things generate were created. And they, when 
they call Him Ingenerate, name Him only from His works, 
and know not the Son any more than the Greeks; but he 
who calls God Father, names Him from the Word; and 
knowing the Word, he acknowledges Him to be Framer of 
all, and understands that through Him all things were made. 

5. Therefore it is more pious and more accurate to denote 
God from the Son and call Him Father, than to name Him 
from His works only and ‘call Him Ingenerate’. For the 


© Here he begins a close transcript f The arguments against the word 
of the de Decr. § 30. supr. p. ὅδ. the Ingenerate here brought together are 
last sentence, however, of the para- also found in Basil, contr. Eunom. i. 5. 
graph being an addition. p- 215, Greg. Naz. Orat. 31. 23. Epiph. 


229 


Ingenerate not a word of Scripture. 


latter title, as I have said, does nothing more than refer to all Crap. 
the works, individually and collectively, which have come to pn 
be at the will of God through the Word ; but the title Father, 

has its significance and its bearing! only from the Son. ! ἵσταται 
And, whereas the Word surpasses things generate, by so 

much and more doth calling God Father surpass the calling 

Him Ingenerate. For the latter is unscriptural and sus- 
picious, because it has various senses; so that, when a man 

is asked concerning it, his mind is carried about to many 

ideas; but the word Father is simple and scriptural, and 

more accurate, and only implies the Son. And “Ingenerate”’ 

is a word of the Greeks, who know not the Son; but “ Fa- 

ther,” has been acknowledged and vouchsafed by our Lord. 

For He, knowing Himself whose Son He was, said, I am in ἜΠΗ yee 
the Father, and the Father is in Me; and, He that hath seen yo, 30. 
Me, hath seen the Father, and I and the Father are One®; but 

no where is He found to call the Father Ingenerate. More- 

over, when He teaches us to pray, He says not, “ When ye 

pray, say, Ὁ God Ingenerate,” but rather, When ye pray, Luke 11, 
say, Our Father, which art in heaven. And it was His will ag 

that the Summary 2 of our faith should have the same bear- * p. 128, 
ing, in bidding us be baptized, not into the name of Ingene- ἢ 
rate and generate, nor into the name of Creator and crea- 
ture, but into the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 
For with such an initiation we too, being of the works, are 
made sons, and using the name of the Father, acknowledge . 
from that name the Word in the Father Himself also". A 
vain thing then is their argument about the term “ Ingene- 
ταῦθ, as is now proved, and nothing more than a fantasy. 


Her. 76. p. 941. Greg. Nyss. contr. 
Eunom. vi. p. 192. Χο. Cyril. Dial. ii. 
Pseudo-Basil. contr. Eunom. iy. p. 283. 

& These three texts are found to- 
gether frequently in Athan. parti- 
cularly in Orat. iii. where he con- 
siders the doctrines of the ‘* Image” 
and the περιχώρησις. vid. de Decr. ὃ 
21. ὃ 81. de Syn. § 45. Orat. Alle) τ ΟΣ 
6. 10. 16 fin. 17. Ep. #g. 13.Sent. D. 


26.ad Afr. 7.8.9. vid. also Epiph. Her. 
64. 9. Basil. Hexaem. ix fin. Cyr. Thes. 
xii. p. 111. [add in S. Joan. 168, 847] 
Potam. Ep. ap. Dacher. t. 3. p. 299. 
Hil. Trin. vii. 41. et supr. Vid. also 
Animady. in Eustath. Ep. ad Apoll. 
Rom. 1796. 

h Here ends the extract from the de 
Decretis. The sentence following is 
added as a close. 


Disc. 
I. 


§ 35. 


1 αὐτ- 
εζούσιος 
2 προαι- 
ρέσει 


CHAP. =x 


OBJECTIONS CONTINUED. 


How the Word has free-will, yet without being alterable. He is unalterable 
because the Image of the Father, proved from texts. 


1. As to their question whether the Word is alterable®, it is 
superfluous to examine it; it is enough simply to write down 
what they say, and so to shew its daring irreligion. How 
they trifle, appears from the following questions :—“Has He 
free will !, or has He not? is He good from choice” according 
to free will, and can He, if He will, alter, being of an alter- 
able nature? or, as wood or stone, has He not His choice 
free to be moved and incline hither and thither?” It is but 
agreeable to their heresy thus to speak and think ; for, when 
once they have framed to themselves a God out of nothing 
and a created Son, of course they also adopt such terms as 
are suitable to a creature. However, when in their contro- 
versies with Churchmen they hear from them of the real and 


only Word of the Father, and yet venture thus to speak of 


Him, does not their doctrine then become the most loathsome 
that can be found? is it not enough to distract a man on 
mere hearing, though unable to reply, and to make him stop 
his ears, from astonishment at the novelty of what he hears 
them say, which even to mention is to blaspheme? For if the 
Word be alterable and changing, where will He stay, and 
what will be the end of His progress ? how-shall the alter- 
able possibly be like the Unalterable ? How should he who 
has seen the alterable, be considered to have seen the Un- 
alterable? in which of His states shall we be able to behold 
in Him the Father? for it is plain that not at all times shall 


® τρεπτὺς, i.e. not, changeable, but being asked whether the Word of God 
of a moral nature capable of improve- is capable of altering as the devil alter- 
ment. Arius maintained this in the ed, they scrupled not to say, ‘Yea, Hee 
strongest terms at starting. ‘On ἰδ capable.’” Alex. ap. Socr. i. 6. p. 11. 


The Son unalterable, because the Father’s Image. 231 


we see the Father in the Son, because the Son is everalter- Cuap. 
ing, and is of changing nature. For the Father is unaltera- 
ble and unchangeable, and is always in the same state and 
the same; but if, as they hold, the Son is alterable, and not 
always the same, but ever ofa changing nature, how can such 
a one be the Father’s Image, not having the likeness of His 
unalterableness!? how can He be really in the Father, if His © supr- 
moral choice is indeterminate? Nay, perhaps, as being alter- jnit. 
able, and advancing daily, He is not perfect yet. But away Ρ' 313: 
with such madness of the Arians, and let the truth shine 

out, and shew that they are beside themselves. For must 

not He be perfect who is equal to God? and must not He 

be unalterable, who is one with the Father, and His Son 
proper to His substance? and the Father’s substance being 
unalterable, unalterable must be also the proper Offspring 

from it. And if they slanderously impute alteration to the 
Word, let them learn how much their own reason is in peril”; * p. 2, 
for from the fruit is the tree known. For this is why he who προ 
hath seen the Son, hath seen the Father, and why the know- 

ledge of the Son is knowledge of the Father. 

2. Therefore the Image of the unalterable God must be § 36. 
unchangeable ; for Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, Heb. 13, 
and for ever. And David in the Psalm says of Him, Thou, ὃ. 1, 
Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, 10 12. 
and the heavens are the work of Thine hands. They shall 
perish, but Thow remainest ; and they all shall wax old as 
doth a garment. And as a vesture shalt Thow fold them up, 
and they shall be changed, but Thow art the same, and Thy 
years shall not fail. And the Lord Himself says of Himself 
through the Prophet, See now that I, even I am He, and I Deut. 
change not. It may be said indeed that what is here ex- eae 
pressed relates to the Father; yet it suits the Son also to 6. 
speak it, specially because, when made man, He manifests 
His own identity and unalterableness to such as suppose 
that by reason of the flesh He is changed and become other 
than He was. More trustworthy are the sacred writers, or 
rather the Lord, than the perversity of the irreligious. For 
Scripture, as in the above-cited passage of the Psalter, sig- 
nifying under the name of heaven and earth, that the nature 
᾿ of all things generate and created is alterable and change- 


Disc. 


1p. 228, 
note g. 


3.9. 57, 
note y. 


John 14, 
6. 


3 de Syn. 


§ 16 fin. 
p. 98. 


252 The Son unalterable because from the Father’s substance. 


able, yet excepting the Son from these, shews us thereby 
that He is in no wise a thing generate; nay teaches that 
He changes every thing else, and is Himself not changed, 
in saying, Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail. 
And with reason ; for things generate, being from nothing}, 
and not being before their generation, because, in truth, 
they come to be after not being, have a nature which is 
changeable; but the Son, being from the Father, and pro- 


per to His substance, is unchangeable and unalterable as . 


the Father Himself. For it were sin to say that from that 
substance which is unalterable was begotten an alterable 
word and a changeable wisdom. For how is He longer the 
Word, if He be alterable? or can that be Wisdom which is 
changeable? unless perhaps, as accident in substance”, so 
they would have it, viz. as in any particular substance, a 
certain grace and habit of virtue exists accidentally, which 
is called Word and Son and Wisdom, and admits of being 
taken from it andadded toit. For they have often express- 
ed this sentiment, but it is not the faith of Christians; as not 
declaring that He is truly Word and Son of God, or that the 
wisdom intended is the true Wisdom. For what alters and 
changes, and has no stay in one and the same condition, how 
can that be true? whereas the Lord says, I am the Truth. 
If then the Lord Himself speaks thus concerning Himself, 
and declares His unalterableness, and the sacred writers have 
learned and testify this, nay and our notions of God acknow- 
ledge it as religious, whence did these men of irreligion 
draw this novelty? from their heart as from a seat of cor- 
ruption did they vomit it forth *. 


CHAP.) XI. 


TEXTS EXPLAINED; AND FIRST, PHIL. 11. 9, 10. 


Various texts which are alleged against the Catholic doctrine: e.g. Phil. ii. 
9,10. Whether the words ‘“‘ Wherefore God hath highly exalted” prove 
moral probation and advancement. Argued against, first, from the force of 
the word ‘‘ Son ;” which is inconsistent with such an interpretation. Next, 


the passage examined. 


Ecclesiastical sense of ‘‘highly exalted,’ and 


“gave,” and “ wherefore ;” yiz. as being spoken with reference to our 
Lord’s manhood. Secondary sense; viz. as implying the Word’s ‘‘ exal- 
tation” through the resurrection in the same sense in which Scripture 
speaks of His descent in the Incarnation ; how the phrase does not derogate 


from the nature of the Word. 


1. Bur since they allege the divine oracles and force on Cuar. 
them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense’, 
it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to lay claim 
to these passages, and to shew that they bear an orthodox 
sense, and that our opponents are inerror. They say then, 


that the Apostle writes, Wherefore God also hath highly ex- Phil. 2, 


alted Him, and given Him a Name which is above every name ; 
that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in 
heaven and things in earth and things under the earth: and 


David, Wherefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee 


with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows. 


« vid. supr. p. 78, note n. ‘“‘ We 
must not make an appeal to the Scrip- 
tures, nor take up a position for the 
fight, in which victory is not, or is 
doubtful, or next to doubtful. For 
though this conflict of Scripture with 
Scripture did not end in adrawn battle, 
yet the true order of the subject re- 
quired that that should be laid down 
first, which now becomes but a point 
of debate, viz. who have a claim to the 
faith itself, whose are the Scriptures.” 
Tertull. de Preeser. 19 [pp. 467, 468 
O.T.}. Ruffinus says of S. Basil and 
S. Gregory, ‘Putting aside all Greek 
literature, they are said to have passed 
thirteen years together in studying 
the Scriptures alone, and followed out 


Then they urge, 


their sense not from their private 
opinion, but by the writings and 
authority of the Fathers, &c,” Hist. 
ii. 9. ““ Seeing the Canon of Scripture 
is perfect &c. what need we join 
unto it the authority of the Church’s 
understanding and interpretation ? 
because the Scripture being of itself 
so deep and profound, all men do not 
understand it in one and the same 
sense, but so many men, so many 
opinions almost may be gathered out 
of it; for Novatian expounds it one 
way, Photinus another, Sabellius, &¢.”’ 
Vincent. Comm. 2. Hippolytus has a 
passage very much to the same pur- 
pose. contr. Noet. 9 fin. 


XI. 
§ 87. 


Ps. 45, 9. 


294 


Disc. 


lof Ni- 
comedia. 
vid. 
Theod. 
Hist. i. 5. 
2p. 213, 
note a. 


3 βελτι- 
ὥὦσεως 


Phil. 2, 
8. 


Tf our Lord really Son, not really “exalted” and rewarded. 


as something acute: “If He was exalted and received 
grace, on a wherefore, and on a wherefore He was anointed, 
He received the reward of His good choice; but having 
acted from choice, He is altogether of an alterable nature.” 
This is what Eusebius! and Arius have dared to say, nay 
to write; while their partizans do not shrink from convers- 
ing about it in full market-place*, not seeing how mad an 
argument they use. For if He received what He had 
as a reward of His good choice, and would not have had 
it, unless He had needed it and had His work to shew for 
it, then having gained it from virtue and promotion *, with 
reason had He “ therefore”’ been called Son and God, with- 
out being very Son. For what is from another by nature, 
is a real offspring, as Isaac was to Abraham, and Joseph 
to Jacob and the Radiance to the Sun; but the so-called 
sons from virtue and grace, have but in place of nature 
a grace by acquisition, and are something else besides* the 
gift itself; as the men who have received the Spirit by 
participation, concerning whom Scripture saith, 1 have 
begotten and exalted children, and they have rebelled against 
Μοῦ. And of course, since they were not sons by nature, 
therefore, when they altered, the Spirit was taken away and 
they were disinherited ; and again on their repentance that 
God who thus at the beginning gave them grace, will re- 
ceive them, and give light, and call them sons again. But 
if they say this of the Saviour also, it follows that He is 
neither very God nor very Son, nor like the Father, nor in 
any wise has God for a Father of His being according to 
substance, but of the mere grace given to Him, and for a 
Creator of His being according to substance, after the simi- 
litude of all others. And being such, as they maintain, it 
will be manifest further that He had not the name “Son” 
from the first, if so be it was the prize of works done and 
of that very same advance which He made when He became 
man, and took the form of a servant; but then, when, after 
becoming obedient unto death, He was, as the text says, 
highly ewalted, and received that Name as a grace, that at 
the Name of Jesus every knee should bow. 

2. What then was before this, if then He was exalted, and 
then began to be worshipped, and then was called Son, when 


The text brought by the Arians tells against themselves. 239 


He became man? For He seems Himself not to have pro- Cuar. 
moted! the flesh at all, but rather to have been Himself , — 
promoted through it, if, according to their perverseness, He cas 
was then dealted and called Son, when He became man. 
What then was before this? One must urge the question 
on them again, to make it understood what their irreligious 
doctrine results in». For if the Lord be God, Son, Word, 
yet was not all these before He became man, either He was 
something else beside these, and afterwards became par- 
taker of them for His virtue’s sake, as we have said; or they 
must adopt the alternative, (may it fall upon their heads !) 
that He wasnot before that time, but is wholly man by nature 
and nothing more. But this is no sentiment of the Church, 
but of Samosatene and of the present Jews. Why then, if 
they think as Jews, are they not circumcised with them 
too, instead of pretending Christianity, while they are its 
foes? Forif He was not, or was indeed, but afterwards was 
promoted, how were all things made by Him, or how in Hin, 
were He not perfect, did the Father delight*? And He, on? 
the other hand, if now promoted, how did He before rejoice in Ae 
the presence of the Father? And, if He received His wor- 
ship after dying, how is Abraham seen to worship Him in the 
tent’, and Moses in the bush? and, as Daniel saw, myriads 3 p. 120, 
of myriads, and thousands of thousands were ministering note 2 
unto Him? Andif, as they say, He had His promotion now, 

how did the Son Himself make mention of that His glory 
before and above the world, when He said, Glorify Thou Me, John 17, 
O Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the a 
world was. If, as they say, He was then exalted, how did 

He before that bow the heavens and come down ; 


we 
oy. 8, 


and again, Ps. 18, 


The Highest gave His thunder 


θ᾽ The Arians perhaps more than 
other heretics were remarkable for 
bringing objections against the re- 
ceived view, rather than forming a 
consistent theory of theirown. Indeed 
the very vigour and success of their 
assault upon the truth lay in its being 
a mere assault, not a positive and sub- 
stantiye teaching. They therefore, 
even more than others, might fairly be 
urged on to the consequences of their 
positions. Now the text in question, 
as it must be interpreted if it is to 


9 Therefore, if, even before 


serve as an objection, was an objection 
also to the received doctrine of the 
Arians. They considered that our 
Lord was above and before all crea- 
tures from the first, and their Creator; 
how then could He be exalted above 
all? They surely, as much as Catho- 
lies, were obliged to explain it of our 
Lord’s manhood. They couldnot then 
use if as a weapon against the Church, 


until they took the ground of Paul of 
Samosata. 


9. 13. 


Disc. 


§ 39. 


1 βεοποι- 
Ul 
non 


Ps. 81, 
(82,) 1. 
Sept. 


Col. 1,15. 
2 vid. 
infr. ii. 

§ 62. 


Matt. 11, 
27. 
John 10, 


35. 


Sips; 
note o. 


236 Our Lord not exalted, but a cause and standard for us. 


the world was made, the Son had that glory, and was Lord of 
glory and the Highest, and descended from heaven, and is 
ever to be worshipped, it follows that He had no promotion 
from His descent, but rather Himself promoted the things 
which needed promotion ; and if He descended to effect their 
promotion, therefore He did not receive in reward the name 
of the Son and God, but rather He Himself has made us sons 
of the Father,and made men gods, by becoming Himself man. 

3. Therefore He was not man, and then became God, but 
Hewas God,and then became man,and that to make us gods!. 
Since, if when He became man, only then He was called Son 
and God, but before He became man, God called the ancient 
people sons, and made Moses a god of Pharaoh, (and Scrip- 
ture says of many, God standeth in the congregation of gods,) 
it is plain that He is called Son and God later than they. 
How then are all things through Him, and He before all? or 
how is He first-born of the whole creation *, if He has others 
before Him who are called sons and gods? And how is it 
that those first partakers® do not partake of the Word? 
This opinion is not true; it is an evasion of our present 
Judaizers. For how in that case can any at all know God 
as their Father? for adoption there cannot be apart from the 
real Son, who says, No one knoweth the Father, save the Son, 
and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him. And how can 
there be deifying apart from the Word and before Him? yet, 
saith He to their brethren the Jews, If He called them gods, 
unto whom the Word of God came. And if all that are called 
sons and gods, whether in earth or in heaven, were adopted 
and deified through the Word, and the Son Himself is the 
Word, it is plain that through Him are they all, and He 
Himself before all, or rather He Himself only is very Son 3, 
and He alone is very God from the very God, not receiving 
these prerogatives as a reward for His virtue, nor being 


τυ 


© In this passage Athan. considers 
that the participation of the Word is 
deification, as communion with the 
Son is adoption; also that the old 
Saints, inasmuch as they are called 
“rods”? and “sons,” did partake of 
the Divine Word and Son, or in other 
words were gifted with the Spirit. 
He asserts the same doctrine very 


strongly in Orat. iv. § 22 [p. 539]. 
On the other hand, infr. 47 [p. 247]. 
he says expressly that Christ received 
the Spirit in Baptism that He might 
giveittoman. There is no real con- 
tradiction in such statements; what 
was given in one way under the Law, 
was given in another and fuller under 
the Gospel. 


The text itself entered into. 237 


something else beside! them, but being all these by nature τον 
and according to substance. For He is Offspring of the —~—— on 
Father’s substance, so that one cannot doubt that after the ae re 
resemblance of the unalterable Father, the Word also is un- 
alterable. 

4, Hitherto we have met their irrational conceits with the 40. 
true conceptions ¢ implied in the Word “ Son,” as the Lord 
Himselfhas given us. But it will be well next to expound 
the divine oracles, that the unalterableness of the Son and 
His unchangeable nature, which is the Father’s*, as well as ὅ πατρι- 
their perverseness, may be still more fully Soe The ee 
Apostle then, writing to the Philippians, says, Let this oe 2, 
mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus ; who, being 
in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with 
God ; but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Hin 
the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. 

And, being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, 
and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross. 
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him 
a Name which is above every name ; that at the Name of Jesus 
_ every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, 
and things under the earth, and that every tongue should con- 
fess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. 
Can any thing be plainer and more express than this? He 
was not from a lower state promoted; but rather, existing 
as God, He took the form of a servant, and in taking it, did 
not promote but humbled Himself. Where then is there here 
any reward of virtue, or what advancement and promotion 
in such humiliation? For if, bemg God, He became man, and 
descending from on high He is still said to be exalted, where 
is He exalted, being God? this withal being plain, that, 
since God is highest of all, His Word must necessarily be 
highest also. Where then could He be exalted higher, who 
is in the Father and like the Father in all things*? μετ 

5. Therefore He is beyond the need of any addition ; nor πάντα, 
is such as the Arians think Him. For though the Word did P-1)5) 
descend in order to be exalted, and so it is written, yet p. 210, 
what need was there that He should humble Himself, as if τοί: 9. 


4 ταῖς ἐννοίαις χρώμενοι, πρὸς Tas παράνοια δὲ μᾶλλον, &c. Basil. contr. 
ἐπινοίας ἀπηντήσαμεν. cf. οὐχὶ ἐπίνοια, Eunom. i. 6. init. 


John 1, 
1.1. 


Phil. 2, 6. 


2 ὃ ἄν- 


θρωπος 


238 


The true ecclesiastical sense of the text. 


to seek that which He had already? And what grace did 
He receive who is the Giver of grace!? or how did He re- 
ceive that Name for worship, who is always worshipped by 
His Name? Nay, certainly before He became man, the 


. sacred writers invoke Him, Save me, O God, for Thy Name’s 
- sake; and again, Some put their trust in chariots, and some 


in horses, but we will remember the Name of the Lord our 
God. And while He was worshipped by the Patriarchs, con- 


_ cerning the Angels it is written, Let all the Angels of God 


worship Him. And if, as David says in the 71st Psalm, His 
Name remaineth before the sun, and before the moon from one 
generation to another, how did He receive what He had al- 
ways, even before He now received it ? or how is He exalted, 
being before His exaltation, the Most High? or how did 
He receive the right of bemg worshipped, who before He 
now received it, was ever worshipped ? 

6. It is not a dark saying but a divine mystery®. In the 
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the 
Word was God ; but for our sakes afterwards the Word was 
made flesh. And the term in question, highly exalted, does 
not signify that the substance of the Word was exalted, for 
He was ever and is equal to God, but the exaltation is of the 
manhood. Accordingly this is not said before the Word 
became flesh; that it might be plain that wmbled and exalted 
are spoken of His human nature ; for where there is humble 
estate, there too may be exaltation; and if because of His tak- 
ing flesh humbled is written, it is clear that highly exalted is 
also said because of it. For of this was man’s? nature in want, 
because of the humble estate of the flesh and of death. Since 
then the Word, being the lnage of the Father and immortal, 
took the form of a servant, and asman underwent for us death 
in His flesh, that thereby He might offer Himself forus through 
death to the Father; therefore also, as man, Η 615 said because 
of us and for us to be highly exalted, that as by His death 


© Scripture is full of mysteries, but 
they are mysteries of fact, not of words. 
Its dark sayings or enigmata are such, 
because in the nature of things they 
cannot be expressed clearly. Hence 
contrariwise, Orat. ii. § 77 fin. [p. 391], 
he calls Proy. viii. 22. an enigma, with 
an allusion to Proy. i. 6. Sept. In like 


manner S. Ambrose says, Mare est 
scriptura divina, habens in se sensus 
profundos, et altitudinem prophetico- 
rum @nigmatum, &e. Ep. ii. 8. What 
is commonly called ‘‘explaining away” 
Scripture, is this transference of the 
obscurity from the subject to the words 
used. 


He is exalted, that is, in respect of His manhood. 239 


we all died in Christ, so again in the Christ Himself we a=. 
might be highly exalted, being raised from the dead, and 
ascending into heaven, whither the forerunner is for us enter- sh 6, 
ed, not into the figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now 94° ~’ 
to appear in the presence of God for us. But if now for us 

the Christ is entered into heaven itself, though He was even 

before and always Lord and Framer of the heavens, for us 
therefore is that present exaltation also written. -And as 

He Himself, who sanctifies all, says also that He sanctifies 
Himself to the Father for our sakes, not that the Word may 
become holy, but that He Himself may in Himself sanctify 

all of us, in like manner we must take the present phrase, 

He highly exalted Him, not that He Himself should be exalt- 

ed, for He is the highest, but that He may become righteous- 

ness for us f; and we may be exalted in Him, and that we may 

enter the gates of heaven, which He has also opened for us, 

the forerunners saying, Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and Ps. 24,7. 
be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall 

come im. For here also not on Him were shut the gates, 

who is Lord and Maker of all, but because of us is this too 
written, to whom the door of paradise was shut. And there- 

fore in a human relation, because of the flesh which He bore, 

it is said of Him, Lift up, O ye gates, and shall come in, as 

if a man were entering ; but in a divine relation on the other 

hand it is said of Him, since the Word was God, that He is 

the Lord and the King of Glory. Such our exaltation the 

Spirit foreannounced in the eighty-ninth Psalm, saying, 

And in Thy righteousness shall they be exalted, for Thow art Ps. 88, 
the glory of their strength. And if the Son be Righteous- } (9) 27. 
ness, then He is not exalted as being Himself in need, ae 


but it 15 we who are exalted in that Righteousness, which vid. 


1 Cor. 1, 
is He. ayeses 


7. And so too the words gave Him, are not written for § 42. 
the Word Himself; for even before He became man, He was 


f When Scripture says that our Lord 
was exalted, it means in that sense in 
which He could be exalted ; just as, in 
saying that a man walks or eats, we 
speak of him not as a spirit, but as in 
that system of things to which the 
ideas of walking and eating belong. 
Exaltation is not a word which can be- 


long to God; it is unmeaning, and 
therefore is not applied to Him in the 
text in question. Thus, e.g. S.Am- 
brose: ‘* Ubi humiliatus, ibi obediens. 
Ex eo enim nascitur obedientia, ex quo 
humilitas, et in eo desinit, &c.” ap. 
Day. alt. n. 39. 


Disc. 


1 τὴν πα- 


τρικὴν 
ἰδιότητα 


2 ἐθεο- 
ποίησεν 


4 ἣ λόγος 
vid. infr. 


§ 44, 47, 
48. 


240 Man’s nature is exalted in the Word and worshipped. 


worshipped, as we have said, by the Angels and the whole 
creation in what is proper! to the Father ; but because of us 
and for us this too is written of Him. For as Christ died 
and was exalted as man, so, as man, is He said to take what, 
as God, He ever had, that even this so high a grant of grace 
might reach to us. For the Word was not impaired in re- 
ceiving a body, that He should seek to receive a grace, but 
rather He deified? that which He put on, nay, gave it graci- 
ously to the race of man. For as He was ever worshipped 
as being the Word and existing in the form of God, so 
being what He ever was, though become man and called 
Jesus, He still has, as before, the whole creation under foot, 
and bending their knees to Him im this Name, and confess- 
ing that the Word’s becoming flesh, and undergoing death 
in flesh, hath not happened against the glory of His Godhead, 
but to the glory of God the Father. For it is the Father’s 
glory that man, made and then lost, should be found again , 
and, when the prey of death, that he should be made alive, 
and should become God’s temple. For whereas the powers in 
heaven, both Angels and Archangels, were ever worshipping 
the Lord, as they are now worshipping Him in the Name of 
Jesus, this is our grace and high exaltation, that even when 
He became man, the Son of God is worshipped, and the 
heavenly powers are not startled at seeing all of us, who are 
of one body with Him ὅ, introduced into their realms. And 
this had not been, unless He who existed in the form of God 
had taken on Him a servant’s form, and had humbled Him- 
self, permitting His body to reach unto death. 

8. Behold then what men considered the foolishness of God 
because of the Cross, has become of all things most honour- 
ed. For our resurrection is stored up in it; and no longer 
Israel alone, but henceforth all the nations, as the Prophet 
foretold, leave their idols and acknowledge the true God, the 
Father of the Christ. And the delusion of demons is come 
to nought, and He only who is really God is worshipped in 
the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. For in that the 
Lord, even when come in human body and called Jesus, 
was worshipped and believed to be God’s Son, and that 
through Him the Father was known, it is plain, as has 
been said, that not the Word, considered as the Word‘?, 


The Person of the Word humbled and man’s nature exalted. 


received this so great grace, but we. 


For because of our 


relationship to His Body we too have become God’s temple, 
and in consequence are made God’s sons, so that even in us 
the Lord is now worshipped, and beholders report, as the 
Apostle says, that God is inthem ofa truth’. Asalso John 
saith in the Gospel, As many as received Him, to them gave Jom 1, 
He power to become children of God; and in his Epistle he Ler 

writes, By this we know that He abideth in us by His Spirit 1 John3, 


which He hath given us. 


And this too is an evidence of 


His goodness towards us that, while we were exalted be- 
cause that the Highest Lord is in us, and on our behalf 
grace was given to Him, because that the Lord who supplies 
the grace has become a man like us, He on the other hand, the 
Saviour, humbled Himself in taking our body of humiliation, 
and took a servant’s form, putting on that flesh which was 
enslaved to sin». And He indeed gained nothing from us for 


£ ὄντως ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ θεός. 1 Cor. xiv. 25. 
Athan. interprets ἐν in not among ; as 
also in 1 John iii. 24. just afterwards. 
Vid. ἐν ἐμοί. Gal. i. 24. ἐντὸς ὑμῶν, 
Luke xvii. 21. ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, John 
i. 14. on which text Hooker says, “1 
pleased not the Word or Wisdom of 
God to take to itself some one person 
among men, for then should that one 
have been adyanced which was as- 
sumed and no more, but Wisdom, to 
the end she might saye 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.” 
Eccl. Pol. y. 52. § 3. S. Basil in his 
proof of the divinity of the Holy Spirit 
has a somewhat similar passage to the 
text, ““ Man in common is crowned 
with glory and honour, and glory and 
honour and peace is reserved in the 
promises for every one that doeth 
good. And there is a certain glory of 
Israel peculiar, and the Psalmist speaks 
of a glory of his own, ‘ Awake up my 
glory ;’ and there is a glory of the 
sun, and according to the Apostle even 
a ministration of condemnation with 
glory. So many then being glorified, 
choose you that the Spirit alone of all 
should be without glory?” de Sp. 5. 
c. 24. 

h [t was usual to say against the 
Apollinarians, that, unless our Lord 
took on Him our nature, as it is, He 
had not purified and changed it, as it is, 
but another nature ; “ The Lord came 


Β 


not to save Adam as free from sin, that 
He should become like unto him; but 
as, in the net of sin and now fallen, 
that God’s mercy might raise him up 
with Christ.” Leont. contr. Nestor. 
&e. ii. p. 996. Accordingly, Athan. 
says elsewhere, ‘‘ Had not sinlessness 
appeared in the nature which had sin- 
ned, how was sin condemned in the 
flesh?” in Apoll. ii. 6. “‘1t was necessary 
for our salyation,” says S. Cyril, “that 
the Word of God should become man, 
that human flesh subject to corruption 
and sick with the lust of pleasures, He 
might make His own; and, whereas 
He is life and lifegiving, He might 
destroy the corruption, &c..... For 
by this means, might sin in our flesh 
become dead.” Ep. ad Success. i. p. 138. 
And §.Leo, “* Non alterius nature erat 
ejus caro quam nostra, nec alio illi 
quam ceteris hominibus anima est 
inspirata principio, quie excelleret, non 
diversitate generis, sed sublimitate 
virtutis.”” Ep. 35 fin. vid. also Ep. 28. 
3. Ep. 3]. 2. Ep. 165. 9. Serm. 22. 2. 
and 25.5. It may be asked whether 
this doctrine does not interfere with 
that of the immaculate conception ; but 
that miracle was wrought in order that 
our Lord might not be born in original 
sin, and does not affect, or rather in- 
cludes, His taking flesh of thesubstance 
of the Virgin, i.e. of a fallen nature. 
If indeed sin were of the substance 
of our fallen nature, as some heretics 
have said, then He could not haye 


241 


CHap. 
Kl 


24. 


Disc. 
I. 


1 BeATiw- 
σιν, ex- 
ternal 
advance. 
John 1,9. 


2 προκο- 
πῆς in- 
ternal 
advance 
Luke 2, 
δ2. 

3 εὐγε- 
vous 


§ 44. 
4 ἐκκλη- 
σιαστι- 
κὺς, vid. 
Serap. 
iy. 15. 
contr. 
Gent. 6. 
7. 33. 

5 Orat. ii. 


§ 8. 


242 God the Word exalted in such sense as He was humbled ; 


His own promotion!: for the Word of God is without want 
and full; but rather we were promoted from Him; for He 
is the Light, which lighteneth every man that cometh into the 
world, 

9, And in vain do the Arians lay stress upon the conjunc- 
tion wherefore, because Paul has said, Wherefore hath God 
highly exalted Him. For in saying this he did not imply 
any prize of virtue, nor the promotion from advance’, but 
the cause why the exaltation was bestowed uponus. And 
what is this but that He who existed in form of God, the Son 
of a divine® Father, humbled Himself and became a servant 
instead of us and in our behalf? For if the Lord had not 
become man, we had not been redeemed from sins: not 
raised from the dead, but remaining dead under the earth ; 
not exalted into heaven, but lying in Hades. Because of 
us then and in our behalf are the words, highly exalted and 
given. 

10. This then I consider the sense of this passage, and 
that, a very ecclesiastical sense *. However, there is another 
way in which one might remark upon it, giving the same 
sense in a parallel way; viz. that, though it does not speak 
of the exaltation of the Word Himself, so far as He is Word °, 
(for He is, as was just now said, most high and like His Fa- 
ther,) yet by reason of His incarnation it alludes to His re- 
surrection from the dead. For after saying, He hath hum- 
bled Himself even unto death, He immediately added, Where- 


taken our nature without partaking 
our sinfulness ; but if sin be, as it is, a 
fault of the wil/, then the Divine Power 
of the Word could sanctify the human 
will, and keep it from swerving in the 
direction of evil. Hence 8. Austin says, 
“We say not that Christ by the felicity 
of a flesh separated from sense could 
not feel the desire of sin, but that by 
perfection of virtue, and by a flesh not 
begotten through concupiscence of the 
flesh, He had not the desire of sin.” 
Op. [mperf. iv. 48. On the other hand, 
S. Athanasius expressly calls it Mani- 
chean doctrine to consider, τὴν φύσιν 
of the flesh ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ οὐ τὴν πρᾶξιν. 
contr. Apoll. i. 12 fin. or φυσικὴν εἶναι 
τὴν ἁμαρτίαν. ibid. i. 14 fin. His argu- 
ment in the next ch. is on the ground 
that all natures are from God, but God 
made man upright nor is the author of 
evil; (vid. also Vit. Anton. 20) “not 


as if,’ he says, *‘ the devil wrought in 
man a nature, (God forbid!) for of a 
nature the deyil cannot be maker 
(δημιουργὸς) as is the impiety of the 
Manichees, but he wrought a bias of 
nature by transgression, and ‘so death 
reigned oyer all men.’ Wherefore, 
saith he, ‘the Son of God came ‘to 
destroy the works of the devil ;’ what 
works ? that nature, which God made 
sinless, and the deyil biassed to the 
transgression of God’s command and 
the finding out of sin which is death, 
did God the Word raise again, so as to 
be secure from the deyil’s bias and the 
finding out of sin. And therefore the 
Lord said, ‘The prince of this world 
cometh and findeth nothing in Me.’ ” 
vid. also ὃ 19. Ibid. ii. 6. he speaks of 
the devil having “ introduced the /aw 
of sin.” vid also § 9. 


wiz. in the body, on the Resurrection, because He was God. 243 


fore He hath highly exalted Him ; wishing to shew, that, al- Cuar. 
though as man He is said to have died, yet, as being Life, δ’ 
He was exalted on the resurrection ; for He who descended, Eph. 4, 
as the same also who rose again. He descended in body, and ἀναστάς; 
He rose again because He was God Himself in the body. but ἀνα- 
And this again is the reason why according to this meaning aay 
he brought in the conjunction Wherefore ; not as a reward 

of virtue nor of advancement, but to signify the cause why 

the resurrection took place; and why, while all other men 

from Adam down to this time have died and remained dead, 

He only rose in integrity from the dead. The cause is this, 

which He Himself has already taught us, that, beimg God, 

He has become man. For all other men, being merely born 

of Adam, died, and death reigned over them; but He, the 
Second Man, is from heaven, for the Word was made flesh, John 1, 
and this Man is said to be from heaven and heavenly ', be- 14, 
cause the Word descended from heaven ; wherefore He was Apoll. 
not held under death. For though He humbled Himself, ” εἰ 
suffermg His own Body to reach unto death, in that it was 
capable” of death', yet it was highly exalted from earth, ? δεκτι- 
because He was God’s Son in a body. Accordingly what γος 

is here said, Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, 
answers to S. Peter’s words in the Acts, Whom God raised Acts2,24, 
up, having loosed the bonds of death, because it was not possi- 

ble that He should be holden of it. For as Paul has written, 
“Since being in form of God He became man, and humbled 
Himself unto death, therefore God also hath highly exalted 

Him,” so also Peter says, “ Since, being God, He became 


tarily placed Himself under those laws, 
and died naturally, vid. Athan. contr. 


i ΤῸ was a point in controversy with 
the extreme Monophysites, that is, the 


Eutychians, whether our Lord’s body 
was naturally subject to death, the Ca- 
tholics maintaining the affirmative, as 
Athanasius here. Eutyches asserted 
that our Lord had not a human nature, 
by which he meant among otherthings 
that His manhood was not subject to 
the /aws of a body, but so far as He 
submitted to them, He did so by an act 
of will ineach particular case; and this, 
lest it should seem that He was moved 
by the πάθη against His will ἀκουσίως ; 
and consequently that His manhood 
was not subject to death. But the Ca- 
tholics maintained that He had yolun- 


Apoll. i. 17. and that after the resur- 
rection His body became incorruptible, 
not according to nature, but by grace. 
vid. Leont. de Sect. x. p. 5380. Anast. 
Hodeg. c. 23. To express their doc- 
trine of the ὑπερφυές of our Lord’s 
manhood the Eutychians made use of 
the Catholic expression “ ut yoluit.” 
vid. Athan. 1. ce. Eutyches ap, Leon. 
Ep. 21. ‘‘quomodo yoluit et scit,” 
twice. vid. also Eranist. i. p. 11. ii. 
p- 105. Leont. contr. Nest. i. p. 967. 
Pseudo-Athan. Serm. ady. Diy. Her. 
§ 8. (t. 2. p.570.) 


R 2 


244 What belongs to the manhood, belongs to the Person of the Word. 


Disc. 
I. 


cas. 
1 ἐλάτ- 

τωμα, ad 
Adelph. 

4. 


man, and signs and wonders proved Him to beholders to be 
God, therefore it was not possible that He should be holden 
of death.” Τὸ man it was not possible to prosper in this 
matter; for death belongs to man; wherefore, the Word, 
being God, became flesh, that, being put to death in the flesh, 
He might quicken all men by His own power. 

11. But since He Himself is said to be evalted, and God 
gave Him, and the heretics think this a defect! or affection in 
the substance* of the Word, it becomes necessary to explain 
how these words are used. He is said to be exalted from the 
lower parts of the earth, because, on the other hand, death 
is ascribedto Him. Both events are reckoned His, since it 
was His Body', and none other’s, that was exalted from the 
dead and taken up into heaven. And again, the Body being 
His, and the Word not being external to it, it is natural that 
when the Body was exalted, He, as man, should, because of 
the body, be spoken of as exalted. If then He did not become 
man, let this not be said of Him; but if the Word became 
flesh, of necessity the resurrection and exaltation, as in the 
case of a man, must be ascribed to Him, that the death 
which is ascribed to Him may be a redemption of the sins of 


k At first sight it would seem as if 
S. Athanasius here used οὐσία sub- 
stance for subsistence, or person ; but 
this is not true except with an expla- 
nation. Its direct meaning is here, as 
usual, substance, though indirectly it 
comes toimply subsistence. Heisspeak- 
ing of that Divine Essence which, 
though also the Almighty Father’s, is 
as simply and entirely the Word’s as 
if it were only His. Nay, even when 
the Substance of the Father is spoken 
of in a sort of contrast to that of the 
Son, as in the phrase οὐσία ἐξ οὐσίας, 
harsh as such expressions are, it is not 
accurate to say that οὐσία is used for 
subsistence or person, or that two 
οὐσίαι are spoken of. (vid. supr. p. 155, 
note f) except, that is, by Arians, as 
Eusebius, supr. p.63, note g. Just 
below we find φύσις τοῦ λόγου, § 51 
init. 

1 This was the question which came 
into discussion in the Nestorian contro- 
versy, when, as it was then expressed, 
all that took place in respect to the 
Eternal Word as man, belonged to His 
Person, and therefore might be predi- 
cated of Him; so that it was heretical 


not to confess the Word’s body, (or 
the body of God in the Person of the 
Word,) the Word’s death, (as Athan. 
in the text,) the Word’s exaltation, 
and the Word’s, or God’s, Mother, who 
was in consequence called θεοτόκος, 
which was the expression on which the 
controversy mainlyturned. “ὙΠῸ God- 
head,”’ says Athan. elsewhere, ‘‘‘dwelt 
in the flesh bodily ;’ which is all one 
with saying, that, being God, He had 
a proper body, ἴδιον, and using this as 
an instrument, ὀργάνῳ, He became 
man, for our sakes; and because of 
this things proper to the flesh are 
said to be His, since He was in it, as 
hunger, thirst, suffering, fatigue, and 
the like, of which the flesh is capable, 
δεκτικὴ; While the works proper to 
the Word Himself, as raising the dead, 
and restoring sight to the blind, and 
curing the issue of blood, He did Him- 
self through His body, &e.’” Orat. iii. 
31 [infra p. 443]. vid. the whole pas- 
sage, which is as precise as if it had 
been written after the Nestorian and- 
Eutychian controversies, though with- 
out the technical words then adopted. 


The Word gives as God what He receives as man. 245 


men and an abolition of death, and that the resurrection and Cuar. 
exaltation may for His sake remain secure for us. In both ΣΕ: 
respects he hath said of Him, Glod hath highly exalted Him, 

and God hath given to Him; that here moreover he may 

shew that it is not the Father that hath become flesh, but 

it is His Word, who has become man, and has received after 

the manner of men from the Father, and is exalted by Him, 

as has been said. And it is plain, nor would any one dis- 

pute it, that what the Father gives, He gives through the 

Son. And it is marvellous and overwhelming verily, that the 

grace which the Son gives from the Father, that the Son 
Himself is said to receive ; and the exaltation, which the Son 

effects from the Father, with that, the Son is Himself exal- 

ted. For He who is the Son of God, He Himself became 

the Son of Man; and, as Word, He gives from the Father, Β 
for all things which the Father does and gives, He does and 
supplies through Him ; and as the Son of Man, He Him- 

self is said after the manner of men to receive what proceeds 

from Him, because His Body is none other than His, and 

is a natural recipient of grace, as has been said. For He 
received it as far as man’s nature! was exalted ; which ex- | τὸν ἄν- 
altation was its being deified. But such an exaltation the Fee. 
Word Himself always had according to the Father’s God- τρικὴν 


2 ᾽ - .- - ἑαυτοῦ 
head? and perfection, which was His. Oedeneal 


vid. p. 
145, note 
Yr, 


Disc. 
IE. 


«.- 


§ 46. 


1 μετό- 
χους 


2p. 15, 
note e. 


CHAP, like 


TEXTS EXPLAINED; SECONDLY, PSALM xlv. 7, 8. 


Whether the words “ therefore,” ‘ anointed,” &c. imply that the Word has 
been rewarded. Argued against first from the word “ fellows” or “ par- 
takers.’ He is anointed with the Spirit in His manhood to sanctify human 
nature. Therefore the Spirit descended on Him in Jordan, when in the 
flesh. And He is said to sanctify Himself for us, and give us the glory He 
has received. The word ‘ wherefore” implies His divinity. ‘‘ Thou hast 
loved righteousness,” &c. do not imply trial or choice. 


1. SucH an explanation of the Apostle’s words, confutes 
the irreligious men ; and what the Psalmist says admits also 
the same orthodox sense, which they misinterpret, but which 
in the Psalmist is manifestly religious. He says then, Thy 
throne, O God, is for ever and ever ; a sceptre of righteousness 
is the sceptre of Thy Kingdom. Thou hast loved righteous- 
ness, and hated iniquity, therefore God, even Thy God, hath 
anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows. 
Behold, O ye Arians, and acknowledge even hence the 
truth. The Psalmist speaks of all us as fellows or partakers? 
of the Lord; but were He one of things which come out of 
nothing and of things generate, He Himself had been one 
of those who partake. But, since he hymned Him as the 
eternal God, saying, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, 
and has declared that all other things partake of Him, what 
conclusion must we draw, but that He is distinct from gene- 
rated things, and He only the Father’s veritable Word, 
Radiance, and Wisdom, which all things generate partake’, 
being sanctified by Him in the Spirit*? And therefore He 
is here “anointed,” not that He may become God, for He was 


* It is here said that all things gene- 
rate partake the Son and are sancti- 
Jied by the Spirit. How a γέννησις 
or adoption through the Son is neces- 
sary for every creature in order to its 
consistence, life, or preservation, has 
been explained, supr. p. 32, note q. 
Sometimes the Son was considered as 


the special Principle of reason, as by 
Origen, vid. ap. Athan. Serap. iv. 9. 
vid. himself, de Incarn. 11. These 
offices of the Son and the Spirit are 
contrasted by S. Basil, in his de Sp. S. 
τὸν προστάττοντα κύριον, τὸν Snul-- 
ουργοῦντα λόγον, τὸ στερεοῦν πνεῦμα, 
&e. c. 16. n. 38. 


Our Lord was anointed, as He was exalted, for us. 247 


so even before; nor that He may become King, for He had Cuay. 

the Kingdom eternally, existing as God’s Image, as the ΣΙΝ: 

sacred Oracle shews ; but in our behalf is this written, as be- 

fore. For the Israelitish kings, upon their being anointed, 

then became kings, not being so before, as David, as Ezekias, 

as Josias, and the rest; but the Saviour on the contrary, 

being God, and ever ruling in the Father’s Kingdom, and 

being Himself the Dispenser of the Holy Ghost, nevertheless 

is here said to be anointed, that, as before, being said as 

man to be anointed with the Spirit, He might provide for us 

men, not only exaltation and resurrection, but the indwelling 

and intimacy! of the Spirit. And signifying this the Lord” ἧς 

Himself hath said by His own mouth in the Gospel accord- ἦ 

ing to John, I have sent them into the world, and for their qos 1% 

sakes do I sanctify Myself, that they may be sanctified in the | 

truth®. In saying this He has shewn that He is not the * vid. 

sanctified, but the Sanctifier; for He is not sanctified by es 

other, but Himself sanctifies Himself, that we may be sanc- 39. 

tified in the truth. He who sanctifies Himself is Lord of ® 

sanctification. How then does this take place? What does 

He mean but this? “I, being the Father’s Word, I give 

to Myself, when become man, the Spirit; and Myself, be- 

come man, do I sanctify in Him, that henceforth in Me, who 

am Truth, (for Thy Word is Truth,) all may be sanctified.” 
2. If then for our sake He sanctifies Himself, and does § 47, 

this when He becomes man, it is very plain that the Spirit’s 

descent on Him in Jordan, was a descent upon us, because of 

His bearing our body. And it did not take place for pro- 

motion ® to ae Word, but again for our sanctification, that 3 ἐπὶ 

we might share His anointing, and of us it might be said, re 

Know ye not that ye are God’s Temple, and the Spirit of God 1 Cor. 3, 

dwelleth in you? For when the Lord, as man, was washed 

in Jordan, it was we who were washed in Him and by Him ἢ. * peice 

And when He received the Spirit, we it was who by Him tism δὰ 

were made recipients of It. And moreover for this reason, F4. pp. 

not as Aaron or David or the rest, was He anointed with oil, 993, _ 

but in another way above all His fellows, with the oil of 

gladness ; which He Himself interprets to be the Spirit, 

saying by the Prophet, The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, {sai. 61, 

because the Lord hath anointed Me ; as also the Apostle has 1": 


p. 197. 


1 John 2, 
20. 
Eph.1,13. 


1 p, 240, 
ref, 4, 


248 The Christ is the man anointed by the Word. 


said, Huw God anointed Him with the Holy Ghost. When 
then were these things spoken of Him but when He came 
in the flesh and was baptized in Jordan, and the Spirit de- 
scended on Him? And indeed the Lord Himself said, The 
Spirit shall take of Mine; and I will send Him; and to His 
disciples, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. And notwithstanding, 
He who, as the Word and Radiance of the Father, gives 
to others, now is said to be sanctified, because now He has 
become man, and the Body that is sanctified is His. From 
Him then we have begun to receive the unction and the 
seal, John saying, And ye have an unction from the Holy 
One; and the Apostle, And ye were sealed with the Holy 
Spirit of promise. Therefore because of us and for us are 
these words, 

3. What advance then of promotion, and reward of virtue 
or generally of conduct, is proved from this in our Lord’s 
instance? For if He was not God, and then had become 
God, if not being King He was preferred to the Kingdom, 
your reasoning would have had some faint plausibility. But 
if He is God and the throne of His kingdom is everlasting, 
in what way could God advance? or what was there want- 
ing to Him who was sitting on His Father’s throne? And 
if, as the Lord Himself has said, the Spirit is His, and takes 
of His, and He sends It, it is not the Word, considered as 
the Word! and Wisdom, who is anointed with the Spirit 
which He Himself gives, but the flesh assumed by Him 
which is anointed in Him and by Him”; that the sanctifi- 


Ὁ Elsewhere Athan. says that our 


Lord’s Godhead was the immediate 
anointing or chrism of the manhood 
He assumed. “ God needed not the 
anointing, nor was the anointing made 
without God; but God both applied 
it, and also received it in that body 
which was capable of it.” in Apollin. 
ii. 8.and τὸ χρῖσμα ἐγὼ 6 λόγος, Td δὲ 
χρισθὲν ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ 6 ἄνθρωπος. Orat. iv. 
§ 36 [infra p. 554). vid. Origen. Peri- 
arch.ii.6.n.4. And S. Greg. Naz. still 
more expressly, and from thesame text 
as Athan. ‘** The Father anointed Him 
‘with the oil of gladness above His 
fellows,’ anointing the manhood with 
the Godhead.” Orat. x fin. Again, 
“This [the Godhead] is the anointing 


of the manhood, not sanctifying by an 
energy as the other Christs [anointed] 
but by a presence of Him whole who 
anointed, ὅλου τοῦ χρίοντος ; whence it 
came to pass that what anointed was 
called man and what was anointed was 
made God.” Orat. 30. 20. ‘* He Him- 
self anointed Himself; anointing as 
God the body with His Godhead, and 
anointed as man.’ Damasce. F. O. iii. 
3. Dei Filius, βίοις pluvia in vellus, 
toto divinitatis unguento nostram se 
fudit in carnem. Chrysolog. Serm. 60. 
It is more common, howeyer, to con- 
sider that the anointing was the de- 
scent of the Spirit, as Athan. says at 
the beginning of this section, accord- 
ing to Luke iy. 18. Acts x. 38. 


The Word, before His incarnation, dispensed the Spirit. 249 


cation coming to the Lord as man, may come to all men Cuar. 
from Him. For not of Itself, saith He, doth the Spirit speak, bah 
but the Word is He who gives It to the worthy. For this 

is like the passage considered above; for as the Apostle has 
written, Who existing in form of God thought it not robbery 

to be equal with God, but humbled Himself, and took a ser- 

vant’s form, so David celebrates the Lord, as the everlasting 

God and King, but sent to us and assuming our body which 

is mortal. For this is his meaning in the Psalm, All Thy Ps. 45, 9 
garments ὁ smell of myrrh, aloes, and cassia; and it is repre- 
sented by Nicodemus and by Mary’s company, when he came 
bringing ὦ mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred Ταῦ 19, 
pounds weight ; and they the spices which they had prepared 39 ines 
for the burial of the Lord’s body. 1. 

4, What advancement! then was it to the Immortal to ᾧ 48. 
have assumed the mortal? or what promotion is it to the Mi: 
Everlasting to have put on the temporal? what reward can 
be great to the Everlasting God and King in the bosom of 
the Father? See ye not, that this too was done and written 
because of us and for us, that us who are mortal and tem- 
poral, the Lord, become man, might make immortal, and 
bring into the everlasting kingdom of heaven? Blush ye 
not, speaking lies against the divine oracles ? For when our 
Lord Jesus Christ had been among us, we indeed were pro- 
moted, as rescued from sin; but He is the same *: nor did ? p. 23, 
He alter, when He became man, (to repeat what I have ees 


infra, 


said,) but, as has been written, The Word of God abideth § 5). 
for ever. Surely as, before His becoming man, He, the he 
Word, dispensed to the saints the Spirit as His own’, so but ῥῆμα 
also when made man, He sanctifies all by the Spirit and 3 ». 936, 
says to His Disciples, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. And He note c. 
gave to Moses and the other seventy ; and through Him 

David prayed to the Father, saying, Take not Thy Holy ἐς τὸ 
Spirit from me. On the other hand, when made man, He! 

said, I will send to you the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth; and John 15, 
He sent Him, He, the Word of God, as being faithful. ὃ: 


© Our Lord’s manhood is spoken of the high priest’s garment, but remain- 
as a garment; more distinctly after- ing the same, was but clothed &c. Orat. 
wards, “As Aaron was himself, and ii. 8 [infrap. 291]. Onthe Apollinarian 
did not change on putting round him abuse of the idea, vid. note in loc. 


1 Cyril, 
Thesaur. 
20. p. 
ποὺς 


250 Maw’s nature changed in the Unchangeable Word. 


5. Therefore Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, 
and for ever, remaining unalterable, and at once gives and 
receives, giving as God’s Word, receiving as man. It is not 
the Word then, viewed as the Word, that is promoted; for 
He had all things and has them always ; but men, who have 
in Him and through Him their origin ὦ of receiving them. 
For, when He is now said to be anointed in a human respect, 
we it is who in Him are anointed ; since also, when He is hap- 
tized, we it is who in Him are baptized. But on all these 
things the Saviour throws much light, when He says to the 
Father, And the glory which Thou gavest Me, I have given to 
them, that they may be one, even as We are one. Because of 
us then He asked for glory, and the words occur, took and 
gave and highly exalted, that we might take, and to us might 
be given, and we might be exalted, in Him; as also for us 
He sanctifies Himself, that we might be sanctified in Him}, 


4 The word origin, ἀρχὴ, implies the 
doctrine, more fully brought out in 
other passages of the Fathers, that our 
Lord has deigned to become an instru- 
mental cause, as it may be called, of 
the life of each individual Christian. 
For at first sight it may be objected 
to the whole course of Athan.’s argu- 
ment thus ;—What connection is 
there between the sanctification of 
Christ’s manhood and ours ? how does 
it prove that human nature is sancti- 
fied because a particular specimen of it 
was sanctifiedin Him? S. Chrysostom 
explains ; ‘‘He is born of our sub- 
stance: you will say, ‘This does not 
pertain to all;’ yea, to all. He min- 
gles (ἀναμίγνυσιν) Himself with the 
faithful individually, through the my- 
steries, and whom He has begotten 
those He nurses from Himself, not puts 
them out to other hands,’ &c. Hom. 
in Matt. 82. 5. {[p. 1092 O.T.] And 
just before, “Τὸ sufficed not for Him 
to be made man, to be scourged, to 
be sacrificed; but He assimilates us to 
Him (ἀναφύρει ἑαυτὸν ἡμῖν). nor merely 
by faith, but really, has He made us His 
body.” [p. 1091]. Again, ** That we 
are commingled (ἀνακερασθῶμεν) into 
that flesh, not merely through love, 
but really, is brought about by means 
of that food which He has bestowed 
upon us.”” Hom.in Joann. 46.3. [p.399 
O.T.] And so 5. Cyril writes against 
Nestorius: ‘Since we have proved that 
Christ is the Vine, and we branches as 
adhering to a communion with Him, 
not spiritual merely but bodily, why 


clamours he against us thus bootlessly, 
saying that, since we adhere to Him, 
notin a bodily way, but rather by faith 
and the affection of love according to 
the Law, therefore He has called, not 
His own flesh the vine, but rather the 
Godhead?” in Joann. lib. 10. Cap. 2. 
pp. 863, 4. And Nyssen: ‘‘As they who 
have taken poison, destroy its deadly 
power by some other preparation... . 
so when we have tasted what destroys 
our nature, we have need of that in- 
stead which restores what was des- 
troyed.?.. But whatis this ? nothing 
else than that Body which has been 
proved to be mightier than death, and 
was the beginning, κατήρξατο, of our 
life. For a little leaven,’ &c. Orat. 
Catech. 37. Decocta quasi per ollam 
carnis nostree cruditate, sanctificayit 
in zternum nobis cibum carnem suam. 
Paulin. Ep. 23. Of course in such state- 
ments nothing material is implied; or, 
as Hooker says, ‘‘ The mixture of His 
bodily substance with ours is a thing 
whichtheancient Fathersdisclaim. Yet 
the mixture of His 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 divers similitudes rather 
to declare the truth than the manner 
of coherence between His sacred and 
the sanctified bodies of saints.” Ecel. 
Pol. y. 56. § 10. But without some ex- 
planation of this nature, language such 
as S. Athanasius’s in the text seems a 
mere matter of words. vid. infr. §50 fin. 


amen 


The Word not anointed, and so God; but God, and so anointed. 


6. But if they take advantage of the word wherefore, as 
connected with the passage in the Psalm, Wherefore God, 
even Thy God, hath anointed Thee, for their own purposes, 
let these novices in Scripture and masters in irreligion 
know, that, as before, the word wherefore does not imply 
reward of virtue or conduct in the Word, but the reason why 
He came down to us, and of the Spirit’s anointing which 
took place in Him for our sakes. For He says not, ““ Where- 
fore He anointed Thee in order to Thy being God or King 
or Son or Word;” for so He was before and is for ever, as 
has been shewn; but rather, ‘Since Thou art God and 
King, therefore Thou wast anointed, since none but Thou 


251 


CHAP. 
ΧΗ: 


couldest unite man to the Holy Ghost, Thou the Image of "ἡ 


the Father, in which! we were made in the beginning ; for 
Thine is even the Spirit.” For the nature of things gene- 
rate could give no warranty for this, Angels having trans- 
eressed, and men disobeyed*. Wherefore there was need 
of God; and the Word is God; that those who had become 
under a curse, He Himself might set free: If then He was 
of nothing, He would not have been the Christ or Anointed, 
being one among others and having fellowship as the rest?, 
But, whereas He is God, as being Son of God, and is ever- 
lasting King, and exists as Radiance and Expression of the 


Father, therefore fitly is He the expected Christ, whom the : 


Father announces to mankind, by revelation to His holy 
Prophets ; that as through Him we have come to be, so also 
in Him all men might be redeemed from their sins, and by 
Him all things might be ruled’. And this is the cause of 


© ἀγγέλων μὲν παραβάντων, ἀνθρώπων man. His Throne, as God, is for ever ; 


δὲ παρακουσάντων. vid. infr. § 51. init. 
And so ad Afr. 7. ἀγγέλων μὲν πα- 
/ a Ne X , 
ραβάντων, τοῦ δὲ ᾿Αδὰμ παρακούσαντος, 
where the inference is added more 
distinctly, ‘‘ and all creatures needing 
the grace of the Word,” who is ἄτρε- 
mros, Whereas τρεπτὰ τὰ γενητά. Vid. 


Cyril. in Joann. lib. y.2. On the sub- 
ject of the sins of Angels, vid. Huet. 
Origen. ii. 5. § 16. Petay. Dogm. t. 3. 
p- 87. Dissert. Bened. in Cyril. Hier. 
iii. 5. Natal. Alex. Hist. At. i. Diss. 7. 

£ The word wherefore is here de- 
clared to denote the fitness why the 
Son of God should become the Son of 


He has loved righteousness ; therefore 
He is equal to the anointing of the 
Spirit, as man. And so S. Cyril on the 
same text, as in ]. 6. in the foregoing 
note. ‘‘In this ineffable unity of the 
Trinity, whose words and judgments 
are common in all, the Person of the 
Son has fitly undertaken to repair the 
race of man, that, since He it is by 
whom all things were made, and with- 
out whom nothing is made, and who 
breathed the truth of rational life into 
men fashioned of the dust of the earth, 
so He too should restore to its lost dig- 
nity our nature thus fallen from the 
citadel of eternity, and should be the 


1p. 254, 
note i. 


2p. 15, 
note 6. 


Heb. 1, 


252 The Word gave His flesh the Spirit, and it did miracles. 
Disc. the anointing which took place in Him, and of the incarnate 
See presence of the Word £; which the Psalmist foreseeing, cele- 
brates, first His Godhead and kingdom, which is the Father’s, 
Ps. 45,5. in these tones, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a 
sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy Kingdom ; then, 


Ib.8. announces His descent to us thus, Wherefore God, even Thy 
God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy 
fellows. 

§ 50. 7. What is there to wonder at, what to disbelieve, if the 


Lord who gives the Spirit, is here said Himself to be anoint- 

ed with the Spirit, at a time when, necessity requiring it, He 

did not refuse in respect of His manhood to call Himself in- 

’ ferior to the Spirit ? For the Jews saying that He cast out 
devils in Beelzebub, He answered and said to them, for the 

Matt. 12, exposure of their blasphemy, But if I through the Spirit of 
ae God cast out devils. Behold, the Giver of the Spirit here says 
that He cast out devils in the Spirit; but this is not said, 
except because of His flesh. For since man’s nature is not 
equal of itself to casting out devils, but only in power of 
the Spirit, therefore as man He said, But if I through the 
Spirit of God cast out devils. Of course too He signified that 
the blasphemy offered to the Holy Ghost is greater than that 
against His humanity, when He said, Whosoever shall speak 
a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; such 
as were those who said, Is not this the carpenter's son ? but 
they who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, and ascribe 
the deeds of the Word to the devil, shall have inevitable 
This is what the Lord spoke to the Jews, as 


Ib. 32. 


Ib. 18, 
55. 


punishment h, 


reformer of that of which He had been 
the maker.’’ Leon. Ep. 64. 2. vid. 
Athan. de Incarn. 7 fin. 10. In Illud 
omn. 2. Cyril. in Gen. i. p. 13. 

Ε ἔνσαρκος παρουσίαᾳ. This phrase 
which has occurred above, § 8. p. 190, 
is very frequent with Athan. vid. infr. 
§ 53, 59, 62 fin. ii. 6, 10, 55, 66 twice, 
72 fin. iii. 28, 35. Incarn. 20. Sent. ἢ. 
9. Ep. Hig. 4. Serap. i. 3, 9. vid. also 
Cyril. Catech. iii. 11. xii. 15. xiv. 27, 
30. Epiph. Heer. 77. 17. The Euty- 
chians avail themselves of it at the 
Council of Constantinople, vid. Hard. 
Cone. t. 2. pp. 164, 236. 

h He enters into the explanation of 
this text at some length in Serap. iy. 
8. &c. Origen, he says, and Theo- 


gnostus understand the sin against the 
Holy Ghost to be apostasy from the 
grace of Baptism, referring to Heb. yi. 
4. So far the two agree ; but Origen 
went on to say, that the proper power 
or virtue of the Son extends over ra- 
tional natures alone, e.g. heathens, 
but that of the Spirit only over Chris- 
tians ; those then who sin against the 
Son or their reason, have a remedy in 
Christianity and its baptism, but no- 
thing remains for those who sin against 
the Spirit. But Theognostus, refer- 
ring to the text, “1 have many things 
to say but ye cannot bear them now ; 
howbeit when He, the Spirit of Truth,” 
&c. argued that to sin against the Son 
was to sin against inferior light, but 


Men receive the Spirit through His flesh. 253 


man; but to the disciples shewing His Godhead and His (πάν. 

majesty, and intimating that He was not inferior but equal : 

to the Spirit, He gave the Spirit and said, Receive ye the ἘΠ 20, 

Holy Ghost, and I send Him, and He shall glorify Me, and 7? Tb.16, 13. 

Whatsoever He heareth,that He shall speak. As then in this 14. 

place the Lord Himself, the Giver of the Spirit, does not 

refuse to say that through the Spirit He casts out devils, as 

man ; in like manner He the same, the Giver of the Spirit, 

refused not to say, The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because Is. 61, 1. 

He hath anointed Me, in respect of His having become flesh, 

as John hath said; that it might be shewn in both these 

particulars, that we are they who need the Spirit’s grace in 

our sanctification, and again who are unable to cast out devils 

without the Spirit’s power. Throughwhom then and from - 

whom behoved it that the Spirit should be given but through 

the Son, whose also the Spirit is ? and when were we enabled 

to receive It, except when the Word became man? and, as 

the passage of the Apostle shews, that we had not been 

redeemed and highly exalted, had not He who exists in 

form of God taken a servant’s form, so David also shews, 

that no otherwise should we have partaken the Spirit and 

been sanctified, but that the Giver of the Spirit, the Word 

Himself, had spoken of Himself as anointed with the Spirit 

for us. And therefore have we securely received it, He 

being said to be anointed in the flesh; for the flesh being 

first sanctified in Him', and He being said, as man, to have 1 p, 950, 

received for its sake, we have the sequel of the Spirit’s grace, note 4. 

receiving out of His fulness. =a 1, 
8. Nor do the words, Thow hast loved righteousness and § 51. 

hated iniquity, which are added in the Psalm, shew, as 

again you suppose, that the Nature of the Word is alterable, 

but rather by their very force sigmify His unalterableness. 

For since of things generate the nature is alterable, and the 

one portion had transgressed and the other disobeyed, as has 

been said, and it is not certain how they will act, but it 

often happens that he who is now good afterwards alters 

and becomes different, so that one who was but nowrighteous, 

soon is found unrighteous, wherefore there was here also 


against the Spirit was to reject the tation as here in the text, ina passage 
full truth of the Gospel. And then of great force and beauty. 
he goes on to give the same interpre- 


Disc. 


2 Cor. 2, 
11: 


ap. 249, 
ref. 2. 
Rom.8,3. 
Ib. 4. 


Ib. 9. 


§ 52. 


254 The flesh made superior to the Serpent in the Word. 


need of one unalterable, that men might have the im- 
mutability of the righteousness of the Word as an image 
and type for virtue’. And this thought commends itself 
strongly to the right-minded. For since the first man Adam 
altered, and through sin death came into the world, therefore 
it became the second Adam to be unalterable; that, should 
the Serpent again assault, even the Serpent’s deceit might be 
baffled, and, the Lord being unalterable and unchangeable, 
the Serpent might become powerless in his assaults against 
all. For as when Adam had transgressed, his sin reached 
unto all men, so, when the Lord had become man and had 
overthrown the Serpent, that so great strength of His is to 
extend through all men, so that each of us may say, For we 
are not ignorant of his devices. Good reason then that the 
Lord, who ever is in natnre unalterable, loving righteousness 
and hating iniquity, should be anointed and Himself sent on 
mission, that, He, being and remaining the same ', by taking 
this alterable flesh, might condemn sin in it, and might secure 
its freedom, and its ability * henceforth to fulfil the righteous- 
ness of the law in itself, so as to be able to say, But we are 
not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of 
God dwelleth in us. 

9. Vainly then, here again, O Arians, have ye made this 
conjecture, and vainly alleged the words of Scripture; for 
God’s Word is unalterable, and is ever in one state, not as 
it may happen!, but as the Father is; since how is He like 


i Vid. Athan. de Incarn. 13. 14. vid. had he been again seduced by the ser- 


also Gent. 41 fin. and supr. p. 29, note 
k. Cum justitia nulla esset in terra, 
doctorem misit, quasi vivam legem. 
Lactant. Instit. iv. 25. ‘* The Only-be- 
gotten was made man like us,.... as 
if lending us His own stedfastness.” 
Cyril. in Joann. lib. y. 2. p. 473 [p.549 
O.T.] ; vid. also Thesaur. 2(). p. 198. 
August. de Corr. et Grat. 10—12. 
Damase. F. O. iy. 4. But the words of 
Athan. embrace too many subjects to 
illustrate distinctly in a note. 

k © Without His sojourning here at 
all, God was able to speak the Word 
only and undo the curse... . but then 
the power indeed of Him who gave 
command had been shewn, but man 
had been but such as Adam before the 
fall, receiving grace from without, not 
haying it united to the body.... Then, 


pent, a second need had arisen of God’s 
commanding and undoing the curse ; 
and this had gone on without limit, 
and men had remained under guilt 
just as before, being in slavery to sin ; 
and ever sinning, they had ever needed 
pardon, and never been made free, 
being in themselves carnal, and ever 
defeated by the Law by reason of the 
infirmity of the flesh.” Orat. ii. 68 [in- 
fra pp. 878, 879]. Andso in Inearn. 
7. he says that repentance might have 
been pertinent, had man merely of- 
fended, without corruption following ; 
but that that corruption involved the 
necessity of the Word’s vicarious suf- 
ferings and iutercessory office. 

1 ἁπλῶς, οὐκ ἁπλῶς ὡρίσθη, ἀλλ᾽ 
ἀκριβῶς ἐξητάσθη. Socr. i. 9. p. 51. 


Loving right and hating wrong implies not choice or trial, 255 


the Father, unless He be thus? or how is all that is the Cnar. 
Father’s, the Son’s also, if He has not the unalterableness = aE 
and unchangeableness of the Father !? Notas being subject 17, 10. 
to laws ™, and as influenced this way and that, does He love oe ai 
this and hate that, lest, if from fear of forfeiture He chooses 

the opposite, we admit in another way that He is alterable ; 

but, as being God and the Father’s Word, He is a just judge 

and lover of virtue, or rather its dispenser. Therefore being 

just and holy by nature, on this account He is said to love 
righteousness and to hate iniquity ; as much as to say, that 

He loves and takes to Him the virtuous, and rejects and 

hates the unrighteous. And divine Scripture says the same 

of the Father ; The Righteous Lord loveth righteousness ; Thow Ps.11,8; 
hatest all them that work iniquity ; and, The Lord loveth the °°: 
gates of Sion, more than all the dwellings of Jacob τ and, Jacob Mal. 1, 2. 
have I loved, but Esau have I hated; and in Esaias, there Ξ 

is the voice of God again saying, I the Lord love righteous- γς 61, 8, 
ness, and hate robbery of unrighteousness. Let them then 
expound those former words as these latter; for the former 

also are written of the Image of God: else, misinterpre- 

ting these as those, they will conceive that the Father too 

is alterable. But, since the very hearing others say this is 

not without peril, we do well to think that God is said to love 
righteousness and to hate robbery of unrighteousness, not 

as if influenced this way and that, and capable of the con- 

trary, selecting one thing and not choosing another, for this 
belongs to things generated, but that, as a judge, He loves 

and takes to Him the righteous and withdraws from the bad. 

It follows then to think the same concerning the Image of 

God also, that He loves and hates no otherwise than thus. 

For such must be the nature of the Image as is Its Father, 
though the Arians in their blindness fail to see either that 

Image or any other truth of the divine oracles. For being 

forced from the conceptions or rather misconceptions" of 

their own hearts, they fall back upon passages of divine 


m Eunomius said that our Lord was _ necessity.”’ contr. Eunom. ii. 30, 
utterly separate from the Father, ‘* by ” ἐννοιῶν μᾶλλον δὲ Tapavo.ar. vid, p. 
natural law,” νόμῳ φύσεως; S. Basil 237, note d. And so κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν, &r- 
obseryes, ‘‘ asif the God of all had not λὰ μᾶλλόν ἐστιν ἀπόνοια. Orat. ii. § 38 
power oyer Himself, ἑαυτοῦ κύριος, but [infra p. 333]. 
were in bondage under the decrees of 


Disc. 
1: 


Matt. 22, 
29. 


Ib. 21. 


256 The Arians rested, not on Scripture, but on a priori notions. 


Scripture, and here too from want of understanding, accord- 
ing to their wont, they discern not their meaning ; but laying 
down their own irreligion as a sort of canon of interpretation®, 
they wrest the whole of the divine oracles into accordance 


with it. 


And so on the bare mention of such doctrine, they 


deserve nothing but the reply, Ye do err, not knowing the 
Scriptures nor the power of God; and if they persist in it, 
they must be put to silence, by the words, Render to man 
the things that are man’s, and to God the things that are God’s. 


ο ἰδίαν. vid. p. 233, note a. p. 257, 
ref.5. ἰδίων κακονοιῶν, Orat. ii. § 18 
[infra p. 307]. Instead of prefessing to 
examine Scripture or to acquiesce in 
what they had been taught, the Arians 
were remarkable for insisting on cer- 
tain abstract positions or inferences on 


which they make the whole contro- 
versy turn. Vid. Socrates’s account of 
Arius’s commencement, “ If God has 
a Son, he must haye a beginning of 
existence.” &c. &c. and so the word 
ἀγενητόν. 


CHAP. XIII. 


TEXTS EXPLAINED; THIRDLY, HEBREWS 1. 4. 


Additional texts brought as objections; 6. g. Heb. i. 4. vii. 22. Whether 
the word ““ better ’”’ implies likeness to the Angels; and ‘‘ made” or ‘‘ be- 
come” implies creation. Necessary to consider the circumstances under 
which Scripture speaks. Difference between “ better”? and ‘ greater ;’’ 
texts in proof. ‘‘Made” or ‘ become” a general word. Contrast in 
Heb. i. 4. between the Son and the Works in point of nature. The differ- 
ence of the punishments under the two Covenants shews the difference 
of the natures of the Son and the Angels. ‘‘ Become” relates not to the 
nature of the Word, but to His manhood and office and relation towards us. 
Parallel passages in which the term is applied to the Eternal Father. 


1. Bur it is written, say they, in the Proverbs, The Lord ous 
created Me the beginning of His ways, for His works}; $53. 


and in the Epistle to the Hebrews the Apostle says, Being prov. 8, 


made so much better than the Angels, as He hath by inherit- 33. 
: vid. 
ance obtained a more excellent Name than they. And soon Orat. ii. 
after, Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly aay & 
calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our pro- Ib. 3,1. 


fession, Christ Jesus, who was faithful to Him that appoint- ae a. 


ed Him®. And in the Acts, Therefore let all the house of § 2—11. 


Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus 36. a 


whom ye have crucified both Lord and Christ*®. These pas- ὃ vid. 
sages they brought forward at every turn, mistaking their Oa 
sense, under the idea that they proved that the Word of 18. 
God was a creature and work and one of things generate ; 
and thus they deceive the thoughtless, making the language 
of Ee rpeare their pretence, but instead of the true sense 
sowing * upon it the poison of their own® heresy. For had * μον 

ote fe 
they known, they would not have been irreligious against 5 ἴδιον 
the Lord of glory, nor have wrested the good words of Serip- : Cor. 2, 
ture. If then henceforward openly adopting Caiaphas’s way, ὃ 


5 


Matt. 24, 
3. 


vid. 

1 Thess. 
2 Thess. 
2, 1. &e. 
2 Tim. 2, 
17. 18. 

1 Tim. 1, 
20. 


258 Each Scripture given under cireumstances 


they have determined on judaizing, and are ignorant of the 


~_——. text, that verily God shall dwell upon the earth, let them not 


inquire into the Apostolical sayings ; for they were out of 
place with Jews. Or, ifmixing themselves up with the god- 


” less Manichees?, they deny that the Word was made flesh, 


and His incarnate presence !, then let them not bring for- 
ward the Proverbs, for this is out of place with the Mani- 
chees. But if for preferment-sake, and the lucre of avarice 
which follows’, and the desire for good repute, they venture 
not on denying the text, The Word was made flesh, since 
so it is written, either let them rightly interpret the words 
of Scripture, of the embodied ® presence of the Saviour, or, 
if they deny their sense, let them deny too that the Lord 
became man. For it is unseemly, while confessing that the 
Word became flesh, yet to be ashamed at what is written of 
Him, and on that account to corrupt the sense. 

2. Thus, itis written, So much better than the Angels ; let 
us then first examine this. Now it is right and necessary, 
as in all divine Scripture, so here, faithfully to expound the 
time of which the Apostle wrote, and the person*, and the 
point ; lest the reader, from ignorance missing either these 
or any similar particular, may be wide of the true sense. This 
understood that inquiring eunuch, when he thus besought 
Philip, I pray thee, of whom doth the Prophet speak this? of 
himself, or of some other man? for he feared lest, expounding 
the lesson unsuitably to the person, he should wander from 
the right sense. And the disciples, wishing to learn the 
time of what was foretold, besought the Lord, Tell us, said 
they, when shall these things be ? and what is the sign of Thy 
coming ὃ And again, hearing from the Saviour the events 
of the end, they desired to learn the time of it, that they 
might be kept from error themselves, and might be able to 
teach others; as, for instance, when they have learned, they 
set right the Thessalonians, who were going wrong. When 
then one knows properly these points, his understanding of 
the faith is right and healthy ; but if he mistakes any such 
points, forthwith he falls into heresy. Thus the party of 
Hymenezeus and Alexander were beside the time, when they 


a Vid. the same contrast, de Syn. § 33. p. 130; supr. § 8. p. 189; 
Orat. iv. § 28 [p. 540]. 


which the Arians neglect. 259 


said that the resurrection had already been; and the Gala- Cuap. 
tians were after the time, in making much of circumcision ἈΠΕ. 
now. And to miss the person was the lot of the Jews, and 

is still, who think that of one of themselves is said, Behold, Is. 7, 14. 
a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and they shall call His ΜΕ Ms 
Name Emmanuel, which is being interpreted, God with us ; 
and that, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise wp to you, Deut. 18, 
is spoken of one of the Prophets ; and who, as to the words, = 

He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, instead of learning Is. 53, 7. 
from Philip, conjecture them spoken of Hsaias or some 

other of the Prophets which have been”. 

3. Such has been the state of mind under which Christ’s § 55. 
enemies have fallen into their execrable heresy’. For had ! μυσα- 
they known the person, and the subject, and the season of 65:5 
the Apostle’s words, they would not have expounded of 
Christ’s divinity what belongs to His manhood, nor in their 
folly have committed so great an act of irreligion. Now 
this will be readily seen, if one expounds properly the 
beginning of this passage. For the Apostle says, God who Heb. 1, i 
at sundry times and divers manners spake in times past unto 3 
the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto 
us by His Son; then again shortly after he says, when He Ib. 3, 4. 
had by Himself purged our sins, He sat down on the right 
hand of the Majesty on high, having become* so much better ° Ὑενό- 
than the Angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more eine a 
excellent Name than they. It appears then that the Apos- mae. 
tle’s words make mention of that time, when God spoke 
unto us by His Son, and when a purging of sins took place. 
Now when did He speak unto us by His Son, and when did 
purging of sins take place? and when did He become man? 
when, but subsequently to the Prophets in the last days? 
Next, proceeding with his account of the economy in which 
we were concerned, and speaking of the last times, he is 
naturally led to observe that not even in the former times 
was God silent with men, but spoke to them by the Pro- 
phets. And, whereas the Prophets ministered, and the Law 


b The more common eyasion on the 33 [pp. 404, 409 544. O.T.], Tertull. in 
part of the Jews was to interpret the Jud. 9, Cyprian. Testim. in Jud. ii. 13 
prophecy of their own sufferings in [p. 49 sqq. O.T.], Euseb. Dem. iii. 2. 
captivity. It was an idea of Grotius &c. [ef. Driver and Neubauer Jewish 
that the prophecy received a first ful- commentaries on Is. lii. and liii. and 
filment in Jeremiah. vid. Justin Tryph. Introduction to English Translation of 
72 [p. 164 O.T.] et al., Tren. Her. iy. these pp. xxxvii. sq.] 


5 ὦ 


Disc. 
I. 


1 6uoye- 
νῶν, vid. 
p- 169. 
2 κρείτ- 
των, SU- 
perior or 
above. 
Ps. 84, 
10. 
Proy. 8, 
10.115 


3 ἕτερο- 
οὐσια 
4 ἄλλα 


5 τὸ ἀλ- 
λάττον 


ὃ διαφορᾷ 


§ 56. 


260 The Son is better than the Angels, that is, above them. 


was spoken by Angels, while the Son too came on earth, 
and that in order to minister, he was forced to add, Become 
so much better than the Angels, wishing to shew that, as much 
as the son excels a servant, so much also the ministry of 
the Son is better than the ministry of servants. Contrast- 
ing then the old ministry and the new, the Apostle deals 
freely with the Jews, writing and saying, Become so much 
better than the Angels. This is why throughout he uses no 
comparison, such as *‘ become greater,” or “ more honour- 
able,” lest we should think of Him and them as one in kind}, 
but better? is his word, by way of marking the difference of 
the Son’s nature from things generated. And of this we 
have proof from divine Scripture; David, for instance, say- 
ing in the Psalm, One day in Thy courts is better than a 
thousand: and Solomon crying out, Receive my instruction 
and not silver, and knowledge rather than choice gold. For 
wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may 
be desired are not to be compared to it. Are not wisdom and 
stones of the earth different in substance ὃ and separate * in 
nature? Are heavenly courts at all akin to earthly houses? 
Or is there any similarity between things eternal and spiri- 
tual, and things temporal and mortal? And this is what 
Hsaias says, Thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep 
My sabbaths, and choose the things that please Me, and take 
hold of My Covenant; even unto them will I give in Mine 
house, and within My walls, a place and a name better than 
of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting 
name that shall not be cut off. In lke manner there is 
nought akin between the Son and the Angels; so that the 
word better is not used to compare but to contrast, because 
of the difference " of His nature from them. And therefore 
the Apostle also himself, when he interprets the word better, 
places its force in nothing short of the Son’s-excellence ὅ 
over things generated, calling the one Son, the other ser- 
vants; the one, as a Son with the Father, sitting on the 
right ; and the others, as servants, standing before Him, 
and being sent, and fulfilling officés. Scripture, in speak- 
ing thus, implies, O Arians, not that the Son is generate, 
but rather other than things generate, and proper to the 
Father, being in His bosom. 


He became better, that is, came to be through generation, 261 


4. Nor® does even the expression become, which here Cnar. 


occurs, shew that the Son is generate, as ye suppose. If 
indeed it were simply become and no more, a case might 
stand for the Arians; but, whereas they are forestalled with 
the word Son throughout the passage, shewing that He is 
other than things generate, so again not even the word be- 
come occurs absolutely ὦ, but better is immediately subjoined. 
For the writer thought the expression immaterial, knowing 
that in the case of one who was confessedly a genuine Son, 
to say become is the same with saying that He was genera- 
ted, and that He is better. For it matters not though we 
speak of what is generate, as “ become” or “made;” but 
on the contrary, things generate cannot be called generate, 
God’s handiwork as they are, except so far as after their 
making they partake of the Son who is the true Generate, 
and are therefore said to have been generated also, not at 
all in their own nature, but because of their participation of 


the Son in the Spirit °. 


© There is apparently much confu- 
sion in the arrangement of the para- 
graphsthat follow; though theappear- 
ance may perhaps arise from Athan.’s 
incorporating some passage from a 
former work into his text. vid. p. 227. 
note d. It is easy tu suggest altera- 
tions, but not any thing satisfactory. 
The same ideas are scattered about. 
Thus συγκριτικῶς occurs in n. 3. and 
n.5. The Son’s seat on the right, and 
Angels in ministry, n. 3 fin. n. 10. 
n. 11. ‘‘ Become” interpreted as ‘‘is 
generated and is.” ἢ. 4. and n. 1]. 
The explanation of ‘* become,’ ἢ. 4. 
n. 9.n.11.—n. 14. The Word’s ém- 
δημία is introduced in n. 7.and 8. πα- 
ρουσία being the more common word; 
ἐπιδημία occurs Orat. ii. § 67 init. 
Serap. i. 9. Vid. however p. 268, notes 
nando. Ifa changemust be suggest- 
ed, it would be to transfer n. 4. after 
n. 8. and n. 10. after n. 8. 

4 ἀπολελυμένως. vid. also Orat.ii. 54. 
62. iii. 22. Basil. contr. Eunom. i. p. 
244. Cyril. Thesaur. 25. p. 236. διαλε- 
λυμένως. Orat. iy. 1. 

© In this translation, γενητὸν and 
γεννητὸν have been considered as sy- 
nonymous, in spite of such distinction 
in the reading, as Montfaucon adopts; 
and this undertheimpression that that 
distinction is of a later date, Athan. as 
Basil after him, apparently not recog- 
nising it. The Platonists certainly 


And this again divine Scripture 


spoke of the Almighty as ἀγέννητος, 
and the world as γεννητὸς, and the 
Arians took advantage of this phrase- 
ology. If then Athan. did not admit 
it, he would naturally have said so; 
whereas his argument is, “ True, the 
world or creation is γεννητὸς, but only 
by μετουσία, as partaking of Him who 
is the one and only real γεννητὸς, or 
Son.” vid. p. 32, note q. That is, he 
does not discriminate between two 
distinct ideas, ‘‘Son” and ‘‘creature”’ 
confused by a common name, but he 
admits their connection, only explains 
it; or, to speak logically, instead of 
considering γεννητὸν and γενητὸν as 
equivocal words, he uses them as sy- 
nonymous and one, with a primary 
and secondary meaning. Afterwards 
they were distinguished, p. 226, note 
ce. In like manner, our Lord is called 
μονογενής. Athan. speaks of the γένεσις 
of human sons, and of the Divine, de 
Decr. § 11. and in de Syn. § 47. he 
observes that S. Ignatius calls the Son 
γενητὸς καὶ ἀγένητος, without a hint 
about the distinction of roots. Again, 
one of the orginal Arian positions was 
that our Lord wasa γέννημα ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὡς 
ἐν τῶν γεννημάτων, which Athan. fre- 
quently notices and combats, vid. Orat. 
ii. 19. But instead of answering it by 
substituting γενητῶν, as if ποιημάτων, 
for γεννημάτων, he allows that γέννημα 
may be taken as synonymous with 


Xi 


Disc. 


John 1,3. 
Ps. 104, 
24, 

Job 1, 2. 


Gen. 21, 
ὅ. 


1 ὅμο- 
γενῆ, 

p. 260, 
ref. 1. 


§ 57, 


Ps. 89, 7. 
Ib. 86, 8. 


262 The Son not compared to, but contrasted with, Angels. 


recognises ; for it not only says in the case of things gene- 
rate, All things came to be through Him, and without Him 
there was not any thing made, and, In wisdom hast Thou 
made them all; but in the case of sons also which are gene- 
rate, To Job there came seven sons and three daughters, and, 
Abraham was an hundred years old when there came to him 
Isaac his son; and Moses said, If to any one there come sons. 
Therefore since the Son is other than things generate, alone 
the proper offspring of the Father’s substance, this plea of 
the Arians about the word become is worth nothing. 

5. If moreover, baffled so far, they should still violently 
insist that the language is that of comparison, and that com- 
parison in consequence implies oneness of kind !, so that the 
Son is of the nature of Angels, they will in the first place 
incur the disgrace of rivalling and repeating what Valentinus 
held, and Carpocrates, and those other heretics, of whom the 
former said that the Angels were one in kind with the Christ, 
and Carpocrates that Angels are framers of the world’. Per- 
chance it 15 under the instruction of these masters that they 
compare the Word of God with the Angels; though surely 
amid such speculations, they will be moved by the Psalmist, 
saying, Who is he among the gods that shall be like unto the 
Tord ? and, Among the gods there is none like unto Thee, O 
Tord. However, they must be answered, with the chance 
of their profiting by it, that comparison confessedly does 
belong to subjects one in kind, not to those which differ. No 
one, for instance, would compare God with man, or again man 
with brutes, nor wood with stone, because their natures are 
unlike; but God is beyond comparison, and man is com- 


κτίσμα, and only argues that there is 
a special sense of it in which it applies 
to the Word, not as one of a number, 
as the Arians said, but solely, incom- 
municably, as being the μονογενής. In 
the passage before us, which at first 
seems to require the distinction, he 
does but say, 1. that the Sen is not 
γενητὸς or γεννητὸς, “generate,” i.e. 
in the general sense; 2. that He is 
generated, γεγενῆσθαι or γεγεννῆσθαι, 
as the μονογενὴς ; 3. that the γενητὰ or 
γεννητὰ (creatures) are called γενητὰ, 
or said γεγεννῆσθαι, as partaking of the 
γεννητὸς vids. 4. that (in themselves) 
they are properly said γεγονέναι or 
πεποιῆσθαι. It may be admitted, as 


evident even from this passage, that 
though Athan. does not distinguish 
between γενητὸν and γεννητὸν, yet he 
considers γεγεννῆσθαι or γέννημα as 
especially appropriate to the Son, ye- 
γονέναι and γενόμενος to the creation. 

f These tenets and similar ones were 
common to many branches of the 
Gnostics, who paid worship to the An- 
gels, or ascribed to them the creation; 
the doctrine of their consubstantiality 
with our Lord arose from their belief 
in emanation. S. Athanasius here uses 
theword éuoyevijs, not ὁμοούσιος which 
was usual with them (vid. Bull D. F. 
N. ii. 1. § 2) as with the Manichees 
after them, Beausobre, Manich. iii. 8. 


The Son not greater, but better than the Angels. 205 


pared to man, and wood to wood, and stone to stone. Now Cuar. 
in such cases we should not speak of better, but of “ rather? Ut 
and “more;”? thus Joseph was comely rather than his 
brethren, and Rachel than Leah; star! is not better than ' Orat. ii. 
star, but is the rather excellent in glory; whereas in ri 
bringing together things which differ in kind, then better 
is used to mark the difference, as has been said in the case 
of wisdom and jewels. Had then the Apostle said, “ by so 
much has the Son precedence of the Angels,” or “byso much 
greater,” you would have had a plea, as if the Son were 
compared with the Angels; but, as it is, in saying that 
He is better, and differs as far as Son from servants, the 
Apostle shews that He is other than the Angels in nature. 

6. Moreover by saying that He it is who has laid the Heb. 1, 
foundation of all things, he shews that He is other than , 
all things generate. But if He be other and different in 
substance? from their nature, what comparison of His sub- ὁ érepo- 
stance® can there be, or what likeness to them? though, tee ' 
even if they haye any such thoughts, Paul shall refute them, note k. 
who speaks to the very point, For unto which of the Angels I. 5.7. 
said He at any time, Thou art My Son, this day have I 
begotten Thee? And of the Angels He saith, Who maketh 
His Angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire. Observe § 98. 
here, the word made belongs to things generate, and he 
calls them things made; but to the Son he speaks not of 
making, nor of becoming, but of eternity and kingship, 
and a Framevr’s office, exclaiming, Thy Throne, O God, is 19. 8. 
for ever and ever ; and, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid 1.10, 11. 
the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works 
of Thine hands; they shall perish, but Thow remainest. 
From which words even they, were they but willing, might 
perceive that the Framer is other than things framed, the 
former God, the latter things generate, made out of nothing. 
For what has been said, They shall perish, is said, not as if 
the creation were destined for destruction, but to express the 
nature of things generate by the issue to which they tend‘, * Ρ. 338, 
For things which admit of perishing, though through the a 
grace ὅ of their Maker they perish not, yet have come out of * p. 32, 
nothing, and themselves witness that they once were not. Nts 
And on this account, since their nature is such, it is said of 


/ 


ib 


John 14, 
28. 


264 The Father not better, but greater, than the Son. 
the Son, Thou remainest, to shew His eternity; for not 
having the capacity of perishing, as things generate have, but 
having eternal duration, it is foreign to Him to have it said, 
“ He was not before His generation,” but proper to Him to 
be always, and to endure together with the Father. And 
though the Apostle had not thus written in his Epistle to the 
Hebrews, still his other Epistles, and the whole of Scripture, 
would certainly forbid their entertaining such notions con- 
cerning the Word. But since he has here expressly written 
it, and, as has been above shewn, the Son is Offspring of the 
Father’s substance, and He is Framer, and other things are 
framed by Him, and He is the Radiance and Word and 
Image and Wisdom of the Father, and things generate stand 
and serve in their place below the Trinity, therefore the Son 
is different in kind and differentin substance from things 
generate, and on the contrary is proper to the Father’s sub- 
stance and one in nature to it’. And hence it is that the 
Son too says not, My Father is better than I, lest we should 
conceive Him to be foreign to His Nature, but greater, not 
indeed in greatness, nor in time, but because of His gene- 
ration from the Father Himself"; nay, in saying greater He 
again shews that He is proper to His substance. 

7. And the Apostle’s own reason for saying, so much 
better than the Angels, was not any wish in the first instance 


, to compare the substance! of the Word to things generate, 


(for He cannot be compared, rather they are incommeasur- 
able,) but regarding the Word’s visitation 5 in the flesh, and 
the economy which He then sustained, he wished to shew 
that He was not like those who had gone before Him; 
so that, as much as He excelled in nature those who were 
sent afore by Him, by so much also the grace which came 
from and through Him was better than the ministry through 
Angelsi. For it is the function of servants, to demand the 
fruits and no more; but of the Son and Master to forgive 
the debts and to transfer the vineyard. 


© Here again is a remarkable ayoid- 
ance of the word ὁμοούσιον. He says 
that the Son is ἑτερογενὴς kal Erepoov- 
σιος τῶν γεννητῶν, Kal τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς 
οὐσίας ἴδιος καὶ duopuns. vid. pp. 209, 
210, notes d. e. 

» Athan. otherwise explains this 


text, Incarn. contr. Arian. 4. if it be 
his. This text is thus taken by Basil. 
contr. Eun. iy. p. 289. Naz. Orat. 30, 
7. &e. &e. 

i He also applies this text to our 
Lord’s economy and ministry, de Sent. 
D. 11. in Apoll. ii. 15. 


The Gospel excelled the Law, as the Son excels Angels. 265 
8. Certainly what the Apostle proceeds to say shews the (παρ. 
excellence of the Son over things generate; Therefore we ace 


ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we 1. 3, 
have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For 

if the word spoken by Angels was stedfast, and every trans- 
gression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward ; 

how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which 

at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirm- 

ed unto us by them that heard Him. But if the Son were 

in the number of things generate, He was not better than 

they, nor did disobedience involve increase of punishment 
because of Him; any more than in the Ministry of Angels 

there was not, according to each Angel, greater or less 

guilt in the transgressors, but the Law was one, and one 

was its vengeance on transgressors. But, whereas the Word 

is not in the number of generate things, but is Son of the 
Father, therefore, as He Himself is better and His acts better 

and transcendent, so also the punishment is worse. Let 

them contemplate then the grace which is through the Son, 

and let them acknowledge the witness which He gives even 

from His works, that He is other than things generated, and 

alone the very Son in the Father and the Father in Him. 

And the Law * was spoken by Angels, and perfected no one, te a 
needing the visitation of the Word, as Paul hath said; but | ae 17, 
that visitation has perfected the work of the Father. aed ce ee 
then, from Adam unto Moses death reigned; but the pre- 1 a, a 
sence of the Word abolished death. And no longer in 2 Tim, 1, 
Adam are we all dying; but in Christ we are all reviving. 1 Gor. 15, 
And then, from Dan to Bersabe was the Law proclaimed, aaa = 
and in Juda only was God known; but now, unto all the 76, 1. 
earth has gone forth their voice, and all the earth has been te ἐ- 
filled with the knowledge of God, and the disciples have 


made disciples of all the nations, and now is fulfilled what Matt. 28, 
ae 


k Part of this chapter, asfor instance 
n. 7, 8. is much more finished in point 
of style than the general course of his 
Orations. It may be indeed only the 
natural consequence of his warming 
with his subject, but this beautiful pas- 
sage looks very much like aninsertion. 
Some words of it are found in Sent. 
D.11. written a few years sooner. He 
certainly transcribed himself in other 


places, as S. Leo, e. g. repeats himself : 


in another controyersy. Athan. is so 
very eloquent and rich a writer when- 
ever he is led into comments upon 
Scripture, that one almost regrets he 
had eyer to adopt a controversial tone; 
except indeed that Arianism has given 
occasion to those comments, and that 
that tone is of course a lesson of doc- 
trine to us, and therefore instructive, 


Disc. 
I 


Πρ: 7.19. 


10. 9, 28. 


§ 60. 


1 / 
γέγονεν 


Rom. 8, 
3. 


3 δεκτι- 
κὴν vid. 
p- 260, 
note d. 


John 6, 
45. 


266 The Son became surety, that is, when He became man. 


is written, They shall be all taught of God. And then what 
was revealed, was but a type; but now the truth has been 
manifested. And this again the Apostle himself describes 


‘afterwards more clearly, saying, By so much was Jesus made 


a surety of a better testament; and again, But now hath He 
obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is 
the Mediator of ὦ better covenant, which was established upon 
better promises. And, For the Law made nothing perfect, 
but the bringing in of a better hope did. And again he says, 
It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the 
heavens should be purified with these ; but the heavenly things 
themselves with better sacrifices than these. Both in the 
verse before us then, and throughout, does he ascribe the 
word better to the Lord, who is better and other than gener- 
ated things. For better is the sacrifice through Him, better 
the hope in Him; and also the promises through Him, not 
merely as great compared with small, but the one differing 
from the other in nature, because He who conducts this 
economy, is better than things generated. 

9. Moreover the words He is become! surety denotes the 
pledge in our behalf which He has provided. For as, being 
the Word, He became flesh, and become we ascribe to the 
flesh, for it is generated and created, so do we here the 
expression He is become, expounding it according to a second 
sense, viz. because He has become man. And let these 
contentious men know, that they fail in this their perverse 
purpose; let them know that Paul does not signify that 
His substance * has become, knowing, as he did, that He is 
Son and Wisdom and Radiance and Image of the Father ; 
but here too he refers the word become to the ministry of that 
covenant, in which death which once ruled is abolished. 
Since here also the ministry through Him has become better, 
in that what the Law could not do in that it -was weak 
through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the like- 
ness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, 
ridding it of the trespass, in which, being continually held 
captive, it admitted not the Divine mind. And having ren- 
dered the flesh capable*® of the Word, He made us walk, 
no longer according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit, 
and say again and again, “But we are not in the flesh 


The Son so on the Father’s right, that the Father on the Son’s. 267 


but in the Spirit,” and, “ For the Son of God came into the (πὰρ. 
world, not to judge the world, but to redeem all men, and ae 
that the world might be saved through Him.” Formerly the 8. 17. 
world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but 
now the Word has taken on Himself the judgment, and 
having suffered in the body for all, has bestowed salvation 
to all!. With a view to this, hath John exclaimed, The law Ib. 1, 17.° 
was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. 
Better is grace than the Law, and truth than the shadow. 

10. Better then, as has been said, could not have been § 61. 
brought to pass by any other than the Son, who sits on the 
right hand of the Father. And what does this denote but 
the Son’s genuineness!, and that the Godhead of the Father ' τὸ γνή- 
is the same as the Son’s*? For in that the Son reigns in 2 alae 
His Father’s kingdom, is seated upon the same throne as the note r- 
Father, and is contemplated in the Father’s Godhead, there- 
fore is the Word God, and whoso beholds the Son, beholds 
the Father; and thus there is one God. Sitting then on 
the right, yet hath He not His Father on the left™; but 
whatever is right ® and precious in thé Father, that also the ὅ δεξιόν 
Son has, and says, All things that the Father hath are Mine. 10. 16, 
Wherefore also the Son, though sitting onthe right, also 
sees the Father on the right, though it be as become man 
that He says, I saw the Lord always before My face, for He is 
on My right hand, therefore I shall not fall. This shews more- 
over that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the 
Son; for the Father being on the right, the Son is on the 
right; and while the Son sits on the right of the Father, 
the Father is inthe Son. And the Angels indeed minister 
ascending and descending; but concerning the Son he saith, 
And let all the Angels of God worship Him. And when 


Ps. 16, 9. 


Heb. 1, 6. 


' vid. Incarn. passim. Theod. Eranist. 


iii. pp. 196—198, Χο. &c. It was the 
tendency of all the heresies concerning 
the Person of Christ to explain away 
or deny the Atonement. The Arians, 
after the Platonists, insisted on the 
pre-existing Priesthood, as if the incar- 
nation and crucifixion were not of its 
essence. The Apollinarians resolved 
the Incarnation into a manifestation, 
Theod. Fran.i. The Nestorians de- 
nied the Atonement, Procl. ad Armen. 
p- 615. And the Eutychians, Leont. 


Ep. 28, 5. 

™ Nec ideo tamen quasi humana 
forma circumscriptum esse Deum 
Patrem arbitrandum est, ut de illo 
cogitantibus dextrum aut sinistrum 
latus animo occurrat; aut id ipsum 
quod sedens Pater dicitur, flexis popli- 
tibus fieri putandum est, ne in illud 
incidamus sacrilegium, &c. August. de 
Fid. et Symb. 14 [Short treatises, p. 25 
O.T.]. Does this passage of Athan.’s 
shew that the Anthropomorphites were 
stirring in Egypt already ? 


Disc. 
I. 


vid. 


John 17, 
4. 

Mark 10, 
45. 

John 14, 
10. 9. 


§ 62. 


268 The word “ become”? marks the incarnation and nuistry. 


Angels minister, they say, “Iam sent unto thee,” and,“ The 
Lord has commanded;” but the Son, though He say in 
human fashion, “I am sent,’? and comes to finish the work 
and to minister, nevertheless says, as being Word and 
Image, I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; and, He 
that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father}; and, The Father that 
abideth in Me, He doeth the works; for what we behold in 
that Image, are the Father’s works. 

11. What has been already said ought to prevail with those 
persons who are fighting against the very truth; however, 
if, because it 15 written, become better, they refuse to explain 
become, as used of the Son, to be “has been generated and 
is";” or again as referring to the better covenant having 
come to be®, as we have said, but consider from this ex- 
pression that the Word 15 called generate, let them hear the 
same again in a concise form, since they have forgotten 
what has been said. If the Son be in the number of the 
Angels, then let the word become apply to Him as to them, 
and let Him not differ at all from them in nature; but be 
they either sons with Him, or be He an Angel with hem ; 
sit they one and all together on the right hand of the Father, 
or be the Son standing with them all as a ministering Spirit, 
sent forth to minister Himself as they are. But if on the 
other hand Paul distinguishes the Son from things generate, 
saying, To which of the Angels said He at any time, Thou art 
My Son? and the one frames heaven and earth, but they 
are made by Him ; and He sitteth with the Father, but they 
stand by ministering, who does not see that he has not used 
the word become of the substance” of the Word, but of.the 
ministration come through Him? For as, being the Word, 
He became flesh, so when become man, He became by so 
much better in His ministry than the ministry which came 
by the Angels, as Son excels servants and Framer things 
framed. Let them cease therefore to take the word become 
of the substance of the Son, for He is not one of generated 
things; and let them acknowledge that it is indicative of 
His ministry and the economy which came to pass. 

12. But how He became better in His ministry, being 


n Of His divine nature, ἢ. 4.—n. 8. 
° Of His human nature, ἢ. 9. and 10. 


The Son became, as God becomes a defence. 269 


better in nature than things generate, appears from what has 
been said before, which, I consider, is sufficient in itself to 
put them to shame. But if they carry on the contest, it 
will be proper upon their rash daring to close with them, 
and to oppose to them those similar expressions which are 
used concerning the Father Himself. This may serve to 
prevail with them to refrain their tongue from evil, or may 
teach them the depth of their folly. Now it is written, 
Become my strong rock and house of defence, that Thou may- 
est save me. And again, The Lord became a defence for 
the oppressed, and the like which are found in divine Scrip- 
ture. If then they apply these passages to the Son, which 
perhaps is nearest to the truth, then let them acknowledge 
that the sacred writers ask Him, as not being generate, to 
become to them a strong rock and house of defence ; and for 
the future let them understand become, and He made, and 
He created, of His incarnate presence. For then did He 
become a strong rock and house of defence, when He bore our 
sins in His own body upon the tree, and said, Come wnto 
Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give 
you rest. 

15. But if they refer these passages to the Father, will 
they, when it is here also written, ‘‘ Become” and “ He be- 
came,” venture so far as to affirm that God is generate? 
Yea, they will dare, as they thus argue concerning His 
Word; for the course of their argument carries them on to 
conjecture the same things concerning the Father, as they 
devise concerning His Word. But far be such a notion 
ever from the thoughts of all the faithful! for neither is the 
Son in the number of things generated, nor do the words 
of Scripture in question, Become, and He became, denote 
beginning of being, but that succour which was given to 
the needy. For God is always, and one and the same; but 
men came to be afterwards through the Word, when the 
Father Himself willed it; and God is invisible and inacces- 
sible to generated things, and especially to men upon earth. 
When then men in infirmity invoke Him, when in persecu- 
tion they ask help, when under injuries they pray, then the 
Invisible, being a lover of man, shines forth upon them 
with His beneficence, which He exercises through and in 


Cuap. 
XIII. 


Ps. 31, 3. 
Ib. 9, 9. 


Matt. 11, 
28. 


§ 63. 


Disc. 


Is. 58, 9. 


ὃ 64. 


John 1, 
14. 


270 God becomes all things to all, without change of nature ; 


His proper Word. And forthwith the divine manifestation 
is made to every one according to his need, and is made to 
the weak health, and to the persecuted a refuge and house 
of defence ; and to the injured He says, While thou speakest 
Iwill say, Here Tam. What defence then comes to each 
through the Son, that each says that God has come to be 
to himself, smce succour comes from God Himself through 
the Word. Moreover the usage of men recognises this, 
and every one will confess its propriety. Often succour 
comes from man to man; one has undertaken toil for the 
injured, as Abraham for Lot; and another has opened his 
home to the persecuted, as Abdias to the sons of the pro- 
phets ; and another has entertained a stranger, as Lot the 
Angels; and another has supplied the needy, as Job those 
who begged of him. As then, should one and the other of 
these benefitted persons say, “ Such a one became an assist- 
ance to me,”’ and another “and to me a refuge,” and “to 
another a supply,” yet in so saying would not be speaking 
of the original becoming or the substance of their benefactors, 
but of the beneficence coming to themselves from them, so 
also when the sacred writers say concerning God, He became 
and become Thou, they do not denote any original becoming, 
for God is unoriginate and not generate, but the salvation 
which is made to be unto men from Him. 

14, This being so understood, it is parallel also respecting 
the Son, that whatever, and however often, is said, such as, 
He became and become, should ever have the same sense: so 
that as, when we hear the words in question become better 
than the Angels and He became, we should not conceive any 
original becoming of the Word, nor in any way fancy from 
such terms that He is generate; but should understand 
Paul’s words of His ministry and economy when He became 
man. For when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us 
and came to minister and to grant salvation to all, then He 
became to us salvation, and became life, and became pro- 
pitiation; then His economy in our behalf became much 
better than the Angels, and He became the Way and 
became the Resurrection. And as the words Become my 
strong rock do not denote that the substance of God 
Himself became, but His lovingkindness, as has been said, 


and so the Son. 9.71 


so also here the having become better than the Angels, and, Cae 
He became, and, by so much is Jesus become a better surety, 

do not signify that the substance! of the Word is generate, ὦ Ρ 268, 
(perish the thought!) but the beneficence which towards us ΠΣ: 
came to be through His incarnation; unthankful though 


the heretics be, and obstinate in behalf of their ἸΠπ τῆτες. 


NOTE on page 214. 


On the meaning of the formula πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἣν, in the 
Nicene Anathema. 


Ir was observed p. 61, note d. that there were two clauses in the 
Nicene Anathema which required explanation. One of them, ἐξ ἑτέρας 
ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας, has been discussed in the Note, pp. 66—72; 
the other, πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, shall be considered now. 

Bishop Bull has suggested a very ingenious interpretation of it, 
which is not obvious, but which, when stated, has much plausibility, 
as going to explain, or rather to sanction, certain modes of speech in 
some early Fathers of venerable authority, which have been urged by 
heterodox writers, and given up by Catholics of the Roman School, 
as sayouring of Arianism. The foregoing pages have made it abun- 
dantly evident that the point of controversy between Catholics and 
Arians was, not whether our Lord was God, but whether He was 
Son of God ; the solution of the former question being involved in that 
of the latter. The Arians maintained that the very word ‘ Son” im- 
plied a beginning, or that our Lord was not Very God; the Catholies 
said that it implied connaturality, or that He was Very God as one 
with God. Now five early writers, Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus, 
Hippolytus, and Novatian, of whom the authority of Hippolytus is 
very great, not to speak of Theophilus and Athenagoras, whatever 
be thought of Tatian and of Novatian, seem to speak of the divine 
generation as taking place immediately before the creation of the 
world, that is, as if not eternal, though at the same time they teach 
that our Lord existed before that generation. In other words they 
seem to teach that He was the Word from eternity, and became the 
Son at the beginning of all things; some of them expressly consider- 
ing Him, first as the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, or Reason, in the Father, or 
(as may be speciously represented) a mere attribute; next, as the 
λόγος προφορικὸς, or Word, terms which have been already explained, 
p- 113, note z. This doctrine, whan divested of figure and put into 
literal statement, might appear nothing more or less than this,—that 
at the beginning of the world the Son was created after the likeness 
of the Divine attribute of Reason, as its image or expression, and 
thereby became the Divine Word; was made the instrument of crea- 
tion, called the Son from that ineffable favour and adoption which 
God had bestowed on Him, and in due time sent into the world to 
manifest God’s perfections to mankind ;—which, it is scarcely 
necessary to say, is the doctrine of Arianism. 


Note on ““ before His generation ” in the Nicene Anathema. 273 


Thus S. Hippolytus says, 

Τῶν δὲ γινομένων ἀρχηγὸν καὶ σύμβουλον καὶ ἐργατὴν ἐγέννα λόγον, 
ὃν λόγον ἔ ἔχων ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἀόρατόν τε ὄντα τῷ κτιζομένῳ κόσμῳ, ὁρατὸν 
ποιεῖ: ,προτέραν φωνὴν φθεγγόμενος, καὶ φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς γεννῶν, προῆκεν 
τῇ κτίσει κύριον. contr. Noet. 10. 

And S. _Pheophilus 

Ἔχων οὖν 6 θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ λόγον ἐνδιάθετον ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις σπλάγχνοις, 
ἐγέννησεν αὐτὸν μετὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ σοφίας “ἐξερευξάμενος πρὸ τῶν ὅλων 
a ae ὁπότε δὲ ἠθέλησεν ὃ θεὸς ποιῆσαι ὅσα ἐβουλεύσατο, τοῦτον τὸν 
λόγον ἐγέννησε προφορικὸν, πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως. ad Autol. ii. 10 


Bishop Bull, Defens. F. N. iii. 5—8, meets this representation by 
maintaining that the γέννησις which S. Hippolytus and other writers 
spoke of, was but a metaphorical generation, the real and eternal 
truth being shadowed out by a succession of events in the Economy 
of time, such as is the Resurrection (Acts xiii. 33), nay, the Nativity ; 
and that of these His going forth to create the worlds was one. And 
he maintains (ibid. iii. 9) that such is the mode of speaking adopted 
by the Fathers after the Nicene Council as well as before. And then 
he adds, (which is our present point,) that it is even alluded to and 
recognised in the Creed of the Council, which anathematizes those 
who say that ‘ the Son was not before His generation,’’i. e. who deny 
that “the Son was before His generation,” which statement accord- 
ingly becomes indirectly a Catholic truth. 

I am not aware whether any writer has preceded or followed this 
great authority in this view?. ‘The more obvious mode of understand- 
ing the Arian formula is this, that it is an argument ex absurdo, 
drawn from the force of the word Son, in behalf of the Arian doctrine ; 
it being, as they would say, a truism, that, “‘ whereas He was begotten, 
He was not before He was begotten,” and the denial of it a contra- 
diction in terms. This certainly does seem to myself the true force 
of the formula; so much so, that if Bishop Bull’s explanation be 
admissible, it must, in order to its being so, first be shewn to be 
reducible to this sense, and to be included under it. 

The point at issue between the two interpretations is this ; whether 
the clause πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν is intended for a denial of the con- 
trary proposition, ** He was before His generation,” as Bishop Bull 
says; or whether it is what Aristotle calls an enthymematic sentence, 
eae the falsity, as confessed on all hands, of that contrary pro- 


= ὁ Waterland expresses the view here antecessit. Quis vero, inquam, sensus 


taken, and not Bishop Bull’s; yol. i. 
p- 114. Bull’s language, on the other 
hand, is yery strong ; ‘‘ Szepe olim, ut 
verum ingenué fatear, animum meum 
subiit admiratio, quid effato isto, 
‘Filius priusquam nasceretur, non 
erat, sibi voluerint Ariani. De nati- 
vitate Christi ex beatissimA Virgine 
dictum non esse exponendum constat. 
. .. Itaque de nativitate Filii loquun- 
tur, que hujus universi creationem 


dicti hujus, ‘ Filius non erat, sive non 
existebat, priusquam nasceretur ex 
Patre ante conditum mundum ?’ Ego 
sane nullus dubito, quin hoc pronun- 
ciatum Arianorum oppositum fuerit 
Catholicorum istorum sententize, qui 
docerent, Filium quidem paulo ante 
conditum mundum inexplicabili quo- 
dam modo ex Patre progressum fuisse 
ad constituendum universa,” ἄς, D. F. 
N. iii. 9. § 2. 


A; 


Norte 
ON 
Disc. 


Notre 
ON 
Disc. 
IE 


274 Note on “ He was not before His generation ” 


position, as self-contradictory, and directly denying, not it, but “ He 
was from everlasting.” Or, in other words, whether it opposes the 
position of the five writers, or the great Catholic doctrine itself; and 
whether in consequence the Nicene Fathers are in their anathema 
indirectly sanctioning that position, or stating that doctrine. Bull 
considers that both sides contemplated the proposition, “ He was 
before His generation,’’-—and that the Catholics asserted or defended 
it ; some reason shall here be given for the contrary view. 

1. Now first, let me repeat, what was just now observed by the 
way, that the formula in question, when taken as an enthymematic 
sentence, or reductio ad absurdum, exactly expresses the main 
argument of the Arians, which they brought forward in so many 
shapes, as feeling that their cause turned upon it, “ He is a Son, 
therefore He had a beginning.” Thus Socrates records Arius’s 
words in the beginning of the controversy, (1) “ If the Father begat 
the Son, He who is begotten has a beginning of existence; (2) there- 
fore once the Son was not, ἣν ὅτε οὐκ ἣν ; (3) therefore He has His 
subsistence from nothing, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἔχει τὴν ὑπόστασιν." Soer.i. 5. 
The first of these propositions exactly answers to the οὐκ ἢν πρὶν 
γεννηθῆναι taken enthymematically ; and it may be added that when 
so taken, the three propositions will just answer to the three first 
formule anathematized at Nica, two of which are indisputably the 
same as two of them; viz. ὅτι ἣν ποτὲ ὅτε οὐκ ἦν. ὅτι πρὶν γεννηθῆναι 
οὐκ ἣν: ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο. On the other hand, we hear nothing 
in the controversy of the position which Bull conceives to be opposed 
by Arius, (** He was before His generation,”) that is, supposing the 
formula in question does not allude to it; unless indeed it is worth 
while to except the statement reprobated in the Letter of the Arians 
to Alexander, ὄντα πρότερον, γεννηθέντα εἰς υἱὸν, which has been ex- 
plained, p. 97, note m. 

2. Next, it should be observed that the other formule here, as 
elsewhere, mentioned, are enthymematic also, or carry their argument 
with them, and that, an argument resolvable often into the original 
argument derived from the word “Son.” Such are ὃ dv τὸν μὴ ὄντα 
ἐκ τοῦ ὄντος ἢ τὸν ὄντα ; and ἕν τὸ ἀγένητον ἢ δύο. And in like man- 
ner as regards the question of the τρεπτὸν; ““Ηὰ5 He free will,” 
thus Athanasius states the Arian objection, “‘ or has He not? is He 
good from choice according to free will, and can He, if He will, 
alter, being of an alterable nature? as wood or stone, has He not 
His choice free to be moved, and incline hither and thither ?” supr. 
§ 35. p. 230. That is, they wished the word τρεπτὸς to carry with 
it its own self-evident application to our Lord, with the alternative 


-of an absurdity ; and so to prove His created nature. 


3. In § 32, supr. p. 227, S. Athanasius observes that the formula 
of the ἀγένητον was the later substitute for the original formule of 
Arius; ‘‘ when they were no longer allowed to say, ‘ out of nothing,’ 
and ‘ He was not before His generation,’ they hit upon this word 
Ingenerate, that, by saying among the simple that the Son was gene- 
rate, they might imply the very same phrases ‘ out of nothing’ and 
* He once was not.’” Here he does not in so many words say that 


in the Nicene Anathema. yw ES) 


the argument from the ἀγένητον was a substitute for the οὐκ ἦν πρὶν 
γεννηθῆναι, yet surely it is not unfair so to understand him. But it 
is plain that the ἀγένητον was brought ferward merely to express by 
an appeal to philosophy and earlier Fathers, that to be a Son was to 
have a beginning and a creation, and not to be God. This there- 
fore will be the sense of the οὐκ ἣν πρὶν γεννηθῆναι. Nay, when the 
Arians asked, “ Is the ἀγένητον one or two,” they actually did assume 
that it was granted by their opponents that the Father only was 
ἀγένητος ; which it was not, if the latter held, nay, if they had sanc- 
tioned at Nicea, as Bull says, that our Lord ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῇ ; and 
moreover which they knew and confessed was not granted, if their 
own formula οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῆναι was dir ected against this statement. 

4, Again, it is plain that the οὐκ ἢν πρὶν γεννηθῆναι, ἢ is used by 
S. Athanasius as the same objection with 6 dv τὸν μὴ ὄντα ἐκ τοῦ 
ὄντος, &e. E.g. he says, “ We might ask them in turn, God who is, 
has He so become, whereas He was not? or is He also before His 
generation ? whereas He is, did He make Himself, or is He of no- 
thing, &c. § 25. p. 216. Now the ὁ ὧν τὸν μὴ ὄντα, &e. is evidently 
an argument, and that, grounded on the absurdity of saying ὃ ὧν τὸν 
ὄντα. ὃ. Alexander’s Encyclical Letter (vid. Socr. i. 6), compared 
with Arius’s original positions and the Nicene ΠΕΡ τσοὶ as referred 
to above, is a strong confirmation, In these three documents the 
formule agree together, except one; and that one, which in Arius’s 
language is “ he who is begotten has a beginning of existence,” is in 
the Nicene Anathema, οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῆναι, but in S. Alexander’s 
circular, 6 dv θεὸς τὸν μὴ ὄντα ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος πεποίηκεν. The ab- 
sence of the οὐκ ἦν πρὶν, &e. in S. Alexander is certainly remarkable. 
Moreover the two formule are treated as synonymous by Greg. Naz. 
Orat. 29. 9. Cyril, Thesaur. 4. p. 29 fin. and by Basil as quoted 
below. But indeed there is an internal correspondence between 
them, shewing that they have but one meaning. They are really but 
the same sentence in the active and in the passive voice. 

5. A number of scattered passages in Athanasius lead us to the 
same conclusion. For instance, if the Arian formula had the sense 
which is here maintained, of being an argument against our Lord’s 
eternity, the Catholic answer would be, “He could not be before 
His generation because His generation is eternal, as being from the 
Father.” Now this is precisely the language Athanasius uses, when 
it occurs to him to introduce the words in question. Thus in Orat. 
ii. § 57 [infra p. 363], he says, “The creatures began to come to be 
(γίνεσθαι) : but the Word of God, not having beginning (ἀρχὴν) of 
being, surely did not begin to be, nor begin to come to be, but was 
always. And the works have a beginning (ἀρχὴν) in the making, and 
the beginning precedes things which come to be; but the Word not 
being of such, rather Himself becomes the Framer of those things 
which have a beginning. And the being of things generate is mea- 
sured by their becoming (ἐν τῷ γίνεσθαι), and at some beginning 
(origin) doth God begin to make ‘them through the Word, that it may 
be known that they were not before their generation (πρὶν γενέσθαι) ; 
but the Word hath His being in no other origin than the Father” (vid, 


Nove 
ΟΝ 
Disc. 
I. 


276 Note on “ He was not before His generation”’ 


supr. p. 195, note a) ‘ whom they themselves allow to be unoriginate, 
80 that He too exists unoriginately in the Father, being His offspring 
not His creature.” We shall find that other Fathers say just the same. 
Again, we have already come to a passage where for ‘‘ His genera- 
tion,” he substitutes ‘*‘ making,” a word which Bull would not say 
that either the Nicene Council or 8S. Hippolytus would use; clearly 
shewing that the Arians were not quoting and denying a Catholic 
statement in the οὐκ ἦν πρὶν, &e. but laying down one of their own. 
‘© Who is there in all mankind, Greek or Barbarian, who yentures 
to rank among creatures One whom he confesses the while to be God, 
and says that ‘He was not before He was made, πρὶν ποιηθῇ." " 
Orat.i. § 10. p.194. Arius, who is surely the best explainer of his 
own words, says the same; that is, he interprets ‘‘ generation” by 
‘** making,” or confesses that he is bringing forward an argument, not 
opposing a dogma; ““ Before His generation,” he says, ““ 07 creation, 
or destination (ὁρισθῇ, Rom. i. 4), or founding (vid. Proy. viii. 23), 
He was not; for He was not ingenerate.” Theod. Hist.i.4. Eusebius 
of Nicomedia also, in a passage which has already come before us, 
says distinctly, “Jt is plain to any one, that what has been made 
was not before its generation ; but what came to be has an origin of 
being.” de Syn. § 17. supr. p. 99. 

6. If there are passages in Athanasius which seem to favour the 
opposite interpretation, that is, to imply that the Catholics held or 
allowed, as Bp. Bull considers, that ““ before His generation, He 
was,” they admit of an explanation. E.g. “ον is He not in the 
number of the creatures, if, as they say, He was not before His gene- 
ration ? for it is proper to the creatures and works, not to be before 
their generation.” Orat. ii. § 22 [infra p. 312]. This might be taken 
to imply that the Arians said, ‘‘ He was not,” and Catholics ‘* He was.” 
But the real meaning is this, ‘“‘ How is He not a creature, if the formula 
be true, which they use, ‘ He was not before His generation ?’ for it 
may indeed properly be said of creatures that ‘they were not before 
their generation.’”’ And so again when he says, “if the Son was 
not before His generation, Truth was not always in God” supr. ὃ 
20. p. 209; he does not thereby imply that the Son was before His 
generation, but he means, “if it be érwe that, &e.” “if the formula 
holds,” ‘if it can be said of the Son, ‘ He was not, &c.’” Accord- 
ingly, shortly afterwards, in a passage already cited, he says the same 
of the Almighty Father in the way of parallel; ‘“‘ God who is, hath 
He so become, whereas He was not, or is He too before His gene- 
ration 2?” (ὃ 25. p. 216) not implying here any generation at all, but 
urging that the question is idle and irrelevant, that the formula is 
unmeaning and does not apply to, cannot be said of, Father or Son. 

7. Such an explanation of these passages, as well as the view 
here taken of the formula itself, receive abundant confirmation from 
S. Gregory Nazianzen and S. Hilary. What has been maintained is, 
that when S. Athanasius says, “if the Son 7s not before His genera- 
tion, then, &c.” he does but mean, “if it can be said,” “if the words 
can be used or applied in this case.” Now the two Fathers just 
mentioned both decide that it is not true, either that the Son was 


a 


in the Nicene Anathema. Qi 


before His generation, or that He was not; in other words, that the 
question is unmeaning and irrelevant, which is just the interpretation 
which has been here given to Athanasius. But again, in thus speak- 
ing, they thereby assert also that they did not hold, that they do not 
allow, that formula which Bull considers the Nicene Fathers defended 
and sanctioned, as being Catholic and in use both before the Council 
and after, viz. ‘‘ He was before His generation.” Thus δ. Gregory 
in the passage in which he speaks of “did He that is make Him 
that is not, &e.” and ““ before His generation, &c.” as one and the 
same, expressly says, “ In His case, to be begotten is concurrent with 
existence and is from the beginving,” and that in contrast to the in- 
stance of men; who, he says, do fulfil in a manner ‘* He who is, &c.” 
(Levi being in the loins of Abraham.) i. e. fulfil Bull’s proposition, 
‘** He was before generation.”” He proceeds, “ I say that the question 
is irrelevant, not the answer difficult.’ And presently after, men- 
tioning some idle inquiries by way of parallel, he adds, ‘‘ more ill- 
instructed, be sure, is it to decide whether what was generated from 
the beginning was or was not before generation, πρὸ τῆς γεννήσεως." 
Orat. 29. 9. 

8. S. Hilary, on the other hand, is so full on the subject in his de 
Trin. xii, and so entirely to the point for which I would adduce him, 


that but a few extracts of what might be made, are either necessary ἡ 


or practicable. He states and argues on the formula expressly as an 
objection; Adjiciant hee arguta satis atque auditu placentia ; Si, 
inquit, natus est, ccepit; et ciim ceepit, non fuit; et ciim non fuit, 
non patitur ut fuerit. Atque idcirco pie intelligentia sermonem esse 
contendant, Non fuit ante quam nasceretur, quia ut esset, qui non erat, 
non qui erat, natus est.” n. 18. He answers the objection in the 
same way, “Unigenitus Deus neque non fuit aliquando non filius, 
neque fuit aliquid ante quam filius, neque quidquam aliquid ipse nisi 
filius,” n. 15. which is in express words to deny, ‘‘ He was before 
His generation.” - Again, as Gregory, “ Ubi pater auctor est, ibi et 
nativitas est; et verd ubi auctor eternus est, ibi et nativitatis eternitas 
est,” n. 21. And he substitutes “ being always born” for ‘ being 
before birth;” ‘*‘ Numquid ante tempora eterna esse, id ipsum sit 
quod est, eum qui erat nasci? quia nasci quod erat, jam non nasci 
est, sed se ipsum demutare nascendo. ... . Non est itaque id ipsum, 
natum ante tempora eterna semper esse, et esse antequam nasci.” 
n. 30. And he concludes, in accordance with the above explanation 
of the passages of Athanasius which I brought as if objections, thus : 
Cum itaque natum-semper esse, nihil aliud sit confitendum esse, 
quam natum, id sensui, antequam nascitur vel fuisse vel non fuisse, 
non subjacet. n. 31. 

9. It may seem superfluous to proceed, but as Bishop Bull is an 
authority not lightly to be set aside, a passage from S. Basil shall 
be added. Eunomius objects, “God begat the Son either being or 
not being, &c.. .. to him that is, there needs not generation.” He 
replies that Banana) “ὁ because animals first are not, and then are 
generated, and he who is born to-day, yesterday did not exist, 
transfers this conception to the subsistence of the Only-begotten ; 


Disc. 


ΝΟΤΕ 
ΟΝ 
Disc. 
I. 


278 Note on “ He was not before His generation” 


and says, since He has been generated, He was not before His 
generation, πρὸ τῆς γεννήσεως," contr. Eunom. ii. 14. And he solves 
the objection as the other Fathers, by saying that our Lord is from 
everlasting, speaking of 8. John, in the first words of his Gospel, as 
τῇ ἀϊδιότητι TOD πατρὸς τοῦ μονογενοῦς συνάπτων τὴν γέννησιν. § 15. 


These then being the explanations which the contemporary and 
next following Fathers give of the Arian formula which was anathe- 
matized at Nicza, it must be observed that the line of argument 
which Bishop Bull is pursuing, does not lead him to assign any 
direct reasons for the substitution of a different interpretation in their 
place. He is engaged, not in commenting on the Nicene Anathema, 
but in proving that the Post Nicene Fathers admitted that view or 
statement of doctrine which he conceives a/so implied in that ana- 
thema; and thus the sense of the anathema, instead of being the 
subject of proof, is, as he believes, one of the proofs of the point which 
he is establishing. However, since these other collateral evidences 
which he adduces, may be taken to be some sort of indirect comment 
upon the words of the Anathema, the principal of them in point of 
authority, and that which most concerns us, shall here be noticed : it 
is a passage from the second Oration of Athanasius. 

While commenting on the words, ἀρχὴ ὁδῶν εἰς τὰ ἔργα in the 
text, “The Lord has created Me the beginning of His ways unto 
the works,” S. Athanasius is led to consider the text ““ first born of 
every creature,” πρωτότοκος πασῆς κτίσεως ; and he says that He 
who was μονογενὴς from eternity, became by a συγκατάβασις at the 
creation of the world πρωτότοκος. ‘This doctrine Bp. Bull considers 
declaratory of a going forth, προέλευσις, or figurative birth from the 
Father, at the beginning of all things. 

It will be observed that the very point to be proved is this, viz. 
not that there was a συγκατάβασις merely, but that according to 
Athanasius there was a γέννησις or proceeding from the Father, and 
that the word πρωτότοκος marks it. Bull’s words are, that ‘‘ Catholici 
quidam Doctores, qui post exortam controversiam Arianam vixe- 
runt, ... illam τοῦ Aoyou.... ex Patre progressionem (quam et 
συγκατάβασιν, hoe est, condescensionem eorum nonnulli appellarunt), 
ad condendum hee universa agnovere ; atque ejus etiam progres- 
sionis respectu ipsum τὸν λόγον ἃ Deo Patre quasi natum fuisse 
et omnis creature primogenitum in Scripturis dici confessi sunt.” 
D. F. N. iii. 9. § 1. Now I consider that S. Athanasius does not, 
as this sentence says, understand by primogenitus that our Lord was 
 progressionis respectu ἃ Deo Patre quasi natus.” He does not 
seem to me to speak of a generation or birth of the Son at all, 
though figurative, but of the birth of a// things, and that in Him. 

That Athanasius does not call the συγκατάβασις of the Word 
a birth, as denoted by the term πρωτότοκος, is plain from his 
own avowal in the passage to which Bull refers. ‘No where 
in the Scriptures,” he says, “is He called πρωτότοκος τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
first born of God, nor creature of God, but Only-begotten, Word, 
Wisdom, have their relation to the Father, and are proper to 


—_ 


in the Nicene Anathema. 279 


Him.” ii. 62 [infra p. 369]. Here surely he expressly denies Bull’s 
statement that “ first-born ” means “i Deo natus, ” ‘ born of God.” 
Such additions as παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς, he says, are reserved for μονογενὴς 
and Adyos. 

e goes on to say what the term πρωτότοκος does mean; viz. 
instead of having any reference to a προέλευσις from the Father, it 
refers solely to the creatures; our Lord is not called πρωτότοκος, 
because His προέλευσις is a type of His eternal generation, but 
because by that προέλευσις He became the Prototype of all creation. 
He, as it were, stamped His image, His Sonship, upon creation, and 
became the first-born in the sense of being the Archetypal Son. If 
this is borne out by the passage, Athanasius, it is plain, does not speak 
of any γέννησις whatever at the era of creation, though figurative ; 
πρωτότοκος does but mean μονογενὴς πρωτεύων ἐν TH κτίσει, OY ἀρχὴ τῆς 
κτίσεως, OY πρωτότυπον γέννημα, OF μόνος γεννητὸς ἐν τοῖς γενητοῖς ; and 
no warrant is given, however indirect, to the idea that in the Nicene 
Anathema, the Fathers implied an allowance of the proposition, “ He 
was before His generation.” 

As the whole passage occurs in the Discourse which immediately 
follows, it is not necessary to enter formally into the proof of this 
view of it, when the reader will soon be able to judge of it for himself. 
But it may be well to add two passages, one from Athenagoras, the 
other from S. Cyril, not in elucidation of the words of Athanasius, 
but of the meaning which I would put upon them. 

The passage from Athenagoras is quoted by Bull himself, who of 
course is far from denying the doctrine of our Lord’s Archetypal 
office ; 5 and does but wish in addition to find in Athanasius the doctrine 
of a γέννησις. Athenagoras says that the Son is “ the first offspring, 
πρῶτον γέννημα, of the Father, ngt as come to be, yevouevov,(for God 
being Eternal Mind had from the beginning in Himself the Word, as 
having Reason eternally, λογικὸς Gv,) but that, while as regards mat- 
ter heavy and light were mixed together,” (the passage is corrupt 
here,) “ He went forth, προελθὼν, as an idea and energy,” i. e. as 
an Agent to create, and a Form and Rule to create by. And then 
he goes on to quote the very text on which Athanasius is employed 
when he explains πρωτότοκος. ‘‘ And the Prophetic Spirit confirms 
this doctrine, saying, The Lord hath created Me a beginning (origin) 
of His ways, for His works.” Leg. 10. 

And so 8. Cyril, ‘“ He is Only-begotten according to nature, as 
being alone from the Father, God from God, Light kindled from 
Light; and He is First-born for our sakes, that, as if to some im- 
mortal root the whole creation might be ingrafted and might bud 
forth from the Everlasting. For all things were made by Him, and 
consist for ever and are preserved in Him.” Thesaur. 25. p. 238. 


In conclusion it may be suggested whether the same explanation 
which has here been given of Athanasius’s use of πρωτότοκος does not 
avail more exactly to the defence of two of the five writers from the 
charge of inaccurate doctrine, than that which Bull has preferred. 

As to Athenagoras, we have already seen that he does not speak 


Note 
ΟΝ 
Disc, 
1. 


280 Note on “ before His generation” in the Nicene Anathema. 


Nore of a γέννησις at all in his account of creation, but simply calls the Son 


ON 
Disc. 
I. 


πρῶτον γέννημα, i. 6. πρωτότυπον γέννημα. 

Nor does Tatian approach nearer to the doctrine of ἃ γέννησις. 
He says that at the creation the Word ἔργον πρωτότοκον τοῦ πατρὸς 
γίνεται: τοῦτον ἴσμεν τοῦ κόσμου τὴν ἀρχήν. ad Gree. 5. Here the word 
ἔργον, which at first sight promises a difficulty, does in fact explain 
both himself and Athenagoras. He says that at creation the Word 
became, γίνεται, not a Son (figuratively), as Bull would grant to the 
parties whom he is opposing, but a work. It was His great conde- 
scension, συγκατάβασις, to be accounted the first of the works,as being 
their type; that as they were to be raised to an adoption and called 
sons, so He for that purpose might stoop to creation, and be called a 
work. As Tatian uses the word ἀρχὴ in the concluding clause, there 
is great reason to think that he is alluding to the very text which 
Athanasius and Athenagoras expressly quote, in which Wisdom is 
said to be “ created a beginning, ἀρχὴ, of ways, unto the works, eis τὰ 


As to Noyatian, Bishop Bull himself observes that it is a question 
whether he need be understood to speak of any generation but That 
which is eternal; nor does Pamelius otherwise explain him. 


DISCOURSE Ii. 


Eas In the references henceforth made to S. Athanasius’s Works in the 
Notes and margin, the Arabic numerals stand generally for the sections as in 
the Benedictine Edition; hitherto § has been prefixed to those numerals which 
are indicative of sections which are to be found in this Volume. 


CHEAP ΧΙΥ. 
TEXTS EXPLAINED; FOURTHLY, HEBREWS iil. 2. 


Introduction; the Regula Fidei counter to an Arian sense of the text; 
which is not supported by the word “servant,” nor by “made” which 
occurs in it; (how can the Judge be among the “ works” which “ God 
will bring into judgment ?”) nor by “ faithful ;” and is confuted by the 
immediate context, which is about Priesthood; and by the foregoing 
passage, which explains the word “ faithful ” as meaning trustworthy, 
as do 1 Pet. iv. fin. and other texts. On the whole made may safely 
be understood either of the divine generation or the human creation. 


-1. I pip indeed think that enough had been said plea ὃ. Ἷ. 
against the hollow professors * of Arius’s madness, whether for sais 
their refutation or in the truth’s behalf, to insure a cessation 127, 
and repentance of their evil thoughts and words about the ° δ’ 
Saviour. They, however, for whatever reason, still do not 
succumb ; but, as swine and dogs wallow’ in their own vomit ? «vAid-* 
and their own mire, even invent new expedients® for their Orat, ii. 
irreligion. Thus they misunderstand the passage in the 10. ως 
Proverbs, The Lord hath created Me a beginning of His τ 8, 
ways for His works*, and the words of the Apostle, Who was Ξε Bb 
Faithful to Him that made Him, and straightway ° argue, that 2. 
the Son of God is awork and a creature. But although they ae 
might have learned from what is said above, had they not 19. 7: ᾿ 
utterly lost their power of apprehension, that the Son is ποῦ 5 ἁπλῶς 
from nothing nor in the number of things generate at all, a 
the Truth ene it, (for, being God, He cannot be a ane on 


U 


282 The Arians, because Christ is man, deny that He is God. 


pee work, and it is impious to call Him a creature, and it is of 
— creatures and works that we say, “out of nothing,” and “it 


‘vid. was not before its generation ’,’’) yet since, as if dreading to 
supr. Ὁ. . . 

576. Ἢ desert their own fiction, they are accustomed to allege the 
* p- 283, aforesaid passages of divine Scripture, which have a good? 
note c. 


meaning, but are by them practised on, let us proceed afresh 
to take up the question of the sense of these, to remind the 
faithful, and to shew from each of these passages that they have 
no knowledge at all of Christianity. Were it otherwise, they 
Rom. 11, would not have shu¢ themselves wp in the unbelief of the 


ee present Jews*, but would have inquired and learned” that, 
John 1, whereas In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was 
a: with God, and the Word was God, in consequence, it was 

when at the good pleasure of the Father the Word became 
ee man, that it was said of Him, as by John, The Word 
Acts 2, became flesh; so by Peter, He hath made Him Lord and 
Me Christ ;—as by means of Solomon in the Person of the Lord 
Prov. 8, Himself, Zhe Lord created Me a beginning of His ways 


22. 
jor His works; so by Paul, Become so much better than the 


were l, Angels*®; and again, He made Himself of no reputation, and 
eee ; took upon Him the form of a servant*; and again, Wherefore, 
7. p. 23% holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the 
Heb. 3, Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Jesus, who was 
ΤΕ Jaithful to Him that made Him’. For all these texts have 
De the same force and meaning, a religious one, declarative 
‘of the divinity of the Word, even those of them which 
speak humanly concerning Him, as having become the Son 

of man. 
2. But, though this distinction is sufficient for their refuta- 


ἃ τῶν viv ᾿Ιουδαίων, means literally 
“‘the Jews of this day,’ as here and 
Orat. i. 8. 10. 38. Orat. ii. 1. b. iii. 
28. c. But elsewhere this and similar 
‘phrases, as distinctly mean the Arians, 
being used in contrast to the Jews; 
6. 5. τῶν νῦν ᾿Ιουδαίων. In illud Omn. 
δ. d. Ἰουδαῖοι of τε παλαιοὶ καὶ οἱ νέοι 
οὗτοι, ili. 52. d. of τότε καὶ οἱ νέοι νῦν, 
Sent. D. 8. c. τῶν νέων, ibid. 4. init. 


δαΐζοντες. de Decr. 2. supr. p. 4. The 
Arians are addressed under the name of 
Jews, ὦ χριστόμαχοι καὶ ἀχάριστοι Ἴου- 
δαῖοι, Orat. iii. 55. ἜΠΕΘΥ are said to 
be Jews passim. Their likeness to the 
Jews is drawn out, Orat. ili. 27. de 
Deer. i. supr. pp. 2—4. It is observ- 
able that Eusebius makes a point, on 
the contrary, of calling Marcellus a 
Judaizer and Jewish, on the ground 


(vid. also καὶ of τότε Ἰουδαῖοι, i. 8. supr. 
p- 190. yet vid. of τότε ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, de Syn. 
33.) τῶν νῦν ᾿Ιουδαϊζόντων, i. 39. supr. 
p. 236. ἡ *lovdaikh νέα αἵρεσις, Hist. 
Arian 19 fin. (vid. also Orat. iii. 28.) 


Ιουδαῖοι of τότε... ᾿Αρειανοὶ νῦν *lov- 


that he denied that Wisdom was more 
than an attribute in the Divine Mind, 
e.g. pp. 42. c. 62, fin. 65. d. 

Ὁ ἐρωτῶντες ἐμάνθανον; and so μαθὼν 
ἐδίδασκεν, Orat. iii. 9. de Decr. 7. supr. 
p. 13, note ἃ. 


If He be Son and Image, why bring texts as objections 5 283 


tion, still, since from a misconception of the Apostle’s words, 
(to mention them first,) they consider the Word of God to be 
one of the works, because of its being written, Who was 
Faithful to Him that made Him, I have thought it needful to 
silence this further argument of theirs, taking in hand‘, as 
before, their statement. 

3. If then He be not a Son, let Him be called a work, 
and let all that is said of works be said of Him, nor let 
Him and Him alone be called Son, and Word, and Wisdom; 
neither let God be called Father, but only Framer and 
Creator of things which by Him come to be; and let the 
creature be Image and Expression of His framing will, and 
let Him, as they would have it, be without generative’ nature, 
so that there be neither Word, nor Wisdom, no, nor Image, 
of His proper substance. For if He be not Son’, neither is 
He Image’. But if there be not a Son, how then say you 
that God is a Creator? since all things that come to be are 
through the Word and in Wisdom, and without This nothing 
can be, whereas you say He hath not That in and through 


which He makes all things. 


¢ By λαμβάνοντες παρ᾽ αὐτῶν τὸ 
λῆμμα, “ accepting the proposition they 
offer,” he means that he is engaged in 
going through certain texts brought 
against the Catholic view, instead of 
bringing his own proofs, vid. Orat. i. 
37. supr. p. 233. Yet after all it is 
commonly his way, as here, to start 
with some general exposition of the 
Catholic doctrine which the Arian sense 
of the text in question opposes, and 
thus to create a prejudice or proof 
against the latter. vid. Orat. i. 10. 38. 
40. init. 53. d. ii, 5. 12. init. 32—34, 
35. 44. init. which refers to the whole 
discussion, 18—43. 73. 77. iii. 18. init. 
36. init. 42. 54. 51. init. &c. On the 
other hand he makes the ecclesiastical 
sense the rule of interpretation, τούτῳ 
[τῷ σκοπῷ, the general drift of Scrip- 
ture doctrine,] ὥσπερ κανόνι χρησά- 
μενοι προσέχωμεν τῇ ἄναγνώσει τῆς 
θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς, iii. 28. fin. This 
illustrates what he means when he says 
that certain texts have a “ good,” 
“yious,’”’ ‘orthodox ”’ sense, i. 6. they 
can be interpreted (in spite, if so be, of 
appearances) in harmony with the Re- 
gula Fidei. vid. infr. p. 341, note i; 
also notes on 35. and iii. 58. 

4 i.e, in any true sense of the word 


U 


For if the Divine Substance be 


“‘image;’’ or, so that He may be ac- 


counted the ἀπαράλλακτος εἰκὼν of the 
Father, vid. supr. p. 106, note d. The 
ancient Fathers consider that the 
Divine Sonship is the very consequence 
(so to speak) of the necessity that 
exists, that One who is Infinite Perfec- 
tion should subsist again in a Perfect 
Image of Himself, which is the doctrine 
to which Athan. goes on to allude, and 
the idea of which (he says) is prior to 
that of creation. A redundatio in ima- 
ginem is synonymous with a generatio 
Filii. ‘‘ Naturam et essentiam Dei- 
tatis,” says Thomassin, ‘‘in suo fonte 
assentiuntur omnes esse plenitudinem 
totius esse. At hc necesse est ut 
statim exundet nativa foecunditate sud. 
Infinitum enim illud Esse, non Esse 
tantum est, sed Esse totum est; vivere 
id ipsum est, intelligere, sapere; opu- 
lentiz suze, bonitatis, et sapientiz 
rivulos undique spargere; nec rivulos 
tantum, sed et fontem et plenitudinem 
ipsam suam diffundere. Hee enim 
demum feecunditas Deo digna, Deo par 
est, ut a Fonte bonitatis, non rivulus 
sed flumen effluat, nec extra effluat, 
sed in ipsomet, cum extra nihil sit, quo 
illa plenitudo capi possit.” de Trin. 
19. 1. 


2 


CHAP. 
XIV. 


§. 2. 


1 yevyn- 
τικῆς, 

Ρ. 284, 
note 6. 

2 parole, 
note m. 


Disc. 


1 Orat. 
iii. 59, 
&e. 


2 ποιητι- 
κόν 


3 Orat. 
τι. 63, ¢. 
y LA 

* ἐνού- 
σιος, p- 


141. τῷ 2. 


infr. 28. 


§. 3. 
5 infr. 
p- 328, 
note k. 


284 A Son is implied in the idea of creation, for it is through Him 


not fruitful itself*, but. barren, as they hold, as a light that 
lightens not, and a dry fountain, are they not ashamed to speak 
of His possessing framing energy? and whereas they deny what 
is by nature, do they not blush to place before it what is by 
will’? But if He frames things that are external to Him and 
before were not, by willing them to be, and becomes their 
Maker, much more will He first be Father of an Offspring from 
His proper Substance. For if they attribute to God the willing 
about things which are not, why recognise they not that in 
God which lies above the will ? now it is a something that sur- 
passes will, that He should be by nature, and should be Father 
of His proper Word. If then that which comes first, which 
is according to nature, does not exist, as they would have it in 
their folly, how can that which is second come to be, which is 
according to will? for the Word is first, and then the creation. 

4, On the contrary the Word exists, whatever they affirm, 
those irreligious ones; for through Him did creation come to 
be, and God, as being Maker, plainly hath also His framing 
Word, not external, but proper to Him ;—for this must be 
repeated. If He has the power of will, and His will is 
effective *, and suffices for the consistence of the things that 
come to be, and His Word is effective’, and a Framer, that 
Word must surely be the living Will* of the Father, and an 
energy in substance *, and a real Word, in whom all things 
both consist and are excellently governed. No one can even 
doubt, that He who disposes is prior to the disposition and 
the things disposed. And thus, as I said, God’s creating is 
second to His begetting; for Son implies something proper 
to Him and truly from that blessed and everlasting Substance ; 
but what is from His will, comes into consistence from with- 
out, and is framed through His proper Offspring who is 
from It. 

5. In the judgment of reason’ then they are guilty of great 
extravagance who say that the Lord is not Son of God, but 
a work, and it follows that we all of necessity confess that 


© For καρπογόνος ἡ οὐσία, vid. supr. p. 609. b. Vid. the γέννησις and the 
p- 25, note 6. γεννητικὸς, Orat. iii. 66. κτίσις contrasted together, Orat. i. 29. 
iv. 4. fin. ἄγονος, i. 14. fin. and Sent. vid. supr. p. 18, note ο. p. 153. note c. 
Dion. 15. 19. 7 pete γονιμότης, The doctrine in the text is shortly ex- 
Damase. F. O. i. 8. p. 133. ἄκαρπος, pressed, infr. Orat. iv. 4 fin. εἰ ἄγονος 
Cyr. Thes. p. 45. Epiph. Her. 65. καὶ avevépyntos. 


Lf Scripture teaching plain, why urge terms and phrases ? 285 


He is Son. And if He be Son, as indeed He is, and a son Cua. 
is confessed to be, not external to his father, but from him, pa 
let them not question about the terms, as I said before, which 
the sacred writers use of the Word Himself, viz. not “ to 
Him that begat Him,” but to Him that made Him; for 
while it is confessed what His nature is, what word is used 
in such instances need raise no question’. For terms do not ! Ri ἜΝ 
disparage His Nature; rather that Nature draws? to Itscif 2+ . * 987, 
those terms and changes them. For terms are not prior to™ * 
substances, but substances are first, and terms second. 
Wherefore also when the substance is a work or creature, 

then the words He made, and He became, and He created, 

are used of it properly*, and designate the work. But * κυρίως 
when the Substance is an Offspring and Son, then He 
made, and He became, and He created, no longer pro- 

perly belong to it, nor designate a work; but He made 

we use without question for “He begat.” Thus fathers 

often call the sons born of them their servants, yet without 
denying the genuineness of their nature; and often they 
affectionately call their own servants children, yet without 
putting out of sight their purchase of them originally ; for 

they use the one appellation from their authority as being 
fathers, but in the other they speak from affection. Thus 

Sara called Abraham lord, though not a servant but a wife ; 

and while to Philemon the master the Apostle joined Onesimus 

the servant as a brother, Bethsabe, although mother, called 

her son servant, saying to his father, Thy servant Solomon ;— : Kings 
afterwards also Nathan the Prophet came in and ed ee 
her words to David, Solomon thy servant. Nor did they ver. 26. 
care for calling the son a servant, for while David heard it, 

he recognised the “nature,” and while they spoke it, they 
forgot not the “genuineness,” praying that he might be 

made his father’s keir, to whom they gave the name of 
servant; for he to David was son by nature. 

6. As then, when we read this, we interpret it fairly, without §. 4 
accounting Solomon a servant because we hear him 80 
called, but a son natural and genuine, so also, if, concerning 
the Saviour, who is confessed to be in truth the Son, and to 
be the Word by nature, the sacred writers say, Who was 
Jaithful to Him that made Him, or if He say of Himself, 


/ 
286 If our Lord is called a servant, so is Solomon, though a Son. 


Pee The Lord created Me, and, I am Thy servant and the Son 
pie of Thine handmaid, and the like, let not any on this account 
16. deny that He is proper* to the Father and from Him; but, as 
ae in the case of Solomon and David, let them have a right 
ἰδιότητα “idea of the Father and the Son. For if, though they hear 

Solomon called a servant, they acknowledge him to be a son, 
are they not deserving of many deaths‘, who, instead of pre- 
serving the same explanation in the instance of the Lord, 
whenever they hear “ Offspring,”’ and ‘ Word,” and “ Wis- 
dom,”’ forcibly misinterpret and deny the generation, natural 
and genuine, of the Son from the Father; but on hearing 
words and terms proper to a work, forthwith drop down to 
the notion of His being by nature a work, and deny the 
Word; and this, though it is possible, from His having been 
made man, to refer all these terms to His humanity? And 
τ 20, are they not proved to be an abomination also unto the Lord, 
23. 


as having diverse weights with them, and with this esti- 
mating those other instances, and with that blaspheming 
the Lord? - 

7. But perhaps they grant that the word servant is used 
under a certain understanding, but lay stress upon Who made 
as some great support of their heresy. But this stay of 
theirs also is but a broken reed; for if they are aware of the 
2p.6, style of Scripture, they must at once give sentence against” 


ΠῚ themselves. For as Solomon, though a son, is called a 
- oaUy 

ms ὩΣ 

Apol. c f πολλάκις ἀπολωλέναι δίκαιοι, vid. ‘blasphemiis Japidasti,’’ Theodor. ap. 
Ar. 36. 6. infr. §. 28. b. ‘ You ought (ὥφειλες) to Concil. 6. (Labbe, t. 6. p. 88.) And 


have your impious tongue cut out,” 
the Arian Acacius says to Marcellus, 
ap. Epiph. Heer. 72, 7. ‘‘ And although 
all good men and bad adjudge thee to 
the agony (discruciandam judicent) of 
all kinds of torture, to the penalty of 
death, or to the flame, &c.”’ says S. 
Ambrose, (as it is generally considered,) 
to a lapsed nun who was said to have 
killed her child, de laps. Virg. n. 34. 
“ΤΕ Eutyches thinks otherwise than 
the decrees of the Church, he deserves 
(ἄξιο5) not only punishment, but the 
fire.” Dioscorus ap. Concil. Chalced. 
(Hard. t. 2. p. 100.) In time they ad- 
vanced from accounting to doing. The 
Emperor Justin proposes to cut out the 
heretic Severus’s tongue, Evagr. iv. 
4. Supra p. 53, note f. we find an ad- 
vance from allegory to j/act; vid. also 
supr. 1, 38. 6. infr. iii. 4]. ἃ, and 


S. Dionysius, “‘ With these two uncon- 
nected words, as with stones, they 
attempt to hit me (βάλλειν) from a 
distance.”” Sent. Dion. 18, Sometimes 
it was a literalism deduced from the 
doctrine in dispute; as at the Latro- 
cinium, “ Cut in two those who assert 
two Natures.’’ Concil. Hard. t. 2. p. 81. 
Palladius relates a case in which a sort 
of ordeal became a punishment. Abbot 
Copres proposed to a Manichee to enter 
a fire with him. After Copres had come 
out unharmed, the populace forced the 
Manichee into it, and then cast him, 
burnt as he was, out of the city. Hist. 
Lausiac. 54. Κὅ, Gregory mentions the 
case of a wizard, who had pretended to 
be a monk and had used magical arts 
against a nun, being subsequently 
burned by the Roman populace. Dial. 
i, 4, 


Tf our Lord “made,” so Joseph’s, &c., sons are said to be made. 287 


servant, so, to repeat what was said above, although parents = 

call the sons springing from themselves “made” and “created” 

and “becoming,”’ for all this they do not deny their nature. 

Thus Ezekias, as is written in the book of Esaias, said in 

his prayer, From this day I will make children, who shalt 15. 38, 

declare Thy: righteousness, O God of my salvation. He ae 

then said, I will make; but the Prophet in that very book 2 Kings 

and the Fourth of Kings, thus speaks, And the sons who = eae 

shall come forth of thee. He uses then make for “ beget,” and 

he calls them who were to spring from him, made, and no 

one questions whether the term has reference to a natural 

offspring. Again, Eve on bearing Cain said, I have gotten Gen. 4, 

a man from the Lord’?; thus she too used gotten for mes ane 

“brought forth.” For, first she saw the child, yet next she note on 

said, I have gotten. Nor would any one consider, because τ 

of I have gotten, that Cain was purchased from without, 

instead of being born of her. Again, the Patriarch Jacob 

said to Joseph, And now thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasses, Gen. 48, 

which became thine in Egypt, before I came unto thee into Jov ae 

Egypt, are mine. And Scripture says about Job, And there ΤΣ 

came to him seven sons and three daughters. As Moses too 45.? _ 

has said in the Law, Jf sons become to any one, and, If he bees 

make a son. Here again they speak of those who are ἃ 5d. 

begotten, as become and made, knowing that, while they are 

acknowledged to be sons, we need not make a question of 

they became, or I have gotten, or I made*. For nature and aes 

truth draw the meaning to themselves *. 4 supr. p. 
8. This being 508, when persons ask whether the Lord is 78 ™ 

a creature or work, it is proper to ask of them this first, 

whether He is Son and Word and Wisdom. For if this is 

shewn, the surmise about work and creation falls to the 

ground at once and is ended. For a work could never be 

Son and Word; nor could the Son be a work. And again 

this being the state of the case, the proof is plain to all, that 

the phrase, Zo Him who made Him does not serve their 

heresy, but rather condemns it. Tor it has been shewn that 


& That is, while the style of Scrip- Fidei the principle of interpretation, 
ture justifies us in thus interpreting the and accordingly he goes on at once to 
word “made,’’ doctrinal truth obliges apply it. vid. supr. p. 283, note c. infr. 
us to doso. He considers the Regula p. 341, note ἢ. 


288 Our Lord not a work, for He judges, not is judged. 


Disc. the expression He made is applied in divine Scripture even 
— to children genuine and natural; whence, the Lord being 
proved to be the Father’s Son naturally and genuinely, and 

Word, and Wisdom, though He made be used concerning 

Him, or He became, this is not said of Him as if a work, 

but the sacred writers make no question about using the 
expression,—for instance in the case of Solomon, and Eze- 

‘ θεομάς- kias’s children. For though the fathers had begotten them 
Σ Ketelbia from themselves, still it is written, J have made, and I have 
Ee τὴν gotten, and He became. Therefore God’s enemies’, in spite 
Orat. iii. of their repeated allegation of such small terms’, ought now, 
Sent. Ὁ. though late in the day, after what has been said, to disown 
4. ο. their irreligious thoughts, and think of the Lord as of a true 
iii. 62. Son, Word, and Wisdom of the Father, not a work, not a 
creature. For if the Son be a creature, by what word then 


31, and by what wisdom was He made Himself*? for all the 
eel works were made through the Word and the Wisdom, as it 
24. is written, In wisdom hast Thou made them all, and All things 
John 1, : : ξ : 

3. were made by Him, and without Him was not any thing made. 


But if it be He who is the Word and the Wisdom, by which 
all things come to be, it follows that He is not in the number 
of works, nor in short of things generate, but the Offspring 

of the Father. 
§. 6. 9. For consider how grave an error it is, to call God’s 
Word a work. Solomon says in one place in Ecclesiastes, 
ne that God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret 
thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil. If then the 
Word be a work, do you mean that He as well as others will 
be brought into judgment? and what room is there for 
judgment, when the Judge is on trial? who will give to the 
just their blessing, who to the unworthy their punishment, 
the Lord, as you must suppose, standing on trial with the 
rest? by what law shall He, the Lawgiver, Himself be 
judged? These things are proper to the works, to be on 
trial, to be blessed and to be punished by the Son. Now 
then fear the Judge, and let Solomon’s words convince you. 
For if God shall bring the works one and all into judgment, 
but the Son is not in the number of things put on trial, but 
rather is Himself the Judge of works one and all, is not the 
proof clearer than the sun, that the Son is not a work but the 


“Fuithful,” not as having faith, but as claiming it of others. 289 


Cap. 


Father’s Word, in whom all the works both come to be and os 


come into judgment ? 

10. Further, if the expression, Who was faithful, is a diffi- 
culty to them, from the thought that faithful is used of Him 
as of others, as if He exercises faith and so receives the 
reward of faith, they must proceed at this rate to find fault 
with Moses, for saying, God faithful and true’, and with St. Agee a 
Paul for writing, God is faithful, who will not suffer you to vid.Apoc. 
be tempted above that ye are able. But when the sacred ae 
writers spoke thus, they were not thinking of God in a1 Cor. 
human way, but they acknowledged two senses of the word ον 
Jaithful in Scripture, first believing, then trustworthy, of 
which the former belongs to man, the latter to God. Thus 
Abraham was faithful, because he believed God’s word; and 
God faithful, for, as’ David says in the Psalm, The Lord is : τὶ 
Jaithful in all His words, or is trustworthy, and cannot lie. a 
Again, If any faithful woman have widows, she is so called aa 5, 
a her right faith ; but, 76 is a faithful saying, because what Tit. 3, 8. 
He hath spoken, has a claim on our faith, for it is true, and 
is not otherwise. Accordingly the words, Who is faithful 
to Him that made Him, imply no parallel with others, nor 
mean that by having faith He became well-pleasing; but 
that, being Son of the True God, He too is faithful, and 
ought to be believed in all He says and does, Himself 
remaining unalterable and not changed" by in His human 
economy and fleshly presence. 

11. Thus then we may meet these men who are shameless, 


§. 7. 


h ἄτρεπτος καὶ μὴ ἀλλοιούμενος; Dialogue”Atpewtos. Hence, as Athan. 


vid. supr. p. 23. It was the tendency 
of Arianism to consider that in the 
Incarnation some such change actually 
was undergone by the Word, as they 
had from the first maintained in the 
abstract was possible; that whereas 
He was in nature τρεπτὸς, He was in 
fact ἀλλοιούμενος. This was implied 
in the doctrine that his superhuman 
nature supplied the place of a soul in 
His manhood. Hence the Semi-arian 
Sirmian Creed anathematizes those who 
said, τὸν λόγον τροπὴν ὑπομεμενηκότα, 
vid. supr. p. 119, note o. This doc- 
trine connected them with the Apol- 
linarian and Eutychian Schools, to the 
former of which Athan. compares them, 
contr. Apoll. i. 12. while, as opposing 
the latter, Theodoret entitles his first 


here says, ἄτρεπτος μένων, so against 
Apollinaris he says, 6 λόγος ἄνθρωπος 
γέγονε, μένων θεός. ii. 7. vid. also ibid. 
3. circ. init. So ὃ μὲν ἣν, διέμεινεν" 
ὃ δὲ οὐκ ἦν, προσέλαβεν. Naz. Orat. 
29, 19. οὐσία μένουσα ὕπερ ἐστί. 
Chrysost. ap. Theodor. Eran. p. 47. 
ὃ ἦν ἔμεινε SC ἑαυτὸν, καὶ ὃ ἐθέλησε 
γέγονε δι’ ἡμᾶς, Procl. ad Arm. p. 
615. ed. 1630. vid. also Maxim. Opp. 
t. 2. ed. 1675. ὅπερ ἣν διαμένων καὶ 
γενόμενος ὕπερ οὐκ ἦν. p. 286. vid. also 
p- 264. manens id quod erat, factus 
quod non erat. August. cons. Ev. i, 53 
fin. Non omiserat quod erat, sed 
coeperat esse quod non erat. Hilar. Trin. 
ili. 16. non amittendo quod suum erat, 
sed suscipiendo quod nostrum erat. Vigil. 
contr. Eut. i. p. 498. (B. P. ed. 1624.) 


290 As He was Apostle and Priest on His incarnation, so “made.” 


pe and from the single expression He made, may shew that they 

— err in thinking that the Word of God is a work. But further, 

ἜΠΟΣ since the drift also of the context is orthodox’, shewing the 

note. time and the relation to which this expression points, I ought 

La to shew from it also how the heretics lack reason”; viz. by 

He considering, as we have done above, the occasion when it was 

used and for what purpose. Now the Apostle is not dis- 

cussing things before the creation when he thus speaks, but 

when the Word became flesh; for thus it is written, Where- 

Jore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider 

the Apostle and High Priest of our profession Jesus, who was 

Juthful to Him that made Him. Now when became He 

Apostle, but when He put on our flesh? and when became 

He High Priest of our profession, but when, after offering 

Himself for us, He raised His Body from the dead, and, as 

now, Himself brings near and offers to the Father, those who 

in His faith approach Him, redeeming all, and for all pro- 

pitiating God? Not then as wishing to signify the Substance 

of the Word nor His natural generation from the Father, did 

the Apostle say, Who was faithful to Him that made Him,— 

(perish the thought! for the Word is not made, but makes,) 

* κάθοδον —but as signifying His descent* to mankind and High- 

+p. 268. priesthood which did become*,—as one may easily see from 
the account given of the Law and of Aaron. 

12. I mean, Aaron was not born a high-priest, but a 

man ; and in process of time, when God willed, he became a 

high-priest ; yet became so, not simply, nor as betokened 

Exod. 29, by his ordinary garments, but putting over them the 

w ephod, the breastplate. the robe, which the women wrought 

at God’s command, and going in them into the holy place, 

he offered the sacrifice for the people; and in them, as it 

were, mediated between the vision of God and the sacrifices 

of men. Thus then the Lord also, In the beginning was the 

Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ; 

but when the Father willed that ransoms should be paid for 

all and to all grace should be given, then truly the Word, as 

Aaron his robe, so did He take earthly flesh, having Mary 

for the Mother of His Body as if virgin earth’, that, as a 


i ἀνεργάστου γῆς is an allusion to and so Treneus, Her. iii. 21. fin. 
Adam’s formation from the ground; and Tertullian; ‘That Virgin Earth, 


As Aaron was made Priest, so our Lord was “made.”’ 291 


High Priest, having He as others an offering, He might 
offer Himself to the Father, and cleanse us all from sins in 
His own blood, and might rise from the dead. For what 
happened of old was a shadow of this; and what the Saviour 
did on His coming, this Aaron shadowed out according to 
the Law. As then Aaron was the same and did not change 
by putting on the high-priestly dress*, but remaining the 
same was only robed, so that, had any one seen him offering, 
and had said, ‘‘ Lo, Aaron has this day become high-priest,” he 
had not implied that he then had been born man, for man he 
was even before he became high-priest, but that he had 
been made high-priest in his ministry, on putting on the 
garments made and prepared for the high-priesthood; in 
the same way it is possible in the Lord’s instance also to 
‘ understand aright, that He did not become other than Himself 
on taking the flesh, but, being the same as before, He was robed 
in it; and the expressions He became and He was made, 
must not be understood as if the Word, considered as the 
Word!, were made, but that the Word, being Framer of all, 


not yet watered by rains, nor impreg- 
nated by showers, from which man was 
formed in the beginning, from which 
Christ is now born according to the 
flesh from a Virgin.” ady. Jud. 13. vid. 
de Carn. Christ. 17. Ex terra virgine 
Adam, Christus ex virgine. Ambros. 
in Luc. lib. iv. 7. vid. also the parallel 
drawn out Serm. 147. App. S. August. 
and in Proclus Orat. 2. pp. 103, 4. ed. 
1630. vid. also Chrysost. t. 3. p. 113. 
ed. Ben. and Theodotus at Ephesus, 
“Ὁ earth unsown, yet bearing a salu- 
tary fruit, O Virgin, who surpassedst 
the very Paradise of Eden, &c.’’ Conc. 
Eph. p. 4. (Hard. t. i. p. 1643.) And 
so Proclus again, ‘‘ She, the flowering 
and incorruptible Paradise, in whom 
the Tree of Life, &c.’’ Orat. 6. p. 
227. And Basil of Seleucia, ‘‘ Hail, 
full of grace, the amarantine Paradise 
of Purity, in whom the Tree ot Life, 
&c.”’ Orat. in Annune. p. 215. and 
Ῥ. 212. “ Which, think they, is the 
harder to believe, that a virgin womb 
should be with child, or the ground 
should be animated?’’ &e. And He- 
sychius, ‘‘Garden unsown, Paradise of 
immortality.’’ Bibl. Patr. Auctar. t. 2. 
pp. 42], 428. 

k This is one of those distinct 
and luminous protests by anticipation 


against Nestorianism, which in con- 
sequence may be abused to the pur- 
poses of the opposite heresy. Such ex- 
pressions as περιτιθέμενος τὴν ἐσθῆτα, 
ἐκαλύπτετο, ἐνδυσάμενος σῶμα, were 
familiar with the Apollinarians, against 
whom 8. Athanasius is, if possible, 
even more decided. Theodoret objects 
Heer. v. 11. p. 422. to the word προκά- 
λυμμα, as applied to our Lord’s man- 
hood, as implying that He had no soul; 
vid. also Naz. Ep. 102 fin. (ed. 1840.) 
In Naz. Ep. 101. p. 90. παραπέτασμα 
is used to denote an Apollinarian idea. 
Such expressions were taken to imply 
that Christ was not in nature maz, only 
in some sense human; not.a substance, 
but an appearance; yet S. Athan. (if 
Athan.) contr. Sabell. Greg. 4. has 
παραπεπετασμένην and κάλυμμα, ibid. 
init. S. Cyril Hieros. καταπέτασμα, 
Catech. xii. 26. xiii. 32. after Hebr. 
10, 20. and Athan. ad Adelph. 5. e. 
Theodor. παραπέτασμα, Eran. 1. p. 22. 
and προκάλυμμα, ibid. p. 23. and adv. 
Gent. vi. p. 877. and στολὴ, Eran. 1. ο. 
§. Leo has caro Christi velamen, Ep. 
59. p. 979. vid. also Serm. 22. p. 70. 
Serm. 25. p. 84. 

1 # λόγος ἐστί. vid. supr. p. 240. ref. 
4. Orat. ii. 74. e. iii. 38 init. 39. b. 41 
init. 45 init. 52. b. iv. 23. f. 


CuHapP. 


XIV. 


8. 8. 


Disc. 


292 


That He was “ made”? as man, ts also clear 
3 


afterwards™ was made High Priest, by putting on a body 
which was generate and made, and such as He can offer for 


us; wherefore He is said to be made. 


If then indeed the 


Lord did not become man®, that is a point for the Arians 


m The Arians considered that our 
Lord’s Priesthood preceded His In- 
carnation, and belonged to His Divine 
Nature, and was in consequence the 
token of an inferior divinity. The 
notice of it therefore in this text did 
but confirm them in their interpretation 
of the words made, &c. For the Arians, 
vid. Epiph. Her. 69,37. Eusebius too 
had distinctly declared, ‘‘ Qui videbatur, 
erat agnus Dei; qui occultabatur, sa- 
cerdos Dei.’’ advers. Sabell. i. p. 2. Ὁ. 
vid. also Demonst. i. 10. p. 38. iv. 16. 
p- 193. v. 3. p. 223. contr. Mare. pp. 8 
and 9. 66. 74. 95. Even S. Cyril of 
Jerusalem makes a similar admission, 
Catech. x. 14. Nay 8. Ambrose calls 
the Word, plenum justitiz sacerdotalis, 
de fug. sec, 3. 14. S. Clement Alex. 
before them speaks once or twice of the 
λόγος ἀρχιερεὺς, e.g. Strom. ii. G fin. 
and Philo still earlier uses similar 
language, de Profug. p. 466. (whom S. 
Ambrose follows) de Somniis, p. 597. 
vid. Thomassin. de Incarn. x. 9. Nes- 
torius on the other hand maintained 
that the Man Christ Jesus was the 
Priest, relying on the text which has 
given rise to this note; Cyril adv. Nest. 
p. 64. and Augustine and Fulgentius 
may be taken to countenance him, de 
Consens. Evang. i. 6. and ad Thrasim, 
iii. 30. The Catholic doctrine is, that 
the Divine Word is Priest in and ac- 
cording to His manhood. vid. the 
parallel use of πρωτότοκος infr. 62—64. 
“As He is called Prophet and even 
Apostle for His humanity,” says ὃ. 
Cyril Alex. “50 also Priest.’’ Glaph. 
ii. p. 58. and so Epiph. loc. cit. Tho- 
massin loc. cit. makes a distinction 
between a divine Priesthood or Me- 
diatorship, such as the Word may be 
said to sustain between the Father and 
all creatures, and an earthly one for 
the sake of sinners. vid. also Huet. 
Origenian. ii. 3. §. 4,5. For the his- 
tery of the controversy among Pro- 
testants as to the Nature to which His 
Mediatorship belongs, vid. Petav. In- 
carn. xii. 3. 4. Bayle’s Dict. Art. Stancar. 
notes D, G, K. and Le Bianc, Thes. 
Theol. p. 691. 

n Athan. here hints at one special 
instance in which the remark, made 
supr. p. 89. note b. is fulfilled, that ail 


heresies run into each other, (one may 
even say,) logically. No doctrines were 
apparently more opposed, whether his- 
torically or ethically, than the Arian 
and the Apollinarian or Monophysite ; 
nay, in statement, so far as the former 
denied that our Lord was God, the 
latter that He was man. But their 
agreement lay in this compromise, that, 
strictly speaking, He was neither God 
norman. In this passage Athan. hints 
that if the Arians gave the titles (such 
as Priest) which really belong to our 
Lord’s manhood, to His pre-existent 
nature, what were they doing but re- 
moving the evidences of His manhood, 
and so far denying it? vid. the remark- 
able passage of the Council of Sardica 
against Valens and Ursacius quoted 
supr. p. 123. note u. In the Arian 
Creed too, to which that note is ap- 
pended, it is implied that the Son is 
passible, the very doctrine against 
which Theodoret writes one of his Anti- 
monophysite Dialogues, called Era- 
nistes. He writes another on the 
ἄτρεπτον of Christ, a doctrine which 
was also formally denied by Arius, and 
is defended by Athan. supra, p. 230. 
(as observed just above, p. 289, note h.) 
Even Eusebius, against Marcellus, 
speaks of our Lord’s taking a body, 
almost to the prejudice of the doctrine 
of His taking a perfect manhood; εἰ 
μὲν ψυχῆς δίκην οἰκῶν ἐν αὐτῷ [τῷ 
σώματι], contr. Marcell. p. 54. d. even 
granting, as is the case, that he is pro- 
fessing to state Marcellus’s doctrine. 
He speaks as if Christ’s ζωοποιὸς σάρξ, 
if the Word retired from it, would be 
ἄλογος, p. ὅδ. c. which surely implies, 
though not in the force of the term, 
that Christ was without a soul. vid. 
also p. 91. a. Hence it is Gibbon’s 
calumny (ch. 47. note 34.) after La 
Croze, Hist. Christ. des Indes, p. 11. 
that the Arians invented the term θεο- 
τόκος, which the Monophysites (as well 
as the Catholics) strenuously held. vid. 
Garnier in Mar. Mere. t. 2. p. 299. If 
the opposites of connected heresies are 
connected together, then the doctrinal 
connexion of Arianism and Apollina- 
rianism is shewn in their respective 
opposition to the heresies of Sabellius 
and Nestorius. Salig Eutych. ant. 


Srom what occurs in the previous chapter. 293 


to battle; but if the Word became flesh, what ought to have Θά τ 
been aia concerning Him when become man, but Who was 
faithful to Him that made Him? for as it is proper for the Word 
to have it said of Him, In the beginning was the Word, so it 
is proper to man to become and to be made. Who then, on 
seeing the Lord as a man walking about, and yet appearing to 
be God from His works, would not have asked, Who made 
Him man ἢ and who again, on such a question, would not have 
answered, that the Father made Him man, and sent Him 
to us as High Priest ? 

13. And this meaning, and time, and character *, the Apostle * πρόσω- 
himself, the writer of the words, Who is faith ful to Him ax 
that made Him, will best make plain to us, if we attend to 
what goes before them.- For there is one train of thought’, shaker 
and the passage is all about One and the Same. He writes 298, τ. 1. 
then in the Epistle to the Hebrews thus; Forasmuch then Orat. 1: 
as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Heb. 2, 
Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death ae 
He might destroy him that had the power of death, that 18, 
the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were 
all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily He took not 
on Him the nature of Angels; but He took on Him the seed 
of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be 
made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful 
and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to 
make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that 
He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to 
succour them that are tempted. Wherefore, holy brethren, 
partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and 
High Priest of our profession, Jesus; who was faith- 
ful to Him that made Him. Who can read this whole §. 9. 
passage without condemning the Arians, and admiring the 
blessed Apostle who has spoken so well? for when was 
Christ made, when became He Aypostle, except when, like us, 

He took part in flesh and blood? And when became He a 
merciful and faithful High Priest, except when in all things 
He was made like unto His brethren? And then was He 


Eut. 10. denies the connexion, but nismi tradux,’’? Thes. Ep. Lacroz. t. 3. 
with very little show of reason. La p. 276. 
Croze calls Apollinarianism, ‘ Aria- 


Disc. 


1 or, an- 
swer, 
vid. infr. 
ris ΟἿ» 


1 Pet. 4, 
19. 


εἰ 10. 


vid. Jer. 
9, 3. and 
15, 18. 
Deut. 
32, 20. 
Sept. 
Deut. 
32, 39. 
Mal. 3, 
6. 


294 He is faithful, as giving ground for faith, 


made hke, when He became man, having put upon Him our 
flesh. Wherefore Paul was writing concerning the Word’s 
human economy, when He said, Who was faithful to Him 
that made Him, and not concerning His Substance. Have 
not therefore any more the madness to say that the Word of God 
is a work, whereas He is Son by nature Only-begotten; and 
then had brethren, when He took on Him flesh like ours; 
which moreover, by Himself offering Himself, He was named 
and became merciful and fuithful,—merciful, because in mercy 
to us He offered Himself for us, and faithful, not as sharing 
faith with us, nor as having faith in any one as we haye, but as 
deserving to receive faith in all He says and does, and as offering 
a faithful sacrifice, one which remains and does not come to 
nought. For those which were offered according to the Law, 
had not this faithfulness, passing away with the day and 
needing a further cleansing; but the Saviour’s sacrifice, 
taking place once, has perfected the whole, and is become 
faithful as remaining for ever. And Aaron had successors, 
and in a word the priesthood under the Law exchanged its 
first ministers as time and death went on; but the Lord 
having a high priesthood without transition and without suc- 
cession, has become a faithful High Priest, as continuing 
for ever; and faithful too by promise, that He may hear’ and 
not mislead those who come to Him. 

14. This may be also learned from the Epistle of great Peter, 
who says, Let them that suffer according to the will of God, 
commit their souls to a faithful Creator. For He is faithful 
as not changing, but abiding ever, and rendering what He 
has promised. Now the so-called gods of the Greeks, 
unworthy the name, are faithful neither in their essence nor 
in their promises; for the same are not every where, nay, the 
local deities come to nought in course of time, and undergo 
a natural dissolution; wherefore the Word cries out against 
them, that faith is not strong in them, but they are waters 
that fail, and there is no faith in them. But the God of all, 
being one really and indeed and true, is faithful, who is ever 
the same, and says, See now, that I, even I am He, and 
I change not; and therefore His Son is faithful, being ever 
the same and unchanging, deceiving neither in His essence 
nor in His promise ;—as again says the Apostle writing to the 


as other passages of Scripture shew. 295 


Thessalonians, Faithful is He who calleth you, who also will do one 


it; for in doing what He promises, He is faithful to His words. Cis 
And he thus writes to the Hebrews as to the word’s meaning 5, 24. 
“unchangeable ;” If we believe not, yet He abideth faithful; ἀντι 2, 
He cannot deny Himself. Therefore reasonably the Αροβίϊο,Ἠ 
discoursing concerning the bodily presence’ of the Word, says, Ata 
an Apostle and faithful to Him that made Him, shewing us ουσίαν 
that, even when made man, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday Heb. 13. 
and to-day, and for ever is unchangeable. And as the 
Apostle makes mention in his Epistle of His being made man 

when mentioning His High Priesthood, so too he kept no long 

silence about His Godhead, but rather mentions it forthwith, 
furnishing to us a safeguard on every side, and most of all when 

he speaks of His humility, that we may forthwith know His 
loftiness and His majesty which is the Father’s. For instance, 

he says, Moses as a servant, but Christ as a Son; and the Heb. 3, 
former faithful in his house, and the latter over the house, Ἔν: 

as having Himself built it, and being its Lord and Framer, 

and as God sanctifying it. For Moses, a man by nature, 
became faithful, in believing God who spoke to him by His 

Word; but? the Word was not as one of things generate in 


° Here is a protest beforehand against 
the Monophysite doctrine, but such an- 
ticipations of various heresies are too 
frequent, as we proceed, to require or 
bear notice. It is well known that the 
illustration in the Athan. Creed, “‘ As 
the reasonable soul and flesh is one 
man, so God and man is one Christ,’’ 
was taken by the Monophysites to 
imply that the Divine Nature was made 
dependent on the flesh, and was in- 
fluenced and circumscribed by it. Man 
is partly soul and partly body; he is of 
body and soul, not body and soul; but 
Christ is wholly God, and whoily man, 
ὅλος Θεὸς, ὅλος ἄνθρωπος, infr. Orat. 
iv. 8ὅ. 8. He is as simply God as if 
He were not man, as simply man as if 
He were not God; unus atque idem 
est, says S. Leo, et totus hominis 
filius propter carnem, et totus Dei 
filius propter unam cum Patre deitatem. 
Ep. 165, 8. Athan. has anticipated 
the heresy which denied this doctrine 
in a very distinct passage written appa- 
rently before the rise even of Arianism. 
“Tt is the function of the soul,” he 
says, “‘to contemplate in its thoughts 
what is within its own body; but not 


to operate in things beyond its own 
body, or to move by its presence what 
is far from the body. Certainly man 
at a distance never moves or trans- 
poses such things ; nor could a man sit 
at home and think of things in heaven, 
and thereby move the sun, or turn the 
heaven round... . Not thus is the 
Word of God in man’s nature; for 
He is not implicated in the body, but 
rather He hath Himself dominion over 
it, so that He was not in it only but 
in all things; nay, He was external to 
the whole universe and in the sole 
Father.”’ Incarn. V. Ὁ. 17. The same 
passage occurs in Serm. Maj. de Fid. 
1]. It is remarkable that the Mono- 
physites should have been forced into 
their circumscription of the Divine 
Nature, considering that Eutyches their 
Patriarch began with asserting for 
reverence-sake that the Incarnate Word 
was not under the Jaws of human na- 
ture, vid. supr. p. 243, note i. This 
is another instance of the running of 
opposite heresies into each other, supr. 
p- 292, note n. Another remarkable 
instance will be found infr. iii. 43. the 
Agnoete, a sect of those very Euty- 


1 θεὸς ἐν 
σαρκὶ, vid. 


Disc. 
ἘΠ 


λόγος ἐν 


g.iii.54.a. 
0. ἐν σώ- 


ματι, il. 


12. c. 15. 


a. A. ἐν 
σώμ. 


5 
8 


2 p. 313. 


3 κατ᾽ ev- 


ent. D. 
fin. 


8. 11. 


δοκίαν 


Orat. iii. 


64. init. 


296 “ Made’ one of many words, used of our Lord as man. 


a body, nor as creature in creature, but as God in flesh’, and 
Framer of all and Builder in that which was built by Him. 
And men are clothed in flesh in order to be and to subsist; 
but the Word of God was made man in order to sanctify the 
flesh, and, though He was Lord, was in the form of a servant ; 
for the whole creature is the Word’s servant”, which by Him 
came to be, and was made. 

15. Hence it holds that the Apostle’s expression, He made, 
does not prove that the Word is made, but that body, which He 
took like ours; and in consequence He is called our brother, 
as having become man. But if it has been shewn, that, even 
though the word made be referred to the Very W ord, it is used for 
“beat,” what further perverse expedient will they be able to 
fall upon, now that the present discussion has cleared up the 
wordin every point of view,and shewn that the Son is not awork, 
but in Substance indeed the Father’s offspring, while in the 
Economy, according to the good pleasure * of the Father, He 
was on our behalf made, and consists as man? For this reason 
then is it said by the Apostle, Who was faithful to Him that 
made Him; and in the Proverbs, even creation is spoken of. 
For so long as we are confessing that He became man, there 
is no question about saying, as was observed before, whether 
“Ἢ. became,” or ‘‘He has been made,” or “created,” or 
“formed,” or “servant,” or “son of an handmaid,” or “son 
of man,” or ‘‘ was constituted,” or “took His journey,” or 
“bridegroom,” or “ brother’s son,” or “brother.” All these 
terms* happen to be proper to man’s nature; and such as 


. these do not designate the Substance of the Word, but that 


He has become man. 


chians, who denied or tended to deny The Lutheran Ubiquism in like manner 
our Lord’s manhood with a view of pre- has contrived to unite a portion of 
serving His divinity, being character- the opposite heresies of Nestorius and 
ized by holding that He was ignorant. EHutyches. - 


- τ... -.-.- τ ᾿ 


CHAPTER XV. 


TEXTS EXPLAINED; FIFTHLY, ACTS ii. 36. 


The Regula Fidei must be observed; made applies to our Lord’s man- 
hood; and to His manifestation; and to His office relative to us; and 
is relative to the Jews. Parallel instance in Gen. 27, 29,37. The con- 
text contradicts the Arian interpretation. 


1. THE same is the meaning of the passage in the Acts 
which they also allege, that in which Peter says, that He 
hath made both Lord and Christ that same Jesus whom ye have 
crucified. For here too it is not written, “He made for 
Himself a Son,” or “ He made Himself a Word,” that they 
should have such notions. If then it has not escaped their 
memory, that they speak concerning the Son of God, let 
them make search whether it is any where written, “God 
made Himself a Son,” or “ He created for Himself a Word ;” 
or again, whether it is any where written in plain terms, 
“The Word is a work or creation;’ and then let them 
proceed to make their case, the insensate men, that here too 
they may receive their answer. But if they can produce 
nothing of the kind, and only catch at such stray expressions 
as He made and He has been made, it is to be feared lest, from 
hearing, In the beginning God made the heaven and the 
earth, and He made the sun and the moon, and He made the 
sea, they should come in time to call the Word the heaven, 
and the Light which took place on the first day, and the 
earth, and each particular thing that has been made, so as to 
end in resembling the Stoics, as they are called, the one draw- 
ing out their god into all things’, the other ranking God’s 
Word with each work in particular; which they have well 
nigh done already, saying that He is one of His works. 

2. But here they must have the same answer as before, and 
first be told that the Word is a Son, as has been said above’, 

x 


' Brucker 
de Zenon. 
§.7.n.14,. 


§. 12. 


2 vid. p. 
283, 
note c. 


Disc. 


298 “Made” refers to the Word’s flesh and to His manifestation 


and not a work, and that such terms are not to be understood 
of His Godhead, but the reason and manner of them investi- 
gated. To persons who so inquire, the human economy will 
plainly present itself, which he undertook for our sake. For 
Peter, after saying, He hath made Lord and Christ, straight- 
way added, this Jesus whom ye crucified ; which makes it plain 
to any one, even, if so be, to them, provided they attend to the 


1 ἀκολου- context’, that not the Substance of the Word, but He accord- 


Olay 


ing to His manhood is said to have been made. For what 
was crucified but the body ? and how could be signified what 
was bodily in the Word, except by saying He made ? 

3. Especially has that Word He made, a meaning consistent 


2 ὀρθὴν, . with orthodoxy’; in that he has not said, as I observed 


297, Ts ὦ: 


3 ἁπλῶς 


Acts 2, 
22; 


John 5, 
16. 18. 


before, ‘“He made Him Word,” but He made Him Lord, 
nor that in general terms’, but towards us, and in the midst 
of us, as much as to say, ‘He manifested Him.” And 
this has Peter himself, starting from this master doctrine 
carefully * expressed, when he said to them, Ye men of Israel, 
hear these words ; Jesus of Nazareth, a man manifested of God 
towards you by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God 
did by Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves know. Conse- 
quently the term which he uses in the end, made, this He 
has explained in the beginning by manifested, for by the 
signs and wonders which the Lord did, He was manifested 
to be not merely man, but God in a body and Lord also, the 
Christ. Such also is the passage in the Gospel according 
to John, Therefore the more did the Jews persecute Him, 
because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also 
that God was His own Father, making Himself equal with 
God. For the Lord did not then fashion Himself to be 
God, nor indeed is a made God conceivable, but He mani- 


John 10, fested it by the works, saying, Though ye believe not Me, 


38. not 
to the 
letter. 


believe My works, that ye may know that I am in the Father, 
and the Father in Me. Thus then the Father has made Him 
Lord and King in the midst of us, and towards us who were 
once disobedient; and it is plain that He who is now displayed 
as Lord and King, does not then begin to be King and Lord, 
but begins to shew His Lordship, and to extend it even over 


a μετὰ mapatnphoews. vid. infr. 44. 6. 59. Ὁ. 71. 6. Orat. iii. 52. b. 


and to His becoming towards us. 299 


the disobedient. If then they suppose that the Saviour was Ss. 
not Lord and King, even before He became man and endured oT 
the Cross, but then began to be Lord, let them know that" ~~ 
they are openly reviving the statements of Samosatene. But 
if, as we have quoted and declared above, He is Lord and 
King everlasting, seeing that Abraham worships Him as 
Lord, and Moses says, Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gen. 19, 
upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven ; 
and David in the Psalms, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit “ep 110, 
Thou on My right hand; and, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever ΤᾺ 45, 7. 
and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy 
Kingdom; and, Thy Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom ; it Ps. 145, 
is plain that even before He became man, He was King and I 
Lord everlasting, being Image and Word of the Father. 
And the Word being everlasting Lord and King, it is very 
plain again that Peter said not that the Substance of the Son 
was made, but spoke of His Lordship over us, which became 
when He became man, and, redeeming all by the Cross, 
became Lord of all and King. 

4. But if they continue the argument on the ground of its 
being written, He made, not willing that He made should be 
taken in the sense of He manifested, either from want of 
apprehension, or from their Christ-opposing purpose’, lap. Peat: 
them attend to another sound exposition of Peter’s words. 
For he who becomes Lord of others, comes into the possession 
of beings already in existence; but if the Lord is Framer of 
all and everlasting King, and when He became man, then 
gained possession of us, here too is a way in which Peter’s 
language evidently does not signify that the Substance of the 
Word is a work, but the after subjection of all things, and 
the Saviour’s Lordship over all which “became.” And this 
coincides with what we said before’; for as we then intro- feed 
duced the words, Become my God and defence, and the Maj. de 

pb pall Fid. 1. 
Lord became a refuge for the oppressed, and it stood to Ps, 31,3. 
reason that these expressions do not shew that God is ee 
generate, but that His beneficence becomes towards each E. V. 
individual, the same sense hath the expression of Peter also. Εν 
For the Son of God indeed, being Himself the Word, is§. 14. 
Lord of all; but we once were subject from the first to the 
slavery of corruption and the curse of the Law, then by degrees 
x 2 


Disc. 
11: 


300 He is made our Lord, when we become His subjects. 


fashioning for ourselves things that were not, we served, as 


———— says the blessed Apostle, them which by nature are no Gods, 


Gal. 4, 8. 


and, ignorant of the true God, we preferred things that were 
not to the truth ; but afterwards, as the ancient people, when 
oppressed in Egypt, groaned, so, when we too had the Law 
engrafted in us, and according to the unutterable sighings of 
the Spirit made our intercession, O Lord our God, take posses- 
sion of us, then, as He became for a house of refuge and a God 
and defence, so also He became our Lord. Nor did He then 
begin to be, but we began to have Him for our Lord. For 
upon this God being good and Father of the Lord, in pity, 
and desiring to be known by all, makes His own Son put on 
Him a human body and become man, and be called Jesus, 
that in this body offering Himself for all, He might deliver 
all from false worship and corruption, and might Himself 
become of all Lord and King. 

5. His becoming therefore in this way Lord and King, this 
it is that Peter means by, He hath made Him Lord, and hath 
sent Christ ; as much as to say, that the Father in making 
Him man, (for to be made belongs to man,) did not simply’ 
make Him man, but has made Him in order to His being 
Lord of all men, and to His hallowing all through the Anoint- 
ing. For though the Word existing in the form of God took 
a servant’s form, yet the assumption of the flesh did not 
make a servant” of the Word, who was by nature Lord; but 
rather, not only was it that emancipation of all humanity which 
takes place by the Word, but that very Word who was by nature 
Lord, and was then made man, hath by means of a servant’s 


Ὁ οὐκ ἐδούλου τὸν λόγον᾽ though, as 
he said supra p. 236. the Word became 
a servant, as far as He was man. He 
says the same thing Ep. Aig. 17. So 
say Naz. Orat. 32. 18. Nyssen. ad 
Simpl. (t. 2. p. 471.) Cyril. Alex. adv. 
Theodor. p. 223. Hilar. de Trin. xi. 
Ambros. 1. Epp. 46, 3. Athan. how- 
ever seems to modify the statement 
(vid. also supr. p. 296. &c.) when he 
says infra 50. ‘“‘ Not that He was ser- 
vant, but because He took a servant’s 
form.’’ Theodoret also denies it, Eran. 
ii. fin. And Damasce. F. O. iii. 21. 
who says, that our Lord ‘‘ took on Him 
an ignorant and servile nature,’ but 
“that we may not call Him servant,” 


though “ the flesh is servile, had it not 
been united to God the Word.” The 
parallel question of ignorance, here 
touched upon, will come under our 
notice infra, Orat~ iii, 42—53. The 
latter view prevailed after the heresy 
of the Adoptionists, who seem to have 
made ‘servant’? synonymous with 
‘‘adopted son.” Petavius Incarn. vii. 
9. distinguishes between the essence or 
(what is called) actus primus and the 
aclus secundus; thus water may be 
considered in its mature cold, though 
certain springs are in fact always warm. 
Vid. infr. p. 344, note f, upon the word 
“creature.” 


« Made Lord” corrects the Jews, who thought Him but man. 301 


form been made Lord of all and Christ, that is, in order to pons 
hallow all by the Spirit. And as God, when becoming a 
God and defence, and saying, I will be a God to them, does 
not then: become God more than before, nor then begins to 
become God, but, what He ever is, that He then becomes 
to those who need Him, when it pleaseth Him, so Christ 
also being by nature Lord and King everlasting, does not 
become Lord more than He was at the time He is sent forth, 
nor then begins to be Lord and King, but what He is ever, 
that He then is made according to the flesh; and, having 
redeemed all, He becomes thereby again Lord of quick and 
dead. For Him henceforth do all things serve, and this is 
David’s meaning in the Psalm, The Lord said unto My Lord, oe 110, 
Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy 
footstool. For it was fitting that the redemption should take 

place through none other than Him whois the Lord by nature, 

lest, though created by the Son, we should name another Lord, 

and fall into the Arian and Greek folly, serving the creature 
beyond the all-creating God “. 

6. This, at least according to my nothingness’, is the mean- §. 16. 
ing of this passage; moreover, a true and a good meaning eee 
have these words of Peter as regards the Jews. For the Jews 
have wandered from the truth, and expect indeed the Christ as 
coming; but do not reckon that He undergoes a passion’, ἢ ὙΠ 303, 
saying what they understand not; We know that, when the Tel 12, 
Christ cometh, He abideth for ever, and how sayest Thou, that ἂν ee 
He must be lifted up ? Next they suppose Him, not the Word letter 
coming in flesh, but a mere* man, as were all the kings. The * ψιλόν 
Lord then, admonishing Cleophas and the other, taught them 
that the Christ must first suffer ; and the rest of the Jews that 
God was come among them, saying, Jf He called them gods to es 10, 
whom the word of ‘Coir came, and the Scripture cannot be 
broken, say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified and 
sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am 
the Son of God? Peter then, having learned this from the §. 16. 
Saviour, in both points set the Jews right, saying, “Ο Jews, 
the divine Scriptures announce that Christ cometh, and you 
consider Him a mere man as one of David’s descendants, 


ὁ vid. Rom. 1, 25. and so both text Ep. Aig. 4. 6. 13. c. Vid. supr. p. 191. 
and application very frequently, e.g. note d. intr. iii. 16. note. 


Disc. 
II 


Deut. 28, 


66. 


Ps. 110, 
ἘΞ 


Ps, 16, 
Whe 


1 φθάνειν 
Is. 53, 7. 


302 Christ the Scope of the Prophecies. 


whereas what is written of Him shews Him to be not such as 
you say, but rather announces Him as Lord and God, and 
immortal, and dispenser of life. For Moses has said, Ye 
shall see your Life hanging before your eyes*. And David 
in the hundred and ninth Psalm, The Lord said unto My 
Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, till I make Thine enemies 
Thy footstool; and in the fifteenth, Thow shalt not leave My 
soul in hell, neither shalt Thou suffer Thy Holy One to see 
corruption. Now that these passages have not David for 
their scope he himself witnesses, avowing that He who was 
coming was His own Lord. Nay you yourselves know that 
He is dead, and His relics are with you. 

7. “That the Christ then must be such as the Scriptures say, 
you will plainly confess yourselves. For those announce- 
ments come from God, and in them falsehood cannot be. 
If then ye can state that such a one has come before, and 
can prove Him God from the signs and wonders which He 
did, ye have reason for maintaining the contest, but if ye are 
not able to prove His coming, but are expecting Him still, 
recognise the true season from Daniel, for his words relate 
to the present time. But if this present season be that which 
was of old afore-announced, and ye have seen what has taken 
place among us, be sure that this Jesus, whom ye crucified, 
this is the expected Christ. For David and all the Prophets 
are dead, and the sepulchres of all are with you, but that 
Resurrection which has now taken place, has shewn that the 
scope’ of these passages is Jesus. For the crucifixion is 
denoted by Ye shall see your Life hanging, and the wound 
in the side by the spear answers to He was led as a sheep to 
the slaughter, and the resurrection, nay more, the rising of 


ἃ vid. Iren. Her. iv. 10.2. Tertull. also says, ‘‘ Since things which are ἃ 


in Jud. 11. Cyprian. Testim. iii. 2. n. 20. 
Lactant. Instit. iv. 18. Cyril Catech. 
xiii. 19. August. contr. Faust. xvi. 22. 


which are referred to in loc. Cypr. 
(O. T.) To which add Leon. Serm. 59. 
Ὁ. Isidor. Hisp. contr. Jud. i. 33. i. 6. 
Origen. in Cels. ii. 75. Epiph. Her. 
p- 75 Damasce. Εἰ. O. iv. 11. fin. This 
interpretation is recommended even by 
the letter, which has 4397 35 ΟΝ, 
ἀπέναντι τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν cov. Sept. 
pendebit tibi a regione. Gesen. who 


regione of a place, are necessarily a 
little removed from it, it follows that 
3393 signifies at the same time to be 
at a small distance,” referring to the 
case of Hagar, who was but a bow-shot 
from her child. Also, though the 
word here is ΝΠ, yet πῆ, which is 
the same root, is used for hanging 
on a stake, or crucifixion, e.g. Gen. 
20, 19. Deut. 2], 22. Esth, 5, 14; 
7, 10. 


It became the Word to take flesh, yet not be held by death. 3038 


the ancient dead from out their sepulchres, (for these most of CAF. 
you have seen,) this is, Thou shalt not leave My soul in hell, 
and He will swallow up death in victory, and again, God will 
wipe away. For the signs which actually took place, shew that 
He who was in a body was God, and also the Life and Lord of 
death. For it became the Christ, when giving life to others, 
Himself not to be detained by death ; but this could not have 
happened, had He, as you suppose, been a mere' man. But in 1 ψιλός 
truth He is the Son of God, for men are all subject to death. 

8. “Let no one therefore doubt, but the whole house of 
Israel know assuredly that this Jesus, whom ye saw in shape 
a man, doing signs and such works, as no one ever yet had 
done, is Himself the Christ and Lord of all. For though 
made man, and called Jesus, as we said before, He received 
no loss by that human passion *, but rather, in being made ? πάθει, 
man, He is manifested as Lord of quick and dead. For Py 
since, as the Apostle said, in the wisdom of God the world \ Cor. |, 
by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness ae 
of preaching to save them that believe. And so, since we 
men would not acknowledge God through His Word, nor 
serve the Word of God our natural Master, it pleased God 
to shew in man His own Lordship, and so to draw all 
men to Himself. But to do this by a mere man beseemed 
not®; lest, having man for our Lord, we should become 
worshippers of man*. Therefore the Word Himself became ? ae iii. 
flesh, and the Father called His Name Jesus, and so made ’ 
Him Lord and Christ, as much as to say, ‘He made 
Him to rule and to reign;’ that while at the Name of Jesus, 
whom ye crucified, every knee bows, we may acknowledge 
as Lord and King both the Son and through Him the 
Father.” 

9. The Jews then, most of them‘, hearing this, came to 8, 17, 


Is. 25, 8. 


Trin. i. 


e In the text the Mediatorial Lord- 
ship is made an office of God the 
Word ; still, not as God, but as man. 
So S. Augustine, of judgment; ‘‘ He 
judges by His divine power, not by His 
human, and yet man himself will judge, 
as the Lord of glory was crucified.” 
And just before, ‘‘ He who believes in 
Me, believes not in that which He 
sees, lest our hope should be in a 
creature, but in Him who has taken 
on Him the creature, in which He 


might appear to human eyes.” 
27. 28. In like manner the Priesthood 
is the office of God in the form of man, 
supr. p. 292, notem. And so again none 
but the Eternal Son could be πρωτό- 
τοκος, yet He is so called when sent as 
Creator and as incarnate. infr. 64. 

f οἱ πλεῖστοι. vid. πόσαι μυριάδες, 
Act. 21. 20. Jenkin on the Christian 
Religion, vol. 2. ch. 32. Lardner, 
Jewish and Heathen Test. ch. i. Burton 
Eccles. Hist. Ist Cent. p. 50—52. 


Disc. 


Isp) 912; 
note m. 


2 ἀμυδρὰ, 
decr. 12, 


e. 
Gen. 27, 
29. 37. 


3 ἀρχὴν 
γενέσεως 


904 Parallel passage. 


themselves and forthwith acknowledged the Christ, as it is 
written in the Acts. But, the Ario-maniacs on the contrary 
choose to remain Jews, and to contend with Peter; so let us 
proceed to place before them some parallel phrases ; perhaps it 
may have some effect upon them, to find what the usage is of 
divine Scripture. Now that Christ is everlasting Lord and 
King, has become plain by what has gone before, nor is there 
a man to doubt about it; for being Son of God, He must be 
like Him’, and being like, He is certainly both Lord and 
King, for He says Himself, He that hath seen Me, hath seen 
the Father. On the other hand, that Peter’s mere words, He 
hath made Him both Lord and Christ, do not imply the Son 
to be a creature, may be seen from Isaac’s blessing, though 
this illustration is but a faint* one for our subject. Now he 
said to Jacob, Become thou lord over thy brother; and to 
Esau, Behold, I have made him thy lord. Now though the 
word made had implied Jacob’s substance and the coming 
into being *, even then it would not be right in them as much 
as to imagine the same of the Word of God, for the Son of 
God is no creature as Jacob was; besides, they might inquire 
and so rid themselves of that extravagance. But if they do 
not understand it of his substance nor of his coming into 
being, though Jacob was by nature creature and work, is 


* alluding not their madness worse than the Devil’s *, if what they dare 


to the 
tempta- 
tion. 


§. 18. 


16. 


5 πατρι- 
κῆς 


Mat. 16, 


not ascribe in consequence of a like phrase even to things by 
nature generate, that they attach to the Son of God, saying 
that He is a creature? For Isaac said Become and I have 
made, signifying neither the coming into being * nor the sub- 
stance of Jacob; (for after thirty years and more from his 
birth he said this ;) but his authority over his brother, which 
came to pass subsequently. 

10. Much more then did Peter say this without meaning that 
the Substance of the Word was a work ; for he knew Him to be 
God’s Son, confessing, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 
Living God; but he meant His Kingdom and Lordship which 
was formed and came to be according to grace, and was re- 
latively to us. For while saying this, he was not silent about the 
Son of God’s everlasting Godhead which is the Father’s’ ; but 
He had said already, that He had poured the Spirit on us; 
now to give the Spirit with authority, is not in the power of 


He who gives, not receives, the Spirit, is no creature. 


305 


creature or work, but the Spirit is God’s Gift®. For the se 


creatures are hallowed by the Holy Spirit; but the Son, in 


that He is not hallowed by the Spirit, but on the contrary 
Himself the Giver of it to all’, is therefore no creature, but ὦ SUPr- 


true Son of the Father. 


ch. xii. 


And yet He who gives the Spirit, 


the Same is said also to be made; that is, to be made among 
us Lord because of His manhood, while giving the Spirit 


because He is God’s Word. 


For He ever was and is, as,, 
ὅμοιος 


Son, so also Lord and Sovereign of all, being like in all κατὰ 
things’ to the Father, and having all that is the Father’s*, τὰ τὰ 


as He Himself has said *. 


& θεοῦ δῶρον. And so more dis- 
tinctly S. Basil, δῶρον τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ 
πνεῦμα. de Sp. S. 57. and more fre- 
quently the later Latins, as in the 
Hymn, “ Altissimi Donum Dei;’’ and 
the earlier, e.g. Hil. de Trin. ii. 29. 
and August. Trin. xv. 29. who makes it 
the personal characteristic of the Third 
Person in the Holy Trinity; ‘non 


? vid. infr. 

p- 311, 

note |. 

3 vid.infr. 
dicitur Verbum Dei, nisi Filius, nec note on 
Donum Dei, nisi Spiritus Sanctus.’’ Orat.iii.l. 
And elsewhere, “ Exiit, non qaomodo 4 vid. 
natus, sed quomodo datus, et ideo non John 16, 
dicitur Filius.” ibid. v. 15. making it, 15. 
as Petavius observes, ‘‘ His eternal 
property, ut sic procedat, tanquam 
donabile, as being Love.”’ Trin. vii. 13. 

§ 20. 


CHAPTER XVI. 


INTRODUCTORY TO PROVERBS Vill. 22. THAT THE SON IS NOT 
A CREATURE. 


Arian formula, a creature but not as one of the creatures; but each creas 
ture is unlike all other creatures; and no creature can create. The 
Word then differs from all creatures in that in which they, though 
otherwise differing, all agree together, as creatures; viz. in being an 
efficient cause; in being the one medium or instrumental agent in 
creation; moreover in being the revealer of the Father; and in being 
the object of worship. 


1. Now in the next place let us consider the passage in the 


—_*__ Proverbs, The Lord created Me a beginning of His ways for 


1 supr. 
ὉΠ: ἧς 

p. 213. 
ais 8: 
». 218. 
3 ch. 9, 
p. 224, 


His works*; although in shewing that the Word is no work, 
it has been also shewn that He is no creature. For it is the 
same to say work or creature, so that the proof that He is 
no work is a proof also that He is no creature. Whereas one 
may marvel at these men, thus devising excuses to be ir- 
religious, and nothing daunted at the refutations which meet 
them upon every point. For first they set about deceiving 
the simple by their questions, ‘“ Did He who is make him 
that was not or Him that was from Him who was not’ ?” and, 
“‘Had you a son, before begetting him*?” And when this 
had been proved worthless, next they invented the question, 
“Ts the Ingenerate one or two*?” Then, when in this they had 


texts he handles, forming the chief 
subject of the Oration henceforth, after 


8 We have found this text urged 
against the Catholic doctrine in the 


third century to support an Arian 
doctrine, supr. p. 47, note b. Eusebius 
Nicomed. in his letter to Paulinus, 
adduces it against Alexander in the 
very beginning of the controversy, 
Theod. Hist. i. 5. p. 752. Athan. says, 
supr. pp. 20, 21. that after this it was 
again put forward by the Arians about 
A.D. 350. It is presently explained at 
greater length than any other of the 


an introduction which extends down 
to 44. 

b From the methodical manner in 
which the successive portions of his 
foregoing Oration are here referred 
to, it would almost seem as if he were 
answering in course some Arian work. 
vid. also supra, pp. 233, 257. infr. Orat. 
iii. 26. He does not seem to be tracing 
the controversy historically. 


Evasions of the Arians from first to last. 307 


been confuted, straightway they formed another, “Has He pe 
free-will and an alterable nature '?” But being forced to give γι τυ, 
up this, next they set about saying, Being made so much p. 230. 
better than the Angels*; and when the truth exposed this, oe 
pretence, now again, pollens them altogether, they think 

to recommend their heresy by work and ecreature*®. For? ch. 14. 
they mean those very things over again, and are true to their a on I, 
own perverseness, putting into various shapes and turning to 397: 
and fro the same errors, if so be to deceive some by that 
variousness. Although then abundant proof has been given 

above of this their reckless expedient, yet, since they make 

all places sound with this passage from the Proverbs, and 

to many who are ignorant of the faith of Christians, seem to 

say somewhat, it is necessary to examine separately, He a 5, 
created as well as Who was faithful to Him that made Him* ; : ch. ed 
that, as in all others, so in this text also, they may be proved 

to have got no further than a fantasy. 

2. And first let us see the answers, which they returned ὃ. 19. 
to Alexander of blessed memory, in the outset, while their 
heresy was in course of formation. They wrote thus: ‘“ He 
is a creature, but not as one of the creatures; a work, but not 
as one of the works; an offspring, but not as one of the 
offsprings*.’’ Let every one consider the profligacy and craft 
of this heresy; for knowing the bitterness of its own 
malignity, it makes an effort to trick itself out with fair 
words, and says, what indeed it means, that He is a creature, 
yet thinks to be able to skreen itself by adding, “but not as 
one of the creatures.’ However, in thus writing, they 
rather convict themselves of irreligion; for if, in your 
opinion, He is simply a creature, a add the pretence’, ° ὑποκρί- 
“but not as one of the creatures?” Andif He is simply a ae: 
work, how “not as one of the works?” In which we may "°° * 
see the poison ° of the heresy. For by saying, “ offspring, but ° p. 177. 
not as one of the offsprings,” they reckon many sons, and 
one of these they pronounce to be the Lord; so that according 
to them He is no more Only-begotten, but one out of many 
brethren, and is called‘ offspring and son. 

¢ vid. Arius’s letter, supr. p.97. This rian. 18. vid. also in Eusebius, supr. 
was the sophism by means of which Ρ. 62, note f. 


Valens succeeded with the Fathers of ἃ υἱὸν χρηματίζειν. The question 
Arminium. vid. 5. Jerome in Lucife- between Catholics and Arians was 


Disc. 
1h 


1 ὑποκρί- 


Tews 


Matt. 23; 
19. 


Rom. I, 
20. 


308 


No one creature like any other. 


3. What use then is this pretence’ of saying that He is a 
creature and not a creature? for though ye shall say, Not 
as “one of the creatures,” I will prove this sophism of 
yours to be a poor one. For still ye pronounce Him to 
be one of the creatures; and whatever a man might say 
of the other creatures, such ye hold concerning the Son, 
ye truly fools and blind. For is any one of the creatures 
just what another is*, that ye should predicate this of the 
Son as some prerogative'? And all the visible creation was 
made in six days:—in the first, the light which He called 
day; in the second the firmament; in the third, gathering 
together the waters, He bared the dry land, and brought out 
the various fruits that are in it; and in the fourth, He made 
the sun and the moon and all the host of the stars; and on 
the fifth, He created the race of living things in the sea, and 
of birds in the air; and on the sixth, He made the quadrupeds 
on the earth, and at length man. And the invisible things 
of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being 
understood by the things that are made; and neither the 
light is as the night, nor the sun as the moon; nor the 
irrational as rational man; nor the Angels as the Thrones, 
nor the Thrones as the Authorities, yet they are all creatures, 
but each of the things made according to its kind exists 
and remains in its own substance, as it was made. Let the 


whether our Lord was a true Son, or 
only called Son. ‘‘ Since they whisper 
something about Word and Wisdom as 
only names of the Son, &c.”’ ὀνόματα 
μόνον, supr. p. 25. where vid. note f. 
also p. 218, notea. And so ‘the title 
of Image is not a token of a similar 
substance, but His name only,’ supr. 
p. 210. and so infr. 38. where τοῖς ὀνό- 
μασι is synonymous with κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν, 
as Sent. Ὁ. 22. ἢ. ἃ. Vid. also 39. Ὁ. 
Orat. iii. 11. c. 18. d. “not named Son, 
but ever Son,” iv. 24. fin. Ep. Ag. 
16. e. ‘We call Him so, and mean 
truly what we say; they say it, but do 
not confess it.’””? Chrysost. in Act. Hom. 
33.4. vid. also νόθοις ὥσπερ ὀνόμασι, 
Cyril. de Trin. ii. p. 418. Non hee 
nuda nomina, Ambros. de Fid. i. 17. 
Yet, since the Sabellians equally failed 
here, also considering the Sonship as 
only a notion or title, vid. Orat. iv. 2. 
c. d. (where in contrast, ‘‘The Father 
is Father, and the Son Son,”’ vid. supr. 


p- 211, note f.) 12. d. 23. a. 25. e. the 
word ‘‘real’’ was used as against them, 
and in opposition to avuméatatos λόγος, 
by the Arians, and in consequence 
failed as a test of orthodox teaching; 
e.g. by Arius, supr. p. 97. by Euseb. 
in Marc. pp. 19, d. 35, Ὁ. 161, 6. by 
Asterius, infr. 37. by Palladius and Se- 
cundus in the Council of Aquileia ap. 
Ambros. Opp. t. 2. p. 791. (ed. Bened.) 
by Maximinus ap. August. contr. Max. 
6; . 

e And so S.Ambrose, Que enim crea- 
tura non sicut alia creatura non est? 
Homo non ut Angelus, terra non ut 
coelum. de Fid. i. n. 130. and a similar 
passage in Nyss. contr. Eun. iii. p. 132, 
3. 


f ἐξαίρετον. vid. infr. Orat. iii. 3. 
init. iv. 28. init. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. 
pp- 47. b. 73. b. 89. b. 124. a. 129. ὁ, 
Theodor. Hist. p. 732. Nyss. contr. 
Eunom. iii- p. 133. a. Epiph. Her. 76. 
p- 970. Cyril. Thes. p. 160. 


The Word unlike ail creatures. 309 


CHAP. 


Word then be excepted from the works, and as Creator be ἐς 


restored to the Father, and be confessed to be Son by nature; 
or if simply He be a creature, then let Him be assigned the 
same condition as the rest one with another, and let them as 
well as He be said every one of them to be “a creature, but 
not as one of the creatures, offspring or work, but not as one 
of the works or offsprings.”” For ye say that an offspring is the 
same as a work, writing “generated or made &.” For though 
the Son excel the rest on a comparison, still a creature He 
is nevertheless, as they are; since in those which are by nature 
creatures one may find some excelling others. Star, for 


- instance, differs from star in glory’, and the rest have all of * supr- 


them their mutual differences when compared together; yet 
it follows not for all this that some are lords, and sere 
servants to the superior, nor that some are efficient causes’, εἰ 
others by them come into being, but all have a nature which 
comes to be and is created, confessing in their own selves 
their Framer:—as David says in the Psalms, The heavens Ps. 19, 1. 
declare the glory of God, and the ἥν mament sheweth His 
handy work ; and as Zorobabel the wise says, Ad/ the earth 
calleth upon the Truth, and the heaven blessed it: all works \ Ἐπάν. 
shake and tremble at tt. "ἥν: 
4. But if the whole earth hymns the Framer and the Truth, 
and blesses, and fears it, and its Framer is the Word, and He 
Himself says, I am the Truth, it follows that the Word is ya 1 
not a creature, but alone proper to the Father, in whom all ® 
things are disposed, and He is celebrated by all, as Framer ; 
for I was by Him disposing; and My Father worketh Prov. 8, 
hitherto, and I work. And the word hitherto shews His = 
eternal existence in the Father as the Word; for it is proper } ἐκ 9, 
to the Word to work the Father’s works and not to i 
external to Him. But if what the Father worketh, that the ὃ. 21. 
Son worketh also*, and what the Son createth, that is the ἘΜΉΝ 


: Σ note. 
& γεννηθέντα ἢ ποιηθέντα ; asifthey Paulinus, κτιστὸν καὶ θεμελιωτὸν καὶ 


were synonymous; in opposition to γεννητόν. Theod. p. 752. The dif- 


2p. 310, 
ote h. 


which the Nicene Creed says, yevv7- 
θέντα ov ποιηθέντα. In like manner 
Arius in his letter to Eusebius uses the 
words, πρὶν γεννηθῇ ἤτοι κτισθῇ, ἢ 
δρισθῇ, ἢ θεμελιωθῇ, Theodor. Hist. p- 
750. And to Alexander, ἀχρόνως γεν- 
νηθεὶς καὶ πρὸ αἰώνων κτισθεὶς καὶ θεμε- 
λιωθείς. de Syn. 16. And Eusebius to 


ferent words profess to be Scriptural, 
and to explain each other; “created” 
being in Prov. 8, 22. “‘made” in the 
passages considered in the last two 
chapters, “appointed” or ‘declared ”” 
in Rom. i. 4 and “ founded ” or “ esta- 
blished’’ in Prov. 8, 23. which is dis- 
cussed infr. 72. &c. vid. also 52. 


Disc. 
II. 


§. 22. 
1p, 17. 


310 If the Creator Word a creature, other creatures creators. 


creation of the Father, and yet the Son be the Father’s work 
or creature, then either He will work His own self, and will 
be His own creator, (since what the Father worketh is the 
Son’s work also,) which is absurd and impossible; or, in that 
He creates and worketh the things of the Father, He Him- 
self is not a work nor a creature; for else being Himself an 
efficient cause", He may cause that to be in the case of things 
caused, which He Himself has become, or rather He may 
have no power to cause at all. 

5. For how, if, as you hold, He is come of nothing, is He 
able to frame things that are nothing into being? or if He, 
a creature, withal frames a creature, the same will be con- 
ceivable in the case of every creature, viz. the power to 
frame others. And if this pleases you, what is the need 
of the Word, seeing that things inferior can be brought to 
be by things superior? or at all events, every thing that 
is brought to be could have heard in the beginning 
God’s words, Become and be made, and so would have been 
framed. But this is not so written, nor could it be. For 
none of things which are brought to be is an efficient 
cause", but all things were made through the Word: who 
would not have wrought all things, were He Himself in the 
number of the creatures. or neither would the Angels be 
able to frame, since they too are creatures, though Valentinus, 
and Marcion, and Basilidas think so, and you are their 
copyists; nor will the sun, as being a creature, ever make 
what is not into what is; nor will man fashion man, nor stone 
devise stone, nor wood give growth to wood. But God is 
He who fashions man in the womb, and fixes the moun- 
tains, and increases wood ; whereas man, as being capable of 
science, puts together and arranges that material, and works 
things that are, as he has learned ; and is satisfied if they are 
but brought to be, and being conscious of what his nature is, 
if he needs aught, knows to ask it of God’. If then God 


ἢ ποιητικὸν αἴτιον, also, p. 309, r. 1. 
and infr. 27. and Orat. iii. 14. and 
contr. Gent. 9 init. No creature can 
create, vid. e.g. about Angels, August. 
de Civ. Dei xii. 24. de Trin. iii. 13—18. 
Damace. F. O. ii. 3. Cyril in Julian, 
ii. p. 62. ‘* Our reason rejects the idea 
that the Creator should be a creature, 


for creation is by the Creator.’’ Hil. 
Trin, xii. 5. πῶς δύναται τὸ κτιζόμενον 
κτίζειν; ἢ πῶς 6 κτί(ων κτίζεται ; 
Athan. ad Afros. 4 fin. Vid. also Serap. i. 
24, 6. iii. 4,e. The Gnostics who at- 
tributed creation to Angels are alluded 
to infr. Orat. iii. 12. Epiph. Her. 52. 
53. 163, &c. Theodor, Her. i. 1 and 3. 


Tf the Word a creature, another Word to create Him. 311 


also wrought and compounded out of materials, this indeed 
is a gentile thought, according to which God is an artificer 
and not a Maker, but yet even in that case let the Word 
work the materials, at the bidding and in the service of Godi. 
But if He calls into existence things which existed not by His 
proper Word, then the Word is not in the number of things 
non-existing and called; or we have to seek another Word *, 
through whom He too was called; for by the Word the 
things which were not came to be. 

6. And if through Him He creates and makes, He is not 
Himself of things created and made; but rather He is the 
Word of the Creator God, and is known from the Father’s 
works which He Himself worketh, to be in the Father and 
the Father in Him, and He that hath seen Him hath seen 
the Father, because the Son’s Substance is proper’ to the 
Father, and He in all points ike Him’. How then does He 
create through Him, unless it be His Word and His Wisdom? 
and how can He be Word and Wisdom, unless He be the 


i προσταγτόμενος καὶ ὑπουργῶν. It 
is not quite clear that Athan. accepts 
these words in his own person, as has 
been assumed supr. p. 15, note d. p. 
118, note n. Vid. de Decr. 7. and infr. 
24. and 31, a. which, as far as they go, 
are against the use of the word. Also 
S. Basil objects to ὑποῦργος contr. 
Eunom. ii. 21. and S. Cyril in Joan. p. 
48. though 5. Basil speaks of τὸν προσ- 
τάττοντα κύριον, p. 246, note a. and 8. 
Cyril of the Son’s ὑποταγὴ, Thesaur. p. 
255. Vid. ‘ministering, ὑπηρετοῦντα, 
to the Father of all.” Just. Tryph. 
Ρ. 72. “ The Word became minister, 
ὑπηρέτης, of the Creator.” Origen 
Hom. in Joan. p. 61. also Constit. Ap. 
viii. 12. but Pseudo-Athan. objects to 
ὑπηρετῶν, de Comm. Essent. 30. and 
Athan. apparently, infr. 28. Again, 
“Whom did He order, precepit?” 
Tren Her. iii. 8. n.3. ‘‘The Father 
bids, ἐντέλλεται, (allusion to Ps. 33, 9. 
vid. infr. 31.) the Word accomplishes. . 
He who commands, κελεύων, 15 the 
Father, He who obeys, ὑπακούων, the 
The Father willed, ἠθέλησεν, 
the Son did it.’’ Hippol. contr, Noet. 
14. on which vid. Fabricius’s note. 
5. Hilary speaks of the Son as “sub- 
ditus per obedientiz obsequelam.’’ de 
Syn. 51. Vid. pp. 323, 4. notes a, b,c. 
In the last of the three the principle is 


laid down of what is right and wrong in 
the use of these expressions. 

Κ “Tf the Wisdom which is in the 
Father is other than the Lord, Wisdom 
came into being in Wisdom; and if 
God’s Word is Wisdom, the Word too 
has come into being in a Word; and if 
God’s Word is the Son, the Son too has 
been made in the Son.” Ep. eee 14. 
vid. also supr. p. 13. and Orat. iii. 2. 64. 
And so 85. Austin, “If the Word of 
God was Himself made, by what other 
Word was He made? If you say, that 
it is the Word of the Word, by whom 
that Word is made, this say I is the 
only Son of God. But if you say the 
Word of the Word, grant that He is 
not made by whom all things are made ; 
for He could not be made by means of 
Himself, by whom are made all things.” 
in Joan. Tract. i. 11. Vid. a parallel 
argument with reference to the Holy 
Spirit. Serap. i. 25. b. 

Thy κατὰ πάντα ὁμοιότητα: vid. 
parallel instances, supr. Ps 115, 6. to 
which add, ὅμοιος κατὰ πάντα, Orat. i. 
40. κατὰ πάντα καὶ ἐν πᾶσι, Ep. Mg. 
17, c. τοῦ πατρὸς ὅμοιος, Orat. il. 17. 
Orat. iii. 20, a. “not ὅμοιος, as the 
Church preaches, but ὡς αὐτοὶ θέλουσι,᾽᾽ 
(vid. Hist. Treat. tr. p. 266, note d.) 
also supra p. 155, note g. 


CuHap. 
XV TL: 


vid. John 
14, 9. 10. 


1 +d ἴδιον 
TIS οὐ- 
σίας 


Disc. 
ie 


1 vid. p. 


vid. Ex. 
33, 20. 
Matt. 11, 
Panta 


John 6, 
46. not 
to the 
letter. 


2 vid. 
supr. 1. 
a. and 


p. 276. 


3 Greek 
text dis- 
located. 


312 If the Word, a creature, knows God, all creatures do in par, 


proper offspring of His Substance™, and did not come to 
be, as others, out of nothing? And whereas all things are 
from nothing, and are creatures, and the Son, as they say, is 
one of the creatures too, and of things which once were not, 
how does He alone reveal the Father, and none else but He 
know the Father? For could He, a work, possibly know the 
Father, then must the Father be also known by all according 
to the proportion of the measures’ of each: for all of them are 
works as He is. But if it be impossible for things generate 
either to see or to know, for the sight and the knowledge of 
Him surpasses all, (since God Himself says, No one shall 
see My face and live,) yet the Son has declared, No one 
knoweth the Father save the Son, therefore the Word is 
different from things generate, in that He alone knows and 
alone sees the Father, as He says, Not that any one hath 
seen the Father, save He that is from the Father, and no 
one knoweth the Father save the Son, though Arius think 
otherwise. How then did He alone know, except that He 
alone was proper to Him? and how proper, if He were a 
creature, and not a true son from Him? (For one must not 
mind saying often the same thing for religion-sake.) Therefore 
it is irreligious to think that the Son is one of all things; and 
blasphemous and unmeaning to call Him “a creature, but 
not as one of the creatures, and a work, but not as one of the 
works, an offspring, but not as one of the offsprings;” for how 
not as one of these, if, as they say, He was not before His 
generation *? for it is proper to the creatures and works not 
to be before their generation, and to subsist out of nothing, 
even though they excel other creatures in glory; for this 
difference of one with another will be found in all creatures, 
which appears in those which are visible *. 


τὰ As Sonship is implied in “‘ Image,” 
(supr. p. 283, note d.) so it is implied in 
“Word” and “Wisdom.” For instance, 
‘Especially is it absurd to name the 
Word, yet deny Him to be Son, for, if 
the Word be not from God, reasonably 
might they deny Him to be Son; but if 
He is from God, how see they not that 
what exists from any thing is son of 
him from whom it is?” Orat. iv. 15. 
Again, ἀεὶ θεὸς ἦν καὶ vids ἐστι, λόγος 
ὥν. Orat. iii. 29 init. υἱὸς τίς ἢ ὃ λόγος; 


de Decr.17. And still more pointedly, 
εἰ μὴ vids, οὐδὲ λύγος, Orat. iv. 24 fin. 
vid. also supr. p. 221, note e. And so 
“Tmage’’ isimplied in Sonship ; “‘ being 
Son of God He must be like Him,’’ 
supr. 17. And so “Image ” is implied 
in “ Word;” ev τῇ ἰδίᾳ εἰκόνι, ἥτις 
ἐστὶν ὃ λόγος αὐτοῦ, infr. 82, d. also 
34, c. On the contrary, the very root 
of heretical error was the denial that 
these titles implied each other, vid. supr. 
p- 27, note i. p. 41, note e. 


If the Word a creature, His glory different but in degree. 313 


7. Moreover if, as the heretics hold, the Son were creature Cua. 
- XVI. 
or work, but not as one of the creatures, because of His ex- & 23. 


celling them in glory, it were natural that Scripture should 
describe and display Him by a comparison in His favour with 
the other works; for instance, that it should say that He is 
greater than Archangels, and more honourable than the 
Thrones, and both brighter than sun and moon, and greater 
than the heavens. But it does not in fact thus describe Him; 
but the Father shews Him to be His own proper and only 
Son, saying, Thou art My Son, and This is My beloved Son, in Ps. 2, 7 
whom I am well pleased. Accordingly the Angels ministered | oe 
unto Him, as being one beyond themselves; and they wor ship it 

Him, not as being greater in glory, but as being some one be- 

yond all the creatures, and beyond themselves, and alone the 
Father’s proper Son according to substance’. For if He was ! vid. 
worshipped as excelling them in glory, each of things subser- ἢ us 
ὙΠ oa peer te worship what excels itself. But this is not the 
case*; for creature does not worship creature, but servant ἢ vid. 
Bord and creature God. Thus Peter the Apostle hinders el ᾿" 
Cornelius who would worship him, saying, J myself also am a -- 10, 
And an Angel, when John would worship him in the * 
Apocalypse, hinders him, saying, See thou do it not; for a Sa 22, 
am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the Prophets, and” 

of them that keep the sayings of this book: worship God. 
Therefore to God alone appertains worship, and this the 

very Angels know, that though they excel other beings in 
glory, yet they are all creatures and not to be worshipped ®, 


man. 


n “Worship ”’ is a very wide term, to be offered, except to Him whom the 


and has obviously more senses than one. 
Thus we read in one passage of Scrip- 
ture that ‘‘all the congregation ... 
worshipped the Lord, and the king”’ 
[David]. S. Augustine, as S. Atha- 
nasius overleaf, makes the characteristic 
of divine worship to consist in sacrifice. 
‘*No one would venture to say that 
sacrifice was due to any but God. Many 
are the things taken from divine wor- 
ship and transferred to human honours, 
either through excessive humility, 
or mischievous adulation; yet with- 
out giving us the notion that those 
to which they were transferred were 
not men. And these are said to be 
honoured and venerated ; or were wor- 
shipped, if much is heaped upon them , 

but who ever thought that sacrifice was 


sacrificer knew or thought or pretended 
to be God ?”” August. de Civ. Dei, x. 4. 
‘Whereas you have called sc many 
dead men gods, why are ye indignant 
with us, who do but honour, not deify, 
the martyrs, as being God’s martyrs 
and loving servants? ... That they even 
offered libations to the dead, ye cer- 
tainly know, who venture on the use of 
them by night contrary to the laws . 

But we, O men, assign neither sacri- 
fices nor even libations to the martyrs, 
but we honour them as men divine and 
divinely beloved.”? Theodor. contr. Gent. 
viii. pp. 908—910. It is observable that 
incense was burnt before the Imperial 
Statues, vid. Orat, iii.5, note. Nebuchad- 
nezzar offered an oblation to Daniel, 
after the interpretation of his dream, 


Y 


Disc. 


vid. Judg. 
13, 16. 


Heb. 1, 
6. 


Is. 45, 
14. 


John 13, 
13. 
al. t. rec. 


John 20, 
28. 


ξ, 24. 


John 16, 
15. 


314 Whereas they refuse worship, and He accepts it. 


but worship the Lord. Thus Manoe the father of Samson, 
wishing to offer sacrifice to the Angel, was thereupon 
hindered by him, saying, Offer not to me, but to God. 

8. On the other hand, the Lord is worshipped even by the 
Angels; for it is written, Let all the Angels of God worship 
Him; and by all the Gentiles, as Esaias says, The labour of 
Egypt and merchandize of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men 
of stature, shall come over unto Thee, and they shall be Thine ; 
and then, they shall fall down unto Thee, and shall make sup- 
plication unto Thee, saying, Surely God is in Thee, and there is 
none else, there is no God. And He accepts His disciples’ 
worship, and certifies them who He is, saying, Call ye Me 
not Lord and Master ? and ye say well, for so Iam. And when 
Thomas said to Him, Wy Lord and my God, He allows 
his words, or rather accepts him instead of hindering him. 
For He is, as the other Prophets declare, and David says in 
the Psalm, the Lord of hosts, the Lord of Sabaoth, which is 
interpreted, the Lord of Armies, and God True and Almighty, 
though the Arians burst® at the tidings. But he had not 
been thus worshipped, nor been thus spoken of, were He a 
creature merely. But now since He is not a creature, but the 
proper offspring of the Substance of that God who is wor- 
shipped, and His Son by nature, therefore He is worshipped 
and is believed to be God, and is Lord of armies, and in 
authority, and Almighty, as the Father is; for He has said 
Himself, Ad] things, that the Father hath, are Mine. For it is 
proper to the Son, to have the things of the Father, and to 
be such that the Father is seen in Him, and that through 
Him all things were made, and that the salvation of all comes 
to pass and consists in Him. 


© διαῤῥηγνύωσιν ἑαυτοὺς, also ad (wor τοὺς ὀδόντας, de Fug. 26. init. 
Adelph. 8. and vid. supr. p. 29, note 1. τριζέτωσαν, ad Adelph. 8. Hist. Ar. 68. 
vid. also διαῤῥηγνύωνται, de Syn. 54. fin. and literally 72. a. κόπτουσιν ἕαυ- 
καὶ διαῤῥαγοῖεν, Marcell. ap. Euseb. τούς. In illud Omnia, 5. 
Eccl. Theol. p. 116. also p. 40. τρί- 


= 


CHAPTER XVII. 
INTRODUCTION TO PROVERBS Vill. 22. CONTINUED. 


Absurdity of supposing a Son or Word created in order to the creation of 
other creatures ; as to the creation being unable to bear God’s immediate 
hand, God condescends to the lowest. Moreover, if the Son a creature, 
He too could not bear God’s hand, and an infinite series of media will be 
necessary. Objected, that, as Moses who led out the Israelites was a man, 
so our Lord; but Moses was not the Agent in creation :—again, that unity 
is found in created ministrations, but all such ministrations are defective 
and dependent:—again, that He learned to create, yet could God’s Wisdom 
need teaching ? and why should He learn, if the Father worketh hitherto ? 
If the Son was created to create us, He is for our sake, not we for His. 


1. Ann here it were well to ask them also this question *, for 

a still clearer refutation of their heresy ;—Wherefore, when 

all things are creatures, and all are brought into consistence 

from nothing, and the Son Himself, according to you, is 
creature and work, and once was not, wherefore has He made 

all things through Him alone, and without Him was made not Jonn 1, 
one thing ? or why is it, when all things are spoken of, that 9: 

no one thinks the Son is signified in the number, but only 
things generate; whereas when Scripture speaks of the Word, 

it does not understand Him as being in the number of all, 

but places Him with the Father, as Him in whom providence 

and salvation for a// are wrought and effected by the Father, 
though all things surely might at the same command have 

come to be, at which He was brought into being by God 
alone? For God is not wearied by commanding’, nor is His ' supr. 
strength unequal to the making of all things, that He should ἢ" es 
alone create the only Son”, and need His ministry * and aid ve 
is somewhat otherwise explained by Κα, act 


Greg. Naz. μόνως οὐχ ὡς τὰ σώματα, 
Orat, 25, 16. Eunomius understood by 


a These sections, 34—36. are very 
similar to de Decr. 7, 8. supr. pp. 
12 —14. yet not in wording or order, as 


is the case with other passages. 

Ὁ μόνος μόνον, also infr. 30. This 
phrase is synonymous with “‘ not as one 
of the creatures,” vid. μόνος ὑπὸ μόνου, 
supr. p. 12. also p. 62. note f. vid. 
μόνως, p. 116. note g. though that term 


x 


μονογενὴς, not μόνος γεννηθεὶς but παρὰ 
μόνου. It should be observed, however, 
that this is a sense in which some of the 
Greek Fathers understand the term, 
thus contrasting generation with pro- 
cession, vid. Petav. Trin. vii. 11. 8. 3. 


2° 


316 Lf the Word created to create, weariness in God or pride. 


Dise. for the framing of the rest. For He lets nothing stand over, 
τ᾿ πος Which He wills to be done; but He willed only’, and all 
τ. 7. things subsisted, and no one hath resisted His will. Why 
note c. then were not all things brought into being by God alone at 
Rom. 9, that same command, at which the Son came into being? 
Or let them tell us, why did all things through Him come to 
be, who was Himself but generate ? 

2. How void of reason! however, they say concerning Him, 
that “God willing to create generate nature, when He saw 
2 ἀκράτου that it could not endure the untempered* hand of the Father, 

and to be created by Him, makes and creates first and alone 

one only, and calls Him Son and Word, that, through Him as 

a medium, all things might thereupon be brought to be°.” 

This they not only have said, but they have dared to put it 

3.13, into writing, namely, Eusebius, Arius, and Asterius who sacri- 

§. 25. ficed*. Is not this a full proof of that irreligion, with which 

they have drugged themselves with much madness, till they 

blush not to be intoxicate against the truth? For if they 

shall assign the toil of making all things as the reason why 

God made the Son only, the whole creation will cry out 

against them as saying unworthy things of God; and Esaias 

Is. 40, too who has said in Scripture, The Everlasting God, the Lord, 

arr the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is 
weary : there is no searching of His understanding. 

3. And if God made the Son alone, as not deigning to 
make the rest, but committed them to the Son as an assistant, 
this on the other hand is unworthy of God, for in Him there 

4z%pos, is no pride*. Nay the Lord reproves the thought, when He 
aie Ἢ says, Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing ? and one of 
“Mat. 6, them shall not fali on the ground without your Father which 
za is in heaven. And again, Take no thought for your life, what 
ye shall eat, nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Ts 
not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment ? 
Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do they 
reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth 
them ; are ye not much better than they ? Which of you by taking 
thought, can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye 
thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how 


ς Vid. de Decr. 8. 8. supr. p. 13. also p. 523. Basil contr. Eunom. ii. 21. 
Cyril. Thesaur. pp. 150, 241. de Trin. vid. also infra 29. Orat. iv. 11, 12. 


Tf God preserves without help, He creates without help. 317 


they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: and yet I say Pe 
unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory, was not arrayed - 
hike one of these. Wherefore if God so clothe the grass of the 
field which to-day ts, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, 
shall He not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? ΤΆ 
then it be not unworthy of God to exercise His providence, 
even down to things so small, a hair of the head, and a sparrow, 
and the grass of the field, also it was not unworthy of Him to 
make them. For what things are the subjects of His pro- 
vidence, of those He is Maker through His proper Word. 
Nay a worse absurdity lies before the men who thus speak ; 
for they distinguish’ between the creatures and the framing; ! διαίρου- 
and consider the latter the work of the Father, the creatures ee 
the work of the Son; whereas either all things must be 12" ἤμ: 
brought to be by the Father with the Son, or if all that is 
generate comes to be through the Son, we must not call Him 
one of the generated things. 

4. Next, their folly may be exposed thus:—if even the Word 8. 26. 
be of generated nature, how, whereas this nature is too feeble 
to be God’s own handywork’, He alone of all could endure ? αὐτουρ- 
to be made by the ingenerate and unmitigated * Substance cae 
of God, as ye say? for it follows either that, if He could He 
endure it, all could endure it, or, it being endurable by none, 12-14. 
it was not endurable by the Word, for you say that He is one pacer: 
of generate things. And again, if because generate nature τῇ; most 


could not endure to be Goals own handywork, there arose ΤΕΣ ΗΣ 
need of a mediator", it must follow, that, the Word being 
generate and a creature, there is need of medium in His 
framing also, since He too is of that generate nature which 
endures not to be made of God, but needs a medium. But if 
some being as a medium be found for Him, then again a fresh 
mediator is needed for that second, and thus tracing back and 
following out, we shall invent a vast crowd of accumulating me- 
diators ; and thus it will be impossible that the creation should 
subsist, as ever wanting a mediator, and that medium not 
coming into being without another mediator; for all of them 


ἃ Vid. p. 13. vid. also a similar by the succeeding Fathers, that it is 
argument in Epiphanius, Her. 76. p. impossible and needless to enumerate 
951. but the arguments of Ath. in the instances of agreement. 
these Orations are so generally adopted 


Disc. 


1 and so 
de Decr. 
hy ὉΣ 


ξ, 97. 


2 p. 208. 
and 
Ambros. 
de Fid. 
111. 106. 


8 ἰδιότης 


#p: 39]; 
note p. 


318 Moses one of many servants, the Son not one of many. 


will be of that generate nature which endures not to be made 
of God alone, as ye say. How abundant is that folly, which 
obliges them to hold that what has already come into being, 
admits not of coming! Or perhaps they opine that they have 
not even come to be, as still seeking their mediator; for, on 
the ground of their so irreligious and futile notion’, what is 
would not have subsistence, for want of the medium. 

5. But again they allege this: —“ Behold, through Moses too 
did He lead the people from Egypt, and through him He gave 
the Law, yet he was a man; so that it is possible for lke to 
be brought into being by like.” They should veil their face 
when they say this, to save their much shame. For Moses 
was not sent to frame the world, nor to call into being things 
which were not, or to fashion men like himself, but only to 
be the minister of words to the people, and to King Pharaoh. 
And this is a very different thing, for to minister is of things 
generate as of servants, but to frame and to create is of God 
alone, and of His proper Word and His Wisdom. Wherefore, 
in the matter of framing, we shall find none but God’s 
Word; for all things are made in Wisdom, and without the 
Word was made not one thing. But as regards ministra- 
tions there are, not one only, but many out of their whole 
number, whomever the Lord will send. For there are many 
Archangels, many Thrones, and Authorities, and Dominions, 
thousands of thousands, and myriads of myriads, standing 
before Him*, ministering and ready to be sent. And 
many Prophets, and twelve Apostles, and Paul. And Moses 
himself was not alone, but Aaron with him, and next other 
seventy were filled with the Holy Ghost. And Moses was 
succeeded by Jesus the Son of Nave, and he by the Judges, 
and they by, not one, but by a number of Kings. If then the 
Son were a creature and one of things generate, there must 
have been many such sons, that God might have many such 
ministers, just as there is a multitude of those others. But 
if this is not to be seen, but the creatures are many, but the 
Word one, any one will collect from this, that the Son differs 
from all, and is not on a level with the creatures, but is 
proper® to the Father. Hence there are not many Words, 
but one only Word of the one Father, and one Image of the 
one God‘. 


Each thing is one in substance, the Son one also in perfection. 319 


6. “ But behold,” they say, “there is but one sun’ andone Cuae. 
earth.” Let them maintain, senseless as they are, that there ;;,;— 
is one water and one fire, and then they may be told that every Euseb. 
thing that.is brought to be, is one in its own substance’, eee 
but for the ministry and service committed to it, by itself it * supr. 
is not adequate nor sufficient alone. For God said, Let there re ἦς 
be lights in the firmament of heaven, to give light upon the earth, 14- 18. 
and to divide the day from the night; and let them be for 
signs and for seasons and for days and years. And then 
he says, And God made two great lights, the greater light 
to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He 
made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of 
the heaven, to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the 
day and over the night. Behold there are many lights, and ὃ. 28. 
not the sun only, nor the moon only, but each is one in 
substance, and yet the service of all is one in common; and 
what each lacks, is supplied by the other, and the office of 
lighting is performed by all*. Thus the sun has authority ὁ p 349. 
to shine throughout the day and no more; and the moon 
through the night; and the stars together with them accom- 
plish the seasons and years, and become for signs, each 
according to the need that calls for it. Thus too the earth 
is not for all things, but for the fruits only, and to be a 
ground to tread on for the living things that inhabit it. 

And the firmament is to divide between waters and waters, 

and to be a place to set the stars in. So also fire and water, 

with other things, have been brought into being to be the con- 
stituent parts of bodies; and in short no one thing is alone, 

but all things that are made, as if members of each other, make 

up as it were one body, namely, the world. If then they thus 
conceive of the Son, let all men throw stones * at them, con- ‘ P- 5%, 
sidering the Word to be a part of this universe, and a part in- Ape 
sufficient without the rest for the service committed to Him. μοῖ9 ἢ 
But if this be manifestly irreligious, let them acknowledge 

that the Word is not in the number of things generate, but 

the sole and proper Word of the Father and their Framer. , 

7. “But,” say they, “though He is a creature and of things ey ae 
generate; yet as from a master and artificer has He learned’ p. 47, ο. 
to frame, and thus ministered ° to God who taught Him.” For ΤΕΣ ἘΠῚ 
thus the Sophist Asterius, having learned to deny the Lord, at, 


note i. 


320 If He creates, not by Nature, but after teaching, how Wisdom ? 


Disc. has dared to write, not observing the absurdity * which follows. 
erences For if framing be a thing to be taught, let them beware lest 
p. 325, they say that God Himself be a Framer not by nature but by 
note e- science, so as to admit of His losing the power. Besides, if 

the Wisdom of God attained to frame by teaching, how is He 
still Wisdom, when He needs to learn? and what was He 
before He learned? For it was not Wisdom, if it needed 
teaching; it was surely but some empty thing, and not 
Ξοὐσιωδῆς Wisdom in substance’, but from advancement* it had the 
vid. Orat, Dame of Wisdom, and will be only so long Wisdom as it can 
or keep what it has learned. For what has accrued not by any 
p.16, nature, but from learning, admits of being one time unlearned. 
note. But to speak thus of the Word of God, is not the part of 
§. 29. Christians, but of Greeks. For if the power of framing 


accrues to any one from teaching, these insensate men are 


‘supr. ascribing jealousy and weakness * to God ;—jealousy, in that 
ΡΟ 517. He has not taught many how to frame, so that there may be 
around Him, as Archangels and Angels many, so framers 
many; and weakness, in that He could not make by Himself, 
δσυνερ. but needed a fellow-worker, or under-worker’®; and that, 
AD though it has been already shewn that generate nature 
vid. p.12. admits of being made by God alone, since they consider 
the Son to be of such a nature and so made. But God is 
deficient in nothing: perish the thought! for He has said 
Is.1, 11. Himself, I am full. Nor did the Word become Framer of 
ὁ πάλιν, all from teaching; but being the Image and Wisdom of the 
pale p- Father, He does the things of the Father. Nor hath He 
noted. made the Son for the making of things generate; for behold, 
aneeare though the Son exists, still® the Father is seen to work, as 
Jotn 5, the Lord Himself says, My Father worketh hitherto and I work. 
ik If however, as you say, the Son came into being for the pur- 
pose of making the things after Him, and yet the Father is 
seen to work even after the Son, you must hold even in this 
light the making of such a Son to be superfluous. Besides, 
why, when He would create us, does He seek for a mediator 
at all, as if His will did not suffice to constitute whatever 
Ps. 115, Seemed good to Him? Yet the Scriptures say, He hath done 
Ξ whatsoever pleased Him, and Who hath resisted His will? 
19. And if His mere will’ is sufficient for the framing of all 


ya things, you make the office of a mediator superfluous ; for your 


If He was created to create us, He for us, not we for Him. 321 


instance of Moses, and the sun and the moon has been shewn C#A4P.- 
not to hold. Bes 

8. And here again is an argument to silence you. You 
say that God, willing the creation of generate nature, and 
deliberating concerning it, designs and creates the Son, that ' p. 1, 
through Him He may frame us; now, if so, consider how 7°35; 
great an irreligion* you have dared to utter. First, the Son note b. 
appears rather to have been for us brought to be, than we for δ: 
Him ; for we were not created for Him, but He is made for 
us”; so that He owes thanks to us, not we to Him, as the 3 vid. 
woman to the man. For the man, says Scripture, was not rt '” 
created for the woman, but the woman for the man. There- aa ll, 
fore, as the man is the image and glory of God, and the ὃ 7. 
woman the glory of the man, so we are made God’s image 
and to His glory; but the Son is our image, and exists for 
our glory. And we were brought into being that we might 
be; but God’s Word was made, as me must hold, not that 3 cf. infr. 
He might be*, but as an instrument* for our need, so that ἜΝ 
not we from Him, but He is constituted from our need. Are τ 
not men who even conceive such thoughts, more than 
insensate? For if for us the Word was made, He has not 
precedence*® of us with God; for He did not take counsel 5 πρῶτος 
about us having Him within Him, but having us in Him- ve 70, 
self, ποτ as they say, concerning His own Word. note π. 
But if so, perchance the Father had not even a will for the 
Son at all; for not as having a will for Him, did He create 
Him, but with a will for us, He formed Him for our sake; 
for He designed Him after designing us; so that, accord- 
ing to these irreligious men, henceforth the Son, who was 
made as an instrument, is superfluous, now that they are 
made for whom He was created. 

9. But if the Son alone was made by God alone, because He 
could endure it, but we, because we could not, were made 
by the Word, why does He not first take counsel about the 
Word, who could endure His making, instead of taking counsel 
about us? or why does He not make more of Him who was 
strong, than of us who were weak ? or why making Him first, 
does He not counsel® about Him first? or why counselling “βουλεύε- 
about us first, does He not make us first, His will’ being suf- 7 pee 


ficient for the constitution of all things? But He creates Him panic 


Disc. 
1: 


322 If He created, why did God counsel about us, not about Him 2 


first, yet counsels first about us; and He wills us before the 
Mediator; and when He wills to create us, and counsels about 
us, He calls us creatures; but Him, whom He frames for us, 


He calls Son and proper Heir. 


But we, for whose sake He 


made Him, ought rather to be called sons; or certainly He, 
who is His Son, is rather the object of His previous thoughts 


and of His will, for whom He makes all us. 


Such the sick- 


ness, such the vomit © of the heretics. 


© ἔμετοι καὶ vautlat; ναυτίαι, sea- 
sickness; as to ἔμετοι (for which vid. 
supr. p. 98, §. 16. fin. p. 232, r. 3. &c.), 
the word, according to Cressol de 
Theatr. Rhet. ili. Li. has a technical 
meaning, when used of disputation or 
oratory, and denotes extempore delivery 
as contrasted with compositions on 
which pains have been bestowed. And 
this agrees with what Athan. frequently 
observes about the Arians, as saying 
what came uppermost to serve their 
purpose with no care of consistency. 
Thus S. Greg. Nyss. says of Eunomius, 
‘*All such things are poured forth, 


ἐπημέσθη, by this writer without reflec- 
tion (d:avotas),’’ in Eunom. ix. p. 250 
d. And in a parallel case Synesius, 
‘« He does not cherish the word within, 
who is forced to pour forth daily (euezv).”’ 
Dion. p. 56, ed. 1012. And Epictetus, 
in a somewhat similar sense, ‘‘ There is 
great danger of pouring forth straight- 
way, what one has not digested.” 
Enchirid. 46. vid. also Dissert. iii. 
21. A different allusion of course is 
contained in the word ἐξέραμα, e. g. 
p 281. which is taken from 2 Pet. 2, 
23 


made 


CHAPTER XVIII. 


INTRODUCTION TO PROVERBS Viil. 22. CONTINUED. 


Contrast between the Father’s operations immediately and naturally in the 
Son, instrumentally by the creatures ; Scripture terms illustrative of this. 
Explanation of these illustrations ; which should be interpreted by the 
doctrine of the Church; perverse sense put on them by the Arians, 
refuted. Mystery of Divine Generation. Contrast between God’s Word 
and man’s word drawn out at length. Asterius betrayed into holding 
two. Ingenerates ; his inconsistency. Baptism how by the Son as well as 
by the “Father. On the Baptism of heretics. Why Arian worse than 
other heresies. 


1. Bur the sentiment of Truth’ in this matter must not be ὃ. 31. 
hidden, but must have high utterance. For the Word of en 
God was not made for us, but rather we for Him, and in Him Col. 1, 
all things were created. Nor for that we were weak, was 
He strong and made by the Father alone, that He might 
frame us by means of Him as an instrument; perish the 
thought! it is not so. For though it had seemed good to 
God not to make things generate, still had the Word been no 
less with God,and the Father in Him. At the same time, things 
generate could not without the Word be brought to be; hence 
they were made through Him,—and reasonably. For since the 
Word is the Son of Ged by nature proper to His substance, 
and is from Him, and in Him’, as He said Himself, the ? vid. 
creatures could not have come to be, except through Him. νυ, OE, 
For as the light enlightens all things by its radiance, and not »- 
without its radiance nothing would be illuminated, so also the 
Father, as by a παπᾶ ὃ, in the Word wrought all things, and 


ἃ ὡς διὰ χειρός. vid. supr. p. 12. 
note z. And so in Orat. iv. 26, ἃ. de 
Incarn. contr. Arian. 12, a. κραταιὰ 
χεὶρ τοῦ πατρός. Method. de Creat. 


ον, 27. Clement. Recogn. viii. 43. 
Clement. Hom. xvi. 12. Cyril. Alex. 
frequently, e.g. in Joan. pp. 876, 
7. Thesaur. p.154. Pseudo-Basil. χεὶρ 


ap. Phot. cod. 235. p. 937. Tren. Her. 
iv. 20. n. 1. v. 1 fin. and 5 n. 2. and 6. 
n. 1. Clement. Protrept. p. 93. (ed. 
Potter.) Tertull. contr. Hermog. 40. 
Cypr. Testim. ii. 4. Euseb. in Psalm. 


δημιουργικὴ, contr. Eunom. v. p. 297. 
Job. ap. Phot. 222. p. 582. and August. 
in Joann. 48, 7. though he prefers 


another use of the word. 


Disc. 
Lili 
Gen. 1, 

3, 9, 26. 


Ps: 33; 9: 


1 ὑπουρ- 


, γός. 


p- 303, 
note 6. 


324 The Son, not answers, (as creatures,) but is, the Father’s wiil; 


without Him makes nothing. For instance, God said, as 
Moses relates, Let there be light, and Let the waters be 
gathered together, and let the dry land appear, and Let us make 
man; as also Holy David in the Psalm, He spake and τέ 
was done; He commanded and it stood fast. And He spoke’, 
not that, as in the case of men, some under-worker’ might 
hear, and learning the will of Him who spoke might go away 
and do it; for this is what is proper to creatures, but it is 
unseemly so to think or speak of the Word. For the Word 
of God is Framer and Maker, and He is the Father’s Will°. 
Hence it is that divine Scripture says not that one heard and 
answered, as to the manner or nature of the things which He 
wished made; but God only said, Let it become, and he adds, 
And it became; for what He thought good and counselled, 
that forthwith the Word began to do and to finish. 

2. For when God commands others, whether the Angels, or 
converses with Moses, or promises Abraham, then the hearer 
answers; and the one says, Whereby shall I know? and the - 
other, Send some one else; and again, If they ask me, what is 
His Name, what shall I say to them? and the Angel said to 


“™ Zacharias, Thus saith the Lord; and he asked the Lord, O Lord 


of hosts, how long wilt Thou not have mercy on Jerusalem ? 
and waits to hear good words and comfortable. For each of 
these has the Mediator * Word, and the Wisdom of God which 
makes known the will of the Father. But when that Word 
Himself works and creates, then there is no questioning and 
answer, for the Father is in Him and the Word in the Father ; 


b Vid. de Decr. 9. supr. p. 15. contr. 
Gent. 46. Iren. Her. iii. 8. n.3. Origen 
contr. Cels. ii. 9. Tertull. adv. Prax. 
12. fin. Patres Antioch. ap. Routh t. 2. 
p- 468. Prosper in Psalm. 148. (149.) 
Basil. de Sp. S. n. 20. Hilar. Trin. 
iv. 16. Vid. supr. p. 118, note n. p. 311. 
notei. ‘That the Father speaks and 
the Son hears, or contrariwise, that the 
Son speaks and the Father hears, are 
expressions for the sameness of nature 
and the agreement of Father and Son.” 
Didym. de Sp. 8.36. ‘‘The Father’s 
bidding is not other than His Word; so 
that ‘I have not spoken of Myself’ He 
perhaps meant to be equivalent to ‘I was 
not born from Myself.’ For if the Word 
of the Father speaks, He pronounces 


Himself, for He is the Father’s Word, 
&c.’” August. de Trin. i. 26. On this 
mystery vid. Petay. Trin. vi. 4. 

ς βουλή. And so βούλησις presently ; 
and ζῶσα βουλὴ, supr. 2. and Orat. iii. 
63. fin. and so Cyril. Thes. p. 54. who 
uses it expressly, (as it is always used 
by implication, ) in contrast to the κατὰ 
βούλησιν of the Arians, though Athan. 
uses κατὰ τὸ βούλημα, 6. g. Orat. iii. 31. 
where vid. note; αὐτὸς τοῦ πατρὸς 
θέλημα. Nyss. contr. Eunom. xii. p. 
345. The principle to be observed in 
the use of such words is this; that we 
must ever speak of the Father’s will, 
command, &c and the Son’s fulfil- 
ment, assent, &c. as one act. Vid, 
notes on Orat. iii. 1] and 18. infr. 


as is shewn by the titles given Him in Scripture. 325 


but it suffices to will, and the work is done; so that the word bos 
He said is a token of the will for our sake, and J¢ was so, 
denotes the work which is done through the Word and the 
Wisdom, in which Wisdom also is the Will of the Father. 
And God said is explained in the Word, for, he says, Thou = 104, 
hast made all things in Wisdom; and By the Word of the > a 33, 6. 
Lord were the heavens made; and There is one Lord Jesus 1 Cor. 8, 
Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him. a . 
3. It is plain from this that the Arians are not fighting with 8, 32. 
us about their heresy; but while they pretend us, their real 
fight is against the Godhead Itself. For if the voice were ours 
which says, This is My Son, small were our complaint of vid. Mat. 
them ; but if it is the Father’s voice, and the disciples heard ae 
it, and the Son too says of Himself, Before all the mountains Prov. 8 
He begat Me, are they not fighting against God, as the 7” Sept. 
giants‘ in story, having their tongue, as the Psalmist SAYS, ἃ Ps. 57, 5. 
sharp sword for irreligion? For they neither feared the voice 
of the Father, nor seated the Saviour’s words, nor trusted eee 
the Saints!, one of whom writes, Who being the Brightness of ¥titer 
His glory and the Expression of His subsistence, and Christ Web. 1, 
the power of God and the Wisdom of God; and another says iE: 
in the Psalm, With Thee is the well of life, and in Thy Light 24. 
shall we see light, and Thou hast made all things in Wisdom ; Pa oh? 
and the Prophets say, And the Word of the Lord came to 4. hee 
me; and John, In the beginning was the Word; and Luke, Tae 
As they delivered them unto us which from the beginning were ie Ι, 
eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word; and as David again = 
says, He sent His Word and healed them. All these passages τ 
proscribe in every light the Arian heresy, and signify the 
eternity of the Word, and that He is not foreign but proper 
to the Father’s Substance. For when saw any one light 
without radiance? or who dares to say that the expression 
can be different from the subsistence? or has not a man lost 
his mind® himself who even entertains the thought that God 
was ever without Reason and without Wisdom ? 


s. 107, 


ἃ robs μυθευομένους γίγαντας, vid. anism, as in this sentence. Vid. supr. 


supr. p. 58, note m. Also ὡς τοὺς 
γίγαντας, Orat. iii. 42. In Hist. Arian. 
74. he calls Constantius a γίγας. The 
same idea is implied in the word 
θεομάχος so frequently applied to Ari- 


p- 6, note ἢ. 

e Vid. p. 2, note e. also Gent. 40 fin. 
where what is here, as commonly, ap- 
plied to the Arians, is, before the rise 
of Arianism, applied to unbelievers. 


Disc. 
ΤΕ 


Ἰὰμυδρῶς 
p- 904, 

r. 2. 
Wisd. 13, 
5e 


326 Scripture illustrations, in spite of their imperfection, 


4. For such illustrations and such images has Scripture 
proposed, that, considering the inability of human nature to 
comprehend God, we might be able to form ideas even from 
these however poorly and dimly ’, as far as is attainable’. And 
as the creation contains abundant matter for the knowledge 
of the being of a God and a Providence, (jor by the greatness 
and beauty of the creatures proportionably the Maker of 
them is seen,) and we learn from them without asking for 
voices, but hearing the Scriptures we believe, and surveying 
the very order and the harmony of all things, we acknowledge 
that He is Maker and Lord and God of all, and apprehend 
His marvellous providence and governance over all things; 
so in like manner about the Son’s Godhead, what has been 
above said is sufficient, and it becomes superfluous, or rather 
it is very mad to dispute about it, or to ask in an heretical 
way, How can the Son be from eternity? or how can He be 
from the Father’s Substance, yet not a part? since what is 
said to be of another, is a part of him; and what is divided, 
is not whole. These are the evil sophistries of the heterodox ; 
yet, though we have already shewn their shallowness, the 
exact sense of these passages themselves and the force of 
these illustrations will serve to shew the baseless nature of 
their loathsome” tenet. 

5. For we see that reason® is ever, and is from him and 
proper to his substance, whose reason it is, and does not admit 
a before and an after. So again we see that the radiance 
from the sun is proper to it, and the sun’s substance is not 
divided or impaired; but its substance is whole and its 
radiance perfect and whole’, yet without impairing the 


f Vid. supr. p. 25, note c. p. 140, 
note n. p. 219, note b. p. 350, note m. 
Also supr. p. 20. Elsewhere after ad- 
ducing the illustration of the sun and 
its light, he adds, ““ From things fami- 
liar and ordinary we may use some 
poor illustration and represent intel- 
lectually what is in our mind, since it 
were presumptuous to intrude upon the 
incomprehensible Nature.” In illud 
Omnia 3. fin. Vid. also 6. And S, 
Austin, after an illustration from the 
nature of the human mind, proceeds, 
‘*Far other are these three and that 
Trinity. When a man hath discovered 
something in them and stated it, let 
him not at once suppose that he has 


discovered what is above them, &c.” 
Confess. xiii. 11. And again, Ne hunc 
imaginem ita comparet Trinitati, ut 
omni modo existimet similem. Trin. 
xv. 39. And S. Basil says, ‘Let no 
one urge against what I say, that the 
illustrations do not in all respects 
answer to the matters in question. 
For it is not possible to apply with 
exactness what is little and low to 
things divine and eternal, except so far 
as to refute, &e.’’ contr. Eunom. ii. 17. 

8 The Second Person in the Holy 
Trinity is not a quality, or attribute, or 
relation, but the One Eternal Sub- 
stance; not a part of the First Person, 
but whole or entire God; nor does the 


enforce in their plain sense the Catholic doctrine. 


substance of light, but as a true offspring from it. 
understand in like manner that the Son is begotten not from 


327 
We 


CHAP. 
XVIII. 


without but from the Father, and while the Father remains 
whole, the Expression of His Subsistence is ever, and pre- 
serves the Father’s likeness and unvarying Image, so that he 
who sees Him, sees in Him the Subsistence too, of which He 
is the Expression. And from the operation’ of the Expression ' évep- 


we understand the true Godhead of the Subsistence, as the 


γείας 


Saviour Himself teaches when He says, The Father who τ 14, 
dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works which I do; and I and the 19 Toha 10. 
Father are one, and I in the Father and the Father in Me. 30. 
Therefore let this Christ- “opposing heresy attempt first to 
divide* the examples found in things generate, and say, ae 


“Once the sun was without his radiance,” or, “Radiance is not 5 πε 


: Ῥ.- 


ἘΠῚ: 


proper to the substance of light,” or “It is indeed proper, but 
it is a part of light by division;” and then let it divide? 
Reason, and pronounce that it is foreign to mind, or that 
once it was not, or that it is not proper to its substance, or 
that it is by division a part of mind. And so of His Ex- 
pression and the Light and the Power, let it be violent with 
these as in the case of Reason and Radiance; and instead 


let it imagine what it will *. 


possible for them, are they not greatly beside themselves, j,. 


But if such extravagance be im- 3 Hist. 


reat. 
p. 266, 


presumptuously intruding into what is higher than things te 4. 
generate and their own nature, and essaying impossibilities*? * In illud 


mn. 6. 


6. For if in the case of these generate and irrational things init. 
offsprings are found which are not parts of the substances ὃ: 34. 
from which they are, nor subsist with passion, nor impair the 
substances of their originals, are they not mad again in seek- 
ing and conjecturing parts and passions in the instance of 
the immaterial and true God, and ascribing divisions to Him 
who is beyond passion and change, thereby to perplex the 
ears of the simple’ and to pervert them from the Truth ? for ὅ ἀκοὰς 


κεραι- 


. . . a 
who hears of a son but conceives of that which is proper ees 


generation impair the Father’s Sub- 
stance, 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, Hach 
being God as absolutely as if there were 
no other Divine Person but Himself. 


Such a statement indeed is not only a cae 
contradiction in the terms used, but in tr. p.299 
our ideas, yet not therefore a contradic- πα θὰ ΤῊ 
tion in fact ; unless indeed any one will πη σ᾿ 
say that human words ean express in δ: 
one formula, or human thought embrace 
in one idea, the unknown and infinite 
God. Basil. contr. Eun. i. 10. Vid. infr. 
p. 333, note u. 


Disc. 
II. 

1 p. 12, 
note y. 
p: 76, 
note i. 
p- 191, 
oe 


τ p. 276. 


3 Orat. 
ivi 

4 πέπαυ- 
ται, Orat. 
iv. 2. 


328 Son must be taken in its traditionary sense. 

to the father’s substance ὃ who heard, in his first catechising’, 
that God has a Son and has made all things by His proper 
Word, but understood it in that sense in which we now 
mean it? who on the rise of this odious heresy of the Arians, 
was not at once startled at what he heard, as strange, and 
a second sowing besides that Word which had been sown from 
the beginning? For what is sown in every soul from the 
beginning is that God has a Son, the Word, the Wisdom, the 
Power, that is, His Image and Radiance; from which it at 
once follows that He is always; that He is from the Father; that 
He is like; that He is the eternal offspring of His substance; 
and there is no idea involved in these of creature or work. But 
when the man who is an enemy, while men slept, made a 
second sowing’, of “ΗΘ is a creature,” and ‘‘ There was once 
when He was ποί,᾽ and “ How can it be?” thenceforth the 
wicked heresy of Christ’s enemies rose as tares, and forthwith, 
as bereft of every orthodox thought, as robbers, they go about* 
and venture to say, “‘ How can the Son always exist with the 
Father ? for men come of men and are sons, after a time; and 
the father is thirty years old, when the son begins to be, being 
begotten ; and in short of every son of man, it is true that he 
was not before his generation’. And again they whisper, 
“How can the Son be Word, or the Word be God’s Image ? 
for the word of men is composed of syllables*, and only 
signifies the speaker’s will, and then is over * and is lost.” 

7. They then afresh, as if forgetting the proofs which have 
been already urged against them, pierce themselves through with 
these bonds of irreligion, and thus argue. But the word of truth! 

h He here makes the test of the 
truth of explicit doctrinal statements to 
lie in their not shocking, or their an- 


swering to the religious sense of the 
Christian. 


tinction to obedience. Serm 69. 5 init. 

kK περιεργάζονται, Edd. Col. Ben. and 
Patav. This seems an error of the 
press for περιέρχονται. The Latin 
translates ‘‘circumire czperunt.’’ Vid. 


i Vid. supr. p. 5, note k. Tertullian 
uses the image in a similar but higher 
sense when he applies it to Eve’s 
temptation, and goes on to contrast it 
with Christ’s birth from a Virgin. In 
virginem adhuc Evam irrepserat verbum 
zedificatorium mortis; in Virginem 
zeque introducendum erat Dei Verbum 
exstructorium vite ... Ut in doloribus 
pareret, verbum diaboli semen illi fuit; 
contra Maria, &c. de Carn. Christ. 17. 
S. Leo, as Athan. makes ‘‘seed’’ in the 
parable apply peculiarly to faith in dis- 


supr. p. 22, note g. p. 178, note c. also 
περιέρχονται, infr. 63 init. ἐνεπομ- 
mevoate καὶ τεθρυλήκατε, 82. ἄνω 
καὶ κάτω περιϊόντες, Orat. iii. 54 init. 
ἄνω καὶ κάτω περιϊόντες θρυλοῦσι, 
Apol. contr. Ar. 11 init. περιτρέχουσι, 
de Fug. 2. περιφέρουσι, infr. 43, περι- 
tpoxa¢ew, Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 730. 
meptepyla, &c. is used Orat. iii, 1, a. 
43 init. 

1 ὃ τῆς ἀληθείας λόγος ἐλέγχει. This 
and the like are usual forms of speech 
with Athan. and others. Thus ὡς 6 τῆς 


Distinction between God’s Word and man’s word. 329 


confutes them as follows:—if they were disputing con- oe 


cerning any man, then let them exercise reason in this - 
human way, both concerning His Word and His Son; but if 
of God who created man, no longer let them entertain human 
thoughts, but others which are above human nature. For 
such as is the parent, such of necessity is the offspring; 
and such as is the Word’s Father, such must be also His 
Word. Now man, begotten in time, in time’ also Himself? p. 211. 
begets the child; and whereas from nothing he came to be, 
therefore his word ™ also is over” and continues not. But God ? παύ- 


εται, ἢ 


is not as man, as Scripture has said; but is existing * and is 888, τ. 4. 


ever ; therefore also His Word is existing* and is everlastingly | Pel 
with Hho Father, as radiance from light. And man’s word is Deer, 
Ρ. aa 


composed of syllables’, and neither lives nor operates any } 
thing, but is only significant of the speaker’s intention, and ᾿ πὶ 
does but go forth and go by, no more to appear, since it was not re 
at all before it was spoken ; wherefore the word of man neither : ee 
lives nor operates anything, nor in short is man. And this 
happens to it, as I said before, because man who begets it, 

has his nature out of nothing. But God’s Word is not merely 
pronounced °, as one may say, nor a sound of accents, nor by oe 
His Son is meant His command’; but as radiance from light, 7 Ρ' 324 


note b. 
so is He perfect offspring from perfect*. Hence He is God 8 vid. 


also, as being God’s Image; for the Word was God, says P- ἘΠῚ 
Scripture. And man’s words avail not for operation ; hence p. 331, 


t 
man works not by means of words but of hands, for they have Jehn't 


being, But the Word of God, |. 
i Heb. 4, 


12, 13. 


and man’s word subsists not. 


aA. ἀπήτει A. Ap. contr. Ar. 36. where 
it is contrasted to ὡς ἤθελον, (vid. Hist. 
Treat. tr. p. 266, note d.) also Serap. 
ii. 2. Epiphanius; ὁ τῆς GA. A. ἀντιπίπτει 
αὐτῷ, p. 830. Eusebius; 6 τῆς ad. A. Bod. 
Eccl. Theol. i. p. 62. d. ἀντιφθέγξεται 
αὐτῷ μέγα βοήσας, ὃ τῆς GA. A. ibid. 
iii. p. 104. b. And Council of Sardica; 
κατὰ τὸν τῆς GA. A. ap. Athan. Apol. 
contr. Ar. 46. where it seems equiva- 
lent to ‘‘ fairness’? or ‘impartiality.’ 
Asterius; of τῆς GA. ἀποφαίνονται 
λογισμοί. infr. 37. Orat. i. 32. de Syn. 


18. cir. fin. and so Athan. τοῖς ax. 
Aoyicpois. Sent. D. 19, c. And so 
also, ἡ GA. διήλεγξε, supr. 18, c. 7 


φύσις καὶ 7 GA. ‘ draw the meaning to 
themselves,’’ supr. 5. init. τοῦ λόγου 
δεικνύντος, 3. init. ἐδείκνυεν ὁ Χόγος, 


13 fin. τῆς GA. δειξάσης, infr. 65. init. 
60. d. ἐλέγχονται παρὰ τῆς ἀληθείας, 
63. ο. ἡ ἀλήθεια δείκνυσι, 70. init. τῆς 
GA. μαρτυρησάσης, . init. τὸ τῆς ar. 
φρόνημα μεγαληγορεῖν πρεπεῖ, 3}. init. 
de Decr. 17 fin. In some of these 
instances the words ἀλήθεια, Adyos, &c. 
are almost synonymous with the Regula 
Fidei; vid. παρὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν, infr. 36. 
a. and Origen. de Princ. Pref. 1 and 2. 

m For this contrast between the Di- 
vine Word and the human which is Its 
shadow. vid. also Orat. iv. }. cire. fin. 
Tren. Her. ii. 15, n. 8. Origen. in Joan. 
i. p. 25, 6. Euseb. Demonstr. v. 5. p. 230. 
Cyril, Cat. xi. 10. Basil, Hom. xvi. 3. 
Nyssen contr. Eunom. xii. p. 350. Orat. 
Cat. i. p. 478. Damase. F. O. i. 6. 
August. in Psalm 44, 5. 


Z 


Disc. 
LE. 


330 As profane as to ask how the Son is as how God is. 


as the Apostle says, is living and powerful and sharper than 
any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder 
of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is 
a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither 
is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight; but 
all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with 
whom we have to do. He is then Framer of all, and without 
Him was made not one thing, nor can any thing be made 
without Him. 

8. Nor must we ask why the Word of God is not such as our 
word, considering God is not such as we, as has been before 
said; nor again is it right to seek how the word is from God, 
or how He is God’s radiance, or how God begets, and what 
is the manner of His begetting™. For a man must be beside 
himself to venture on such points; since a thing ineffable and 
proper to God’s nature, and known to Him alone and to the 
Son, this he demands to be explained in words. It is all 
one as if they sought where God is, and how God is, and of 
what nature the Father is. But as to ask such questions is 
irreligious, and argues an ignorance of God, so it is not holy 
to venture such questions concerning the generation of the 
Son of God, nor to measure God and His Wisdom by our 
own nature and infirmity. Nor is a person at liberty on that 
account to swerve in his thoughts from the truth, nor, if any 
one is perplexed in such inquiries, ought he to disbelieve 
what is written. For it is better in perplexity to be silent 
and believe, than to disbelieve on account of the perplexity: 
for he who is perplexed may in some way obtain mercy °, 


n Busebius has some forcible remarks S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 29. 8. Vid. also 


on this subject in his Eccl. Theol., 
though he converts them to an heretical 
purpose. As, he says, we do not know 
how God can create out of nothing, so 
we are utterly ignorant of the Divine 
Generation. We do not understand 
innumerable things which lie close to 
us; how the soul is joined to the body, 
how it enters and leaves it, what its 
nature, what the nature of Angels. It 
is written, He who believes, not he who 
knows, has eternal life. Divine gene- 
ration is as distinct from human, as 
God from man. The sun’s radiance 
itself is but an earthly image, and gives 
us no true idea of that which is above 
So has 


allimages. Eccl. Theol. i. 12. 


Hippol. in Noet. 16. Cyril. Cat. xi. 11. 
and 19. and Origen, according to Mo- 
sheim, Ante Const. p. 619. And in- 
stances in Petav.-de Trin. v. 6. 8. 2. 
and 3. 

© «They who do not pertinaciously 
defend their opinion, false and perverse 
though it be,especially when it does 
not spring from the audacity of their 
own presumption, but has come to them 
from parents seduced and lapsed into 
error, while they seek the truth with 
cautious solicitude, and are prepared to 
correct themselves when they have found 
it, are by no means to be ranked among 
heretics.”” August. Ep. 43. init. vid. 
also de Bapt. contr. Don. iv. 23. 


Many words of men, One Word of God. 991 


CHAP. 


because, though he has questioned, he has yet kept quiet; but su 


when a man is led by his perplexity into forming for himself 
doctrines which beseem not, and utters what is unworthy of 
God, such daring incurs a sentence without mercy. For in 
such perplexities divine Scripture is able to afford him some 
relief, so as to take rightly what is written, and to dwell upon 
our word as an illustration; that as it is proper to us and is 
from us, and not a work’ external to us, so also God’s Word ᾿' ἔργον 
is proper to Him and from Him, and is not a work*; and yet? ποίημα 
is not like the word of man, or else we must suppose God to 
be man. 

9. For observe, many and various are men’s words which 
pass away day by day; because those that come before 
others continue not, but vanish. Now this happens because 
their authors* are men, and have seasons which pass away, and ἢ πατέρες 
ideas which are successive; and what strikes them first and 
second, that they utter; so that they have many words, and 
yet after them all nothing at all remaining; for the speaker 
ceases, and his word forthwith perishes. But God’s Word is 
one and the same, and, as it is written, The Word of God vide Ps. 
endureth for ever, not changed, not before or after other, oe 
but existing the same always. For it was fitting, whereas 
God is One, that His Image should be One also, and His 
Word One, and One His Wisdom”. Wherefore I am in ὃ: 37. 
wonder how, whereas God is One, these men introduce, after 
their private notions *, many images and wisdoms and words 4, 
and say that the Father’s proper and natural Word is other 
than the Son, by whom He even made the Son’, and that 


yi) 4 
emivolas 


P Vid. supr. 35. Orat. iv. 1. also pre- 
sently, ‘‘ He is likeness and image of 
the sole and true God, being Himself 
sole also,’’ 49. μόνος ἐν μόνῳ, Orat. iii. 
21. ὅλος ὅλου εἰκών. Sarap. i. 16, a. 
“The Offspring of the Ingenerate,’”’ 
says St. Hilary, ‘is One from One, 
True from True, Living from Living, 
Perfect from Perfect, Power of Power, 
Wisdom of Wisdom, Glory of Glory.” 
de Trin. ii. 8. τέλειος τέλειον γεγέννηκεν, 
πνεῦμα πνεῦμα. Epiph. Her. p. 495. 
“As Light from Light, and Life from 
Life, and Good from Good; so from 
Eternal Eternal. Nyss. contr. Eunom. 
i. p. 164. App. 

4 πολλοὶ λόγοι, vid. supr. p. 26, nofe 

Z 


g. infr. 39 init. and οὐδ᾽ ἐκ πολλῶν εἷς, 
Sent. D. 25. a. also Ep. Adg. 14. c. 
Origen in Joan. tom. ii. 3.  Euseb. 
Demonstr. v. 5. p. 229 fin. contr. Mare. 
p- 4 fin. contr. Sabell. init. August. in 
Joan. Tract i. 8. also vid. Philo’s use 
of λόγοι for Angels as commented on 
by Burton, Bampt. Lect. p. 556. The 
heathens called Mercury by the name 
of Adyos. Vid. Benedictine note f. in 
Justin. Ap. i. 21. 

t This was the point in which Arians 
and Sabellians agreed, vid. infr. Orat. 
iv. init. also p. 336, note b. and supr. 
p- 41], note e. p. 311, note k. also Sent. 
D. 25. Ep. Aig. 14 fin. Epiph. Heer. 
72. p. 835, b. 

2 


Disc. 
Il. 
1 κατ᾽ 
ἐπίνοιαν 


2 ἀγεννή- 
τως, vid. 
Euseb. 
Eccl. 
Theol. p. 
106. d. 


4p. 196, 
note ὁ. 


5 p. 328, 
note |, 


ως 


΄ 


332 Arius and Asterius thought God’s wisdom an attribute. 


He who is really Son is but notionally* called Word §, as vine, 
and way, and door, and tree of life; and that He is called 
Wisdom also only in name, the proper and true Wisdom of 
the Father, which co-exist ingenerately” with Him, being other 
than the Son, by which He even made the Son, and named 
Him Wisdom as partaking of it. 

10. This they have not confined to words, but Arius has said 

in his Thalia, and the Sophist Asterius has written, what we 
have stated above, as follows: ‘“‘ Blessed Paul said not that he 
preached Christ, the Power of God or the Wisdom of God, 
but without the addition of the article, God’s power and 
God’s wisdom, thus preaching that the proper Power of God 
Timself which is natural* to Him, and co-existent in Him 
ingenerately, is something besides, generative indeed of 
Christ, and creative of the whole world, concerning which 
he teaches in his Epistle to the Romans thus,— The invisible 
things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly 
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His 
eternal Power and Godhead. For as no one would say that 
the Godhead there mentioned was Christ, but the Father 
Himself, so, as I think, His eternal Power and Godhead also 
is not the Only Begotten Son, but the Father who begat 
Him*. And he teaches that there is another power and 
wisdom of God, manifested through Christ.” And shortly 
after the same Asterius says, “‘ However His eternal power 
and wisdom, which truth argues® to be unoriginate and 
ingenerate, the same must surely be one. For there are 
many wisdoms which are one by one created by Him, of 
whom Christ is the first-born and only-begotten; all how- 
ever equally depend on their Possessor. And all the powers 
are rightly called His who created and uses them:—as the 
Prophet says that the locust, which came to be a divine 
punishment of human sins, was called by God Himself not 
only a power, but a great power; and blessed David in most 
of the Psalms invites, not the Angels alone, but the Powers 
to praise God.” 

11. Now are they not worthy of all hatred for merely uttering 
this? for if, as they hold, He is Son, not because He is begotten 


5 that is, they allowed Him to be but ““ notionally Word.” Vid. p. 307, 
‘‘really Son,’’ and argued that He was d. 


333 


Son and Word not names taken from the creatures. 


of the Father and proper to His Substance, but that He is called 


Word only because of things rational’, and Wisdom because of 


things gifted with wisdom, and Power because of things gifted 
with power, surely He must be named a Son because of those 
who are made sons: and perhaps because there are things 
existing, He has the gift of existence‘, that is, in our notions 
only". And then after all what is He? for He is none of these 
Himself, if they are but His names*®: and He has but a 
semblance of being, and is decorated with these names from 
us. Rather this is some recklessness * of the devil*, or worse, 
if they are not unwilling that they should truly subsist 
themselves, but think that God’s Word is but in name. Is 
not this portentous, to say that Wisdom co-exists with the 
Father, yet not to say that this is the Christ, but that there 
are many created powers and wisdoms, of which one is the 
Lord whom they go on to compare to the caterpillar and 
locust ? and are they not profligate, who, when they hear us 


t Of course this line of thought con- 
sistently followed, leads to a kind of 
Pantheism; for what is the Supreme 
Being, according to it, but an ideal 
standard of perfection, the sum total of 
all that we see excellent in the world in 
the highest degree, a creation of our 
minds, without real objective existence ? 
The true view of our Lord’s titles, on the 
other hand, is that He is That properly 
and in perfection, of which in measure 
and degree the creatures partake from 
andin Him. Vid. supr. p. 29, uote k. 

ὰ “κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν, in idea or notion. 
This is a phrase of very frequent occur- 
rence, both in Athan. and other writers. 
We have found it already just above, 
and p. 96, note e. p. 193, r. 1. also Orat. 
iv. 2, 3. de Sent. D. 2. Ep. Aig. 12, 13, 
14. Itdenotes our idea or conception of 
a thing in contrast to the thing itself. 
Thus, the sun is to a savage a bright 
circle in the sky; a man is a ‘‘ rational 
animal,” according to a certain process 
of abstraction; a herb may be medicine 
upon one division, food in another; 
virtue may be called a mean ; and faith is 
to one man an argumentative conclusion, 
to another a moral peculiarity, good or 
bad. In like manner, the Almighty is in 
reality most simple and uncompounded, 
without parts, passions, attributes, or 
properties; yet we speak of Him as 
good or holy, or as angry or pleased, 
denoting some particular aspect in 


which our infirmity views, in which 
also it can view, what is infinite and 
incomprehensible. That is, He is κατ᾽ 
ἐπίνοιαν holy or merciful, being in reality 
a Unity which is all mercifulness and also 
all holiness, not in the way of qualities 
but as one indivisible perfection ; which 
is too great for us to conceive as It is. 
And for the very reason that we cannot 
conceive It simply, we are bound to use 
thankfully these conceptions, which are 
our best possible; since some concep- 
tions, however imperfect, are better than 
none. ‘hey stand for realities which 
they do not reach, and must be ac- 
cepted for what they do not adequately 
represent. But when the mind comes 
to recognise this existing inadequacy, 
and to distrust itself, it is tempted to 
rush into the opposite extreme, and to 
conclude that because it cannot under- 
stand fully, it does not realize any 
thing, or that its ἐπίνοιαι are but ὀνόματα. 
Hence some writers have at least 
seemed to say that the Divine Being 
was but called just, good, and true, 
(vid. Davison’s protest in Note at end 
of Discourses on Prophecy,) and in like 
manner the Arians said that our Lord 


Cuae. 
XVIII. 
1 λογικὸ, 
vid. Ep. 
Eg. 13 
fin. 


2 p. 307, 
note d. 


3 ἀπόνοια 
in con- 
trast to 
ἐπίνοια. 
=) Ott) 
note s. 


was but called the Son and the Word, - 


not properly, but from some kind of 
analogy, as being the archetype and 
representative of all those who are 
adopted into God’s family and gifted 
with wisdom. 


Disc. 
nm 


§. 39. 


1 vid. 40. 


init. 


Jer. 23, 
29. 
Prov. 1, 
23. 


Ps. 119, 
101. 


334 If attribute Wisdom really in God, Heis of a compound nature. 


say that the Word co-exists with the Father, forthwith murmur 
out, “Are you not speaking of two Ingenerates?” yet in 
speaking themselves of ‘‘His Ingenerate Wisdom,” do not see 
that they have already incurred themselves the charge which 
they so rashly urge against us*? Moreover, what folly is 
there in that thought of theirs, that the Ingenerate Wisdom 
co-existing with God is God Himself! for what co-exists does 
not co-exist with itself, but with some one else, as the 
Evangelists say of the Lord, that He was together with His 
disciples; for He was not together with Himself, but with 
His disciples ;—unless indeed they would say that God is of 
a compound nature, having wisdom a constituent or comple- 
ment of His Substance, ingenerate as well as Himself, 
which moreover they pretend to be the framer of the world, 
that so they may deprive the Son of the framing of it. For 
there is nothing they would not maintain, sooner than hold 
true doctrine concerning the Lord. 

12. For where at all have they found in divine Scripture, or 
from whom have they heard, that there is another Word and 
another Wisdom’ besides this Son, that they should frame to 
themselves such a doctrine? ‘True, indeed, it is written, 
Are not My words like fire, and like a hammer that breaketh 
the rock in pieces? and in the Proverbs, I will make known | 
My words unto you; but these are precepts and commands, 
which God has spoken to the sacred writers through His proper 
and only true Word, concerning which the Psalmist said, I 
have refrained my féet from every evil way, that I may keep 


x The Anomcean in Max. Dial. i. a. 
urges against the Catholic that, if the 
Son exists in the Father, God is com- 
pound. Athan. here retorts that As- 
terius speaks of Wisdom as a really 
existing thing in the Divine Mind. Vid. 
next note. 

Y On this subject vid. Orat. iv. ἢ. 2. 
Nothing is more remarkable than the 
confident tone in which Athan. accuses 
Arians as here, and Sabellians in Orat. 
iy. 2. of considering the Divine Nature 
as compound, as if the Catholics were in 
no respect open to such a charge. Nor 
are they; though in avoiding it, they 
are led to enuuciate the most profound 
and ineffable mystery. Vid. supr. p. 326, 
note g. The Father is the One Simple 
Entire Divine Being, and so is tke Son; 


They do in no sense share divinity be- 
tween Them; Each is ὅλος Θεός. This 
is not ditheism or tritheism, for They are 
the same God; nor is it Sabellianism, for 
They are eternally distinct and snb- 
stantive Persons; but it is a depth and 
height beyond our’ intellect, how what 
is Two in so full a sense can also in so 
full a sense be One, or how the Divine 
Nature does not come under number. 
vid. notes on Orat. iii. 27 and 36. 
Thus, ‘being uncompounded in na- 
ture,’’ says Athan. ‘He is Father of 
One Only Son.” supr. p. 19. In truth 
the distinction into Persons, as Pe- 
tavius remarks, ‘‘avails especially to- 
wards the unity and simplicity of God.” 
Vid. de Deo. ii. 4, 8. 


Scripture knows but one Word and Son. 335 


CHapP. 


Thy words. Such words accordingly the Saviour signifies to [Har 


be distinct from Himself, when He says in His own person, 

The words which I have spoken unto you. For certainly 

such words. are not offsprings or sons, nor are there so 

many words that frame the world, nor so many images of the 

One God, nor so many who have become men for us, nor as 

if from many such there were one who has become flesh, as 

John says;-but as being the only Word of God are those 

good tidings spoken of Him by John, The Word was made Jou 1, 

flesh, and all things were made by Him. be 3, 
13. Wherefore of Him alone, our Lord Jesus Christ, and 

of His oneness with the Father, are written and set forth 

the testimonies, both of the Father signifying that the 

Son is One, and of the sacred writers, aware of this and 

saying that the Word is One, and that He is Only-Begotten. 

And His works also are set forth; for all things, visible and 

invisible, have been brought to be through Him, and without Jobn 1, 

Him was made not one thing*. But concerning another ἡ 

or any one else they have not a thought, nor sees to them- 

selves words or wisdoms, of which neither name nor deed are 

signified by Scripture, but are named by these only. For it 

is their invention and Christ-opposing surmise’, and they 1 ὑπόνοια, 

wrest the true sense* of the name of the Word and the bee fs 


z Vid. (in addition to what is said 
supr. p. 208, note a.) Simon. Hist. Crit. 
Comment. pp. 7, 32,52. Lampe in loc. 
Joann. Fabric. in Apocryph. Ν. T. t. 1. 


Roman Missal. The verse is made to 
end after ‘in Him,” (thus, οὐδ᾽ ἐν ὃ 
γέγονεν ev αὐτῷ) by Epiph. Ancor. 75. 
Hil. in Psalm 148, 4. Ambros. de Fid. 


Ρ. 384. Petay. de Trin. ii. 6. 8. 6. Ed. 
Ben. in Ambros. de Fid. iii. 6. Wet- 
stein in loc. Wolf. Cur. Phil. in loc. 
The verse was not ended as we at 
present read it, especially in the Hast, 
till the time of S. Chrysostom, accord- 
ing to Simon, vid. in Joann. Hom. v. 
init. though as we have seen supra, S. 
Epipbanius had spoken strongly against 
the ancient reading. S. Ambrose loc. 
cit. refers it to the Arians, Lampe refers 
it to the Valentinians on the strength 
of Iren, Her. i. 8,n. 5. Theophilus in 
loc. (if the Comment on the Gospels is 
his) understands by οὐδὲν ‘‘an idol,” 
referring to 1 Cor. viii. 4. Augustine, 
evenat so late a date, adopts the old 
reading, vid. de Gen. ad lit. v. 29—31. 
It was the reading of the Vulgate, even 
at the time it was ruled by the Council 
of Trent to be authentic, and of the 


iii. 6. Nyssen in Eunom. i. p. 84. app. 
which favours the Arians. The coun- 
terpart of the ancient reading, which 
is very awkward, (‘“ What was made 
in Him was life,’’) is found in August. 
loc. cit. and Ambrose in Psalm 36, 35. 
but he also notices ‘‘ What was made, 
was in Him,” de Fid. loc. cit. It is 
remarkable that St. Ambrose attributes 
the present punctuation to the Alex- 
andrians in loc. Psalm. in spite of 
Athan.’s and Alexander’s, (Theod. Hist. 
i. 3. p. 733.) nay Cyril.’s (in loc. Joann.) 
adoption of the ancient. 

ἃ καταχρῶνται. vid. supr. p. 10, note 
s. and so καταχρηστικῶς, Cyril. Cat. xi. 
4. Epiph. Her. 69, p. 743. 71, p. 831. 
Euseb. contr. Mare. p. 40.  Concil. 
Labb. t. 2. p. 67. and abusive, ibid. 
p- 210. 


336 Inconsistency of Asterius. 


Disc. Wisdom, and framing to themselves others, they deny the 
—— true Word of God, and the real and only Wisdom of the 
Father, and thereby, miserable men, rival the Manichees. 

For they too, when they behold the works of God, deny 

Him the only and true God, and frame to themselves 
another, whom they can show neither by work nor in any 

§. 40. testimony drawn from the divine oracles. Therefore, if 
neither in the divine oracles is found another wisdom besides 
this Son, nor from the fathers’ have we heard of any such, 
yet they have confessed and written of the Wisdom co-exist- 
ing with the Father ingenerately, proper to Him, and the 
Framer of the world, this must be the Son who even according 
to them is eternally co-existent with the Father. For He is 
Ps. 104, Framer of all, as it is written, Jn Wisdom hast Thou made 


pal. 
note y. 


24. 
them all. 
14. Nay, Asterius himself, as if forgetting what he wrote 
vid. before, afterwards, in Caiaphas’s fashion, involuntarily, when 
John 11], : . - : 
15. urging the Greeks, instead of naming many wisdoms, or the 


caterpillar, confesses but one, in these words;—‘‘ God the Word 
is one, but many are the things rational; and one is the sub- 
stance and nature of Wisdom, but many are the things wise and 
beautiful.” And soon afterwards he says again:—‘“‘ Who are 
* παῖδας they whom they honour with the title of God’s children’? for 
they will not say that they two are words, nor maintain that 
there are many wisdoms. For it is not possible, whereas the 
Word is one, and Wisdom has been set forth as one, to dispense 
to the multitude of children the Substance of the Word, and 
to bestow on them the appellation of Wisdom.” It is not 
then at all wonderful, that the Arians should battle with the 
truth, when they have collisions with their own principles 
and conflict with each other, at one time saying that there are 
many wisdoms, at another maintaining one; at one time 
classing wisdom with the caterpillar, at another saying that it 
co-exists with the Father and is proper to Him; now that 
the Father alone is ingenerate, and then again that His 
Wisdom and His Power are ingenerate also. And they battle 
with us for saying that the Word of God is ever, yet forget 
their own doctrines, and say themselves that Wisdom co-exists 
2 σκοτο- With God ingenerately®. So dizzied* are they in all these 


δινιῶσι, 
Orat. iii. b Asterius held, 1. that there was an Son was created by and called after 
42. init. Attribute called Wisdom; 2. that the that Attribute; or 1. that Wisdom was 


Tf the Son not one with the Father, the Father not all- sufficient. 337 


matters, denying the true Wisdom, and inventing one which 
is not, as the Manichees who made to themselves another 
God, after denying Him that is. 

15. But let the other heresies and the Manichees also know 
that the Father of the Christ is One, and is Lord and Maker 
of the creation through His proper Word. And let the Ario- 
maniacs know in particular, that the Word of God is One, 
being the only Son proper and genuine from His Substance, 
and having with His Father the oneness of Godhead indi- 
visible, as we have said many times, being taught it by the 
Saviour Himself. Since, were it not so, wherefore through 
Him does the Father create, and in Him reveal Himself to 
whom He will, and illuminate them? or why too in the 
baptismal consecration is the Son named together with the 
Father? For if they say that the Father is not all-sufficient, 
then their answer is irreligious®; but if He be, for this alone 
is holy to say, what is the need of the Son for framing the 
worlds, or for the holy laver? And what fellowship is there 
between creature and Creator? or why is a thing made classed 
with the Maker in the consecration of all of us? or why, as 
you hold, is faith in one Creator and in one creature delivered 
to us? for if it was that we might be joined to the Godhead, 
what need of the creature? but if that we might be united to 
the Son a creature, superfluous, according to you, is this 
naming of the Son in Baptism, for God who made Him a 
Son, is able to make us sons also. Besides, if the Son be 
a creature, the nature of rational creatures being one, no 


ingenerate and eternal, 2. that there 
were created wisdoms, words, powers 
many, of which the Son was one. In 
the two propositions thus stated there is 
no incongruity ; yet Athan. seems right 
in his criticism, because Eusebius, and 
therefore probably Asterius, whom he 
is defending against Marcellus, (whose 
heresy was of a Sabellian character,) 
brings it again and again as a charge 
against the latter that he held an eternal 
and ingenerate λόγος, (vid. contr. Marc. 
pp. 5 init. 35, c. 106, d. 119, c. vid. 
infr. note on Orat. iv. 3.) which is 
identical with the former of the two 
propositions. That is, the zealous 
maintenance of their peculiar tenet 
about the Son, which is the second, 
involved them in an opposition to the 


Sabellian tenet, which is the first, 
which in reality they also held. 

¢ He says that it is contrary to all 
our notions of religion that Almighty 
God cannot create, enlighten, address, 
and unite Himself to His creatures 
immediately. This seems to be implied 
in saying that the Son was created for 
creation, illumination, &c.; whereas 
in the Catholic view the Son is but 
that Divine Person who in the Economy 
of grace is creator, enlightener, &c. 
God is represented all-perfect, but 
acting according to a certain divine 
order. This is explained just below. 
Here the remark is in point about the 
right and wrong sense of the words 
“commanding,” “ obeying,’ &c. supra, 
p- 324, note c, 


CH AP. 


XVIII. 


7A) 


. 41. 


Disc. 
I. 
1p. 303, 

note e. 

2 all. vid. 
supr. 

p- 32, 
note q. 

3 ἀκολου- 
Oia, p. 
293, r.. 2. 


4 vid. 
notes on 
Orat. iii. 


ὃ. 42. 
6 ἁγίοις, 
p- 325, 
is 110 


338 The Father works by the Son, not from need, but by nature. 


help will come to creatures from a creature’, since all? need 
grace from God. 

16. We said a few words just now on the fitness that all things 
should be made by Him; but since the course* of the discussion 
has led us also to mention holy Baptism, it is necessary to 
state, as I think and believe, that the Son is named with 
the Father, not as if the Father were not all-sufficient, 
not without meaning, and by accident; but, since He is 
God’s Word and proper Wisdom, and being His Radiance, 
is ever with the Father, therefore it is impossible, if the 
Father bestows grace, that He should not give it in the Son, 
for the Son is in the Father as the radiance in the light. 
For, not as if in need, but as a Father in His own Wisdom 
hath God founded the earth, and made all things in the 
Word which is from Him, and in the Son confirms the 
Holy Laver. For where the Father is, there is the Son, and 
where the light, there the radiance ; and as what the Father 
worketh, He worketh through the Son ἡ, and the Lord Himself 
says, “ What I see the Father do, that do I also;” so also 
when baptism is given, whom the Father baptizes, him the 
Son baptizes ; and whom the Son baptizes, he is consecrated 
in the Holy Ghost’. And again as when the sun shines, one 
might say that the radiance illuminates, for the light is one 
and indivisible, nor can be detached, so where the Father is 
or is named, there plainly is the Son also; and is the Father 
named in Baptism? then must the Son be named with Him’. 
Therefore, when He made His promise to the sacred writers °, 


᾽ 


a Vid. supr. p. 326, note g. and notes 
on iii. 3—6. ‘*When the Father is 
mentioned, His Word is with Him, 
and the Spirit who is in the Son. And 


in “Father” is implied ‘ Son,’’ i.e. 
argumentatively as a correlative. vid. 
p- 33, note r. The latter accordingly 
Eusebius does not scruple to admit in 


if the Son be named, in the Son is the 
Father, and the Spirit is not external 
to the Word.” ad Serap. i. 14. and 
supr. p. 98, note n. “1 have named 
the Father,’’ says S. Dionysius, ‘‘ and 
before I mention the Son, I have al- 
ready signified Him in the Father; I 
have mentioned the Son, and though I 
have not yet named the Father, He had 
been fully comprehended in the Son, 
ὅς.) Sent. D. 17. vid. Hil. Trin. vii. 
31. Passages like these are distinct 
from such as the one quoted from Athan. 
supr. p. 65, note m. where it is said that 


Sabell. i. ap. Sirm. t. i. p. 8, a. “ Pater 
statim, ut dictus fuit pater, reqguirit 
ista vox filium, &c.;’’ for here no 
περιχώρησις is implied, which is the 
doctrine of the text, and is not the 
doctrine of an Arian who considered 
the Son an instrument. Yet Petavius 
observes as to the very word περιχ. that 
one of its first senses in ecclesiastical 
writers was this which Arians would 
not disclaim; its use to express the 
Catholic doctrine here spoken of was 
later. vid. de Trin. iv. 16. 


Fe 


Arians hazard the validity or virtue of Baptism. 9609 


He thus spoke; Z and the Father will come, and make Our Cae 
abode in him; and again, that, as I and Thou are One, so they rey: 
may be one with Us. And the grace given is one, given from John 14, 
the Father in the Son, as Paul writes in every Epistle, Grace Sear 
unto you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus 21. 
Christ. For the light must be with the ray, and the radiance 7, 
must be contemplated together with its own light. 

17. Whence the Jews, as denying the Son as well as they, have 
not the Father either; for, as having left the Mountain of Be 3, 
Wisdom, as Baruch reproaches them’, they put from them the 1 jp, 90, 
Wisdom springing from it, our Lord J esus Christ, (for Christ, pa ΤΡβττς 
says the Apostle, is God’s power and God’s wisdom,) when 24. 
they said, We have no king but Cesar. The Jews then have itn 0, 19: 
the penal award of their denial; for their city as well as 
their reasoning came to nought. And these too hazard the 
fulness of the mystery, I mean Baptism; for if the conse- 
eration” is given to usinto the Name of Father and Son, and * τελείω- 
they do not confess a true Father, because they deny what 15 eee 
from Him and like His Substance, and deny also the true 
Son, and name another of their own framing as created 
out of nothing, is not the rite administered by them alto- ᾿" 
gether empty and unprofitable, making a show, but in 
reality being no help towards religion? For the Arians do 
not baptize into Father and Son, but into Creator and creature, 
and into Maker and work*. And as a creature is other than 8 pp. ὅθ, 
the Son, so the Baptism, which is supposed * to be given by Ἵ ἜΤΙ 
them, is other than the truth, though they pretend to name μενον, so- 
the Name of the Father and the Son, because of the words ae 
of Scripture. For not he who simply says, “Ὁ Lord,” gives ΠΕΣ Ὲ ay 
Baptism; but he who with the Name has also the right 57. twice 
faith®. On this account therefore our Saviour also did not 
simply command to baptize, but first says, Teach ; and then 
“‘Baptize into the name of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost;” 
that the right faith might follow upon learning, and together 


with faith Rice come the consecration * of Baptism. 


om. 1, 


© The primd facie sense of this p. 227. Voss. de Bapt. aie 19 and 
passage is certainly unfavourable to 20. Forbes Instruct. Theol. x. 2. 3, and 
the validity of heretical baptism; vid. 12. Hooker’s Hecl. Pol. v. 62. 5. 5—I1. 
the subject considered at length in On Arian Baptism in particular, vid. 
Note G. on Tertullian, O. T. vol. 1. Jablonski’s Diss. Opuse. t. iv. p. 113. 
p- 280. also Coust. Pont. Rom. Ep. 


Disc. 
II. 


§. 43. 
1 τὴν π. 
ὑγιαινού- 
σαν, 
Hist. 
Treat. 
p- 302, 
note t. 

2 ῥαντι- 
ζόμενον, 
Bingh. 
Antiqu. 
xi. 11. 


4 περι- 
φέρουσι, 
p- 928, 
note k. 

5 λεξεί- 
diov, p. 
296,r. 4. 
6 instead 
of pro- 
visions. 


340 Heritical baptism may be said to pollute. 


18. There are many other heresies too, which use the words 
only, but without orthodoxy, as I have said, nor the sound 
faith ', and in consequence the water which they administer 
is unprofitable, as deficient in a religious meaning, so 
that he who is sprinkled” by them is rather polluted’ by 
irreligion than redeemed. So Gentiles also, though the 
name of God is on their lips, incur the charge of Atheism £, 
because they know not the real and very God, the Father of 
our Lord Jesus Christ. So Manichees and Phrygians*, and 
the disciples of Samosatene, though using the Names, never- 
theless are heretics, and the Arians follow in the same course, 
though they read the words of Scripture, and use the Names, 
yet they too mock those who receive the rite from them, 
being more irreligious than the other heresies, and advancing 
beyond them, and making them seem innocent by their 
own recklessness of speech. For these other heresies lie 
against the truth in some certain respect, either erring con- 
cerning the Lord’s Body, as if He did not take flesh of Mary, 
or as if He altogether did not die, or become man, but only 
appeared, and was not truly, and seemed to have a body 
when He had not, and seemed to have the shape of man, as 
visions in a dream; but the Arians are without disguise 
irreligious against the Father Himself. For hearing from the 
Scriptures that His Godhead is represented in the Son as in 
an image, they blaspheme, saying, that it is a creature, and 
every where concerning that Image, they carry about* with 
them the base word’, “ He was not,” as mud in a wallet®, and 


f S. Cyprian speaks of those who liness.’’ Vid. Suicer Thes. in voc. It 


prophana aqua polluuntur, Ep. 76 fin. 
(ed. Ben.) and of the hereticorum 
sordida tinctio, Ep. 71 cir. init. S. 
Optatus speaks of the ‘‘ various and 
false baptisms, in which the stained 
cannot wash a man, the filthy cannot 
cleanse.”’ ad Parmen. i. 12. Iambus 
in the Council of Carthage speaks of 
persons baptized without the Church as 
“non dicam lotos, sed sordidatos.’’ ap. 
Cypr. p. 707. 

8 ἀθεότητος. vid. supr. p. 3, note f. 
p- 184, note k. ‘‘ Atheist,’’ or rather 
‘godless,’ was the title given by 
pagans to those who denied, and by 
the Fathers to those who professed, 
polytheism. Thus Julian says that 
Christians preferred ‘‘atheism to god- 


was a popular imputation upon Chris- 
tians, as it had been before on philo- 
sophers and poets, some of whom better 
deserved it. On the word as a term of 
reproach vid. Voet. Disput? 9. t. 1. 
pp- 115, &c. 196. It is used of heathens, 
contr. Gent. 46 init. Orat. iii. 67 fin. 
and by Eusebius, Eccl. Theol. p. 73, c. 
who also applies it to Sabellius, ibid. pp. 
63, c. 107, Ὁ. to Marcellus, p. 80, c. to 
phantasiasts, pp. 64, c. 65, d. 70. to 
Valentinus, p. 114,c. Athan. applies it 
to Asterius (apparently), Orat. iii. 64, b, 
including Valentinus and the heathen; 
Basil to Eunomius. Athan. however 
contrasts it apparently with polytheism, 
Orat. iii. 15 and 64, b. 


Their creed will not avail them at the judgment seat. 341 


spit it forth as serpents® their venom. Then, whereas their Soe 
doctrine is nauseous to all men, forthwith, as a support against ———— 
its fall, they prop up the heresy with human patronage vp that P, ΤΉΝ, 
the simple, at the sight or even by the fear may overlook the 
mischief of their perversity. 

19. Right indeed is it to pity their dupes; well is it to 
weep over them, for that they sacrifice their own interest for 
that immediate phantasy which pleasures furnish, and forfeit 
their future hope. In thinking to be baptized into the name 
of one who exists not, they will receive nothing; and ranking 
themselves with a creature, from the creation they will have 
no help, and believing in one unlike* and foreign to the 2 Orat. 
Father in substance, to the Father they will not be joined, ne 


not having His proper Son by nature, who is from Him, who 
is in the Father, and in whom the Father is, as He Himself 
has said; but being led astray by them, the wretched men 
henceforth remain destitute and stripped of the Godhead. 
For this phantasy of earthly goods will not follow them upon 
their death; nor when they see the Lord whom they have 
denied, sitting on His Father’s throne, and judging quick 
and dead, will they be able to call to their help any one of 
those who have now deceived them; for they shall see them 
also at the judgment-seat, repenting for their deeds of sin 


and irreligion. 


h ὡς ὕφις τὸν ἰόν. also Ep. Aég. 19. 
Hist. Ar. 66. and so Arians, are dogs 
(with allusion to 2 Pet. ii. 22.), de 
Decr. 4. Hist. Ar. 29. lions, Hist. Ar. 
11. wolves, Ap. c. Arian. 49. hares, de 
Fug. 10. chameleons, de Decr. init. 
hydras, Orat. iii. 58 fin. eels, Ep. Aug. 
7 fin. cuttlefish, Orat. iii. 59. gnats, de 
Decr. 14 init. Orat. iii. 59 init. beetles, 
Orat. iii. fin. leeches, Hist. Ar. 65 init. 
de Fug. 4. In many of these instances 
the allusion is to Scripture. On names 
given to heretics in general, vid. the 
Alphabetum bestialitatis hereticee ex 
Patrum Symbolis, in the Calvinismus 
bestiarum religio attributed to Ray- 
naudus and printed in the Apopompzus 
of his works. Vid. on the principle of 
such applications infr. Orat. iii. 18. 


i καλῶς ἀναγινώσκειν. . .- ὀρθὴν 
ἔχον τὴν διάνοιαν, i.e. the text admits 
of an interpretation consistent with the 
analogy of faith, and so μετ᾽ εὐσεβείας 
just below. Vid. supr. p. 283, note c 
infr. p. 343, note c. Such phrases are 
frequent in Athan. e.g. τὴν διάνοιαν 
εὐσεβῆ καὶ λίαν ὀρθὴν, de Decr. 13. 
καλῶς καὶ ὀρθῶς, Orat. iv. 31]. 6. 
γέγραπται μάλα ἀναγκαίως, de Decr. 
14 εἰκότως, Orat. ii. 44, 6. iii. 88, ἃ. τὴν 
διάνοιαν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν, Orat. i. 44 
init. τὸν σκοπὸν τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν, 
Orat. iii. 58, a. ἡ διάνοια ἔχει τὴν αἰτίαν 
εὔλογον, iii. 7 fin. Vid. also Orat. i. 37 
init. 46. ii. ], a, c. 9 init. 12, b. 53, d. 
1:1:.1.) Ο᾽ .18, Ὁ. 19. ὃς 85: δ: 97, Βὲ τ: 
90, 8. 


LP 


CHAPTER XIX. 


TEXTS EXPLAINED; SIXTHLY, PROVERBS Viil. 22. 


Proverbs are of a figurative nature, and must be interpreted as such. We. 
must interpret them, and in particular this passage, by the Regula Fidez. 


“He created Me” not equivalent to “I am a creature.” 


Wisdom a 


creature so far forth as Its human body. Again, if He is a creature, it 
is as “ a beginning of ways,” an office which, though not an attribute, is a 


consequence, of a higher and divine nature. 


And it is “ for the works,” 


which implied the works existed, and therefore much more He, before 
He was created. Also “the Lord” not the Father “created” Him, 
which implies the creation was that of a servant. 


1. We have gone through thus much before the passage in 
the Proverbs, resisting the insensate fables which their hearts 
have invented, that they may know that the Son of God ought 
not to be called a creature, and may learn rightly to read 


what admits in truth of a sound’ explanation. 


For it is 


written, Zhe Lord created Me a beginning of His ways, for His 
works ; since, however, these are proverbs and it is expressed 
in the way of proverbs, we must not expound them nakedly 
in their first sense, but we must inquire into the person, 


and thus religiously put the sense on it. 


For what is said 


in proverbs, is not said plainly but is put forth latently ”, as 
the Lord Himself has taught us in the Gospel according to 


a Athanasius follows the Sept. in 
translating the Hebrew πῦρ by ἔκτισε 
created, as it is also translated in Gen. 
14, 19. 22. Such too is the sense 
given in the Chaldee, Syriac, and 
Arabic versions, and by the great ma- 
jority of primitive writers. On the other 
hand, Aquila translates ἐκτήσατο, and 
so read Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 20 fin. 
Nyssen contr. Eunom. i. p. 34. Jerome 
in Is. 26, 13. and the Vulgate translates 
possedit. mp is translated ‘ gotten,’ 
Gen. 4, 1. after the Sept. and Vulg. 
in the sense of generation, vid. also 
Deut. 32, 6; The Hebrew sense is 


appealed to by Eusebius, Eccles. Theol. 
iii. 2,3. 5. Epiphanius, Her. 69, 25. 
and 5. Jerome in Isai. 26, 13. Vid. 
Petav. Trin. ii. 1. Huet. Origenian. ii. 
2. 23. C. B. Michael. in loc. Prov. 

b This passage of Athan. has been 
used by S. Cyril. Thesaur. p. 155, d. 
vid. also Epiph. Her. 69, 21. Basil. 
contr. Eunom. ii. 20. Didym. de Trin. 
iii. 3. p. 334, (ed. 1769.) Nyss. contr. 
Eunom. p. 83. App. vid. infr. 73 and 
77. but it would be an endless labour 
to refer to such parallel passages in 
later Fathers. 


Proverbs are not to be taken literally. 3438 
John, saying, These things have I spoken unto you in CHAP. 
» saying 9 Ly y xix. 
proverbs, but the time cometh when I shall no more speak τος γα. 


unto you in proverbs, but openly. Therefore it is necessary 25. 
to unfold the sense* of what is said, and to seek it as 
something hidden, and not nakedly to expound as if the 
meaning were spoken plainly, lest by a false interpretation 
we wander from the truth. 

2. If then what is written be about Angel, or any other of 
things generate, as concerning one of us who are works, let 
it be said, created Me. But if it be the Wisdom of God, Prov. ὃ, 
in whom all things generate have been framed, that speaks ὁ 
concerning race what ought we to understand but that He 
created, means nothing contrary to ‘‘ He begat?” Nor, as 
forgetting that He was Creator and Framer, or ignorant of 
the difference between the Creator and the creatures, does It 
number Itself among the creatures; but It signifies a certain 
sense, as in proverbs, not plainly, but latent; which It 
inspired the sacred writers to use in prophecy, while soon 
after It doth Itself give the meaning of He created in other δ᾽ rae 
but parallel expressions, saying, Wisdom hath made Herself Prov. 9 
a house. Now it is plain that our body is Wisdom’s house , : 
which It took on Itself to become man; hence consistently 
does John say, The Word was made flesh; and by Solomon John 1, 
Wisdom says of Itself with cautious exactness’, not “11 ρ. 998, 
am a creature,” but only Zhe Lord hath created Me a note a 
beginning of His ways for His works*, yet not “created Me 22. 
that I might have being,” nor “because I have a creature’s 
beginning and generation.” 

3. For in this passage, not as signifying the Substance of His 


¢ Here, as in so many other places, caro fieret. Leon. Ep. 31,2. Didym. 


he is explaining what is obscure or 
latent in Scripture by means of the 
Regula Fidei. “Since the canon of 
Scripture is perfect,’’ says Vincentius, 
“and more than sufficient for itself in 
all respects, what need of joining to it 
the ecclesiastical sense? because from 
the very depth of Holy Scripture all 
men will not take it in one and the 
same sense, &c. Commonit. 2. Vid. 
especially the first sentence of the fol- 
lowing paragraph, τί δεῖ νοεῖν k.T.A. 
vid. supr. p. 341, note i. 

ἃ ut intra intemerata viscera edifi- 
cante sibi Sapientia domum, Verbum 


de Trin. iii. 3. p. 337. (ed. 1769.) August. 
Civ. D. xvii. 20. Cyril. in Joann. p. 384, 
5. Max. Dial. iii. p. 1029. (ap. Theodor. 
ed. Schutz.) vid. supr. p. 196, note d. 
Hence 8S. Clement. Alex. ὁ λόγος ἑαυτὸν 
γεννᾷ. Strom. v. 3. 

e The passage is in like manner in- 
terpreted of our Lord’s human nature 
by Epiph. Her. 69, 20—25. Basil. 
Ep. viii. 8. Naz. Orat. 30, 2. Nyss. 
contr. Eunom. i. p. 34. et al. Cyril. 
Thesaur. p. 154. Hilar. de Trin. xii. 
36—49. Ambros. de Fid. 1. 15. August. 
de Fid. et Symb. 6. 


Disc. 
ie 


1 γνησίαν 


944 


“16 created Me’’ not the same as “" I was created.” 


Godhead, nor His own everlasting and genuine‘ generation 
from the Father, has the Word spoken by Solomon, but on 


the other hand His manhood and economy towards us. 


And, 


as I said before, He has not said “I am a creature,” or 


“T became a creature,’ but only He created'. 


For the 


creatures, having a created substance, are generate, and are 
said to be created, and in short the creature is created: but 
this mere term He created does not necessarily signify the 
substance or the generation, but indicates something else as 


f He seems here to say that it is 
both true that ‘‘The Lord created,” 
and yet that the Son was not created. 
Creatures alone are created, and He 
was not a creature. Rather something 
belonging or relating to Him, some- 
thing short of His substance or nature, 
was created. However, it is a question 
in controversy whether even His Man- 
hood can be called a creature, though 
many of the Fathers, (including Athan. 
in several places.) seem so to call it. 
The difficulty may be viewed thus ; that 
our Lord, even in His human nature is 
the natural, not the adopted, Son of 
God, (to deny which is the error of the 
Adoptionists,) whereas no creature can 
be His natural and true Son; and again 
that His human nature is worshipped, 
which would be idolatry if it were a 
creature. The question is discussed in 
Petav. de Incarn. vii. 6. who determines 
that the human nature, though in itself 
a created substance, yet viewed as 
deified in the Word, does not in fact 
exist as a creature. Vasquez, how- 
ever, considers that our Lord may be 
called creature, viewed as man, in 3 
Thom. Disp. 66. and Raynaud Opp. t. 
2. p. 84. expressing his opinion strongly. 
And Berti de Theol. Dise. xxvii. 5. who 
adds, however, with Suarez after S. 
Thomas (in 3 Thom. Disput. 34. Opp. 
t. 16. p. 489.) that it is better to abstain 
from the use of the term. Of the 
Fathers, S. Jerome notices the doubt, 
and decides it in favour of the term; 
‘Since,’ he says, ‘‘ Wisdom in the 
Proverbs of Solomon speaks of Herself 
as created a beginning of the ways of 
God, and many through fear lest they 
should be obliged to call Christ a 
creature, deny the whole mystery of 
Christ, and say that not Christ, but 
the world’s wisdom is meant by this 
Wisdom, we freely declare, that there 
is no hazard in calling Him creature, 
whom we confess with all the confidence 


of our hope to be “‘ worm,” and “ man,” 

and ‘crucified,’ and “curse.” In_ 
Eph. ii. 10. He is supported by Athan. 

infr. 46. Ep. Aig. 17. Expos. F. 3. 

ad Serap. ii. 8. fin. Naz. Orat. 30, 2. 

fin. 38, 13. Nyss. in Cant. Hom. 13. 

t. i. p. 663. init. Cyr. Hom. Pasch. 

17, p. 233. Max. Mart. t. 2. p. 263. 

Damase. F. O. iii. 3. Hil. de Trin. 

xii. 48. Ambros. Psalm. 118. Serm. 

5.25. August. Ep. 187, n. 8. Leon. 

Serm. 77,2. Greg. Mor. v. 63. The 
principal authority on the other side is 

S. Epiphanius, who ends his argument 
with the words, ‘‘ The Holy Church of 
God worships not a creature, but the 
Son who is begotten, Father in Son, 
Χο." Her. 69, 36. And S. Proclus 
too speaks of the child of the Virgin 
as being ‘‘ Him who is worshipped, not 
the creature,’’ Orat. v. fin. On the 
whole it would appear, (1.) that if 
“‘ creature,’ like ‘‘ Son,’’ be a personal 
term, He is not a creature; but if it be 

a word of nature, He is a creature; 

(2.) that our Lord isa creature in respect 
to the flesh (vid. infr. 47.); (3.) that 
since the flesh is infinitely beneath 

His divinity, it is neither natural nor 
safe to call Him a creature, (according 

to St. Thomas’s example, ‘non di- 

cimus, quod A&thiops est albus, sed quod 

est albus secundum dentes”’) and (4.) 

that, if the flesh is worshipped, still it is 

worshipped as in the Person of the Son, © 
not by a separate act of worship. ‘‘A 

creature worship not we,’’ says Athan. 

“perish the thought . . . but the Lord 

of creation made flesh, the Word of 
God; for though the flesh in itself be a 

part of creation, yet it has become 

God’s body . . . who so senseless as 

to say to the Lord, Remove out of the 

body, that I may worship Thee?” ad 

Adelph. 8. Epiph. has imitated this 

passage, Ancor. 5]. introducing the 

illustration of a king and his robe, 

&e. 


, 


Only the creatures can be said to be created. 345 
coming to pass in Him* of whom it speaks, and not simply oe 
that He who is said to be created, is at once in His Nature ia 


and Substance a creature. And this difference divine ἐκεῖνον 
Scripture recognises, saying concerning the creatures, Zhe Ps. 104, 
earth is full of Thy creation, and the creation itself groaneth aie es 
together and travaileth together; and in the Apocalypse he 33: 
says, And the third part of the creatures in the sea died Rev. 8, 
which had life; as also Paul says, Every creature of God is ae 4; 
good, and nothing is to be refused if it be received with 4: 
thanksgiving; and in the book of Wisdom it is written, 
Having ordained man through Thy wisdom, that he should Wisd. 9, 
have dominion over the creatures which Thou hast made.* 
And these, being creatures, are also said to be created, as we 
may-further hear from our Lord, who says, He who created Mat. 19, 
them, made them male and female; and from Moses in his ae, ae 
Song, who writes, Ask now of the days that are past, which ae ne 
were before thee since the day that God created man upon 

the earth, and from the one side of heaven unto the other. 


ὃ τὸ λεγόμενον κτίζεσθαι τῇ φύσει καὶ 
τῇ οὐσίᾳ κτίσμα. also infr. 60, Ὁ. With- 
out meaning that the respective terms 
are synonymous, is it not plain that in 
a later phraseology this would have 
been, ‘‘not simply that He is in His 
Person a creature,”’ or “that His Person 
is created ?’’ vid. Note, p. 147—176. 
Athan.’s use of the phrase οὐσία τοῦ 
Aoyéu has already been noticed, supr. 
p- 244, note k. and passages from this 
Oration are given in another connexion 
in the translation of his Hist. Tracts 
p- 300. note m. The term is synony- 
mous with the Divine Nature as ex- 
isting in the Person of the Word. In 
the passage in the text the οὐσία of the 
Word is contrasted to the οὐσία of 
creatures; and it is observable that it 
is implied that our Lord has not taken 
on Him a created οὐσία. ‘He said 
not,’ Athan. remarks, ‘‘{ became a 
creature, for the creatures have a 
created substance;’’ he adds that ‘‘ He 
created ”’ signifies, not substance, but 
something taking place in Him περὶ 
ἐκεῖνον, i.e. some adjunct or accident, 
(e.g. pp. 38, 9. notes y and z.) or as he 
says supr. p. 291. envelopement or dress. 
In like manner he presently p. 346. 
speaks of the creation of the Word like 
the new creation of the soul, which is 
not in substance but in qualities, &c. 
And infr. p. 353. he contrasts the οὐσία 
and the ἀνθρώπινον of the Word; as in 


Orat. i. 41. οὐσία and 4 ἀνθρωπότης; 
and φύσις and σὰρξ, iii. 34. init. and 
λόγος and σὰρξ, 38. init. And He 
speaks of the Son ‘‘ taking on Him the 
economy,” infr. 76, d. and of the 
ὑπόστασις τοῦ λόγου being one with 6 
ἄνθρωπος, iv. 25, c. Itis observed p. 291, 
note k. how this line of teaching might 
be wrested to the purposes of the Apolli- 
narian and Eutychian heresies; and, 
considering Athan.’s most emphatic 
protests against their errors in his later 
works, as well as his strong statements 
in Orat. ili. there is no hazard in this 
admission. We thus understand how 
Hutyches came to deny the ‘two 
natures.” He said that such a doc- 
trine was a new one; this is not true, 
for, not to mention other Fathers, 
Athan. infr. Orat. iv. fin. speaks of our 
Lord’s ‘invisible nature and visible,’”’ 
(vid. also contr, Apoll. ii. 11, a. infr. 70. 
iii. 43, c.) and his ordinary use of ἄν- 
θρωπος for the manhood might quite as 
plausibly be perverted on the other 
hand into a defence of Nestorianism ; 
but still the above peculiarities in his 
style may be taken to account for the 
heresy, though they do not excuse the 
heretic. Vid. also the Ed. Ben. on 8, 
Hilary, pref. p. xliii. who uses natura 
absolutely for our Lord’s Divinity, as 
contrasted to the dispensatio, and divides 
His titles into naturalia and assumpta. 


2A 


Jer. 31, 
22. 


3 / 
γενομέ- 


346 The word “created” is used in Scripture for renovation. 


And Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians, Who is the Image 
of the Invisible Good, the First born of every creature, for in 
Him were all things created that are in heaven, and that 
are on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, 
or dominions, or principalities, or powers ; all things were created 
through Him, and for Him, and He is before all. 

4. That to be called creatures, then, and to be created 
belongs to things which have by nature a created substance, 
these passages are sufficient to remind us, though Scripture 
is full of the like; on the other hand that the single word 
He created does not simply denote the substance and mode of 
generation’, David shews in the Psalm, This shall be written 


_ for another generation, and the people that is created shall praise 


the Lord; and again, Create in me a clean heart, O God; and 
Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians says, having abolished 
the law of commandments contained in ordinances, for to 
create in Himself of two one new man; and again, Put 
ye on the new man, which after God is created in righteous- 
ness and true holiness*. For neither David spoke of any 
people created in substance, nor prayed to have another 
heart than that he had, but meant renovation according to 
God and renewal; nor did Paul signify any two created 
in substance in the Lord, nor again did he counsel us to put 
on any other man; but he called the life according to virtue 
the man after God, and by the created in Christ he meant 
the two people who are renewed in Him. Such too is the 
language of the book of Jeremiah; Zhe Lord hath created 
a new salvation for a plantation, in which salvation men 
shall walk to and fro*; and in thus speaking, he does not 
mean any substance of a creature, but prophesies of the 
renewal of salvation among men, which has taken place * in 
Christ for us. 2 

5. Such then being the difference between “ the creatures” 
and the single word He created, if you find any where in 
divine Scripture the Lord called “creature,” produce it and 
make the most of it; but if it is no where written that He is 

h vid. also Expos. F. 3. where he woman shall compass a man,” is with 
notices that this is the version of the the Hebrew, as is the Vulgate. Athan. 
Septuagint, Aquila’s being ‘‘The Lord has preserved Aquila’s version in three 


hath created a new thing in the woman.” other places, in Psalm xxx. 12. lix. 5. 
Our own “a new thing in the earth,a Ixy. 18. 


Our Lord was created only so far as He was man. 847 


a creature, only He Himself says about Himself in the C#a?. 
Proverbs, The Lord hath created Me, shame upon you both on — 
the ground of the distinction aforesaid and for that the diction 
is like that of proverbs; and accordingly let He created be 
understood, not of His being a creature, but of that human 
nature which became ' His, for to this belongs creation. In- ! v«éue- 
deed is it not evidently unfair in you, when David and Paul 346 τ 
say He created, then indeed not to understand it of the sub- 5: 
stance and the generation, but the renewal; yet, when the 
Lord says He created, to number His substance with the 
creatures ? and again when Scripture says, Wisdom hath built poe 9, 
her an house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars, to understand ! 
house allegorically, but to take He created as it stands, and to 
fasten on it the idea of creature? and neither His being 
Framer of all has had any weight with you, nor have you 
feared His being the sole and proper Offspring of the Father, 
but recklessly, as if you had enlisted against Him, do ye 
fight, and think less of Him than of men. 

6. For the very passage proves that it is only an invention §. 47. 
of your own to call the Lord creature. For the Lord, know- 
ing His own Substance to be the Only-begotten Wisdom and 
Offspring of the Father, and other than things generate and 
natural creatures, says in love to man, The Lord hath created 
Me a beginning of His ways, as if to say, “ My Father hath 
prepared for Me a body, and has created Me for men in 
behalf of their salvation.” For, as when John says, The Word Joun 1, 
was made flesh, we do not conceive the whole Word Himself !4 
to be flesh’, but to have put on flesh and become man, and ? p. 295, 
on hearing, Christ hath become a curse for us, and He hath Cate: 
made Him sin for us who knew no sin, we do not simply ae 
conceive this, that whole Christ has become curse and sin, 5, 21. 
but that He has taken on Him the curse which lay against 
us, (as the Apostle has said, Has redeemed us from the curse, Gal. 3, 
and has carried, as Esaias has said, owr sins, and as Peter = 53, 4. 
has written, has borne them in the body on the wood ;) so, if it 1 Pet. 
is said in the Proverbs He created, we must not conceive ” ** 
that the whole Word is in nature a creature, but that He put 
on the created body: and that God created Him for our 


i Here he says that, though our as to the flesh, it is not right to call 
Lord’s flesh is created or He is created Him a creature. This is very much 


Pie ee 


2 πομπεύ- 
ere, infr. 


82. 


§. 48. 


3 ἀρχὴ 
τέκνων, 
Gen. 49, 
3. Sept. 


* ἀρχή 


348 He was a creature, as He was a “ beginning of ways.” 


sakes, preparing for Him the created body, as it is written, 


- for us, that in Him we might be capable of being renewed 
-and made gods’. 


7. What then has deceived you,-O senseless, to call the 
Creator a creature? or whence did you purchase for you this 
new thought, to make a boast of*? For the Proverbs say He 
created, but they call not the Son creature, but Offspring; and, 
according to the distinction in Scripture aforesaid of He ereated 
and “creature,” they acknowledge, what is by nature proper 
to the Son, that He is the Only-begotten Wisdom and 
Framer of the creatures, and when they say He ereated, 
they say it not in respect of His Substance, but signify that 
He was becoming a beginning of many ways; so that He 
created is in contrast to Offspring, and His being called the 
Beginning of ways* to His being the Only-begotten Word. 
For if He is Offspring, how call ye Him creature? for no one 
says that He begets what He creates, nor calls His proper 
offspring creatures; and again, if He is Only-begotten, how 
becomes He beginning of the ways ? for of necessity, if He was 
created a beginning of all things, He is no longer alone, as 
having those who were made after Him. 

8. For Reuben, when he became a beginning® of the ehildren, 
was notonly-begotten, but in time indeed first, but in nature and 
relationship one among those who came after him. Therefore 
if the Word also is a beginning of the ways, He must be such 
as the ways are, and the ways must be such as the Word, though 
in point of time He be created first of them. For the beginning* 


what S. Thomas says, as referred to in 
p- 344, note ἢ. in the words of the 
Schools, that Zthiops, albus secundum 
dentes, not est albus. But why may 
not our Lord be so called upon the 
principle of the communicatio Idio- 
matum, (infra note on iii. 31.) as He is 
said to be, born of a Virgin, to have 
suffered, &c.? The reason is this: — 
birth, passion, &c. confessedly belong 
to His human nature, without adding 
“according to the flesh;’’ but ‘‘ creature” 
not implying humanity, might appear a 
simple attribute of His Person, if used 
without limitation. Thus, as ὃ. Thomas 
adds, though we may not absolutely 
say /Ethiops iste albus, we may say 
‘‘crispus est,’’ or in like manner, “ he is 


bald.’’ Since crispus, or bald, can but 
refer to the hair. Still more does this 
remark apply in the case of ‘‘ Sonship,”’ 
which is a personal attribute altogether; 
as is proved, says Petay. de Incarn. vii. 
0 fin. by the instance of Adam, who was 
in all respects a man like Seth, yet not 
a son. Accordingly, we may not call 
our Lord, even according to the man- 
hood, an adopted Son. 

Kk ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν, and so in Justin’s 
Tryph. 61. The Bened. Ed. in loc. 
refers to a similar application of the 
word to our Lord in Tatian contr. Gent. 
5. Athenag. Ap. 10. Iren. Her. iv. 20. 
n. 3. Origen. in Joan. tom. 1. 39. 
Tertull. adv. Prax. 6. and Ambros. de 
Fid. iii. 7. 


Vet even a “beginning of ways” must be more than a creature. 349 


or initiative of a city is such as the other parts of the city pe 
are, and the members too being joined to it, make the city — : 
whole and one, as the many members of one body; nor 
does one part of it make, and another come to be, and is 
subject to the former, but all the city equally has its govern- 
ment and constitution from its maker. If then the Lord 
is in such sense created as a beginning of all things, it would 
follow that He and all other things together make up the 
unity of the creation, and He neither differs from all others, 
though He become the beginning of all, nor is He Lord of 
them, though older in point of time; but He has the same 
manner of framing and the same Lord as the rest. 

9. Nay, if He be a creature, as you hold, how can He be 
created sole and first at all, so as to be beginning of all? when 
it is plain from what has been said, that among the creatures 
not any is of a constant’ nature and of prior Reputation but | ἔμμονον, 
each has its generation with all the rest, however it may excel res 
others in glory. For as to the separate stars or the great 
lights, not this appeared first, and that second, but in one 
day and by the same command, they were all called into 
being*®. And such was the generation of the quadrupeds, and : pp. 263, 
of birds, and fishes, and cattle, and plants; such too was that ~~ 
of the human race after God’s Image; for though Adam only 
was formed out of the earth, yet in him were the means of 
the succession of the whole race. And from the visible §. 49. 
creation, we clearly discern that His invisible things also, 
being understood by the things that are made, are not Rom. 1, 
independent of each other; for it was not first one and then ~ Ἂν 
another, but all at once were constituted after their kind. 
For the Apostle did not number individually, so as to say 
“whether Angel, or Throne, or Dominion, or Authority,” but 
he mentions together all according to their kind, whether vid. Col. 
Angels, or Archangels, or Principalities : for in this way is the : 
generation of the creatures. If then, as I have said, the 
Word were creature, He must have been brought into being, 
not first of them, but with all the other Powers, though in 
glory He excel the rest ever so much. For so we find it 
to be in their case, that at once they came to be, with neither 
first nor second, and they differ from each other in glory, some 
on the right of the throne, some all around, and some on the 


Disc. 
ike 
} pp. 267, 
318. 


Ps. 89, 7. 
Bar. 3, 
35. 


vid. 
Prov. 
3, 19. 
9° 1. 


350 Hecouldnot be “beginning” atall,ifnot morethan beginning.” 


left, but one and all praising and standing in service before 
the Lord’. 

10. Therefore if the Word be creature, He would not be 
first or beginning of the rest ; yet if He be before all, as indeed 
He is, and is Himself alone First and Son, it does not follow 
that He is beginning of all things as to His Substance’, for 
what is the beginning of all is in the number of all. And if 
He is not such a beginning, then neither is He a creature, 
but it is very plain that He differs in substance and nature 
from the creatures, and is other than they, and is Likeness 
and Image of the sole and true God, being Himself sole also. 
Hence He is not classed with creatures in Scripture, but 
David rebukes those who dare even to think of Him as such, 
saying, Who among the gods is like unto the Lord? and Who 
is like unto the Lord among the sons of God? and Baruch, This 
is our God, and another shall not be reckoned with Him. For 
the One creates, and the rest are created; and the One is the 
proper Word and Wisdom of the Father’s Substance, and 
through this Word things which came to be, which before 
existed not, were made. Your famous assertion then, that 
the Son is a creature, is not true, but is your fantasy only ; 
nay Solomon convicts you of having these many times misin- 
terpreted him. For He has not called Him creature, but 
God’s Offspring and Wisdom, saying, God in Wisdom hath 
established the earth, and Wisdom hath built her an house. 

11. And the very passage in question proves your irreligious 
spirit; for it is written, Zhe Lord created Me a beginning of 
His ways for His works. Therefore if He is before all 
things, yet says He created Me (not “that I might make the 
works,’’ but) for the works, unless He created relates to some- 
thing later than Himself, He will seem later than the works, 
finding them on His creation already in existence before Him, 


1 He says that, though none could be_ the number of the creatures.” Though 


‘‘a beginning ”’ of creation, who was a 
creature, yet still that such a title be- 
longs not to His essence. Itis the name 
of an office which the Eternal Word 
alone can fill. His Divine Sonship is 
both superior and necessary to that 
office of a ‘‘Beginning.’’ Hence it is 
both true (as he says) that ‘“ if the Word 
is a creature, He is not a beginning ;’’ 
and yet that that “ beginning” is ‘‘in 


He becomes the ‘ beginning,’’ He is 
not “ἃ beginning as to His substance,” 
vid. supr. p. 251, note f. And infr. p. 367, 
where he says ‘‘ He who is Jefore ail, 
cannot be a beginning of all, but is 
other than all,”’ which implies that the 
beginning of all is not other than all. 
vid. p. 292, note m. on the Priesthood, 
and p. 303, note e. 


« For the Works”? and “the Lord” imply the flesh. 351 


for the sake of which He is also brought into being. And pe 
if so, how is He before all things notwithstanding ? and hoy —— 
were all things made through Him and consist in Him? 
for behold, you say that the works consisted before Him, for 
which He is created and sent. But it is not so; perish the 
thought! false is the supposition of the heretics. For the 
Word of God is not creature but Creator; and says in the 
manner of proverbs, He created Me when He put on created 
flesh. 

12. And something besides may be understood from the 
passage itself; for, being Son and having God for His Father, 
for He is His proper Offspring, yet here He names the Father 
Lord; not that He was servant, but because He took a servant’s 
form. For it became Him, on the one hand being the Word 
from the Father, to call God Father: for this is proper to 
son towards father; on the other, having come to finish the 
work, and taken a servant’s form, to name the Father Lord. 
And this difference He Himself has taught by an apt 
distinction, saying in the Gospels, I thank Thee, O Father, matt. 
and then, Lord of heaven and earth. For He calls God 1} 2° 
His Father, but of the creatures He names Him Lord; as 
shewing clearly from these words, that, when He put on the 
creature ', then it was He called the Father Lord. For in the 1 τὸ κτι- 
prayer of David the Holy Spirit marks the same distinction, a Le 
saying in the Psalms, Give Thy strength unto Thy Child, and p. 347. 
help the Son of Thine handmaid. For the natural and true 86, 
child of God is one, and the sons of the bandmaid, that is, of 10- 
the nature of things generate, are other. Wherefore the One, 
as Son, has the Father’s* might; but the rest are in need of = πατρι- 
salvation. (But if, because He was called child’, they idly κόν BL. 
raise a point, let them know that both Isaac was named ς 7,7 i, 
Abraham’s child, and the son of the Shunamite was called servant 
young child.) Reasonably then, we being servants, when He 
became as we, He too calls the Father Lord, as we do; and 
this He did from love to man, that we too, being servants by 
nature, and receiving the Spirit of the Son, might have con- 
fidence to call Him by grace Father, who is by nature our 
Lord. But as we, in calling the Lord Father, do not deny 
that servitude which is by nature, (for we are His works, and 
“it is He that hath made us, and not we ourselves,) so when Ps. 100, 


302 As we, servants, call God Father; so He, Son, calls Him Lord. 


OG the Son, on taking the servant’s form, says, The Lord hath 
John 1, created Me a beginning of His ways, let them not deny 
the eternity of His Godhead, and that in the beginning was 
16. the Word, and all things were made by Him, and in Him ail 

things were created. 


CHAPTER XX. 


TEXTS EXPLAINED; SIXTHLY, PROVERBS Vlil. 22. CONTINUED. 


Our Lord is said to be created “for the works,” i.e. with a particular pur- 
pose, which no mere creatures are ever said to be. Parallel of Isai. 49, 5. 
ἄς. When His manhood is spoken of, a reason for it is added; not so 
when His Divine Nature; Texts in proof. 


1. For the passage in the Proverbs, as I have said before, 
signifies, not the Substance, but the manhood of the Word ; 
for if He says that He was created for the works, He shews 
His intention of signifying, not His Substance, but the 
Economy which took place’ for His works, which comes ! γενομέ 
second to being. For things which are in formation and 247. κι 1. 
creation are made specially that they may be and exist ?, and 
next they have to do, whatever the Word bids them, as may be 
seen in the case of all things. For Adam was created, not 
that he might work, but that first he might be man; for it 
was after this that he received the command to work. And 
Noe was created, not because of the ark, but that first he 
might exist and be a man; for after this he received com- 
mandment to prepare the ark. And the like will be found in 
every case on inquiring into it;—thus the great Moses first 
was made a man, and next was entrusted with the govern- 
ment of the people. Therefore here too we must suppose the 
like; for thou seest, that the Word is not created in order to 
be, but, In the beginning was the Word, and He is afterwards 
sent for the works and the economy towards them. For before 
the works were made, the Son was ever, nor was there yet 
need that He should be created; but when the works were 
created and need arose afterwards of the Economy for their 
restoration, then it was that the Word took upon Himself 


2 He says in effect, “ Before the thesis, supr. p. 272, would require, but) 
generation of the works, they were not; ‘‘is from everlasting,” vid. p. 363, note 
but Christ on the contrary,” (not, ‘‘was a. 
before His generation,” as Bull’s hypo- 


354 Men created that they may be; the Son that He may serve. 


Disc. this condescension * and assimilation to the works; which He 
eae has shewn us by the word He created. And through the 
ταβῆναι Prophet Ksaias willing to signify the like, He says again: And 
ἘΠ now thus saith the Lord, who formed Me from the womb to 

be His servant, to gather together Jacob unto Him and 
Israel, I shall be brought together and be glorified before the 
Lord. 

§.52. 2. See here too, He is formed, not that He may have being, 
but in order to gather together the tribes, which were in 
existence before He was formed. For as in the former 
passage stands He created, so in this He formed; and as there 
Jor the works, so here to gather together; so that in every 
point of view it appears that He created and He formed are 
said after the Word was. For as before His forming the 
tribes existed, for whose sake He was formed, so does it 
appear that the works exist, for which He was created. 
And when in the beginning was the Word, not yet were the 
works, as I have said before; but when the works were made 
and the need required, then He created was said; and as if 
some son, when the servants were lost, and in the hands of 
the enemy by their own carelessness, and need was urgent, 
were sent by his father to succour and recover them, 

*p. 291. and on setting out were to put over him the like dress’ with 
them, and should fashion himself as they, lest the capturers, 
recognising him? as the master, should take to flight and 
prevent his descending to those who were hidden under the 
earth by them; and then were any one to inquire of him, 
why he did so, were to make answer, “My Father thus formed 
and prepared me for his works,” while in thus speaking, he 
neither implies that he is a servant nor one of the works, nor 

3 ἀρχὴν speaks of the beginning of his generation *, but of the subse- 

coe Quent charge given him over the works,—in the same way the 

p- 304, - Lord also, having put over Him our flesh, and being found 

Ἢ in fashion as a man, if He were questioned by those who 
saw Him thus and marvelled, would say, Zhe Lord created 


Ὁ Vid. the well-known passage in t. 2. App. p. 598. ed. Ben. and Jerome 
S. Ignatius, ad Eph. 19, where the in Matt. 1, 18. who quote it. vid. also 
devil is said to have been ignorant of Leon. Serm. 22, 3. August. Trin. ix. 
the Virginity of Mary, and the Nativity 21. Clement. Eclog. Proph. p. 1002. ° 
and the Death of Christ; Orig. Hom. ed. Potter. 

6. in Lue. Basil (if Basil.) Hom. in 


He is created for us, that we may be new-created in Him. 355 


Me the beginning of His ways for His works, and He formed “πε 
Me to gather together Israel. 

3. This again the Spirit foretels in the Psalms, saying, spr. 20. 
Thou didst set Him over the works of Thine hands; which Heb. 2, 
elsewhere the Lord signified of Himself, L am set as King Ps. 2,6 
by Him upon His holy hill of Sion. And as, when He *°Pt 
shone’ in the body upon Sion, He had not His beginning of as 
existence or of reign, but being God’s Word and everlasting “f ae ᾿ 
King, He vouchsafed that His kingdom should shine in a Spine 
human way in Sion, that redeeming them and us from the Serap. i. 
sin which reigned in them, He might bring them under ae 
His Father’s Kingdom, so, on being set for the works, He 
is not set for things which did not yet exist, but for such 
as already were and needed restoration. He created then ὃ: 58. 
and He formed and He set, having the same meaning, do 
not denote the beginning of His being, or of His substance 
as created, but His beneficent renovation which came to 
pass’? for us. Accordingly, though He thus speaks, yet He ? γενόμε- 
taught also that He Himself existed before this, when He 353, ni 
said, Before Abraham was made, 1 am; and when He~ cope 
prepared the heavens, I was present with Him; and I was Prov. 8, 
with Him disposing things. And as He Himself was before ae 
Abraham was made, and Israel was made after Abraham, and 
plainly He exists first and is formed afterwards, and His 
forming signifies not His beginning of being but His taking 
manhood, wherein also He collects together the tribes of 
Israel; so, as being always with the Father, He Himself is 
Framer of the creation, and His works are evidently later than 
Himself, and He created signifies, not His beginning of 
being, but the economy which took place for the works, 
which He effected in the flesh. For it became Him, being 
other than the works, nay rather their Framer, to take upon 
Himself their renovation *, that, whereas He is created for us, * Ρ- 251, 
all things may be now created in Him. For when He said ἐπ: 75, 
He created, He forthwith added the reason, naming the * 
works, that His creation for the works might signify His 
becoming man for their renovation. 

4. And this is usual with divine Scripture * ; for when it sig- 


© ἔθος ἐστὶ τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ. and so ἐχούσης, ibid. 30, d. 
Orat. iii. 18, b. And τῆς γραφῆς ἔθος 


Disc. 


lvid. 


Naz. 
Orat. 
30. 2. 

2 ἀπολε- 
λυμένῃ 


John 1, 
Ile 


3 Naz. 
ibid. 
John I, 
14. 


Phil. 2, 
6—8. 


§. 54. 


4 ἀπολε- 
λυμένως, 
infr. 62. 
John 14, 
6. 9. 10. 


~ 10, 30. 


8, 12. 


356 Seripture never says why He is God, but why He became man. 


nifies the fleshly generation of the Son, it adds also the cause' 
for which He became man; but when He speaks or His 
servants declare any thing of His Godhead, all is said in 
simple diction, and with an absolute’ sense, and without reason 
being added. For He is the Father’s Radiance; and as the 
Father is, but not for any reason, neither must we seek 
the reason of that Radiance. Thus it is written, In the 
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and 
the Word was God; and the wherefore it assigns not*; but 
when the Word was made flesh, then it adds the reason why, 
saying, And dwelt among us. And again the Apostle saying, 
Who being in the form of God, has not introduced the reason, 
till He took on Him the form of a servant; for then he con- 
tinues, He humbled Himself unto death, even the death of the 
cross; for it was for this that He both became flesh and took 
the form of a servant. And the Lord Himself has spoken 
many things in proverbs; but when giving us notices about 
Himself, He has spoken absolutely ἡ; I in the Father and the 
Father in Me, and I and the Father are one, and He that 
hath seen Me, hath seen the Father, and I am the Light of 
the world, and I am the Truth; not setting down in every 
case the reason, nor the wherefore, lest He should seem 
second to those things for which He was made. For that 
reason would needs take precedence of Him, without which 
not even He Himself had been brought into being. Paul, 
for instance, separated an Apostle for the Gospel, which the 
Lord had promised afore by the Prophets, was thereby made 
subordinate to the Gospel, of which he was made minister, 
and John, being chosen to prepare the Lord’s way, was 
made subordinate to the Lord; but the Lord, not being made 
subordinate to any reason why He should be Word, save 
only that He is the Father’s Offspring and Only-begotten 
Wisdom, when He becomes man, then assigns the reason, 
wherefore He is about to take flesh. 

5. For the need of man preceded His becoming man, apart 
from which He had not put on flesh*. And what the need 


ἃ Tt is the general teaching of the 
Fathers that our Lord would not have 
been incarnate had not man _ sinned. 
‘*Qur cause was the occasion of His 
descent, and our transgression called 
forth the Word’s love of man. Οἱ His 


incarnation we became the ground.’’ 
Athan. de incarn. V.D.4. vid. Thomassin. 
at great length de Incarn. ii. 5—1]. 
also Petav. de Incarn. ii. 17, 7—12. 
Vasquez. in 3 Thom. Disp. x. 4 and 
ὃ. 


He had not been created but for man’s need. 


357 


was for which He became man, He Himself thus signifies, CHA? 
I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the icc ae 


will of Him that sent Me. 


hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me, I should lose 
nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is 
the will of My Father, that every one which seeth the Son and 
believeth on Him may have everlasting life, and I will raise 
him up at the last day. And again; Z£ am come a light Sobn 12, 
into the world, that whosoever believeth on Me, should ae 


not abide in darkness. 


And this is the will of Him which 38—40. 


And again He says; To this end John 18, 


37. 
was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, 1 


that I should bear witness unto the truth. 


And John has 


written; For this was manifested the Son of God, that He \ John 3, 


might destroy the works of the devil. 


To give a witness 


then, and for our sakes to undergo death, to raise man up 
and loose the works of the devil 5, the Saviour came, and this 


is the reason of His incarnate presence’. 


e Two ends of our Lord’s Incarna- 
tion are here mentioned ; that He might 
die for us, and that He might renew 
us, answering nearly to those specified 
in Rom. 4, 25. ‘‘who was delivered 
for our offences and raised again for 
our justification.’’ The general object 
of His coming, including both of these, 
is treated of in Incarn. 4—20. or rather 
in the whole Tract, and in the two 
books against Apollinaris. It is diffi- 
cult to make accurate references under 
the former head, (vid. infr. note on 65 
and 67.) without including the latter. 
‘«Since all men had to pay the debt of 
death, on which account especially He 
came on earth, therefore after giving 
proofs of His Divinity from His works, 
next He offered a sacrifice for all, &c.” 
the passage then runs on into the other 
fruit of His death. ibid. 20. Vid. supr. 
p- 291. where he speaks of our Lord 
offering both Himself and us to God, and 
“ offering our flesh,’’ p. 294, and p. 23, 
Also infr. Orat. iv. 6. ‘‘ When He is 
said to hunger, to weep and weary and 
to cry Eloi, which are human affections, 
He receives them from us and offers to 
His Father, interceding for us, that in 
Him they may be annulled.’”’ And so 
Theodoret, ‘‘ Whereas He had an im- 
mortal nature, He willed according to 
equity to put a stop to death’s power, 
taking on Him first from those who were 


For otherwise a 


exposed to death a first-fruit ; and pre- 
serving this immaculate and guiltless of 
sin, He surrenders it for death to seize 
upon as well as others, and satiate its in- 
satiableness ; and then on the ground of 
its want of equity against that first-fruit, 
He put a stop to its iniquitous tyranny 
over others.”’ Eran. iti. p. 196, 7. Vigil. 
Thaps. contr. Eutych. i. p. 496. (B. P. 
ed. 1624,) and S. Leo speaks of the 
whole course of redemption, i. e. in- 
carnation, atonement, regeneration, 
justification, &c, as one sacrament, 
not drawing the line distinctly between 
the several agents, elements, or stages 
in it, but considering it to lie in the in- 
tercommunion of Christ’s and our per- 
sons. Thus he says that our Lord ‘ took 
on Him all our infirmities which come of 
sin without sin;’’ and ‘the most cruel 
pains and death,” because “‘ none could 
be rescued from mortality, unless He, in 
whom our common nature was innocent, 
allowed Himself to die by the hands of 
the impious;’’ ‘‘unde,’’ he continues, 
“in se credentibus et sacramentum 
condidit et exemplum, ut unum appre- 
henderent renascendo, alterum seque- 
rentur imitando.” Serm. 63,14. He 
speaks of His fortifying us against our 
passions and infirmities, both sacra- 
mento susceptionis and exemplo. Serm. 
65, 2. and of a ‘duplex remedium cujus 
aliud in sacramento, aliud in exemplo.”’ 


§. δ. 


ε 


léyodpkov 
παρου- 
σίας 


Disc. 
ΤΙ: 


358 Tf created only for a purpose, He is not a creature. 


resurrection had not been, unless there had been death; and 


~—— how had death been, unless He had had a mortal body ὃ 


Heb. 2, 
14. 15. 


1 Cor. 
16: .9 1. 
Rom. 8, 
3. 4, 


John 3, 


17: 


John 9, 
39. 


Eph. 2, 
14. 15. 


6. This the Apostle, learning from Him, thus sets forth, 
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and 
blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that 
through death He might destroy him that had the power of 
death, that is, the devil, and deliver them who through fear 
of death were all their life-time subject to bondage. And, 
Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection 
of the dead. And again, For what the Law could not do, in 
that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own 
Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned 
sin im the flesh; that the righteousness of the Law might 
be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after 
the Spirit. And John says, For God sent not His Son into 
the world to condemn the world, but that the world through 
Him might be saved. And again, the Saviour has spoken in 
His own person, For judgment am I come into this world, 
that they who see not might see, and that they which see might 
be made blind. Not for Himself then, but for our salvation, 
and to abolish death, and to condemn sin, and to give sight 
to the blind, and to raise up all from the dead, has He come; 
but if not for Himself, but for us, by consequence not for 
Himself but for us is He created. But if not for Himself is 
He created, but for us, then He is not Himself a creature, but, 
as having put on our flesh, He uses such language. 

7. And that this is the sense of the Scriptures, we may learn 
from the Apostle, who says in his Epistle to the Ephesians, 
Having broken down the middle wall of partition between 
us, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of 
commandments contained in ordinances, to create in Himself 
of twain one new man, so making peace. But if_in Him the 


Serm. 67, 5. also 69, 5. Elsewhere 70, 5. vid. also more or less in Serm. 


he makes the strong statement, ‘‘ The 
Lord’s passion is continued on [pro- 
ducitur] even to the end of the world; 
and as in His Saints He is honoured 
Himself, and Himself is loved, and in 
the poor He Himself is fed, is clothed 
Himself, so in all who endure trouble 
for righteousness’ sake, does He Him- 
self suffer together [compatitur], Serm. 


pp. 76. 93. 98, 9. 141. 249. 257, 8. 271. 
fin. and Epist. pp. 1291, 1363, 4. At 
other times, however, the atonement 
is more distinctly separated from its 
circumstances, pp. 136, 198, 310. but 
it is very difficult to draw the line. 
The tone of his teaching is throughout 
characteristic of the Fathers, and very 
like that of S. Athanasius. 


He is created, in that human nature in Him is created. 359 


twain are created, and these are in His body, reasonably then, 
bearing the twain in Himself, He is as if Himself created ; 
for those who were created in Himself hath He made one, 
and He was in them, as they. And thus, the two being 
created in Him, He may say suitably, The Lord hath created 
Me. For as by receiving our infirmities, He is said to be 
infirm Himself, though not Himself infirm, for He is the 
Power of God, and He became sin for us and a curse, 
though not having sinned Himself, but because He Himself 
bare our sins and our curse, so‘, by creating us in Him, let 
Him say, He created Me for the works, though not Himself 
a creature. 

8. For if, as they hold, the substance of the Word being 
of created nature, therefore He says, The Lord created Me, 
being a creature, He was not created for us; but if He was 
not created for us, we are not created in Him; and, if not 
created in Him, we have Him not in ourselves but externally; 
as, for instance, as receiving instruction from Him as from a 


teacher’. 


And it being so with us, sin has not lost its reign 
over the flesh, being inherent and not cast out of it. 


But 


the Apostle opposes such a doctrine a little before, when he 


f The word αὐτὸς ‘‘ Himself,” is all 
along used, where a later writer would 
have said ‘“‘ His Person;’’ vid. Note, 
p- 165. and p. 345, note g ; still there 
is more to be explained in this passage, 
which, taken in the letter, would speak 
a language very different from Athan.,’s, 
as if the infirmities or the created nature 
of the Word were not more real than 
His imputed sinfulness. (vid. on the 
other hand infr. iii. 31—35.) But no- 
thing 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. 
Our Lord’s real manhood and imputed 
sinfulness were alike adjuncts to His 
Divine Person, which was of an Eternal 
and Infinite Nature; and therefore 
His Manhood may be compared to an 
Attribute, or to an accident, without 
meaning that it really was either. The 
Athan. Creed compares the Hypostatic 
Union to that of soul and body in 
one man, which, as taken literally by 
the Monophysites became their heresy. 
Again S. Cyril says, ‘‘As the Bread 
of the Eucharist, after the invocation 


of the Holy Ghost, is mere bread no 
longer, but the Body of Christ, so also 
this holy ointment is no more simple 
ointment, &c.’’ Catech. xxi. 3. O. T. 
but no one contends that S. Cyril held 
either a change in the chrism, or no 
change in the bread. Hence again we 
find the Arians arguing from John 17, 
11. that our union with the Holy Trinity 
is as that of the Adorable Persons with 
Each Other; vid. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. 
ili. 19. and Athan. replying to the argu- 
ment, infr. Orat. iii. 17—25. And 
so supr. ‘‘ As we receiving the Spirit, 
do not lose our own proper substance, 
so the Lord, when made man for us 
and bearing a body, was no less God ;’’ 
Ρ- 23. yet He was God made man, and 
we are but the temple of God. And 
again Athanasius compares the In- 
carnation to our Lord’s presence in the 
world in nature. Incarn. 41—42. There 
are comparisons, however, which, from 
incidental expressions or clauses, outrun 
this remark, as in the celebrated letter 
to Cesarius, considered to be S. Chry- 
sostom’s, or in Gelasius’s Tract de Dua- 
bus naturis, 


CHAP. 
xe 


1 note on 
lii. 19. 


Disc. 
1 


Eph. 2, 


10. 


Prov. 8, 
30. 
John 14, 
14. 


360 Human nature set free, only by new-creation in Christ. 


says, For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus ; 
and if in Christ we are created, then it is not He who is 
created, but we in Him; and thus the words He created are 
for our sake. For because of our need, the Word, though 
being Creator, endured words which are used of creatures ; 
which are not proper to Him, as being the Word, but are 
ours who are created in Him. And as, since the Father is 
always, so is His Word, and always being, always says, I 
was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him, and I 
am in the Father and the Father in Me; so, when for our 
need He became man, consistently does He use language, as 
ourselves, Zhe Lord hath created Me, that, by His dwelling 
in the flesh, sin might perfectly be expelled from the flesh, 
and we might have a free mind. For what ought He, when 
made man, to say? ‘In the beginning I was man?”’ this 
were neither suitable to Him nor true; and as it beseemed 
not to say this, so it is natural and proper in the case of man 
to say, He created and He made Him. 

9. On this account then the reason of He created is added, 
namely, the need of the works; and where the reason is 


8. ἐλεύθερον τὸ φρόνημα. vid. also be- 
ginning of the paragraph, where sanc- 
tification is contrasted to teaching, vid. 
also note on 79, infr. ‘“Idly do ye 
imagine to be able to work in yourselves 
newness of the principle which thinks 
(φρονοῦντος) and actuates the flesh, ex- 
pecting to do so by imitation . . . for 
if men could have wrought for them- 
selves newness of that actuating prin- 
ciple without Christ, and if what is 
actuated follows what actuates, what 
need was there of Christ’s coming ?” 
Contr. Apoll. i. 20. fin. And again, 
“Ye say, ‘ He destroyed [the works of 
the devil] by not sinning ;’ but this is 
no destruction of sin. For not in Him 
did the devil in the beginning work 
sin, and so by His coming into the 
world and not sinning sin was destroyed; 
but whereas the devil had wrought sin 
by an after-sowing in the rational and 
spiritual nature of man, therefore it be- 
came impossible for nature, which was 
rational and had voluntarily sinned, 
and fell under the penalty of death, to 
recover itself into freedom (ἐλευθερίαν)... 
Therefore came the Son of God by 
Himself to establish [the flesh] in His 
own nature from a new beginning 


(ἀρχὴ) and a marvellous generation.” 
ibid. ii. 6. also Orat. iii. 33. where vid. 
note, and 34, b. vid. for ἀρχὴ supr. p.250, 
note d. Also vid. infr. Orat. iii. 56, a. 
iv. 33, a. Naz. Epp. ad Cled. 1 and 
2. (101, 102. Ed.. Ben.) Nyssen. ad 
Theoph. in Apoll. p. 696. Generatio 
Christi origo est populi Christiani, says 
S. Leo; ‘for whoso is regenerated in 
Christ,’’ he continues, “has no longer 
the propagation from a carnal father, 
but the germination of a Saviour, who 
therefore was made Son of man, that 
we might be sons of God.’’ Serm. 26, 
2. Multum fuit a Christo recepisse for- 
mam, sed plus est in Christo habere 
substantiam. Suscepit nos in suam pro- 
prietatem illa natura, &c. &e. Serm. 
72, 2. vid. Serm. 22, 2. ut corpus re- 
generati fiat caro Crucifixi. Serm. 63, 6. 
Hee est nativitas nova dum homo 
nascitur in Deo; in quo homine Deus 
natus est, carne antiqui seminis sus- 
cepta, sine semine antiquo, ut illam 
novo semine, id est, spiritualiter, re- 
formaret, exclusis antiquitatis sordibus 
expiatam. Tertull. de Carn. Christ. 
17. vid. supr. p. 254, note k. and note 
on 64. infr. 65 and 70. and on iii. 34. 


Who is begotten‘ before all the hills,” created “for the works.” 361 


added, that reason happily explains the passage. Thus pt 
here, when He says He created, He sets down the cause, the 
works; on the other hand, when He signifies absolutely * * ἀπολε- 
the generation from the Father, straightway He adds, Before Brow ἢ, 
all the hills He begets Me; but He does not add the aE 
“wherefore,” as in the case of He created, saying, for the 
works, but absolutely’, He begets Me, as in the passage, 

In the beginning was the Word. For, though no works John 1, 
had been created, still the Word of God was, and the Word ε 

was God. And His becoming man would not have taken 
place, had not the need of men become a cause. The Son 

then is not a creature. 


73. 


ΡῈ ΟΣ: 


5. 35. 1. 


John I, 
Ι. 


1 ὑπὸ τὴν 
ἀρχήν 


Mat. 19, 
4 


CHAPTER ΧΧΙ. 


TEXTS EXPLAINED; SIXTHLY, PROVERBS Vill. 22. CONTINUED. 


Our Lord not said in Scripture to be “created,” or the works to be “ be- 
gotten.” ‘In the beginning” means in the case of the works “ from 
the beginning.” Scripture passages explained. We are made by God 
first, begotten next; creatures by nature, sons by grace. Christ be- 
gotten first, made or created afterwards. Sense of “ First-born of the 
dead ;” of “ First-born among many brethren ;” of “ First-born of all 
creation,” contrasted with “Only-begotten,” Further interpretation of 
“beginning of ways,” and “for the works.” Why a creature could not 
redeem ; why redemption was necessary at all. Texts which contrast 
the Word and the works. 


1. For had He been a creature, He had not said, He begets 


_ Me, for the creatures are from without, and are works of the 


Maker; but the Offspring is not from without nor a work, 
but from the Father, and proper to His Substance. Where- 
fore they are creatures; this God’s Word and Only-begotten 
Son. For instance, Moses did not say of the creation, “In 
the beginning He begat,” nor “In the beginning was,” but 
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Nor 
did David say in the Psalm, Thy hands have “begotten me,”’ 
but made me and fashioned me, every where applying the 
word made to the creatures. But to the Son contrariwise ; 
for he has not said “I made,” but I begat, and He begets 
Me, and Wy heart has burst with a good Word. And in the 
instance of the creation, In the beginning He made; but in 
the instance of the Son, In the beginning was the Word. 

2. And there is this difference, that the creatures are made 
upon the beginning’, and have a beginning of existence 
connected with an interval; wherefore also what is said of 
them, In the beginning He made, is as much as saying of 
them, ‘From the beginning He made:” —as the Lord, knowing 
that which He had made, has taught, when He silenced the 
Pharisees, with the words, He which made them from the 


—— 


Creatures from, the Son in the beginning. 363 


beginning, made them male and female; for from some Cuar. 
beginning, when they were not yet, were generate things —— 
brought into being and created. This too the Holy Spirit 

has signified in the Psalms, saying, Zhou, Lord, at the Ps. 102, 
beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and again, πὶ 

O think upon Thy congregation which Thow hast purchased Ps. 74, 
from the beginning ; now it is plain that what takes place at * 

the beginning has a beginning of creation, and that from 

some beginning God purchased His congregation. And 

that In the beginning He made, from His saying made, means 
“began to make,” Moses himself shews by saying, after the 
completion of all things, And God blessed the seventh day Gen. 2, 
and sanctified it, because that in it He had rested from all ca 
His work which God began to make’. Therefore the creatures ' ἤρξατο 
began to be made; but the Word of God, not having begin- eet 
ning’ of being, certainly did not begin to be, nor begin to come ? ἀρχὴν, 
to be, but was ever. And the works have their beginning in “δ 
their making, and their beginning precedes their coming to 

be; but the Word, not being of things which come to be, 
rather comes to be Himself the Framer of those which have 

a beginning. And the being of things generate is measured 

by their becoming*, and from some beginning doth God begin * supr. 
to make them through the Word, that it may be known that rags 
they were not before their generation ; but the Word has 

His being, in no other beginning or origin* than the Father’, * sae 
whom they allow to be unoriginate, so that He too exists ΞΕ 
unoriginately in the Father, being His Offspring, Rolie hig. © 
creature. Thus does divine Scripture recognise the difference §. 58. 
between the Offspring and things made, and shew that the 
Offspring is a Son, not begun from any beginning, but eternal ; 

but that the thing made, as an external work of the Maker, 

began to come into being. John therefore delivering divine 
doctrine *® about the Son, and knowing the difference oF the ὅ θεολο- 
phrases, said not, “in the beginning became” or “was Lape 
made,” but In the beginning was the Word; that we wade note k. 
understand “Offspring” by was, and not account of Him 


8. In this passage ‘‘ was from the of this on Bishop Bull’s explanation of 
beginning” is made equivalent with the Nicene Anathema, supr. p. 272. 
“‘ was not before generation,” and both especially p. 275. where this passage 
are contrasted with ‘‘ without begin- is quoted. 
ning” or ‘‘eternal;’’ vid. the bearing 


“2B 2 


Disc. 
ἘΠ 


Deut. 
32,6. 


1014. 18, 


Gen. 1, 
26. 


364 Texts to shew 
by intervals, but believe the Son always and eternally to 
exist. 

3. And with these proofs, why, O Arians, misunderstand the 
passage in Deuteronomy, and thus venture a fresh act of 
irreligion ἢ against the Lord, saying that ‘‘ He is a work,” or 
“creature,” or indeed “offspring?” for offspring and work you 
take to mean the same thing; but here too you shall be 
shewn to be as unlearned as you are irreligious. Your first 
passage is this, Is not He thy Father that hath bought thee ? 
hath He not made thee and created thee? And shortly after 
in the same Song he says, Of the Rock that begat thee thou 
art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee. 
Now the meaning conveyed in these passages is very remark- 
able ; for He says not first He begat, lest that term should be 
taken as indiscriminate with He made, and these men should 
have a pretence for saying, ‘‘ Moses tells us indeed that God 
said from the beginning, Let Us make man, but he soon after 
says himself, Of the Rock that begat thee thow art unmindful, 
as if the terms were indifferent; for offspring and work are 
the same.” But after the words bought and made, he has 
added last of all begat, that the sentence might carry its own 
interpretation ; for in the word made he accurately denotes 
what belongs to men by nature, to be works and things 
made; but in the word begat he shews God’s lovingkindness 


Ὁ The technical sense of εὐσέβεια, 
ἀσέβεια, pietas, impietas, for orthodoxy, 
heterodoxy, has been noticed supr. p. 1, 
note a. and derived from 1 Tim. iii. 16. 
The word is contrasted ch. iv. 8. with 
the (perhaps Gnostic) ‘profane and 
old-wives’ fables,’ and with ‘‘ bodily 
exercise.’’ A curious instance of the 
force of the word as aturning point in 


and almost translates it, Apost. Creed, 
Art. 3. ‘ Although it may be thought 
sufficient for the nystery of the Incar- 
nation, that, when our Saviour was 
conceived and born, His Mother was 
a Virgin, though whatsoever should 
have followed after could have no re- 
flective operation upon the first-fruit of 
her womb. .. yet the peculiar eminency, 


controversy occurs in an Homily given 
to S. Basil by Petavius, Fronto Duceus, 
Combefis, Du Pin, Fabricius, and Oudin, 
doubted of by Tillemont, and rejected 
by Cave and Garnier, where it is said 
that the denial of S. Mary’s perpetual 
virginity, though “lovers of Christ do 
not bear to hear that God’s Mother ever 
ceased to be Virgin,’”’ yet ‘does no injury 
to the doctrine of religion, μηδὲν τῷ τῆς 
εὐσεβείας παραλυμαίνεται λόγῳ. i. 6. (ac- 
cording to the above explanation) to the 
doctrine of the Incarnation. Basil. Opp. 
t. 2. p. 599. vid. on the passage Petav. 
de Incarn. xiv. 3. 8. 7. and Fronto-Duc. 
in loc. Pearson refers to this passage, 


&c.”’ John of Antioch furnishes us with 
a definition of orthodoxy, (pietas,) which 
is entirely Anglican. He speaks, writing 
to Proclus, of a letter which evidenced 
caution and piety or orthodoxy; “ or- 
thodoxy because you went along the 
royal way of Divine Scripture in your 
remarks, rightly confessing the word 
of truth, not venturing to declare any 
thing of your own ability without Scrip- 
ture testimonies; caution, because ἔο- 
gether with divine Scripture you pro- 
pounded also statements of the Fathers 
in order to prove what you advanced.”’ 
Ap. Facund. i. 1. 


that men are first made, then begotten. 365 


exercised towards men after He had created them. And since Car. 
: XXI. 

they were ungrateful upon this, thereupon Moses reproaches 

them, saying first, Do ye thus requite the Lord? and then Deut. 

adds, Is not He thy Father that hath bought thee? Hath sae 

He not made thee and created thee? And next he says, 

They sacrificed unto devils, not to God, to gods whom ibid. 17. 

they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your 

Jathers feared not; of the Rock that begat thee thou art 

unmindful. For God not only created them to be men, but §. 59. 

called them to be sons, as having begotten them. For the 

term begat is here as elsewhere expressive of a Son, as He 

says by the Prophet, I have begat sons and exalted them; and 

generally, when Scripture wishes to signify a son, it does so, 

not by the term created, but undoubtedly by that of begat. 

4. And this John seems to say, He gave to them power to Jobn 1, 
become children of God, even to them that believe on His Name ; 
which were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, 
nor of the will of man, but of God. And here too a cautious 
distinction ἡ is appositely observed, for first he says become, ' παρατη- 
because they are not called sons by nature but by adoption ; τὴν 
then he says were begotten, because like the Jews they had note. 
altogether received the name of son, though the chosen people, 
as says the Prophet, rebelled against their Benefactor. And 
this is God’s kindness to man, that of whom He is Maker, of 
them according to grace He afterwards becomes Father also ; 
becomes, that is, when men, His creatures, receive into their 
hearts, as the Apostle says, the Spirit of His Son, crying, 
Abba, Father*®. And these are they who, having received the ? p. 57 
Word, gained power from Him to become sons of God; for 
they could not become sons, being by nature creatures, 
otherwise, than by receiving the Spirit of the natural and true 
son. Wherefore, that this might be, Zhe Word became 
flesh, that He might make man capable of Godhead. 

5. This same meaning may be gained also from the Prophet 
Malachi, who says, Hath not One God created us? Have we Mal. 2, 
not all one Father? for first he puts created, next Father, εν 
to shew, as the other writers, that from the beginning we were 
creatures by nature, and God is our Creator through the 
Word; but afterwards we were made sons, and thenceforward 
God the Creator becomes our Father also. Therefore Futher 


366 


Disc. 
11: 


Gal. 4, 
6. 


Gen. 1, 
26. 


§. 60. 


1 vid. 
p. 940, 
note g. 


2 ch, 20. 


We creatures are begotten, when the Son is in us through the Spirit. 


is proper to the Son; and not “creature,” but Son is proper 
to the Father. Accordingly this passage also proves, that 
we are not sons by nature, but the Son who is in us‘; and 
again, that God is not our Father by nature, but of that 
Word in us, in whom and because of whom we ery, Abba, 
Father. And so in like manner, the Father calls them sons 
in whomsoever He sees His own Son, and says, I begat; 
since begetting is significant of a Son, and making is in- 
dicative of the works. And thus it is that we are not begotten 
first, but made; for it is written, Let Us make man; but 
afterwards, on receiving the grace of the Spirit, we are said 
thenceforth to be begotten also; just as the great Moses in 
his Song with an apposite meaning says first He bought, and 
afterwards He begat; lest, hearing He begat, they might forget 
that nature of theirs which was from the beginning; but that 
they might know that from the beginning they are creatures, but 
when according to grace they are said to be begotten, as sons, 
still no less than before are men works according to nature. 
6. And that creature and offspring are not the same, but 
differ from each other in nature and the signification of the 
words, the Lord Himself shews even in the Proverbs. For 
having said, The Lord hath created Me a beginning of His 
ways; He has added, But before all the hilis He begat We. 
If then the Word were by nature and in His Substance’ a 
creature, and there were no difference between offspring and 
creature, He would not have added, He begat Me, but had 
been satisfied with He created, as if that term implied He 
begat ; but, as the case stands, after saying, He created Me 
a beginning of His ways for His works, He has added, not 
simply begat Me, but with the connection of the conjunction 
But, as guarding thereby the term created, when He says, 
But before all the hills He begat Me. For begat Me suc- 
ceeding in such close connection to created Me, makes the 
meaning one, and shews that created is said with an object’, 
but that begat We is prior to created Me. For as, if He had 
said the reverse, “The Lord begat Me,” and went on, “ But 
before the hills He created Me,” created would certainly 


ς τὸν ἐν ἡμῖν υἱόν. vid. also supr. 10. fin- iii. 283—25. and de Decr. 31 fin. 
circ. fin. 56. init. and τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς oi- also p. 230, note d. p. 360, note g. infr. 
κοῦντα λόγον. 61. init. Also Orat.i.50 notes on 79. 


ae 


The Son begotten first, created afterwards. 307 


have preceded begat, so having said first created, and then 
added But before all the hills He begat Me, He necessarily 
shews that begat preceded created. For in saying, Before all 
He begat Me, He intimates that He is other than all things; 


it having been shewn to be true’ in an earlier part of this ' p- 32% 


Book, that no one creature was made before another, but 
all things generate subsisted at once together upon one 


and the same command’. Therefore neither do the words”? P- 949. 


which follow created, also follow begat Me; but in the case 
of created is added beginning of ways, but of begat Me, He 
says not, “ He begat me as a beginning,” but before all He 
begat Me. But He who is before all is not a beginning of 


all, but is other than all*; but if other than all, (in which “all” me 


the beginning of all is included,) it follows that He is other 
than the creatures; and it becomes a clear point, that the 
Word, being other than all things and before all, afterwards 
is created a beginning of the ways 707) works, because He 
became man, that, as the Apostle has said, He who is the 
Beginning and First-born from the dead, in all things might 
have the pre-eminence. 

7. Such then being the difference between created and begat 
Me, and between beginning of ways and before ail, God, 
being first Creator, next, as has been said, becomes Father 
of men, because of His Word dwelling in them. But in the 
case of the Word the reverse; for God, being His Father by 
nature, becomes afterwards both His Creator and Maker, 
when the Word puts on that flesh which was created and made, 


‘and becomes man. For, as men, receiving the Spirit of the Son, 


become children through Him, so the Word of God, when He 
Himself puts on the flesh of man, then is said both to be created 
and to have been made. If then we are by nature sons, then is 
He by nature creature and work; but if we become sons by 
adoption and grace, then has the Word also, when in grace 
towards us He became man, said, The Lord hath created Me. 
8. And in the next place, when He put on a created nature and 
became like us in body, reasonably was He therefore called 
both our Brother and First-born*. For though it was after 


ἃ Bishop Bull’s hypothesis about the section, it only relates to πρωτότοκος of 
sense of πρωτότοκος τῆς κτίσεως has men, (i.e. from the dead,) and is equi- 
been commented on supr. p. 278. As far valent to the “ beginning of ways.” 
as Athan.’s discussion proceeds in this 


Cuap. 


(1.1, 
18. 


8. 61. 


Rom. 8, 
29. 


Disc. 


* p. 296, 
T. Ae 

Orat. iii. 
31. note. 
John 14, 
6. 10, 9. 


Rev. I, 
5. 


§. 62. 


vid. Rom. 
8, 29. 


368 Our Lord is First-born, as the Beginning of the new creation. 


us® that He was made man for us, and our brother by simi- 
litude of body, still He is therefore called and is the Mirst- 
born of us, because, all men being lost according to the 
transgression of Adam, His flesh before all others was saved 
and liberated, as being the Word’s Body’; and_hence- 
forth we, becoming incorporate with It, are saved after Its 
pattern. For in It the Lord becomes our guide to the 
Kingdom of Heaven and to His own Father, saying, J am 
the way and the door, and “through Me all must enter.” 
Whence also is He said to be First-born from the dead, not 
that He died before us, for we had died first; but because 
having undergone death for us and abolished it, He was the 
first to rise, as man, for our sakes raising His own Body. 
Henceforth He having risen, we too from Him and because 
of Him rise in due course from the dead. 

9. But if He is also called Pirst-born of the creation ἷ, stall 
this is not as if He were levelled to the creatures, and only 
first of them in point of time, (for how should that be, since 
He is Only-begotten ?) but it is because of the Word’s con- 
descension® to the creatures, according to which He hath 
become the Brother of many. For the term Only-begotten 
is used where there are no brethren, but Lrst-born because 


€ Marcellus seems to have argued 
against Asterius from the same texts, 
(Euseb. in Marc. p, 12.) that, since 
Christ is called ‘first-born from the 
dead,” though others had been recalled 
to life before Him, therefore He is 
called “ first-born of creation,’’ not in 
point of time, but of dignity. vid. Monta- 
cut. Not. p. 11. Yet Athan. argues 
contrariwise. Orat. iv. 29. 

f Here again, though speaking of the 
jirst-born of creation, Athan. does but 
view the phrase as equivalent to ‘ first- 
born of the new creation,” or “ brother 
of many ;’’ and so infr. “ first-born 
because of the brotherhood He has 
made with many.” 

& Bp. Bull considers συγκατάβασις as 
equivalent to a figurative γέννησις, an 
idea which (vid. supr. p. 279.) seems 
quite foreign from Athan.’s meaning. 
Wessel, (who, as the present writer now 
finds, has preceded him. in this judg- 
ment,) in his answer to Cremer, who 
had made use of Bull for a heterodox 
purpose, observes that Bull ‘“ thinks 
that Athanasius implies in the word 


συγκατάβασις the Word’s descent or 
progress from the Father, and so 
His second birth, as it may be called, 
in the beginning of the world to 
create it. But that learned man is 
altogether mistaken. As may be seen 
in Suicer, the Greek Doctors use the 
word of God, even of the Father, with 
respect to His goodness in communi- 
cating Himself externally and attend- 
ing to human infirmity, without any 
respect at all to a birth or descent from 
anotber. In Bull’s sense of the word, 
Athan. could not have said that the 
senses of Only-begotten and First-born 
were contrary to each other,” p. 22]. 
Συγκαταβῆναι occurs supr. 5) fin. of the 
incarnation. What is meant by it will 
be found infr. 78—8l. viz. that our 


.Lord came “to implant in the crea- 


tures a type and semblance of His 
Image ;”’ which is just what is here 
maintained against Bull. The whole 
passage referred to is a comment 
on the word συγκατάβασις, and begins 
and ends with an introduction of that 
word. Vid. also Gent. 47. 


** Only-begotten”’ is relative tothe Father,“First-born’”’ to the works. 369 
of brethren. Accordingly it is no where written in the Cuap. 


A XXI. 
Scriptures, “the first-born of God,” nor “the creature of ——— 


God ;” but it is Only-begotten and Son and. Word and Wisdom, 
that relate.and are proper to the Father®. Thus, We have seen Ἰ ohn i, 
His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father; ~ 
and God sent His Only-begotten Son; and O Lord, Thy \ John 
Word endureth for ever; and In the beyinning was the τ 119 
Word, and the Word was with God; and Christ the Power 89. 
of God and the Wisdom of God; and This is My beloved Son; 1. 
and Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God. But first- ! Borel; 
born implied the descent’ to the creation!; for of it has He Matt. 2, 
been called first-born; and Je created implies His grace 16. 
towards the works, for for them is He created. If then He 3 4 ie 
is Only-begotten, as indeed He is, Lrst-born needs some 
explanation ; but if He be really First-born, then He is not 
Only-begotten‘. For the same cannot be both Only-begotten 
and First-born, except in different relations ;—that is, Only- 
begotten, because of His generation from the Father, as has 
been said ; and First-born, because of His condescension * to 
the creation and ‘the brotherhood which He has made with 
many. Certainly, those two terms being inconsistent with 
each other, one should say that the attribute of being Only- 
begotten has justly the preference” in the instance of the uae 
Word, in that there is no other Word, or other Wisdom, but 
He alone is very Son of the Father. 

10. Moreover*,as was before said*,not in connection withany ὃ p. 256. 


h This passage, which has been we say,’ observes Photius, ‘that Gre- 


urged against Bull supr. p. 278, is ad- 
duced against him by Wessel also in 
his answer to Cremer. (Nestorianismus 
Redivivus, p. 223.) All the words 
(says Athan.) which are proper to the 
Son, and describe Him fitly, are ex- 
pressive of what is internal to the 
Divine Nature, as Begotten, Word, 
Wisdom, Glory, Hand, &c. but (as he 
adds presently) the first-born, like be- 
ginning of ways, is relative to creation ; 
and therefore cannot denote our Lord’s 
essence or Divine subsistence, but some- 
thing temporal, an office, character, or 
the like. 

This passdge is imitated by Theo- 
doret. in Coloss. i. 15. but the passages 
from the Fathers referrible to these Ora- 
tions are too many to enumerate. “Τῇ 


gory Theologus and Basil the Divine 
drew from this work as from a fount the 
beautiful and clear streams of their 
own writings which they poured out 
against the heresy, I suppose we shall 
not be far from the mark.’”’ Cod. 140. 
And so of S. Cyril and, as far as his 
subjects allow, of S. Kpiphanius. 

k We now come to a third and wider 
sense of πρωτότοκος, as found (not in 
Rom. 8, 29. and Col. 1, 18. but) in Col. 
1, 15. where by creation Athan. under- 
stands ‘‘ all things visible and invisible.”’ 
As then for the works was just now taken 
to argue that created was used in a 
relative and restricted sense, the same 
is shewn as regards first-born by the 
words for in Him all things were 
created, 


Disc. 
ΠῚ: 


John 1, 


18. 


Col. 1, 
16. 


§. 63. 


1 δυσσε- 
Beis, 
misbe- 
lievers, 


370 The First-born of all is not one of ail. 


reason, but absolutely! it is said of Him, The Only-begotten 
Son which is in the bosom of the Father ; but the word First- 
born has again the creation as a reason in connection with it, 
which Paul proceeds to say, for in Him all things were 
created. But if all the creatures were created in Him, He 
is other than the creatures, and is not a creature, but the 
Creator of the creatures. Not then because He was from 
the Father was He called First-born, but because in Him 
the creation came to be™; and as before the creation He was 
the Son, through whom was the creation, so also before He 
was called the First-born of the whole creation not the less 
was the Word Himself with God and the Word was God. 
11. But this also not understanding, these irreligious’ men 
go about saying, “If He is First-born of all creation, it is plain 
that He too is one of the creation.”” Men without under- 
standing! if He is simply first-born of the whole creation, 
then He is other than the whole creation ; for.he says not, 
“ He is First-born above the rest of the creatures,” lest He 
be reckoned to be as one of the creatures, but it is written, 
of the whole creation, that He may appear other than the 


creation "=. 


1 ἀπολελυμένως ; supr. p. 261, note ἃ. 
p. 356, τ. 2. p. 361, τ. 1. and so ἀπο- 
λύτως Theophylact to express the same 
distinction in loc. Coloss. 

m Jt would be perhaps better to 
translate ‘‘first-born ¢o the creature,” 
to give Athan.’s idea; τῆς κτίσεως not 
being a partitive genitive, or πρωτότοκος 
a superlative, (though he presently so 
considers it,) but a simple appellative 
and τῆς κτ. a common genitive of re- 
lation, as ‘‘the king of a country,’’ 
“the owner of a house.” ‘‘ First-born 
of creation” is like ‘author, type, 
life of creation.” As, after calling our 
Lord in His own nature ‘‘a light,’”’ we 
might proceed to say that He was also 


_“a light to the creation,” or ‘ Arch- 


luminary,’”’? so He was not only the 


Eternal Son, but a ‘Son to creation,” 
an ‘archetypal Son.’’ Hence St. 
Paul goes on at once to say, ‘‘for in 
Him all things were made,’’ not simply 
“‘by and for,’’ as at the end of the 
verse; or as Athan. says here, ‘“ be- 
cause in Him the creation came to be.” 
On the distinction of διὰ and ἐν, referring 
respectively to the first and second 
creations, vid. In illud. Omn. 2. Wessel 
understands Athan.’s sense of πρωτό- 


Reuben, for instance, is not said to be first-born 


τόκος somewhat differently, as shall be 
mentioned presently. 

n To understand this passage, the 
Greek idiom must be kept in view, 
which differs from the English. As 
the English comparative, so the Greek 
superlative implies or admits the ex- 
clusion of the subject of which it is used, 
from the things with which it is con- 
trasted. Thus ‘Solomon is wiser than 
the heathen,” implies of course that he 
was not a heathen: but the Greeks can 
say, ‘‘ Solomon is wisest of the heathen,” 
or according to Milton’s imitation ‘‘ the 
fairest of her daughters Eve.’”’ Vid. as 
regards the very word πρῶτος, John 1, 
15; and supr. p. 321, r. 5. also πλείστην 
ἢ ἔμπροσθεν ἐξουσίαν 3 Machab. 7, 21. 
Accordingly as in the comparative to 
obyiate this exclusion, we put in the 
word other, (ante alios immanior omnes, ) 
so too in the Greek superlative, ‘‘ So- 
crates is wisest of other heathen.”’ Atha- 
nasius then says in this passage, that 
‘first-born of creatures”? implies that 
our Lord was not a creature ; whereas 
it is not said of Him “ first-born of bre- 
thren,’’ lest He should be excluded from 
men, but ‘first-born among brethren,’ 
where among is equivalent to other. 


Our Lord is First-born in the former and in the new creation. 371 


of all the children of Jacob°, but of Jacob himself and his C#4?.- 


brethren ; lest he should be thought to be some other beside ———— 


the children of Jacob. Nay, even concerning the Lord Himself 
the Apostle says not, “that He may become First-born of 
all,” lest He be thought to bear a body other than ours, but 


among many brethren, because of the likeness of the flesh. Rom. 8, 
If then the Word also were one of the creatures, Scripture ~~ 


would have said that He was First-born of other creatures; 


but now the sacred writers saying that He is First-born of Col. 1, 
the whole creation, the Son of God is plainly shewn to be !* 


other than the whole creation and not a creature. For if He 
is a creature, He will be First-born of Himself. How then 
is it possible, O Arians, for Him to be before and after Him- 
self? next, if He is a creature, and the whole creation 
through Him came to be, and in Him consists, how can He 
both create the creation and be one of the things which con- 
sist in Him ? 

12. Since then such a notion ἡ is in itself extravagant, it 15 
proved against them by the truth, that He is called Mirst-born 
among many brethren because of the relationship of the flesh, 
and First-born from the dead, because the resurrection of 
the dead is from Him and after Him; and Lirst-born of the 
whole creation, because of the Father’s love to man, which 
brought it to pass that in His Word.not only all things 
consist, but the creation itself, of which the Apostle speaks, 
waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God, shall be 
delivered one time from the bondage of corruption into the 
glorious liberty of the children of God. Of this creation 
thus delivered, the Lord will be First-born, both of it and of 
all those who are made children, that by His being called 


3 / 
ET LVOLAS 


Col. 1, 
17. 


Rom. 8, 
19. 21. 


© Ῥουβὴν, πρωτότοκός μου, σὺ ἰσχύς 
μου, καὶ ἀρχὴ τέκνων μου. Gen. 49, 3. 
Sept. Wessel considers that Athan. 
understands ‘first-born’? to mean 
‘‘ heir,’’ as in the case of the Patriarchs ; 
and he almost seems to have these words 
in his mind, (because none other to his 
purpose occur in the passage,) though 
Reuben was not the heir of Jacob. His 
interpretation of the word is, that when 
the Son of God came into the world, He 
took the title of ‘‘ first-born ”’ or “‘ heir,”’ 
**Princeps et Dominus creature,” 
p. 322; ‘lest He should be thought a 


mere man, and that He might be ac- 
counted Lord of all creatures and be- 
lievers, as having created all things, and 
new created all the predestined.”’ p. 216. 
Yet what Athan. says in 64, init. is 
surely inconsistent with this. Vid. also 
contr. Gent. 41, f. where the text Col. 
1, 15. is quoted. 


P Thus there are two senses in which 


our Lord is ‘first-born to the crea- 
tion ;”’ viz. in its first origin, and in its 
restoration after man’s fall; as he says 
more clearly in the next section. 


Disc. 
IL. 


Ἰδιαμεινῆ, 
vid. p. 32, 


4p. 309. 


“5 συγκα- 
ταβέβηκε 


δ. 
εὔκρα- 
τον, p. 


ΡΤ te 


Heb. 1, 
6. 


372 Unless He were First-born, creatures could not have been. 


first, those that come after Him may abide’, as depending on 
the Word as a beginning ’. 

13. And I think that the irreligious men themselves will be 
shamed from such a thought; for if the case stands not as 
we have said, but they will rule it that He is First-born of 
the whole creation as in substance* a creature among creatures, 
let them reflect that they will be conceiving Him as brother 
and fellow of the things without reason and life. For of the 
whole creation these also are parts; and the First-born must 
be first indeed in point of time but only thus, and in kind and 
similitude * must be the same with all. How then can they 
say this without exceeding all measures of irreligion? or 
who will endure them, if this is their language ? or who can 
but hate them even imagining such things? For it is evident 
to all, that neither for Himself, as being a creature, nor as 
having any connection according to substance* with the whole 
creation, has He been called First-born of it; but because 


the Word, when at the beginning He framed the creatures, © 


condescended * to things generate, that it might be possible 
for them to come to be. For they could not have endured His 
untempered’ nature and His splendour from the Father, unless 
condescending” by the Father’s love for man He had supported 
them and taken hold of them and brought them into sub- 
stance?; and next, because, by this condescension’ of the 
Word, the creation too is made a son’ through Him, that 
He might be in all respects rst-born of it, as has been 
said, both in creating, and also in being brought for the 
sake of all into this very world. For so it is written, When 
He bringeth the First-born into the world, He saith, Let 


all the Angels of God worship Him. Wet Christ’s enemies 


a He does not here say with Asterius 
that God could not create man immedi- 


‘ately, for the Word is God, but that He 


did not create kim without at the same 
time infusing a grace or presence from 
Himself into his created nature to en- 
able it to endure His external plastic 
hand; in other words, that he was 
created in Him, not as something ex- 
ternal to Him, (in spite of the διὰ supr. 
note m.) vid. supr. p. 32, noteq. and Gent. 
47. where the συγκατάβασις is spoken of. 

rT As God created Him, in that he 
created human nature in Him, so is 


He first-born, in that human nature 
is adopted in Him. What is here said 
of πρωτότοκος is surely larger than 
Wessel’s interpretation of the word. 
Rather S. Leo gives S. Athanasius’s 
sense ; “ 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.” Serm. 63. 3. i.e. the 
title first-born has reference not to our 
Lord as heir, but as representative of 
His Brethren. 


As He is First-born, so Beginning of ways. 373 


hear and tear themselves to pieces’, because His coming into ἘΞ 
the world is what makes Him called First-born of all; and ἘΠ 


thus the Son is the Father’s Only-begotten, because He note o. 
alone is from Him, and He is the First-born of creation, 
because of this adoption of all as sons’. 

14. And as He is First-born among brethren and rose from 
the dead the first-fruits of them that slept ; so, since it became ᾿ς 
Him in ali things to have the pre-eminence, therefore He is Col, 1, 
created a beginning of ways, that we, walking along it and [8: 
entering through Him who says, 7 am the Way and the Door, 
and partaking of the knowledge of the Father, may also hear 
the words, Blessed are the undefiled in the Way, and Blessed Ps. 119, 
are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. And thus since Matt. 5, 
the truth declares that the Word is not by nature a creature, °. | _ 
es : : : : §. 60. 
it is fitting now to say, in what sense He is beginning of 
ways. For when the first way, which was through Adam 
was lost, and in place of paradise we deviated unto death, 
and heard the words, Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt Eien. a 


5 Thus he considers that “first- calls the Son, ‘‘ars quedam omnipo- 


born” is mainly a title, connected with 
the Incarnation, and also connected 
with our Lord’s office at the creation. 
(vid. parallel of Priesthood, p. 292, note 
m. p. 303, note e.) In each economy 
it has the same meaning; it belongs to 
Him as the type, idea, or rule on which 
the creature was made or new-made, 
and the life by which it is sustained. 
Both economies are mentioned Incarn. 
13,14. And so εἰκὼν καὶ τύπος πρὸς 
ἀρετήν. Orat. i. 81. where vid. (supr. p. 
254.) note i. τύπον τινὰ λαβόντες and 
ὑπογραμμὸν, iii. 20. vid. also 21. ἐν αὐτῷ 
ἦμεν προτετυπωμένοι infr. 76, init. He 
came τύπον εἰκόνος ἐνθεῖναι 78. init. τὴν 
τοῦ ἀρχετύπου πλάσιν ἀναστήσασθαι 
ἑαυτῷ. contr. Apol. ii 5. Also κατε- 
σφραγίσθημεν eis τὸ ἀρχέτυπον τῆς 
εἰκόνος. Cyr. in Joan. p. YL. οἷον ἀπὸ 
τίνος ἀρχῆς: Nyss. Catech. p. 504. fin. 
And so again, as to the original creation, 
the Word is ἰδέα καὶ ἐνέργεια, of all 
material things. Athan. Leg. 10. 7 
ἰδέα ὅπερ λόγον εἰρήκασι. Clem. Strom. 
v. 3. ἰδέαν ἰδεῶν καὶ ἀρχὴν λεκτέον 
τὸν πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως Origen. 
contr. (615, vi. 64. fin. ‘* Whatever God 
was about to make in the creature, was 
already in the Word, nor would be in 
the things, were it not in the Word.” 
August. in Psalm 44, 5. He elsewhere 


tentis atque sapientis Dei, plena omnium 
rationum viventium incommutabilium.”’ 
de Trin. vi. 11. And so Athan. infr. 
πρωτότοκος εἰς ἀπόδειξιν τῆς τῶν πάντων 
διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ δημιουργίας καὶ υἱοποιήσεως. 
iii. 9. fin. Eusebius, in commenting on 
the very passage which Athan. is dis- 
cussing, (Prov. 8, 22.) presents a re- 
markable contrast to these passages, as 
making the Son, not the idéa, but the 
external minister of the Father’s ἰδέα. 
“The Father designed (διετύπου) and 
prepared with consideration, how and of 
what shape, measure, and paris... . 
And He watching (ἐνατενίζων) the 
Father’s thoughts and alone beholding 
the depths in Him, went about the 
work, subserving the Father’s orders, 
(νεύμασι) . . . . as a skilful painter, 
taking the archetypal ideas from the 
Faiher’s thoughts, He transferred them 
to the substances of the works.’’ de 
Eccl. Theol. pp. 164, 5. 85. Cyril 
says, what will serve as a contrast, 
“The Father shews the Son what He 
does Himself, not as if setting it before 
Him drawn out on a tablet, or teach- 
ing as ignorant; for He knows all 
things as God; but as depicting Him- 
self whole in the nature of the Off- 
spring,” &c. in Joann. p. 222. vid, 
supr. p. 324, note b. 


374 Our Lord a new beginning, because mere man could not be. 


thou return, therefore the Word of God, who loves man, 


τι aaq puts on Him created flesh at the Father’s will’, that whereas 


Ὁ ψιλός 


8. 66. 


-from the transgression, could not be he. 


“ceive 


the first man had made it dead through the transgression, 
He Himself might quicken it in the blood of His proper 
Body‘, and might open for us a way new and living, as the 
Apostle says, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh ; 
which He signifies elsewhere thus, Wherefore, if any man be 
in Christ, he is a new creation; old things are passed away, 
But if a new creation 
has come to pass some one must be first of this creation ; 
mere ἢ man then, made of earth only, such as we are become 
For in the first 
creation, men had become unfaithful, and through them that 
first creation had been lost; and there was need of some one 
else to renew the first creation, and preserve the new which 


behold, all things are become new. 


‘had come to be. 


15. Therefore from love to man none other than the Lord, 
the beginning of the new creation, is created as the Way, and 
consistently says, The Lord created me a beginning of ways 


Jor His works; that man might converse no longer according 


to that first creation, out as having a beginning of a new 
creation, and in it the Christ a beginning of ways,-we might 
follow Him henceforth, who says to us, Iam the Way :—as 
the blessed Apostle teaches in his Epistle to the Colossians, 
saying, He is the head of the body, the Church, who is the 
Beginning, the First-born from the dead, that in all things 
He might have the pre-eminence. For if, as has been said, 
because of the resurrection from the dead He is called a 
beginning, and then a resurrection took place when He, 


t Vid. supr. p. 250, note d. p. 254, 
note k. p. 360, note g. ‘‘ We could 
not otherwise,” says 8. Irenzus, “ re- 
incorruption and immortality, 
but by being united to incorruption and 
immortality. But how could this be, 
unless incorruption and immortality 
had first been made what we are? 


the corruptible flesh according to the 
measure of its own nature, ineffably, 
and inexpressibly, and as He alone 
knows, He might bring it to His own 
life, and render it partaker through 
Himself of God and the Father. : 
For He bore our nature, refashioning 
it into His own life; . . . Heisin us 


that corruption might be absorbed by 
incorruption and mortal by immortality, 
that we might receive the adoption of 
Sons.”’ Her. iii. 19, n. 1. ‘* He took 
part of flesh and blood, that is, He be- 
came man, whereas He was Life by 
nature, .... that uniting Himself to 


through the Spirit, turning our natural 
corruption into incorruption and chang- 
ing death to its contrary.” Cyril. in 
Joan. lib. ix. cir. fin. This is the doc- 
trine of 8. Athanasius and S. Cyril, one 
may say, passim. 


He died, paid the debt, rose again, 


bearing our flesh, had given Himself to death for us, it is a 
evident that His words, He created Me a beginning of ways, ——— 
is indicative not of His substance’, but of His bodily presence. ap 
For to the body death was proper"; and in like manner to 
the bodily presence are the words proper, The Lord created 
Me a beginning of His ways. For since the Saviour was thus 
created according to the flesh, and had become a beginning 
of things new created, and had our first fruits, viz. that human 
flesh which He took to Himself, therefore after Him, as is 
fit, is created also the people to come, David saying, This 48 
shall be written for another generation, and the people that '® 
shall be created shall praise the Lord. 
twenty-first Psalm, They shall come, and the heavens shall Ps. °2, 
declare His righteousness, unto a people that shall be born Ἵ 
whom the Lord hath made. For we shall no more hear, Jn Gen. 2, 


102, 


And again in the 


the day that thou eatest thereof, thow shalt surely die; but 11: 
Where I am, there ye shall be also; so that we may say, 5 John 1; 
We are His workmanship, created unto good works. Tiph. 2 2, 


16. And again, since God’s work, that is, man, though created ah 

perfect, has become wanting through the transgression, and 

dead in sin, and it was unbecoming that the work of God 
should remain imperfect, (wherefore all the saints” beseech ? ἜΝΙ 
concerning this, for instance in the hundred and thirty- ,. ΕἸ ὧν 
saying, The Lord shall make good His ps. 138, 
loving-kindness towards me; despise not then the works of ὃ' 
Thine own hands ;) therefore the perfect Word of God puts 
around Him an imperfect body *, and is said to be created for 3 contr. 


the works ; that, paying the debt* in our stead, He might, by ; Oras 


seventh Psalm, 


u Athanasius here says that our 
Lord’s body was subject to death; and 
so elsewhere, ‘‘ His body, as having a 
common substance with all men, for it 
was a human body, though by a new 
marvel, it subsisted of the Virgin alone, 
yet, being mortal, died after the com- 
mon course of the like natures.”” Incarn. 
20, 6. also 8, Ὁ. 18. init. Orat. iii. 56. 
And so τὸν ἄνθρωπον σαθρωθέντα. Orat. 
iv. 33. And so S. Leo in his Tome lays 
down that in the Incarnation, suscepta 
est ab eternitate mortalitas. Ep. 28. 3. 
And 8. Austin, Utique vulnerabile atque 
mortale corpus habuit [Christus] contr. 
Faust. xiv. 2. A Eutychian sect denied 
this doctrine (the Aphthartodocetz), 


and held that our Lord’s manhood was 
naturally indeed corrupt, but became 
from its union with the Word incorrupt 
from the moment of conception ; and in 
consequence it held that our Lord did 
not suffer and die, except by miracle. vid. 
Leont. c. Nest. ii. (Canis. t. i. pp. 563, 
4, 8.) vid. supr. pp. 241—3, notes h 
and i; also infr. p. 389, note c. And 
further, note on iii. 57. 

Χ ἀνθ᾽ ἡμῶν Thy ὀφειλὴν ἀποδιδοὺς, 
and so the Lord’s death λύτρον πάντων. 
Incarn. V. D. 25. λύτρον καθάρσιον. 
Naz. Orat. 30, 20. fin. also supr. 9. c. 13, 
b. 14, a. 47, Ὁ, c. 55, c. 67, d. Inillud 
Omn. 2 fin. 


376 that we might reign in Him in heaven. 


ge Himself, perfect what was wanting to man. Now immortality 
was wanting to him, and the way to paradise. This then is 
ies 17, what our Saviour says, I have glorified Thee on the earth, 
; I have perfected the work which Thou gavest Me to do; 
John 5, and again, The works which the Father hath given Me to per- 
Ὁ Ject, the same works that I do bear witness of Me; but 
the works He here says that the Father hath given Him to 
perfect, are those for which He is created, saying in the 
Proverbs, The Lord hath created Me a beginning of His 
ways, for His works; for it is all one to say, The Father 
hath given Me the works, and The Lord hath created Me 
Jor the works. 
§. 67. 17. When then received He the works to perfect, Ὁ God’s 
enemies? for from this also He created will be understood. 
If ye say, “At the beginning when He brought them into 
being out of what was not,” it is an untruth; for they 
were not yet made; whereas He appears to speak as taking 
1 evayés what was already in being. Nor is it pious’ to refer to the 
time which preceded the Word’s becoming flesh, lest His 
coming should thereupon seem superfluous, since for the 
sake of these works that coming took place. Therefore it 
remains for us to say that when He became man, then He 
took the works. For then He perfected them, by healing 
our wounds and vouchsafing to us the resurrection from the 
dead. But if, when the Word became flesh, then were given 
to Him the works, plainly when He became man, then also 
2 p. 375, is He created for the works. Not of His substance’ then is 
της He created indicative, as has many times been said; but of 
His bodily generation. For then, because the works were 
become imperfect and mutilated from the transgression, He 
is said in respect to the body to be created ; that by perfecting 
them and making them whole, He might present the Church 
Eph..5, unto the Father, as the Apostle says, not having spot or 
cs wrinkle or any such thing, but holy and without blemish. 
Mankind then is perfected in Him and restored, as it was 
made at the beginning, nay, with greater grace. For, on rising 
from the dead, we shall no longer fear death, but shall ever 
reign in Christ in the heavens. 
18. And this has been done, since the proper Word of God 
Himself, whe is from the Father, has put on the flesh, and 


No creature, none but the Son, could have undone sin. 377 


become man. For if, being a creature, He had become man, 
man had remained just what he was, not joined to God; for 
how had a work been joined to the Creator by a work°? 
or what succour had come from like to like, when one as well 
as other needed it?? And how, were the Word a creature, 
had He power to undo God’s sentence, and to remit sin, 
whereas it is written in the Prophets, that this is God’s doing? 


CHaAp. 
ΧΕ 


For who is a God like unto Thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and Mie. 7, 


passeth by transgression? For whereas God has said, Dust 
thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return, men have become 
mortal; how then could things generate undo sin? but the 
Lord is He who has undone it, as He says Himself, Uniess 
the Son shall make you free; and the Son, who made free, 
has shewn in truth that He is no creature, nor one of things 
generate, but the proper Word and Image of the Father’s 
Substance, who at the beginning sentenced, and alone re- 
mitteth sins. For since it is said in the Word, Dust thou art, 
and unto dust thou shalt return, suitably through the Word 
Himself and in Him the freedom and the undoing of the 


condemnation has come to pass. 


¢ Vid. p. 15, note e. also p. 251. and 
p- 303, with notee. ‘‘ How could we be 
partakers of that adoption of sons, un- 
less through the Son we had received 
from Him that communion with Him, 
unless His Word had been made flesh, 
and had communicated it to us.’” Iren. 
Her. iii. 20. 

ἃ «‘Therefore was He made man, 
that, what was as though given to Him, 
might be transferred to us; for a mere 
man had not merited this, nor had the 
Word Himself needed it. He was united 
therefore to us, &c.’’ infr. Orat. iv. 6. vid. 
also iii. 33 init. ‘‘ There was need He 
should be both man and God; for unless 
He were man, He could not be killed; 
unless Hewere God, He would have been 
thought, not, unwilling to be what He 
could, but unable to do what He would.” 
August. Trin. xiii. 18. ‘Since Israel 
could become sold under sin, he could 
not redeem himself from iniquities. He 
only could redeem, who could not sell 
Himself; who did no sin, He is the 
redeemer from sin.’’ Id. in Psalm. 129, 
n. 12. ‘In this common overthrow of 
all mankind, there was but one remedy, 
the birth of some son of Adam, a 


stranger to the original prevarication 
and innocent, to profit the rest both by 
his pattern and his merit. Since 
natural generation hindered this, . . the 
Lord of David became his Son.”’ Leon. 
Serm. 28, n. 8. ‘‘ Seek neither a ‘ bro- 
ther’ for thy redemption, but one who 
surpasses thy nature; nor a mere 
‘man,’ but a man who is God, Jesus 
Christ, who alone is able to make pro- 
pitiation for us all. . . . One thing has 
been found sufficient for all men at 
once, which was given as the price of 
ransom of our soul, the holy and most 
precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
which He poured out for us all.”’ Basil. 
in Psalm. 48, n. 4. ‘*One had not been 
sufficient instead of all, had it been 
simply a man; but if He be understood 
as God made man, and suffering in His 
own flesh, the whole creation together 
is small compared to Him, and the 
death of one flesh is enough for the 
ransom of all that is under heaven.’’ 
Cyril. de rect. fid. p. 132. vid. also 
Procl. Orat.i. p. 63. (ed. 1630.) Vigil. 
contr. Eutych. v. p. 529, e. Greg. 
Moral. xxiv. init. Job. ap. Phot. 222. 


Ρ. 983. 
2c 


Gent 35 
19. 


vid. John 
8, 36. 


378 God could have forgiven without the Incarnation, 


Disc. 19. “Yet,” they say, ‘‘though the Saviour were a creature, 


God was able to speak the word only and undo the curse.” 
And so another will tell them in like manner, ‘‘ Without His 
coming among us at all, God was able just to speak and 
undo the curse;” but we must consider what was expedient | 
for mankind, and not what simply is possible with God °. 
He could have destroyed, before the ark of Noah, the then 
transgressors ; but He did it after the ark. He could too, 
without Moses, have spoken the word only and have brought 
the people out of Egypt; but it profited to do it through 
Moses. And God was able without the judges, to save His 
people ; but it was-profitable for the people that for a season 
judges should be raised up to them. The Saviour too might 
have come among us from the beginning, or on His coming 
might not have been delivered to Pilate; but He came αἴ the 
fulness of the ages, and when sought for said, 7 am He. 
For what He does, that is profitable for men, and was not 
fitting in any other way ; and what is profitable and fitting, 
for that He provides’. Accordingly He came, not that He 
might be ministered unto, but that He might minister, and 
might work our salvation. Certainly He was able to speak the 
Law from heaven, but He saw that it was expedient te men for 
Him to speak from Sinai; and that He did, that it might be pos- 
sible for Moses to go up, and for them hearing the word near 


Gal. 4, 4. 
John 18, 


[τὸ 


[7] 


vid. Mat. 


20, 28. 


e Vid. also Incarn. 44. In this 
statement Athan. is supported by Naz. 
Orat. 19, 13. Theodor. adv. Gent. vi. 
p. 876, 7. August. de Trin. xiii. 13. 
{t is denied in a later age by S. Anselm, 
but S. Thomas and the schoolmen side 
with the Fathers. vid. Petav. Incarn. 
ii. 13. However, it will be observed 
from what follows that Athan. thought 
the Incarnation still absolutely essen- 
tial for the renewal of human nature 
in holiness. In like manner in the 
Incarn. after saying that to accept mere 


᾿ repentance from sinners would not have 
-been fitting, 


εὔλογον, he continues, 
‘‘ Nor does repentance recover us from 
our natural state, it does but stop us 
from our sins. Had there been but a 
fault committed, and not a subsequent 
corruption, repentance had been well; 
but if, &c.’”’ 7. That is, we might have 
been pardoned, we could not have been 
new-meade, without the Incarnation ; 


and so supr. 56. 

f “Was it not in His power, had 
He wished it, even in a day to bring 
on the whole rain [of the deluge]? in 
a day, nay in a moment?’’ Chrysost. 
in Gen. Hom. 24, 7. He proceeds to 
apply this principle to the pardon of 
sin. ‘* Now, while this short portion 
of Holy Lent still remains to you, ye 
shall be able both to wash away your 
sins and to gain much mercy from God. 
For not many days, nor time doth the 
Lord require, but even in these two 
weeks, if we will, shall we make a 
great correction of our offences. For 
if the Ninevites, after shewing a re- 
pentance of three days, He repaid with 
so much mercy, &c.” On the subject 
of God’s power as contrasted with His 
acts, Petavius brings - together the 
statements of the Fathers, de Deo, v. 
6. 


Γ 


379 


but man’s nature could not have been strengthened, 


CHAP. 


them the rather to believe. Moreover, the good reason of what = 


He did may be seen thus; if God had but spoken, because 
it was in His power, and so the curse had been undone, the 
power had been shewn of Him who gave the word, but man 
had become such as Adam was before the transgression, 
having received grace from without, and not having it united 
to the body; (for he was such when he was placed in Para- 
dise,) nay, perhaps had become worse, because he had learned 
to transgress. Such then being his condition, had he been 
seduced by the serpent, there had been fresh need for God 
to give command and undo the curse; and thus the need 
had become interminable, and men had remained under εἰς ἄπει- 
guilt not less than before, as being enslaved to sin; and, Pane 
ever sinning, would have ever needed one to pardon them, >. 
and had never become free, being in themselves flesh, and σάρκες 
ever worsted by the Law because of the infirmity of the 
flesh. 

20. Again, if the Son were a creature, man had remained ὃ. 69. 
mortal as before, not being joined to God; for a creature 
had not joined creatures to God, as seeking itself one to join 
it’; nor would a portion of the creation have been the‘ P- 15 
creation’s salvation, as needing salvation itself. To provide 
against this also, He sends His own Son, and He becomes Son 
of Man, by taking created flesh; that, since all were under 
sentence of death, He, being other than them all, might 
Himself for all offer to death His own body; and that hence- 
forth, as if all had died through Him, the word of that sen- 
tence might be accomplished, (for αὐ died in Christ,) and all 2 Ser 5, 

9. 


& Athan. here seems to say that Adam 
in a state of innocence had but an ex- 


a man has justice if he will; the second 
does more, for by it he also wills, and 


ternal divine assistance, not an habitual 
grace; this, however, is contrary to 
his own statements already referred to, 
and the general doctrine of the fathers. 
vid. e. g. Cyril. in Joann. v. 2. He 
must be interpreted by S. Austin, who 
uses similar yet plainer language in con- 
trasting the grace of the first and the 
Second Adam, ‘An aid was [given 
to the first Adam] which he might 
desert when he willed, in which he 
might remain if he willed, not by 
which it came to pass that he willed. 
But a more powerful grace is given to 
the Second. The first is that by which 


wills so strongly and loves so ardently, 
as to overcome the will of the flesh 
lusting contrariwise to the will of the 
spirit,” &c. de Corr. et Grat. 31. vid. 
also infr. p. 389, note b. and S. Cyril. 
‘‘Our forefather Adam seems to have 
gained wisdom, not in time, as we, but 
appears perfect in understanding from 
the very first moment of his formation, 
preserving in himself the illumination 
given him by nature from God as yet 
untroubled and pure, and leaving the 
dignity of his nature unpractised on,’’ 
ἄς. in Joan, p. 78. 


me Ὁ 


εὑρίσκει 
Ath. et 
al. 

1 John 
ΞΕ τ 


Matt. 16, 
23. 


Mark 12, 
25. 


Gal. 6, 
15. 3, 28. 


§. 70. 


2 μέσος 
ὧν ὃ ἄνθρ. 
al. Vers. 
Lat. 


3p. 328, 
note l. 


_ tion. 


380 nor Satan conquered, nor death abolished. 


through Him might thereupon become free from sin and from 
the curse which came upon it, and might truly abide’ for ever, 
risen from the dead and clothed in immortality and incorrup- 
For, the Word being clothed in the flesh, as has many 
times been explained, every wound of the serpent began to be 
utterly staunched from out it; and whatever evil sprung from 
the motions of the flesh, to be cut away, and with these death 
also was abolished, the companion of sin, as the Lord 
Himself says, Zhe prince of this world cometh, and findeth 
nothing in Me; and for this end was He manifested, as 
John has written, that He might destroy the works of the 
devil. And these being destroyed from out the flesh, we all 
were thus liberated by the relationship of that flesh, and hence- 
forward are joined, even we, to the Word. And being joined 
to God, no longer do we abide upon on earth; but, as He 
Himself has said, where He is, there shall we be also; and 
henceforward we shall fear no longer the serpent, for he was 
brought to nought when he was assailed by the Saviour in 
the flesh, and heard Him say, Get thee behind Me, Satan, 
and thus he is cast out of paradise into the eternal fire. 
Nor shall we have to watch against woman seducing us, for 
in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in 
marriage, but are as the Angels; and in Christ Jesus it shall 
be «a new creation, and neither male nor female, but all and 
in all Christ; and where Christ is, what fear, what danger 
can still happen ? But this would not have come to pass, had 
the Word been a creature; for with a creature the devil, 
himself a creature, would have ever continued the battle, and 
man, being between the two’, had been ever in peril of death, 
not having, in whom and through whom he might be joined 
to God and delivered from all fear. 

21. Whence the truth shews us* that the Word is not of 
things generate, but rather Himself their Framer. For 
therefore did He assume the body generate and human, that 
having renewed it as its Framer, He might make it god} 


h ἐν ἑαυτῷ θεοποιήσῃ. vid. also ad 
Adelph. 4. a. Serap. i. 24, e. and p. 360, 
note g. and iii. 33. ‘The Word was 
made flesh that we, partaking of the 
Spirit, might be made gods.”’ supra. p. 
23. “δ deified that which He put on.” 
p. 240. vid. also pp. 23, 151, 236, 


245, 348. Orat. iii, 23. fin. 33. init. 
94, fin. 38, Ὁ. 39, d. 48. fin. 53. For 
our becoming θεοὶ vid. Orat. iii. 25. 
θεοὶ κατὰ χάριν. Cyr. in Joan. p. 74. 
θεοφορούμεθα Orat. iii. 23, c. 41, a. 45 
init. χριστόφοροι. ibid. θεούμεθα. iii. 48 
fin. 53. Theodor. Hist. i. p. 846. init. 


The Mediator must be true God and true Man. 381 
in Himself, and thus might introduce all us into the kingdom ete 
of heaven after His likeness. For man had not been! made <n 


god if joined to a creature, or unless the Son were very 
God ; nor had man been brought into the Father’s presence, 
unless He had been His natural and true Word who had 
put on the body. And as we had not been delivered from 

sin and the curse, unless it had been by nature human flesh, 
which the Word put on, (for we should have had nothing 
common with what was foreign,) so also the man had not 
been made god, unless the Word who became flesh had 
been by nature from the Father and true and proper to Him. 
For therefore the union was of this kind, that He might unite 
what is man by nature to Him who is in the nature of the 
Godhead, and His salvation and deification might be sure. 
Therefore let those who deny:that the Son is from the 
Father by nature and proper to His Substance, deny also 
that He took true human flesh’ of Mary Ever-Virgin'; for in ? vid. 
neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Sg 
Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh 


not true which He assumed. 


i Vid. also Athan. Comm. in Luc. ap. 
Coll. Noy. p. 43. This title, which is 
commonly applied to S. Mary by later 
writers, is found Epiph. Her. 78, 5. 
Didym. Trin. i. 27. p. 84. Rufin. Fid. 
i. 43. Lepor. ap. Cassian. Incarn. i. 5. 
Leon. Ep. 28, 2. Czsarius has ἄει- 
παῖς. Qu. 20. On the doctrine itself 
vid. a letter of S. Ambrose and his 
brethren to Siricius, and the Pope’s 
letter in response. (Coust. Ep. Pont. 
p- 669—682.) As we are taught by 
the predictions of the Prophets that a 
Virgin was to be Mother of the pro- 
mised Messias, so are we assured by 
the infallible relation of the Evangelists, 
that this Mary ‘“‘was a Virgin when 
she bare Him. . .. Neither was the act 
of parturition more contradictory to vir- 
ginity, than the former of conception. 
Thirdly, we believe the Mother of our 
Lord to have been, not only before and 
after His nativity, but also for ever, the 
most immaculate and blessed Virgin. . . 
The peculiar eminency and unparalleled 
privilege of that Mother, the special 
honour and reverence due unto her 
Son and ever paid by her, the regard 
of that Holy Ghost who came upon 
her, the singular goodness and piety of 
Joseph, to whom she was espoused, 


But surely He took true flesh, 


have persuaded the Church of God in all 
ages to believe that she still continued 
in the same virginity, and therefore is 
to be acknowledged as the Ever- Virgin 
Mary.”’ Creed, Art. 3. (vid. supr. p. 
364, note b.) He adds that ‘many 
have taken the boldness to deny this 
truth, because not recorded in the 
sacred writ,’”’ but ‘‘with no success.’ 
He replies to the argument from 
“until” in Matt. 1, 25. by referring 
to Gen. 28, 15. Deut. 34, 6. 1 Sam. 
15, 35. 2 Sam. 6, 23. Matt. 28, 20. 
He might also have referred to Psalm 
110, 1. 1 Cor. 15, 25. which are the 
more remarkable, because they were 
urged by the school of Marcellus as a 
proof that our Lord’s kingdom would 
have an end, and are explained 
by Euseb. Eccl. Theol. iii. 13, 14. 
Vid. also Cyr. Cat. 15, 29; where 
the true meaning of ‘until’? (which 
may be transferred to Matt. 1, 25.) is 
well brought out. “He who is King 
before He subdued His enemies, how 
shall He not the rather be King, after 
He has got the mastery over them ?” 
vid. also note on S. Thomas’s Catena, 
O. T. in loc. vid. also Suicer de Symb. 
Niceno-Const. p. 231. Spanheim. Dub. 
Evang. 28, 11. 


382 Our Lord is God, because the Hand of God. 


Disc. though Valentinus rave ; and’ the Word was by nature Very 


τεττ-ς-- God, though Ariomaniacs rave’; and in that flesh has come 
?p.91, to pass the beginning ἡ of our new creation, He being created 


te 4. . 

ὙΠῸ man for our sake, and having made for us that new way, as 
᾽ 

wees has been said. 

Ρ. 25 - . 

sale il 22. The Word then is neither creature nor work; for crea- 


ὃ. 71. ture, thing made, work, are all one; and were He creature and 
thing made, He wouid also be work. Accordingly He has not 
said, ‘“‘He created Me a work,” nor “He made Me with the 

4 p. 345, works,” lest He should appear to be in nature and substance * 
Paes as creature; nor, “ΗΔ created Me to make works,” lest, on 
the other hand, according to the perverseness of the ir- 
ie dai religious, He should seem as an instrument’ made for our 
ii. 31. Sake. Nor again has He declared, ‘He created Me before 
the works,” lest, as He really is before all, as an Offspring, so, 
if created also before the works, He should give “ Offspring ”’ 
and He created the same meaning. But He has said with 
6 p. 298, exact discrimination’, for the works; as much as to say, 
note 2. <The Father has made Me into flesh, that I might be man,” 
which again shews that He is not a work but an offspring. 
For as he who comes into a house, is not part of the house, 
but is other than the house, so He who is created for the 
works, must be by nature other than the works. 
23. But if otherwise, as you hold, O Arians, the Word of 
7 p.311, God be a work, by what’ Hand and Wisdom did He Himself 
note Kk. come into being; for all things that came to be, came by 
Is. 66, 2. the Hand and Wisdom of God, who Himself says, My hand 
hath made all these things; and David says in the Psalm, 
Ps. 102, And Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations 
of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands; 
Ps. 143, and again, in the hundred and forty-second Psalm, J do 
remember the time past, I muse upon all Thy works, yea 
I exercise myself in the works of Thy hands. Therefore 
if by the Hand of God the works are wrought, and it is 
John 1, written that all things were made through the Word, and 
ne 8, without Him was made not one thing, and again, One Lord 
ἊΝ Jesus, through whom are all things, and in Him all things 5 
17. ~+~consist, it is very plain that the Son cannot be a work, but 
abe, He is the Hand* of God and the Wisdom. This knowing, 
the martyrs in Babylon, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, 


Distinction in Scripture between Gods Word and Works. 383 


arraign the Arian irreligion. For when they say, O all ye pated 
works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord, they recount things in : 
heaven, things on earth, and the whole creation, as works ; 
but the Son they name not. For they say not, “ Bless, O 
Word, and praise, Ὁ Wisdom ;’ to shew that all other things 
are both praising and are works; but the Word is not a 
work nor of those that praise, but is praised with the Father 
and worshipped and confessed as God *, being His Word and 
Wisdom, and of the works the Framer. 

24. This too the Spirit has declared in the Psalms with a 
most apposite distinction, the Word of the Lord is true, and Ps. 33, 4. 
all His works are faithful; as m another Psalm too He 
says, O Lord, how manifold are Thy works ! in Wisdom hast Ps. 104, 
Thou made them all. But if the Word were a work, then “¢ 72). 
certainly He as others had been made in Wisdom; nor would 
Scripture have distinguished Him from the works, nor while 
it named them works, evangelised Him as Word and proper 
Wisdom of God. But, as it is, distinguishing Him from 
the works, He shews that Wisdom is Framer of the works, 
and not a work. This distinction Paul also observes, writing 
to the Hebrews, The Word of God is quick and powerful, Heb. 4, 
and sharper than any two-edged sword, reaching even to ἐμά τ τς 
dividing of soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and a 
discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, neither is 
there any creation hidden before Him, but all things are 
naked and open unto the eyes of Him with whom is our 
account. For behold he calls things generate creation; but the 
Son he recognises as the Word of God, as if He were other 
than the creatures. And again saying, A// things are naked 
and open to the eyes of Him with whom is our account, he 
signifies that He is other than all of them. For hence it is 
that He judges, but each of all things generate is bound to 
᾿ give account to Him. And so also, when the whole creation 
is groaning together with us in order to be set free from the 
bondage of corruption, the Son is thereby shewn to be other 
than the creatures. Forif He were creature, He too would be 


K βεολογούμενος. vid. supr. p. 56, note e.g. p. 42, ἃ, 86, a. 99, ἃ. 122, c. 124, 
k. also Incarn. c. Ar. 3. 19, d. Serap. i. Ὁ. &c. icuptoho-yers, In Ilud. Omn. 6, Ὁ. 
28, a. 29, d. 31, d. contr. Sab. Greg. contr. Sab. Greg. §. 4, ἢ, 
and passim ap. Euseb. contr. Marcell. 


Disc. 
II 


384 Distinction between the Word and the Works. 


one of those who groan, and would need one who should 
bring adoption and deliverance to Himself as well as others. 
And if the whole creation groans together, in behalf of 
freedom from the bondage of corruption, whereas the Son is 
not of those who groan nor of those who need freedom, but 
He it is that gives sonship and freedom to all, saying to the 
Jews of His time’, The servant remains not in the house for 
ever, but the Son remaineth for ever; if then the Son shall 
make you free, ye shall be free indeed ; it is clearer than the 
light from these considerations, that the Word of God is not a 
creature but true Son, and by nature genuine, of the Father. 
Concerning then Zhe Lord hath created Me a beginning of 
the ways, this is sufficient, as I think, though in few words, 
to afford matter to the learned to frame more ample refutations 
of the Arian heresy. 


CHAPTER XXII. 


TEXTS EXPLAINED } SIXTHLY, THE CONTEXT OF PROVERBS Viil. 22, 
viz. 22—30. 


It is right to interpret this passage by the Regula Fidei. “ Founded” is 
used in contrast to superstructure; and it implies, as in the case of 
stones in building, previous existence. ‘ Before the world” signifies 
the divine intention and purpose. Recurrence to Prov. viii. 22. and 
application of it to created Wisdom as seen in the works. The Son 
reveals the Father, first by the works, then by the incarnation. 


1. Bur since the heretics, reading the following verse’, take 1 στίχον 
a perverse view of it as well as the preceding, because it is 
written, He founded Me before the world, namely, that this Prov. 8, 
is said of the Godhead of the Word and not of His incarnate ?* 
Presence *, it is necessary, explaining this verse also, to shew ᾿ἔνσαρκος 
their error. p. 252, i 

2. It is written, The Lord in Wisdom hath founded the 2 8: 
earth ; if then by Wisdom the earth is founded, how can He p,,, 3° 
who founds be founded? nay, this too is said after the '% 
manner of proverbs *, and we must in like manner investigate ? p. 342, 
its sense; that we may know that, while by Wisdom the ve 
Father frames and founds the earth to be firm and stedfast*, * διαμέ- 
Wisdom Itself is founded for us, that It may become beginning 380, ἘΓΕ 
and foundation of our new creation and renewal. Accordingly 
here as before, He says not, “ Before the world He hath 
made Me Word or Son,” lest there should be as if a beginning 
of His making. For this we must seek before all things, 
whether He is Son’, and on this point specially search the ° Ρ. 342, 
Scriptures*; for this it was, when the Apostles were questioned, aay " 


a vid. supr. p. 57, note |. p. 60, note thus teaches.’”’ Theod. Eran. p. 199. 
c. vid. also Serap. i. 32 init. iv, fin. ‘* We have borne the rule of doctrines 
contr. Apoll. i. ὁ, 8, 9, 11, 22. ii. 8,9, (κανόνα) out of divine Scripture.” ibid. 
13, 14, 17—19. ‘The doctrine of the p. 213. ‘Do not believe me, let Scrip- 
Church should be proved, not an- ture be recited. I do not say of myself 
nounced, (ἀποδεικτικῶς οὐκ ἄποφαν- ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ but I 
Tik@s;) therefore shew that Scripture hear it; I do not invent, but I read; 


Disc. 
LL: 


Matt. 16, 
16. 

Matt. 4, 
3. 


67. fin. 
note infr. 
on iii. 8. 
27d κύριον 
3 of τότε, 
p. 384, 
ell 


4 πατρι- 
κὴν, vid. 
supr. 

p. 145, 
note r. 

§. 74. 
5 περιερ- 
γάζεσθαι, 
vid. ili. 
18. 


6 p. 366, 
ry Ὁ: 


ΤΥ: 9: 
10. 11. 


386 Had our Lord been mere man, the devil had not feared Him. 


that Peter answered, saying, Zhou art the Christ, the Son of the 
Living God. This also the father’ of the Arian heresy asked 
one of his first questions; If Thou be the Son of God; for 
he knew that this is the truth and the sovereign principle? of 
our faith; and that, if He were Himself the Son, the tyranny 


_p. of the devil would have its end; but if He were a creature, 


He too was one of those descended from that Adam whom he 
deceived, and he had no cause for anxiety. For the same 
reason the Jews of the day * were angered, because the Lord 
said that He was Son of God, and that God was His proper 
Father. For had He called Himself one of the creatures, or 
said, “I am a work,” they had not been startled at the 
intelligence, nor thought such words blasphemy, knowing, 
as they did, that Angels too had come among their fathers ; 
but since He called Himself Son, they perceived that such 
was not the note of a creature, but of Godhead and of the 
Father’s nature*. The Arians then ought, even in imitation of 
their own father’ the devil, to take some special pains” on this 
point; and if He had said, “ He founded Me to be Word or 
Son,”’ then to think as they do; but if He has not so spoken, 
not to invent for themselves what is not. 

3. For He says not, “ Before the world He founded Me as 
Word or Son,” but simply, He founded Me, to shew again, 
as I have said, that not for His own sake* but for those who 
are built upon Him does He here also speak, after the way 
of proverbs. For this knowing, the Apostle also writes, 
Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is 


what we all read, but not all under- 
stand.’? Ambros. de Incarn. 14. Non 
recipio quod extra Scripturam de tuo 
infers. Tertull. Carn. Christ. 7. vid. 
also 6. ‘‘ You departed from inspired 


. Scripture and therefore didst fall from 


grace.”’ Max. dial. v. 29. Heretics in par- 
ticular professed to be guided by Scrip- 
ture. Tertull. Prescr. 8. For Gnostics 
vid. Tertullian’s grave sarcasm. “ Utan- 
tur hzretici omnes scripturis ejus, 
cujus utuntur etiam mundo.” Carn. 
Christ. 6. For Arians, vid. supr. p. 
178, note c. And so Marcellus, ‘‘ We 
consider it unsafe to lay down doctrine 
concerning things which we have not 
learned with exactness from the divine 
Scriptures.” (leg. περὶ ὧν. . mapa τῶν.) 


Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p. 177,d. And Mace- 
donians, vid. Leont. de Sect. iv. init. 
And Monophysites, “1 have not learned 
this from Scripture; and I have a great 
fear of saying what it is silent about.’ 
Theod. Eran. p. 215. 5. Hilary brings 
a number of these instances together 
with their respective texts, Marcellus, 
Photinus, Sabellius, Montanus, Manes; 
then he continues, ‘“‘Omnes Scripturas 
sine Scripture sensu loquuntur, et fidem 
sine fide pretendunt. Scriptura enim 
non in legendo sunt, sed in intelligendo, 
neque in prevaricatione sunt sed in 
caritate.”’ ad Const. ii. 9. vid. also 
Hieron. c. Lucif. 27. August. Ep. 120, 
13. 


He was “founded”’ when incarnate, that we might be built on Him. 387 


Jesus Christ; but let every man take heed how he buildeth CHar. 
thereupon’, And it must be that the foundation should be such τ; tae 
as the things built on it, that they may admit of being well Trin. iii. 
compacted together. Being then the Word, He has not, as ie 
far as Word’, any such as Hagel who may be compacted es > 
with Him; for He is Only-begotten; but having become Ρ- 291, 
man, He has the like of Him, those namely the likeness of a 
whose flesh He has put on. Therefore according to His. 
manhood He is founded, that we, as precious stones, may 
admit of building upon Him, and may become a temple of 
the Holy Ghost who dwelleth in us. And as He is a 
foundation, and we stones built upon Him, so again He is a 
Vine and we knit to Him as branches,—not according to the 
Substance of the Godhead; for this surely is impossible; but 
according to His manhood, for the branches must be like 
the vine, since we are like Him according to the flesh. 

4. Moreover, since the heretics have such human notions, 
we may suitably confute them with human resemblances 
contained in the very matter they urge. Thus He saith not, 
“ He hath made Me a foundation,” lest He might seem to be ᾿ 
made and to have a beginning of being, and they might 
thence find a shameless occasion of irreligion; but, He hath 
founded Me. Now what is founded is founded for the sake 
of the stones which are raised upon it; it is not a random * * ἁπλῶς 
process, but a stone is first transported from the mountain 
and set down in the depth of the earth. And while a stone 
is in the mountain, it is not yet founded; but when need 
demands, and it be transported, and laid in the depth of the 
earth, then forthwith if the stone could speak, it would say, 
“Now he has founded me, who has brought me hither from 
the mountain.” Therefore the Lord also, did not when 
founded take a beginning of existence; for He was the 
Word before that; but when He put on our body, which He 
severed * and took from Mary, then He says He hath founded 4 τμηθέν 
Me ; as much as to say, “Me, being the Word, He hath , Epiet. 
enveloped in a body of earth.” For 80 He is founded for 6. a. 
our sakes, taking on Him what is ours’, that we, as in- ae on. 3. 
corporated and compacted and bound together in 1 aaa 
through the likeness of the flesh, may attain unto a perfect ἡ P- si 
man, and abide*® immortal and incorruptible. 


388 


Disc. 


§. 75. 


Gen. I, 


2 p. 251, 


note f. 


Our Lord was founded, or created in flesh, “before the world,” 


5. Nor let the words before the world and before He made 
the earth and before the mountains were settled disturb any 
one; for they very well accord with founded and created ; 
for here again allusion is made to the Economy according to 
the flesh. For though the grace which has come to us from 
the Saviour has lately appeared, as the Apostle says, and 
took place when He came among us; yet this grace had 
, been prepared even before we came into being, nay, before 
the foundation of the world, and the reason why, is excellent 
and wonderful. It beseemed not that God should counsel 
concerning us afterwards, lest He should appear ignorant of 
our fate. The God of all’ then, creating us by His proper 
Word, and knowing our destinies better than we, and fore- 
seeing that, being made good, we should in the event be trans- 
gressors of the commandment, and be thrust out of paradise 
for disobedience, being loving and kind, prepared before- ~ 
hand in His proper Word, by whom also He created us’, the 
Economy of our salvation; that though by the serpent’s 
deceit we fell from Him, we might not remain altogether 
dead, but having in the Word the redemption and salvation 
which was afore prepared for us, we might rise again and 
abide immortal, what time He should have been created for 
us a beginning of the ways, and He who was the First-born of 
creation should become first-born of the brethren, and again 
should rise first-fruits of the dead. 
6. This Paul the blessed Apostle teaches in his writings ; 
for, as interpreting the words of the Proverbs before the world 


3 Didym. and before the earth was, he thus speaks to Timothy *; Be 


Trin. iii. 


3. p. 342. 
. power of God, who hath saved us and called us with a holy 


2 Tim. ] 
ra 


Eph. 1, 


partaker of the afflictions of the Gospel according to the 


calling, not according to our works, but according to His own 
purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the 
world began, but is now made manifest by the appearing of our 
Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and brought 
to light life. And to the Ephesians; Blessed be God even the 
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all 
spiritual blessing in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, according 
as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, 
that we should be holy and without blame before Him in 
love, having predestinated us to the adoption of children 


in that it was determined in God’s everlasting purpose. 389 


CHap. 


by Jesus Christ to Himself. How then has He chosen riot 


us, before we came into existence, but that, as he says 
himself, in Him we were represented’ beforehand? and vee 272, 
how at all, before men were created, did He predestinate us >. 9's 
unto adoption, but that the Son Himself was founded before 

the world, taking on Him that economy which was for our 

sake? or how, as the Apostle goes on to say, have we an 
inheritance being predestinated, but that the Lord Himself v- 11. 
was founded before the world, inasmuch as He had a purpose, 

for our sakes, to take on Him through the flesh all that inhe- 
ritance of judgment which lay against us, and we henceforth 

were made sons in Him? and how did we receive it before 

the world was, when we were not yet in being, but afterwards 

in time, but that in Christ was stored the grace which has 
reached us? Wherefore also in the Judgment, when every 

one shall receive according to his conduct, He says, Come, ye Matt. 25, 
blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you > 
trom the foundation of the world. How then, or in whom, 

was it prepared before we came to be, save in the Lord who 

before the world was founded for this purpose; that we, as 

built upon Him, might partake, as well-compacted stones, 

the life and grace which is from Him ? 

7. And this took place, as naturally suggests itself to the 
religious mind, that, as I said, we, rising after. our brief 
death, may be capable of an eternal life, of which we had 
not been capable’, men as we are, formed of earth, but that 


b The Catholic doctrine seems to be, 
that Adam innocent 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 immor- 
tality should have been given him. vid. 
Incarn. 4, a. b. ‘‘ If God accorded to the 
garments and shoes of the Israelites,” 
says 5. Augustine, ‘that they should 
not wear out during so many years, 
how is it strange that to man obedient 
His power should be accorded, that, 
whereas his body was animal and mortal, 
it was so constituted as to become aged 
without decay, and at such time as God 
willed might pass without the inter- 
vention of death from mortality to im- 
mortality? For as the flesh itself, which 


we now bear, is not therefore invulne- 
rable, because it may be preserved from 
wounding, so Adam’s was not therefore 
not mortal, because he was not bound 
to die. Such a habit even of their 
present animal and mortal body I sup- 
pose was granted also to them who 
have been translated thence without 
death ; for Enoch and Elias too have 
through so long a time been preserved 
from the decay of age.’ de pecc. mer. 
i. 3. Adam’s body, he says elsewhere, 
“mortale quia poterat mori, immortale 
quia poterat non mori;’’ and he goes 
on to say that immortality was given 
him “de ligno vite non de constitu- 
tione nature.’’ Gen. ad lit. vi. 20. This 
doctrine came into the controversy with 
Baius, and Pope Pius V. condemned 


Disc. 


1 p. 324, 
note c. 


390 And this was done beforehand, to be ready for the need. 


before the world there had been prepared for us in Christ the 
hope of life and salvation. Therefore reason is there that 
the Word, on coming into our flesh, and being created in it 
as a beginning of ways jor His works, is laid as a foundation 
according as the Father’s will’ was in Him before the world, 
as has been said, and before land was, and before the 
mountains were settled, and before the fountains burst forth ; 
that, though the earth and the mountains and the shapes of 
visible nature pass away in the fulness of the present age, 
we on the contrary may not grow old after their pattern, but 


_ mnay be able to live after them, having the spiritual life and 


3p. 341, 
note i. 


blessing which before these things have been prepared for us 
in the Word Himself according to election. For thus we 
shall be capable of a life not temporary, but ever afterwards 
abide* and live in Christ; since even before this our life had 
been founded and prepared in Christ Jesus. 

8. Nor in any other way was it fitting that our life should 


be founded, but in the Lord who is before the ages, and 


through whom the ages were brought to be; that, since it 
was in Him, we too might be able to inherit that everlasting 
life. For God is good; and being good always, He willed 
this, as knowing that our weak nature needed the succour 
and salvation which is from Him. And as a wise archi- 
tect, proposing to build a house, consults also about re- 
pairing it, should it at any time become dilapidated after 
building, and, as counselling about this, makes preparation 
and gives to the workmen materials for a repair; and thus the 
means of the repair are provided before the house; in the 
same way prior to us is the repair of our salvation founded in 
Christ, that in Him also we might be new-created. And the 
will and the proposal were ready before the world; but the 
work took place, when the need required, and the Saviour 
came among us. For the Lord Himself will stand us in 
place of all things in the heavens, when He receives us into 
everlasting life. 

9. This then suffices to prove that the Word of God is not 
a creature, but that the doctrine of the passage 1s concordant 
with orthodoxy*. But since that passage, when scrutinized, 


the assertion, Immortalitas primi ho- course is here referred to only histo- 
minis non erat gratiz beneficium sed rically. 
naturalis conditio. His decision of 


The wisdom thatis created, is, not the Son, but wisdom inthe works.391 


CuHapr. 


has an orthodox sense in every point of view, it may be well ἘΠῚ 


_ to state what it is; perhaps many words may bring these 
senseless men to shame. Now here I must recur to what 
has been said before, for what I have to say relates to the 
Same proverb and the same Wisdom. The Word has not 
called Himself a creature by nature, but has said in proverbs, 
The Lord created Me; and He plainly indicates a sense not 
spoken plainly but latent’, such as we shall be able to find ' p. 343. 
by taking away the veil from the proverb. For who, on 
hearing from the Framing Wisdom, The Lord created Me 

a beginning of His ways, does not at once question the 
meaning, reflecting how that creative Wisdom can be 
created? who on hearing the Only-begotten Son of God 

say, that He was created a beginning of ways, does not 
investigate the sense, wondering how the Only-begotten 

Son can become a Beginning of many others? for it is a 

dark saying’; but a@ man of understanding, says he, shall " αἴνιγμα, 
understand a proverb and the inter ‘pretation, the words of the p. 238, 
wise and their dark sayings. Pee tL 

10. Now the Only-begotten and very Wisdom * of God is 5. 6. 

Creator and Framer of all things; for in Wisdom hast Thou = a 
made them all, he says, and the earth is full of Thy creation. 24. Sept. 
But that what came into being, might not only be, but be “ὑπὸ 


σοφία. 


good", it pleased God that His own Wisdom should con- vid. infr. 


note on 
descend’ to the creatures, so as to introduce an impress and jy, 9, 


semblance ὃ of Its Image on all in common and on each, that ἡ Ἐπ 
what was made might be manifestly wise works and worthy Be q. 
of God*. For as of the Son of God, considered as the Word, areas 
our word is an image, so of the same Son considered as Ἢ ΤΡ 
Wisdom is the wisdom which is implanted in us an image; ae ae 
in which wisdom we, having the power of knowledge and erent 


thought, become recipients of the All-framing Wisdom; and 


¢ Didymus argues in favour of in- 
terpreting the passage of created wisdom 
at length, Trin. iii. 3. He says that the 
context makes this interpretation ne- 
cessary, as speaking of ‘the fear of 
God” being the “ beginning ”’ of it, of 
“ doing it,’’ and of ‘‘ kings and rulers ”’ 
reigning by means of it. Again it is 
said that wisdom was with the Creator 
who was Himself the Son and Word. 
“The Son and Word, the Framer of 
all, who was all-knowing and powerful 


from the beginning, long-suffering and 
waiting for repentance in the unrighteous 
and wrong-thinking multitude, when 
He had finished all, delighted in wisdom 
which was in the creatures and was glad 
in it, rejoicing in His ownwork.” p. 336. 
He contrasts with this the more solemn 
style used by the sacred writer when 
he speaks of the Uncreated Wisdom; 
ὑπερφυῶς καὶ ὥσπερ ὑπ᾽ ἐκπλήξεως Oav- 
μάζων ἀναφθέγγεται, e.g. Prov. 30, 3. 


Disc. 
II 


vid. 


1 John 
Didier 
Mat. 10, 
40. 


Mat. 10, 
40. 


Rom. 1. 
19. 20 


1 p. 345, 
note g. 


392 Wisdom in the works is a type and impress of the Son. 


through It we are able to know Its Father. For he who 
hath the Son, saith He, hath the Father also; and he that 
receiveth Me, receiveth Him that sent Me. Such an impress 
then of Wisdom being created in us, and being in all the works, 
with reason does the true and framing Wisdom take to Itself 
what belongs to its own impress, and say, The Lord created Me 
Jor His works ; for what the wisdom in us says, that the Lord 
Himself speaks as if it were His own; and, whereas He is 
not Himself created, being Creator, yet because of the image 
of Him created in the works‘, He says this as if of Himself. 
And as the Lord Himself has said, He that receiveth you, 
receweth Me, because His impress is in us, so, though He 
be not among the creatures, yet because His image and im- 
press is created in the works, He says, as if in His own 
person, Zhe Lord created Me a beginning of His ways for 
fis works. And therefore has this impress of Wisdom in 
the works been brought into being, that, as I said before, the 
world might recognise in it its own Creator the Word, and 
through Him the Father. And this is what Paul said, Be- 
cause that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for 
God has shewed it unto them: for the invisible things of Him 
from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being under- 
stood by the things that are made. But if so, the Word is 
not a creature in substance’; but the wisdom which is 
in us and so called, is spoken of in this passage in the 
Proverbs. 


d As Athan. here considers wisdom 
as the image of the Creator in the Uni- 


said to be framed, as the world is said, 
and is created the beginning of God’s 


- clad and attired. 


verse, so elsewhere he explains it of 
the Church, de Incarn. contr. Ar. 6. if 
it be his; (and so Didym. Trin. iii. 
3 fin.) but the interpretation is very 
much the same as his own, supr. 56. 
S. Jerome applies it to the creation of 
the new man in holiness, ‘‘‘ Put ye on 
Christ Jesus ;’ for He is the new man, 
in whom all we believers ought to be 
For what was not 
new in the man which was taken 
on Him by our Saviour? He rather 
who can imitate His conversation and 
bring out in himself all virtues, he has 
put on the new man, and can say 
with the Apostle, ‘ Not I, but Christ 
liveth in me.’ Im great deeds and 
works the word ‘ creation’ is used. The 
new man is the great work of God, and 
excels all other creatures, since he is 


ways, and in the commencement of all 
the elements.” in Eph. iv. 23, 24. 
Naz. alludes to the interpretation of 
Wisdom being the plan, system, or laws 
of the Universe, Orat. 30, 2. though 
he does not so explain it himself. Epi- 
phanius says, “Scripture has no where 
confirmed this passage, (Prov. 8, 22.) 
nor has any Apostle referred it to 
Christ.” (vid. also Basil. contr. Eunom. 
ii. 20.) He adds, ‘‘How many wis- 
doms of God are there, improperly so 
called! but One Wisdom is the Only- 
begotten, not improperly so called, but 
in truth. ... The very word ‘ wisdom’ 
does not oblige me to speak of the Son 
of God.’ Her. 69. pp. 743—745. He 
proceeds to shew how it may apply to 
Him. 


Passages in Scripture which speak of wisdom in the works. 398 


11. But if this too fails to persuade them, let them tell us Cxar. 

themselves, whether there is any wisdom in th tures or > 
: y wisdom in the creatures o 79 

not'? If not, how is it that the Apostle complains, Lor after iyia. 
that in the.Wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God ? Eppes 
or how is it if there is no wisdom, that a multitude of τὸ ise 5. | 
men are found in Scripture? for a wise man feareth and de- aie 1, 
parteth from evil; and through wisdom is a house builded ; via. 
and the Preacher says, 4 man’s wisdom maketh his face to A 
shine; and he blames those who are headstrong thus, Say ἜΝ 14, 
not thou, what is the cause that the former days were better Be 24, 
than these? for thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this. 3 eee: 
But if, as the Son of Sirach says, He poured her out upon ᾿ 15 
all His works; she is with all flesh according to His gift, ae 
and He hath given her to them that love Him, and this out- 1» 9. 10. 
pouring is a note, not of the Substance of the Very? Wisdom Ξαύτοσυ- 
and Only-begotten, but of that wisdom which is imaged in peat 
the world, how is it incredible that the All-framing and true ἢ Se an 
Wisdom Itself, whose impress is the wisdom and knowledge Orat. iv. 
poured out in the world, should say, as I have already ex- Ξ 
plained, as if of Itself, Zhe Lord hath created Me for His 
works ? 


54, 6, 


12. For the wisdom in the world is not creative, but is 
that which is created in the works, according to which the 
heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth 
His handywork. This if men have within them®, they will ac- 
knowledge the true Wisdom of God; and will know that they 
are made really* after God’simage. And, as some son of a king, 
when the father wished to build a city‘, might cause his own 


Psy 10:1. 


3 ὄντως, 
vid. p. 56, 
note k. 


€ Athan. speaks, contr. Gent. of man 
“‘ having the grace of the Giver, and his 
own virtue from the Father’s Word ;”’ of 
the mind “ seeing the Word, and in Him 
the Word’s Father also,’’ 2; of ‘‘ the 
way to God being, not as God Him- 
self, above us and far off, or external 
to us, but in us,” 30, &c. &c. vid. also 
Basil. de Sp. 5. n. 19. ‘‘ Rational crea- 
tures, receiving light, enlighten by 
imparting principles which are poured 
from their own mind into another in- 
tellect; and such an illumination may 
be justly called teaching rather than 
revelation. But the Word of God en- 
lighteneth every man that cometh into 
the world, not in the way of a teacher, 
as for instance Angels do or men, but 


rather as God in the way of a Framer 
doth He sow in each whom He calls 
into being the seed of Wisdom, that is 
of divine knowledge, and implant a root 
of understanding,’ &c. Cyril. in Joan. 
Ρ. 75. Athan. speaks of this seed some- 
what differently elsewhere as a natural 
instinct in the world in contrast to the 
Word by whom it is imparted. He calls 
it ‘‘a reason combined and connatural 
with every thing that came into being, 
which some are wont to call seminal, 
inanimate indeed and unreasoning and 
unintelligent, but operating only by 
external art according to the science of 
Him who sowed it.” contr. Gent. 40. 

f This is drawn out somewhat dif- 
ferently, and very strikingly in contr. 


=D 


Disc. 
11. 


) φαντα- 
σίαν 


2 τύπον 


8 συγκα- 
τέβην. 


8. 80. 


Acts 9, 4. 


4 αὐτο- 
σοφίας, 
p. 393, 
τ: 

5 infr. ili. 


394 Asour Lord persecuted in His Saints, so created in the works. 


name to be printed upon each of the works that were rising, 
both to give security to them of the works remaining, by reason 
of the show' of his name on every thing, and also to make 
them remember him and his father from the name, and 
having finished the city might be asked concerning it, how 
it was made, and then would answer, ‘‘It is made securely, for 
according to the will of my father, Iam imaged in every work, 
for there is a creation of my name in the works;” but saying 
this, he does not signify that his own substance is created, 
but the impress” of himself by means of his name; in the 
same manner, to apply the illustration, to those who admire 
the wisdom in the creatures, the true Wisdom makes answer, 
The Lord hath created Me for the works, for My impress is 
in them; and I have thus condescended * for the framing of 
all things. ᾿ 

13. Moreover, that the Son should be speaking of the im- 
press that is within us as if it were Himself, should not startle 
any one, considering (for we must not care about repetition 8) 
that, when Saul was persecuting the Church, in which was 
His impress and image, He said, as if He were Himself under 
persecution, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? Therefore, (as 
has been said,) as, supposing the impress itself of Wisdom 
which is in the works had said, Zhe Lord hath created Me 
for the works, no one would have been startled, so, if He, the 
True and Framing Wisdom, the Only-begotten Word of God, 
should use what belongs to His image as about Himself, 
namely, The Lord hath created Me for the works, let no one, 
overlooking the wisdom created in the world and in the 


works, think that He created is 
Very * Wisdom, lest, diluting 
judged a defrauder of the truth. 


said of the Substance of the 
the wine with water*, he be 
For It is Creator and Framer; 


but Its impress is created in the works, as the copy of an 


. image. 


" Gent. 43. The Word indeed is regarded 


more as the Governor than the Life of 
the world, but He is said, 8. 43, 6 παρα- 
δοξοποιὸς καὶ θαυματοποιὸς τοῦ θεοῦ 
λόγος φωτίζων καὶ ζωοποιῶν. .. ἑκαστῷ 
τὴν ἰδίαν ἐνέργειαν ἀποδιδοὺς, &c. 44. 
Shortly before he spoke of the Word as 
the Principle of permanence. 41 fin. 

& τὸ αὐτὸ yap λέγειν οὐκ ὀκνητέον : 
where Petavius, de Trin. ii. 1. 8. 8. 


ingeniously but without any authority 
reads οὐκ ὀκνεῖ θεόν ; and most gratui- 
tously too, for it is quite a peculiarity 
of Athan. to repeat and to apologize for 
doing so. The very same words occur 
supr. 22, c. Orat. iii. 54, a. Serap.i. 19, 
b. 27, 6. Vid. also 2, c. 41, d. 67, a. 69, 
b. iii. 39 init. vid. especially Incarn. 20 
d. 


Wisdom “ Beginning of ways,” for by it we walk heavenwards. 395 


14. And He says, Beginning of ways, since such wisdom mete 

becomes a sort of beginning, and, as it were, rudiments’ οἵ, ἜΣ 
the knowledge of God; for a man entering, as it were, upon χείωσις 
this way first, and keeping it in the fear of God, (as Solo- 
man says, Zhe fear of the Lord is the beginning of wis- Prov. 1, 
dom,) then advancing upwards in his thoughts and perceiving oS 
the Framing Wisdom which is in the creation, will perceive in 
It also Its ‘Father', as the Lord Himself has said, He that sem 14, 
hath seen Me, hath seen the Father, and as John writes, He who Ἷ 1 Soha 
acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father also. And He says, ἜΜ ἢ 
Before the world hath He founded Me, since in its impress the ΕΝ ἴῃ 
works remain settled? and eternal. Then, lest any, hearing abe 
concerning the wisdom thus created in the works, should vid. 
think the true Wisdom, God’s Son, to be by nature a creature, Mesa 
He has found it necessary to add, Before the mountains, and Ss 
before the earth, and before the waters, and before all hills Prov. 8, 
He begets Me, that in saying, “before all creation,” (for He 2: 50. 
includes all the creation under these heads,) He may shew 
that He is not created together with the works according to 
Substance. For if He was created for the works, yet is be- 
fore them, it follows that He is in being before He was created. 
He is not then a creature by nature and substance, but as 
He Himself has added, an Offspring. But in what differs a 
creature from an offspring, and how it is distinct by nature, 
has been shewn in what has gone before. 

15. But since He proceeds to say, When He prepared the §. 81. 
heaven, I was present with Him, we ought to know that He a 8, 
says not this as if without Wisdom the Father prepared ried 
heaven or the clouds above, (for there is no room to doubt 
that all things are created in Wisdom, and without It 
was made not even one thing;) but this.is what He says, 

«All things took place in Me and through Me, and when 
there was need that Wisdom should be created in the works, 


h The whole of this passage might 
be illustrated at great length from the 
contr. Gent. and the Incarn. V. D. vid. 
supr. notes on 79. ‘*The soul as in a 
mirror contemplates the Word the 
Image of the Father, and in Him con- 
siders the σάν whose Image the 
Saviour is... or if not... yet from the 
things that are seen, the creation as by 


letters signifying and heralding its 
Lord and Maker by means of its order 
and harmony.” Gent. 34. “ As by look- 
ing up to the heaven... we have an 
idea of the Word who set it in order, 
so considering the Word of God, we 
cannot but see God His Father.’ 45. 
And Incarn. 11, 4], 42, &c. Vid. also 
Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 16. 


2n2 


396 Wisdom first shewed Itself in the works, then in the human form. 

pas in my Substance indeed I was with the Father, but by a 

—— condescension to things.generate, I was disposing over the 

works My own impress, so that the whole world as bemg in 

one body, might not be at variance but in concord with 

itself.”” All those then who with an upright understanding, 

according to the wisdom given unto them, come to com- 

vid. Ps. template the creatures, are able to say for themselves, “ By 
119, 91. : : : 

Thy appointment all things continue ;” but they who make 

Rom.1, light of this, must be told, Professing themselves to be wise, 

Με they became fools; for that which may be known of God is 

manifest in them; for God has revealed it unto them; for 

the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are 

clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, 


even His eternal Power and Godhead, so that they are with- 
out excuse. Because that when they knew God, they glorified 
Him not as God, but served the creature more than the 
Creator of all, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 
16. And they will feel some compunction surely at the 
1 Cor. 1, words, For, after that in the wisdom of God, (in the mode we 
22; have explained above,) the world by wisdom knew not God, it 
pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that 
believe. For no longer, as in the former times, God has 
willed to be known by an image and shadow of wisdom, that 
namely which is in the creatures, but He has made the true 
Wisdom Itself to take flesh, and to become man, and to 
undergo the death of the cross; that by the faith in Him, 
henceforth all that believe may obtain salvation. However, 
it is the same Wisdom of God, which through Its own Image 
in the creatures, (whence also It is said to be created,) first 
manifested Itself, and through Itself Its own Father; and 
John 1, afterwards, being Itself the Word, It became flesh, as John- 
a says, and after abolishing death and saving our race, still 
more revealed Himself, and through Him His own Father, 
vid. John Saying, Grant unto them that they may know Thee the only 
17,8. true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent. 
8. 82. 17. Hence the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of 
Him ; for the knowledge of Father through Son and of Son 


i Here again, as in former passages, the image of Wisdom on the works, or 
the συγκατάβασις has no reference what- what He above calls the Son’s image, 
ever to a figurative γέννησις, as Bishop on which account He is πρωτότοκος. 
Bull contends, but to His impressing 


The Father and Son rejoice, in seeing Each Himself in Each Other. 397 


from Father is one and the same, and the Father delights pa | 
in Him, and in the same joy the Son rejoices in the Father, : 
saying, I was by Him, daily His delight, rejoicing always Prov. 8, 
before Him. And this again proves that the Son is not Ὁ 
foreign, but proper to the Father’s Substance. For behold, 
not because of us has He come to be, as the irreligious men 
say, nor is He out of nothing, (for not from without did God 
procure for Himself a cause of rejoicing’,) but the words denote ! χαρᾶς 
what is proper and like. When then was it, when the Father ἀρ τ 
rejoiced not? but if He ever rejoiced, He was ever, in whom 
He rejoiced. And in whom does the Father rejoice, except 
as seeing Himself in His proper Image, which is His Word ? 
And though in sons of men also He had delight, on finishing 
the world, as it is written in these same Proverbs, yet this vid. Prov. 
too has a consistent sense. For even thus He had delight, oa 
not as if joy came upon Him, but again as seeing the works 
made after His own Image; so that even this rejoicing of 
God is on account of His Image. And how too has the 
Son delight, except as seeing Himself in the Father ? for this 
is the same as saying, He thai hath seen Me hath seen the John 14, 
Father, and I am in the Father and the Father in Me. 

18. Vain then is your vaunt as is on all sides shewn, O 
Christ’s enemies, and vainly do ye preach * and circulate every 
where your text, Zhe Lord hath created Me a beginning of 
His ways, perverting its sense, and publishing, not Solo- 
mon’s meaning, but your own comment’*. For behold your *8dvoa, 
sense is proved to be but a fantasy; but the passage in the vape 
Proverbs, as well as all that is above said, proves that the P- >, 
Son is not a creature in nature and substance, but the proper 
Offspring of the Father, true Wisdom and Word, by whom 
all things were made, and without Him was made not one John 1, 
thing. 5; 

Kk ἐνεπομπεύσατες ‘The ancients cars using bad language towards by- 
said πομπεύειν ‘to use bad language,’ standers, and their retorting it.”” Erasm. 
and the coarse language of the pro- Adag. p. 1158. He quotes Menander, 


cession, πομπεία. This arose from the ἐπὶ τῶν ἁμαξῶν εἰσὶ πομπεῖαι τινὲς 
custom of persons in the Bacchanalian σφόδρα λοίδοροι. 


§. 1. 


Prov. 18, 
3. Sept. 


Jer. 3, 3. 


) supr. 
ch. xix. 
2 ch. xiii. 
3 ch. xxi. 
4 ch. xiv. 
5p. 34l, 
note i. 


§ ἐρευγό- 


μενοι 


John 14, 
10. 


DISCOURSE III. 


CHAPTER XXIII. 
TEXTS EXPLAINED; SEVENTHLY, JOHN xiv. 10. 


Introduction. The doctrine of the coinherence. The Father and the Son 
Each whole and perfect God. They are in Each Other, because their 
Substance is One and the Same. They are Each Perfect and have One 
Substance, because the Second Person is the Son of the First. Asterius’s 
evasive explanation of the text under review ; refuted. Since the Son 
has all that the Father has, He is His Image; and the Father is the 
One God, because the Son is in the Father. 


1. Tux Ario-maniacs, as it appears, having once made up 
their minds to transgress and revolt from the Truth, are strenu- 
ous in appropriating the words of Scripture, When the impious 
cometh into a depth of evil, he contemneth; for refutation 
does not stop them, nor perplexity abash them; but, as 
having a whore’s forehead, they refuse to be ashamed before 
all men in their irreligion. For whereas the passages which 
they alleged, The Lord created Me’, and Made better than 
the Angels*, and First-born*, and Faithful to Him that made 
Him *, have an orthodox meaning’, and inculcate religiousness 
towards Christ, so itis that these men still, as if bedewed with 
the serpent’s poison, not seeing what they ought to see, nor 
understanding what they read, as if in vomit® from the depth 
of their irreligious heart, have next proceeded to disparage our 
Lord’s words, I in the Father and the Father in Me; saying, 
“‘ How can the One be contained in the Other and the Other 
in the One?”’ or “ How atall can the Father who is the greater 
be contained in the Son who is the less?” or “ What wonder, if 
the Son is in the Father, considering it is written even of us, 


s 


The Arians speak of God as material. 399 


In Him we live and move and have our being?” And this peg 
state of mind is consistent with their perverseness ᾽, who think 4347, 
God to be material®, and understand not what is ‘True 28. 
Father” and “True Son,” nor “Light Invisible” and “Eternal,” Reese 
and Its “ Radiance Invisible,’’ nor “ Invisible Subsistence *,” eu 
and “Immaterial Expression”? and ‘“ Immaterial Image.” 
For had they known, they would not have dishonoured and 
ridiculed the Lord of glory, nor interpreting things immaterial 
after a material manner, perverted good words. 

2. It were sufficient indeed, on hearing only words which 
are the Lord’s, at once to believe, since the faith of simplicity 
is better than an elaborate* process of persuasion; but since 
they have endeavoured to make even this passage level with 
their own heresy, it becomes necessary to expose their per- 
verseness ' and to shew the mind of the truth, at least for the 
security of the faithful. For when it is said, I in the Futher 
and the Father in Me, They are not therefore, as these sup- 
pose, discharged into Each Other, filling the One the Other, 
as in the case of empty vessels, so that the Son fills the 


emptiness of the Father and the Father that of the Son”, 


4 ἐκ περι- 
epylas 


a yid. supr. p. 338, note ἃ. The 
doctrine of the περιχώρησις, which this 
objection introduces, is the test of or- 
thodoxy opposed to Arianism. vid. p. 
95, note d. This is seen clearly in the 
case of Eusebius, whose language ap- 
proaches to Catholic more nearly than 
Arians in general. After all his strong 
assertions, the question recurs, is our 
Lord a distinct being from God, as we 
are, or not? he answers in the affirm- 
ative, vid. supr. p. 63, note g. whereas 
we believe that He is literally and nu- 
merically one with the Father, and 
therefore His Person dwells in the 
Father’s Person by an ineffable union. 
And hence the strong language of Pope 
Dionysius, supr. p. 46, ‘the Holy 
Ghost must repose and habitate in God,” 
ἐμφιλοχωρεῖν τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐνδιαιτᾶσθαι. 
And hence the strong figure of S. Jerome, 
(in which he is followed by 8. Cyril, 
Thesaur. p. 51.) ‘Filius locus est 
Patris, sicut et Pater locus est Filii.”’ 
in Ezek. iii. 12. Hence Athan. con- 
trasts the creatures who are ἐν μεμερισ- 
μένοις τόποις and the Son. Serap. iii. 4. 
c. d. Accordingly, one of the first 
symptoms of reviving orthodoxy in the 
second school of semi Arians (as they 


have above been called in notes to de 
Syn.) in the Macrostich Creed, is the 
use of language of this character, viz. 
‘€ All the Father embosoming the Son,”’ 
they say, ‘‘and all the Son hanging 
and adhering to the Father, and alone 
resting on the Father’s breast con- 
tinually.”’ supr. p. 116, where vid. note 
h 


b This might seem, but is not, in- 
consistent with S. Jerome as quoted in 
the foregoing note. Athan. does but 
mean that such illustrations cannot be 
taken literally, as if spoken of natural 
subjects. The Father is the τόπος or 
locus of the Son, because when we con- 
template the Son in His fulness as ὅλος 
θέος, we do but view the Father as that 
Person in whom God the Son is; our 
mind abstracts His Substance which is 
the Son for the moment from Him, and 
regards Him merely as Father. Thus 
Athan. τὴν θείαν οὐσίαν τοῦ λόγου ἡνωμέ- 
νον φύσει τῷ ἑαυτοῦ πατρί. In Illud. 
Omn. 4. It 15, however, but an operation 
of the mind, and not a real emptying of 
Godhead from the Father, if such words 
may be used. Father and Son are both 
the same God, though really and eter- 
nally distinct from each other ; and Each 


Disc. 
TIL. 


4 ἐκ πη- 


γῆ, 

Ρ. 25, 
note 6. 

5 ζωογο- 
νεῖται 

8 (woryovet 


τυ 


400 He is not in the Son, as He is in us. 


and Each of Them by Himself is not complete and perfect, 
(for this is proper to bodies, and therefore the mere assertion 
of it is full of irreligion,) for the Father is full and perfect, 
and the Son is the Fulness of Godhead. Nor again, as God, 
by coming’ into the Saints, strengthens them, thus is He 
also in the Son. For He is Himself the Father’s Power and 
Wisdom, and by partaking’ of Him things generate are 


sanctified in the Spirit; but the Son Himself is not Son by| 2 


participation *, but is the Father’s proper Offspring’. Nor 


. again is the Son in the Father, in the sense of the passage, 


In Him we live and move and have our being ; for, He as being 
from the Fount* of the Father is the Life, in which all 
things are both quickened’* and consist; for the Life does not 
live in life‘, else it would not be Life, but rather He gives 


life® to all things. 


3. But now let us see what Asterius the Sophist says, the 


is full of the Other, that is, their Sub- 
stance is one and the same. This is 
insisted on by S. Cyril, ‘‘ We must not 
conceive that the Father is held in the 
Son as body in body, or vessel in vessel; 
.... for the One is in the Other, as ἐν 
ταὐτότητι τῆς οὐσίας ἀπαραλλάκτῳ, καὶ 
τῇ κατὰ φύσιν ἑνότητί τε καὶ ὁμοιότητι. 
in Joan. p. 28. And by 5. Hilary; 
“‘ Material natures do not admit of being 
mutually in each other, of having a 
perfect unity of a nature which sub- 
sists, of the abiding nativity of the Only- 
begotten being inseparable from the 
unity of the Father’s Godhead. To 
God the Only-begotten alone is this 
proper, and this faith attaches to the 
mystery of a true nativity, and this is 
the work of a spiritual power, that to 
be and to be in differ nothing ; to be in, 
yet not to be one in another as body in 
body, but so to be and to subsist, as to 
be in the subsisting, and so to be in, as 
also to subsist,’? &c. Trin. vii. fin. vid. 
also iii. 23. The following quotation from 
S. Anselm is made by Petavius, de Trin. 
iv. 16 fin. and may be given here, 
though he cannot be here used as an 
authority ; ‘‘ Though there be not many 
eternities, yet if we say eternity in 
eternity, there is but one eternity. And 
so whatever is said of God’s Essence, 
if repeated in itself, does not increase 
quantity, nor admit number. Since 
there is nothing out of God, when God 
is born of God. He will not be born 
out of God, but remains in God.” 


¢ vid. supr. p. 15, note e, p. 32, note 
q. fin. p. 203, and note d. On the 
other hand Eusebius considers the Son, 
like a creature, ef αὐτῆς τῆς πατρικῆς 
[not οὐσίας, but] μετουσίας, ὥσπερ ard 
πηγῆς“, ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν προχεομένης πληρού- 
μενον. Eccl. Theol. i. 2. words which 
are the more observable, the nearer they 
approach to the language of Athan. in 
the text and elsewhere. Vid. infr. by 
way of contrast, οὐδὲ κατὰ μετουσίαν 
αὐτοῦ, GAA’ ὅλον ἴδιον αὐτοῦ γέννημα. 4. 

d j,e. Son does not live by the gift 
of life, for He is life, and does but 
give it, not receive. S. Hilary uses 
different language with the same mean- 
ing, “ Vita viventis [Filii] in vivo 
[Patre] est.’ de Trin. ii. 11. Other 
modes of expression for the same mys- 
tery are found infr. ‘‘the whole being 
of the Son is proper to the Father’s 
substance ;”” 3. ‘‘the Son’s being, be- 
cause from the Father, is therefore in 
the Father;” ibid. also 6 fin. “the 
Father’s Godhead is the being of the 
Son.” 5. Vid. supr. p. 145, note r. and 
Didymus 7 πατρικὴ θεότης, p. 82. and 
S. Basil, ἐξ οὗ ἔχει τὸ εἶναι. contr. 
Eunom. ii. 12 fin. Just above Athan. 
says that ‘the Son is the fulness of the 
Godhead.” Thus the Father is the 
Son’s life because the Son is from Him, 
and the Son the Father’s because the 
Son is in Him. All these are but dif- 
ferent ways of signifying the περιχώ- 
pnots. 


Asterius said, the Father in the Son, for His words given Him. 401 


retained pleader’ for the heresy. In imitation then of the Jews Oa 

so far, he writes as follows; “It is very plain that He has said, sae 

that He is in the Father and the Father again in Him, for pov, infr. 

this reason, that neither the word, on which He was discours- 

ing is, as He says, His own, but the Father’s, nor the works 

belong? to Him, but to the Father who gave Him the power.” ἢ οἰκεῖα 

Now this, if uttered at random by a little child, had been 

excused from his age; but when one who bears the title of 

Sophist, and professes universal knowledge ®, is the writer, 

what a serious condemnation does he deserve? And does he 

not shew himself a stranger to the Apostle *, as being puffed * P- 131, 
note d. 

“up with persuasive words of wisdom, and thinking thereby to «μα, 

succeed in deceiving, not understanding himself what he 1 Tim.1, 

saith nor whereof he affirms? For what the Son has said as 

proper and suitable to a Son only, who is Word and Wisdom 

and Image of the Father’s Substance, that he levels to all the 

creatures, and makes common to the Son and to them; and 

he says, lawless* man, that the Power of the Father receives 

power, that from this his irreligion it may follow to say that 

in a Son‘ the Son was made a son, and the Word received a. “" υἱῷ, 


but ἐν τ 
Word’s authority ; and, far from granting that He spoke this υἱῷ. Ep. 


as a Son, he ranks Him with all things made as having & hi a 
learned it as they have. For if the Sea said, I am in the p- 311, 
Father and the Father in Me, because His discourses were note K, 
not His own words but the Father’s, and so of His works, 

then, since David says, Z will hear what the Lord God shall « a ΕἸ =r 
say in Me, and again Solomon, My words are spoken by God,» 

and since Moses was minister of words which were from 

God, and each of the Prophets spoke not what was his own 

but what was from God, Thus saith the Lord, and since the 

works of the Saints, as they professed, were not their own 

but God’s who gave the power, Elias for instance and Eliseus 
invoking God that He Himself would raise the dead, and 
Eliseus saying to Naaman, on cleansing him from the leprosy, 


© πάντα γινώσκειν ἐπαγγελλόμενος. of being able to ‘‘ make the worse cause 
Gorgias according to Cicero de fin. ii. the better.” Rhet. ii, 24 fin. Vid. 
init. was the first who ventured in public Cressol. Theatr. Rhet. iii. 11. 
to say προβάλλετε, “ give me ἃ ques- f παράνομος. infr. 47, c. Hist. Ar. 
tion.”’” This was the ἐπάγγελμα of the 71, 75, 79. Ep. Aig. 16,d. Vid. ἄνομος. 
Sophists; of which Aristotle speaks, 2 Thess. 2, 8. 
ascribing to Protagoras the ‘ profession”’ 


Disc. 
III. 
vid. 
2 Kings 
5, 8. 15. 


“ar 
Co 


1 ἐξαίρε- 
TOV, p. 
308, 
note f. 


2 γνήσιον 


402 The Father is in the Son, because the Son Jrom the Father. 


that thou mayest know that there is a God in Israel, and 


τ Samuel too in the days of the harvest praying to God to 


grant rain, and the Apostles saying that not in their own 
power they did miracles but in the Lord’s grace, it is plain 
that, according to Asterius, such a statement must be com- 
mon to all, so that each of them is able to say, I in the 
Father and the Father in Me; and as a consequence that He 
is no longer one Son of God and Word and Wisdom, but, as 
others, is only one out of many. 

4. But if the Lord said this, His words would not rightly 
have been, I in the Father and the Father in Me, but rather, 
“T too am in the Father and the Father is in Me too,” that 
He may have nothing proper and by prerogative’, relatively 
to the Father, as a Son, but the same grace in common with 
all. But it is not so, as they think; for not understanding 
that He is genuine” Son from the Father, they bely Him who 
is such, whom only it befits to say, I in the Father and the 


Father in Me. For the Son is in the Father, as it is allowed] 
3 


us to know, because the whole Being of the Son is proper to 
the Father’s substance, as radiance from light, and stream 


from fountain; so ‘that whoso sees the Son, sees what is 


proper to the Father, and knows that the Son’s Being, because 


from the Father, is therefore in the Father. For the Father / 


is in the Son, since the Son is what is from the Father and 
proper to Him, as in the radiance the sun, and in the word 


& Since the Father and the Son are 
the numerically One God, it is but ex- 
pressing this in other words to say that 
the Father is in the Son and the Son in 
that Father, for all They have and all 
They are is common to Each, excepting | 
Their being Father and Son. A περι- 
χώρησις of Persons is implied in the 
Unity of Substance. This is the con- 
nexion of the two texts so often quoted; 
“the Son is in the Father and the 
Father in the Son,” because ‘‘ the Son 
and the Father are one.’’ And the 
cause of this unity and περιχώρησις is 
the Divine γέννησις. Thus S. Hilary: 
“The perfect Son of a perfect Father, 
and of the Ingenerate God the Only- 
begotten Offspring, who from Him who 
hath all hath received all, God from God, 
Spirit from Spirit, Light from Light, 
says confidently, ‘The Father in Me 
and 1 in the Father,’ for as the Father 


is Spirit so is the Son, as the Father 
God so is the Son, as the Father Light 
soisthe Son. From those things there- 
fore which are in the Father, are those 
in which is the Son; that is, of the 
whole Father is born the whole Son; 
not from other, &c..... not in part, 
for in the Son is the fulness of Godhead. 
What is in the Father, that too is in 
the Son; One from-the Other and Both 
One (unum); not Two One Person 
(unus,” vid. however, the language 
of the Athan. Creed, which expresses 
itself differently after S. Austin) but 
Hither in Other, because not Other 
in Either. The Father in the Son, 
because from Him the Son... the Only- 
begotten in the Ingenerate, because 
from the Ingenerate the Only-begotten, 
&c. Trin. ii. 4. vid. supr. p. 326, note 


g- 


| 


One and the same Godhead in Father and Son. 403 


the thought, and in the stream the fountain: for whoso thus | 
contemplates the Son, contemplates what is proper to the 
Father’s Substance, and knows that the Father is in the Son. 


CHAP. 
XXIII. 


For whereas the Face® and Godhead of the Father is the | 


Being of the Son, it follows that the Son is in the Father 


and the Father in the Soni. 


5. On this account and reasonably, having said before, I ies 10, 
and the Father are One, He added, I in the Father and es 


Futher in Me, by way of shewing the identity * of Godhead Bibi 
For they are one, ποῦ" as one rer 


and the unity of Substance. 


᾽ 


thing divided into two parts, and these nothing but one, nor ὃ. 4. 


2 infr. 


as one thing twice named, so that the Same becomes at one Oyat, ἵν. 
time Father, at another His own Son, for this Sabellius 9- 


holding was judged an heretic. 


But They are two, because 


the Father is Father and is not also Son, and the Son is Son 


and not also Father’ 
offspring is not unlike * 


h εἴδους, face orform. Petavius here 
prefers the reading ἰδίου ; θεότης and τὸ 
ἴδιον occur together infr. = and 56. εἶδος 
occurs Orat. i. 20, a. de Syn. 52. vid. 
supr. p. 154, note 6. infr. 6.16. Ep. Atg. 
17, c. contr. Sabell. Greg. 8, c. 12, b. ef 
vid. infr. p. 406, note p, p. 424, note o. 

itn accordance with note Ὁ. supr. 
Thomassin observes that by the mutual 
coinherence or indwelling of the Three 
Blessed Persons is meant ‘‘ not a com- 
mingling 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 Fa- 
ther, should be the very essence, sub- 
stance, wisdom, life, and power of the 
Son.” de Trin. 28. 1. 5. Cyril adopts 
Athan.’s language to express this doc- 
trine. ‘‘The Son in one place says, 
that He is in the Father and has the 
Father again in Him; for the very pecu- 
liarity (ἴδιον) of the Father’s substance, 
by nature coming to the Son, shews 
the Father in Him.” in Joan. p. 1008. 
“One is contemplated in the other, 
and is truly, according to the conna- 
tural and consubstantial.”’ de Trin. vi. 
p- 621. ‘‘He has in Him the Son and 
is again in the Son, because of the 
identity of substance.”’ in Joann. p. 168. 
Vid. infra ταὐτότης οὐσίας, 21. πατρικὴ 


but the nature is one; (for the 
its parent, for it is his image,) and 
all that is the Father’s, is the Son’s'. 


Wherefore neither is 


θεότης τοῦ υἱοῦ, 26. and 41. and supr. p. 
145, note r. vid. also Damase. F. O. i. 8. 
pp. 139, 140. 

ἀνόμοιον ; and 80 ἀνόμοιος κατὰ 
πάντα. Orat. i. 6. Kat’ οὐσίαν. 17. 
Orat. ii. 43. τῆς οὐσίας, infr. 14, vid. 
ἀνομοιότη". infr. 8, c. 

1“ We must conceive of necessity that 
in the Father is the eternal, the ever- 
lasting, the immortal; and in Him, not 
as foreign to Him, but as abiding (ava- 
mavoueva) in Him as in a Fount and in 
the Son. When then you would form 
a conception of the Son, learn what are 
the things in the Father, and believe 
that they are in the Son too. If the 
Father is creature or work, these attri- 
butes are also in the Son, &c..... He 
who honours the Son, is honouring the 
Father who sent Him, and He who 
receives the Son, is receiving with Him 
the Father, &c.’’ In illud. Omn. 4. 
“‘ As the Father is I Am (6 ὥν) so His 
Word is I Am and God over all.”’ Serap. 
i. 28, a. ‘* Altogether, there is nothing 
which the Father has, which is not the 
Son’s; for therefore it is that the Son 
is in the Father, and the Father in the 
Son; because the things of the Father, 
these are in the Son, and still the same 
are understood as in the Father. Thus 
is understood, ‘I and the Father are 
One ;’ since not these things are in Him 


3 infr. 11. 


Disc. 


lérevonen 
2 p. 186, 
§ 6. 


3 οἰκειό- 
τητα 
4 p. 403, 
mel. 


5 μετου- 
olay 


6 doctrine 
of the 
Una Res, 
p- 145, 
note r. 


7p. 149, 
note x. 

8 parallel 
to de 
Syn. 49. 
p- 149, 
supr. 
John 1, 1. 


24, 
John 16, 
15. 17,10. 


§. 5. 


9. τὰ τοῦ 
τὰ τοῦ 
πατρός 


John 10, 
30, 38. 
14, 10. 


404 The Son’s is not a second Godhead, but the Father's. 


the Son another God, for He was not procured’ from without, 
else were there many, if a godhead be procured foreign from 
the Father’s’; for if the Son be other, as an Offspring, still He 
is the Same as God; and He and the Father are one in pro- 
priety and peculiarity ἡ of nature, and the identity * of the one 
Godhead, as has been said. For the radiance also is light, 
not second to the sun, nor a different light, nor from partici- 
pation " of it, but a whole and proper offspring of it. And 
such an offspring is necessarily one light; and no one would 
say that they are two lights*, but sun and radiance two, yet 
one the light from the sun enlightening in its radiance all 


things. So also the Godhead of the Son is the F ather’s; 5 


whence also it is indivisible; and thus there is one God and 
none other but He. And so, since they are one, and the 
Godhead itself one, the same things are said of the Son, 
which are said of the Father, except His being said to be 
Father 7 :—for instance ὅ, that He is God, And the Word was 
God; Almighty, Thus saith He which was and is and is to 


- come, the Almighty; Lord, One Lord Jesus Christ; that He 
‘is Light, I am the Light; that He forgives sins, that ye may 


know, He says, that the Son of man hath power upon earth 
to forgive sins; and so with other attributes. For all things 
says the Son Himself, whatsoever the Father hath, are Mine ; 
and again, And Mine are Thine. And on hearing the attri- 
butes° of the Father spoken of Son, we shall thereby see the 
Father in the Son; and we shall contemplate the Son in the 
Father, when what is said of the Son, is said of the Father 
also. And why are the attributes of the Father ascribed to 
the Son, except that the Son is an Offspring from Him? and 
why are the Son’s attributes proper to the Father, except 
again because the Son is the proper Offspring of His Sub- 
stance? And the Son, being the proper Offspring of the 
Father’s Substance, reasonably says that the Father’s attri- 
butes are His own also; whence suitably and consistently 
with saying, I and the Father are One, He adds, that ye may 
know that I am in the Father and the Father in Me. 


and those in the Son, but the things thereby is rightly understood ‘He 
which are in the Father those are in that hath seen Me, hath seen the 
the Son, and what thou seest in the Father.’’’ Serap. ii. 2. 

Father, because thou seest in the Son, 


As the Image not a second Emperor, so the Son not a second God. 


6. Moreover, He has added this again, He that hath seen 


405 


CuHap. 
XXIII. 


Me, hath seen the Father; and there is one and the same jj 14, 


sense in these three™ passages. For he who in this sense 
understands: that the Son and the Father are one, knows that 
He is in the Father and the Father in the Son; for the God- 


9. 


head of the Son is the Father’s, and it is in the Son; and 7 


whoso enters into this, is convinced that He that hath seen 
the Son, hath seen the Father ; for in the Son is contemplated 
the Father’s Godhead. And we may perceive this at once 
from the illustration of the Emperor’s image. For in the 
image is the face and form of the Emperor, and in the 
Emperor is that face which is in the image. For the like- 
ness of the Emperor in the image is unvarying’; so that a 
person who looks at the image, sees in it the Emperor; and 
he again who sees the Emperor, recognises that it is he 
who is in the image. And from the likeness not differing, 
to one who after the image wished to view the Emperor, the 
image might say, “1 and the Emperor are one; for I am in 
him, and he in me; and what thou seest in me, that thou 
beholdest in him, and what thou hast seen in him, that thou 


beholdest in me°.”’ 


m Here these three texts, which so 
often occur together, are recognised as 
“‘three;”? so are they by Eusebius 
Eccl. Theol. iii. 19. and he says that 
Marcellus and ‘‘ those who Sabellianize 
with him,’”? among whom he included 
Catholics, were in the practice of ad- 
ducing them, θρυλλοῦντεϑ ; which bears 
incidental testimony to the fact that 
the doctrine of the περιχώρησις was the 
great criterion between orthodox and 
Arian. Many instances of the joint 
use of the three are given supr. p. 229, 
note g. to which may be added Orat. ii. 
jdm. 10. tin. 07 fin. ἵν. 17, 8. 
Serap. ii. 9, c. Serm. Maj. de fid. 29. 
Cyril. de Trin. p. 554. in Joann. p. 168. 
Origen Periarch. p. 56. Hil. Trin. ix. 1. 
Ambros. Hexaem. 6. August. de Cons. 
Ey. i. 7. 

n yid. Basil. Hom. contr. Sab, p. 
192. The honour paid to the Imperial 
Statues is well known. ‘He who 
crowns the Statue of the Emperor, of 
course honours him, whose image he 
has crowned.’’? Ambros. in Psalm 118, 
x. 25. vid. also Chrysost. Hom. on 
Statues, O. T. pp. 356, ἅς. fragm. in 
Act. Cone. vii. (t. 4, p. 89. Hard.) 


Accordingly he who worships the image, 


Chrysostom’s second persecution arose 
from his interfering with a statue of the 
Empress which was so near the Church, 
that the acclamations of the people be- 
fore it disturbed the services. Socr. vi. 
18. The Seventh Council speaks of 
the images sent by the Emperors into 
provinces instead of their coming in 
person ; Ducange in v. Lauratum. Vid. 
a description of the imperial statues and 
their honours in Gothofred, Cod. Theod. 
t. 5, pp. 346, 7. and in Philostorg. p. 90. 
vid. also Molanus de Imaginibus ed. 
Paquot, p. 197. 

° Athanasius guards against what is 
defective in this illustration in the next 
chapter, but independent of such ex- 
planation a mistake as to his meaning 
would be impossible; and 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. vid. 
Sabell. Greg. 6. But no one, who bowed 
before the Emperor’s Statue can be 
supposed to have really worshipped 
it; whereas our Lord is the Object 


1 ἀπαράλ. 
λακτος5, 
p- 106, 
note d. 


406 The Being of Son the Godhead, and from the Substance, of Father 


vie in it worships the Emperor also; for the image is his form" 
i ee and face. Since then the Son too is the Father’s Image, it, 
must necessarily be understood that the Godhead and pro-| ἢ 
priety of the Father is the Being of the Son. 
τ 2; 7. And this is what is said, Who being in the form of God, 
τον and the Father in Me. Nor is this Form’ of the Godhead 
? εἶδος, partial merely, but the fulness of the Father’s Godhead is 
vane the Being of the Son, and the Son is whole God. Therefore 
also, being equal to God, He thought it not robbery to be 
equal to God; and again since the Godhead and the Face of 
the Son is none other’s than the Father’s?, this is what He 
A 5, says, I in the Father.. Thus God was in Christ reconeiiing 
3. τὸ ἴδιον the world unto Himself; for the propriety*® of the Father’s 
Substance is that Son, in whom the creation was then recon- 
ὁ κατηλ- ciled* with God. Thus what things the Son then wrought es 
Paid °- are the Father’s works, for the Son is the Face of that God- 
(ero head of the Father, which wrought the works. And thus he 
who looks at the Son, sees the Father; for in the Father’s 
Godhead is and is contemplated the Son; and the Father’s 
Face which is in Him shews in Him the Father; and thus 
the Father is in the Son. And that propriety and Godhead 
which is from the Father in the Son, shews the Son in the 
6 ἀδιαί- Father, and His inseparability ° from Him; and whoso hears 
peroY and beholds that what is said of the Father is also said of the 
7 émye- Son, not as accruing’ to His Substance by grace or partici- 
3 nero. pation ἢ, but because the very Being of the Son is the proper 
χήν Offspring of the Father’s Substance, will fitly understand the 
John words, as I said before, 7 in the Father, and the Father in Me ; 
th "ἢ and I and the Father are One. For the Son is such as the \ > 


Father is, because He has all that is the Father’s. 


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 Im- 
perial Statues, the Cultus Imaginum 
was introduced into the Eastern Church. 
The Western Church, not having had 
the civil custom, resisted. vid. Dol- 
linger, Church History, vol. 3. p. 59. 
E. Tr. ‘The Fathers, e.g. 8. Jerome, 
set themselves against the civil custom, 
as idolatrous, comparing it to that 
paid to Nebuchadnezzar’s statue, vid. 
Hieron. in Dan. 3, 18. Incense was 


burnt before those of the Emperors ; 
as afterwards before the Images of the 
Saints. 

P Here first the Son’s εἶδος is the 
εἶδος of the Father, then the Son is the 
εἶδος of the Father’s Godhead, and then 
in the Son is the εἶδος of the Father. 
These expressions are equivalent, if 
Father and Son are, Each separately, 
ὅλος θεός. vid. infr. p. 424, noteo. S. 
Greg. Naz. uses theword ὀπίσθια, (Exod. 
33, 23.) which forms a contrast to εἶδος, 
for the Divine Works. Orat. 28, 3. 


One fuith and worship towards Father and Son. 407 


8. Wherefore also is He implied together with the Father. 
For, a son not being, one cannot say father; whereas when 
we call God a Maker, we do not of necessity intimate the 
things which have come to be; for a maker is before his 
works 4, 
Father we signify the Son’s existence’. Therefore also he 
who believes in the Son, believes also in the Father; for he 
believes in what is proper to the Father’s Substance ; and 
thus the faith is one in one God. And he who worships 
and honours the Son, in the Son worships and honours the 
Father ; for one is the Godhead; and therefore one" the 
honour and one the worship which is paid to the Father in 
and through the Son. And he who thus worships, worships 


But when we call God Father, at once with the ~ 


1g 


παρὲξιν. 


one God; for there is one God and none other than He. <Ac- Mark 12, 


cordingly when the Father is called the only God, and we es 3,14. 


read that there is one God, and J am, and beside Me there is Deut. 32, 


99. 5 


ept. 


no God, and I the first and I am the last, this has a fit mean- fs, 44, 6. 


For God is One and Only and First; but this is not 


ing. 


said to the denial of the Son’; perish the thought; for He is? p. 33, 
in that One, and First and Only, as being of that One and °°” 


Only and First the Only Word and Wisdom and Radiance. 
And He too is the First, as the Fulness of the Godhead of 
the First and Only, being whole and full God’. This then 


q vid. supr. pp. 55, 228. This is in 
opposition to the Arians, who said that 
the title Father implied priority of ex- 
istence. Athan. says that the title 
‘“‘Maker’”’ does, but that the title 
“‘father ”’? does not. vid. supr. p. 65, 
note m. p. 98, note n. p. 223, note g. 
p- 338, note d. 

r Athan. de Incarn. c. Ar. 19, c. 
vid. Ambros. de fid. iii. cap. 12, 13. 
Naz. Orat. 23, 8. Basil. de Sp. 8. n. 64. 

8 vid. supr. 1, note Ὁ. ii. 41 fin. also 
infr. iv. 1. ‘You have the Son, you 
have the Father; fear not duality... . 
There is One God, because Father is 
One, and Son is God, having identity 
as Son towards Father. . . . The Father 
is the whole fulness of Godhead as 
Father, and the Son is the whole fulness 
of Godhead as Son... . The Father has 
Being perfect and without defect, being 
root and fount of the Son and the Spirit; 
and the Son is in the fulness of God- 
head, a Living Word and Offspring of 
the Father without defect. And the 


Spirit is full of the Son, not being part 
of another, but whole in Himself;.... 
Let us understand that the Face (εἶδος) 
is One of Three truly subsisting, be- 
ginning in Father, beaming in Son, and 
manifested through Spirit.’”’ Pseudo- 
Ath. c. Sab. Greg. 5—12. “1 hardly 
arrive at contemplating the One, when 
I am encircled with the radiance of the 
Three; I hardly arrive at distinguish- 
ing the Three, when I am carried back 
to the One. When I have imaged to 
myself One of the Three, I think It 
the whole, and my sight is filled, and 
what is more escapes me .... And when 
I embrace the Three in my contempla- 
tion, I see but One Luminary, being 
unable to distinguish or to measure the 
Light which becomes One.” Naz. 
Orat. 40, 41. ‘Thou art That which 
begetteth and That which is begotten 
.... for Thou wast poured forth, O in- 
effably bearing, to bear a Son, glorious 
Wisdom, Framer of all; and though 
poured forth Thou remainest, ἀτόμοισι 


Disc. 


Iif. 


408 The Father the only God, because the Word is in Him. 


is not said on His account, but to deny that there is other 
such as the Father and His Word. 


τομαῖς μαιευόμενος &c. Synes. Hymn. 
iii. pp. 328, 9. ‘“ The fulness of God- 
head is in the Father, and the fulness 
of Godhead is in the Son, but not dif- 
fering, but one Godhead... . If of all 
believers there was one soul and one 
heart ....if every one who cleaves to 
the Lord is one spirit, . .. . if man and 
wife are one flesh, if all of us men in 
respect of nature are of one substance, 
if Scripture thus speaks of human things, 
that many are one, of which there can 
be no comparison with things divine, 
how much more are Father and Son 
One in Godhead, where there is no dif- 
ference of substance or of will, &c.” 
Ambros. de Fid. i. n. 18. ‘ This 
Trinity is of one and the same nature 
and substance, not less in Each than 
in All, nor greater in All than in Each; 
but so great in Father alone or in Son 


alone, as in Father and Son together 
. . .. For the Father did not lessen Him- 
self to have a Son for Himself, but so 
begat of Himeelf another self, as to 
remain whole in Himself, and to be in 
the Son as great as He is by Himself. 
And so the Holy Ghost, whole from 
whole, doth not precede That wherein 
He proceeds, but is so great with Him 
as He is from Him, and neither lessens 
Him by proceeding nor increases by 
adhering .... Moreover, He who hath 
given to so many hearts of His faithful 
to be one heart, how much more doth 
He maintain in Himself that these 
Three and Each of Them should be 
God, and yet all together, not three 
gods, but One God?” August. Ep. 
170, 5. vid. p. 334, note y. and infr. 
note on 36 fin. 


CHAPTER XXIV. 
TEXTS EXPLAINED; EIGHTHLY, JOHN Xvli. 3. AND THE LIKE. 


Our Lord’s divinity cannot interfere with His Father’s prerogatives, as the 
One God, which were so earnestly upheld by the Son. ‘“ One” is used 

_ in contrast to false gods and idols, not to the Son, through whom the 
Father spoke. Our Lord adds His Name to the Father’s, as included 
in Him. The Father the First, not as if the Son were not First too, 
but as Origin. 


at 


1. Now that this is the sense of the Prophet is clear and §. 
manifest to all; but since the irreligious men, alleging such 
passages also, dishonour the Lord and reproach us, saying, 

“ Behold God is said to be One and Only and First; how say 
ye that the Son is God? for if He were God, He had not 
said, 7 Alone, nor God is One; it is necessary to declare Deut, 
the sense of these phrases in addition, as far as we can, that ἘΣ 
all may know from this also that the Arians are really con- 
tending with God’. If there then is rivalry * of the Son to- ' θεομά. 
wards the Father, then be such words uttered against Him ; %°¢, ies 
and if according to what is said to David concerning Adonias 39, 


9 « 


and Absalom, so also the Father looks upon the Son, then let 2 Sam 


Him utter and urge such words against Himself, lest Hes i kines 
the Son, calling Himself God, make any to revolt from the 1. 
Father. But if he who knows the Son, on the contrary, 
knows the Father, the Son Himself revealing Him to him, 
and in the Word he shall rather see the Father, as has 
been said, and if the Son on coming, glorified not Himself 
but the Father, saying to one who came to Him, Why callest Luke 18, 
thou Me good? none is good save One, that is, God*; and εἶτα, 
to one who asked, what was the great ΕΝ in Basil. Ep. 
the Law, answering, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is eae 
One Lord; and saying to the multitudes, I came down from Pie. 
heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him that τ 14, 
sent Me; and teaching the disciples, My Futher is greater * 

2Ὲ 


410 “ One Only God” excludes idols, not the Son. 


ee than I, and He that honoureth Me, honoureth Him that sent 
τὰ John le; if the Son is such towards His own Father, what is 
i Seay the difficulty’, that one must need take such a view of such 
της ἵνα passages? and on the other hand, if the Son is the Father’s 
ae Hs Word, who is so wild, besides these Christ-opposers, as to think 
note. that God has thus spoken, as traducing and denying His own 
Word? This is not the mind of Christians; perish the thought; 
for not with reference to the Son is it thus written, but for the 

denial of those falsely called gods, invented by men. 
2. And this account of the meaning of such passages is 
satisfactory ; for since those who are devoted to gods falsely 
§. 8. so called, revolt from the True God, therefore God, being 
good and careful for mankind, recalling the wanderers, says, 
I Am Only God, and I Am, and Besides Me there is no God, 
and the like; that He may condemn things which are not, 
and may convert all men to Himself. And as, supposing in 
the day-time when the sun was shining, a man were rudely 
to paint a piece of wood, which had not even the appearance 
of light, and call that image the cause of light, and if the sun 
with regard to it were to say, “I alone am the light of the 
day, and there is no other light of the day but I,” he would 
say this, with regard, not to his own radiance, but to the 
2 ἀνομοιό- error arising from the wooden image and the dissimilitude * 
7774 of that vain representation ; so it is with J am, and I am only 
God, and There is none other besides Me, viz. that He may 
make men renounce falsely called gods, and that they may 

recognise Him the true God instead. 

3. Indeed when God said this, He said it through His 
3 of νῦν, own Word, unless forsooth these modern * Jews add this too, 
ng that He has not said this through His Word; but so hath 
notea. He spoken, though they rave, these followers of the devil *. 
ee ° For the Word of the Lord came to the Prophet, and this 
was what was heard; nor is there the thing which God says 


ἃ διαβολικοί. vid. supr. p. 9, notes. soon after he says that his accuser was 
vid. also Orat. ii. 38, a. 73, a. 74 init. τὸν διαβόλου τρόπον ἀναλαβὼν, where 
Ep. Aig. 4 and 6. In the passage before the word has no article, and διαβέβλημαι 
us there seems an allusion to false ac- and διεβλήθην have preceded. vid. also 
cusation or lying, which is the proper Hist. Ar. 52 fin. And so in Sent. D. his 
meaning of the word ; διαβάλλων occurs speaking of the Arians’ “father the 
shortly before. And so in Apol. ad devil,’’ 3, 6. is explained 4, b. by τοὺς 
Const. when he calls Magnentius διά- πατέρας διαβαλλόντων and τῆς εἰς τὸν 
βολος, it is as being a traitor, 7. and- ἐπίσκοπον διαβολῆς. vid. also 27 fin. 


Whose Name added to “ One God,” to shew that it is ineluded. 411 


or does, but He says and does it in the Word. Not then —— 
with reference to Him is this said, O Christ’s enemies, but to : 
things foreign to Him and not from’ Him. For according ' παρὰ, 
to the aforesaid illustration, if the sun had spoken those LEN 
words, he would have been setting right the error and have τ a te 
so spoken, not as having his radiance without him, but in 26. 
the radiance shewing his own light. Therefore not for the 
denial of the Son, nor with reference to Him, are such 
passages, but to the overthrow of falsehood. Accordingly 
God spoke not such words to Adam at the beginning, though 
His Word was with Him, by whom all things came to be; 
for there was no need, before idols came in; but when 
men made insurrection against the truth, and named for 
themselves gods such as they would’, then it was that need Sth 
arose of such words, for the denial of gods that were not. infr. p. 
Nay I would add, that they were said even in anticipation ae a 
of the folly of these Christ-opposers "Ὁ, that they might know, 

that whatsoever god they devise external to the Father’s 
Substance, he is not True God, nor Image and Son of the 

Only and First. 

4. If then the Father be called the only true God, this is ἃ. 9. 
said not to the denial of Him who said, 7 am the Truth, but John 14, 
of those on the other hand who by nature are not true, as is 
the Father and His Word are. And hence the Lord Himself 
added at once, And Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent. Now Jobn 17, 
had He been a creature, He would not have added this, and ὃ. 
ranked Himself with His Creator; (for what fellowship is 
there between the True and the not true ?) but now by adding 
Himself to the Father, He has shewn that He is of the 
Father’s nature; and He has given us to know that of the 
True Father He is True Offspring. And John too, as he had 3 μαθὼν 
learned*, so he teaches this, writing in his Epistle, And we Bs ξεν 
are in the True, even in His Son Jesus Christ; This is the ν- 13, 
True God and eternal life. And when the Prophet says Ὅν 282, 
concerning the creation, That stretcheth forth the heavens pares 
alone, and when God says, I only stretch out the heavens, it is 5, 20. 
made plain to every one, that in the Only is signified also eee 


24. 
the Word of the Only, in whom all things were made, and oe εν 


b who worship one whom they them- noted. p. 301, note c. p. 310, note ἢ. 
selyes call a creature, vid. supr. p. 191, infr. p. 423, notes m and ἢ. 


2B 2 


Disc. 
III. 


1 συνών 


2 κακό- 
νοιαν 


3 vid. p. 


368, 
note g. 


412 As the Father is First yet Only, so the Son First-born yet Only, 


without whom was made not one thing. Therefore, if they 
were made through the Word, and yet He says, I Only, and 
together with that Only is understood the Son, through whom 
the heavens were made, so also then, if it be said, One God, 
and I Only, and I the First, in that One and Only and First 
is understood the Word coexisting’, as in the Light the 
Radiance. 

5. And this can be understood of no other than the Word 
alone. For all other things subsisted out of nothing through 
the Son, and are greatly different in nature ; but the Son Him- 
self is natural and true Offspring from the Father; and thus 
the very passage which these insensates have thought fit to 
adduce, I the First, in defence of their heresy, doth rather 
expose their perverse spirit ἢ. 
I the Last; if then, as though ranked with the things after 
Him, He is said to be first of them, so that they come next 
to Him, then certainly you will have shewn that He Himself 
precedes the works in time only*; which, to go no further, is 
extreme irreligion; but if it is in order to prove that He is 
not from any, nor any before Him, but that He is Origin 
and Cause of all things, and to destroy the Gentile fables, 
that He has said J the First, it is plain also, that when 
the Son is called First-born, this is done not for the sake of 


ranking Him with the creation, but to prove the framing and | δ 


adoption of all things* through the Son. For as the Father 
is First, so also is He both First ἃ, as Image of the First, and 


¢ He says that in ‘I the first ”’ the One God in three ways. It is the doc- 


For God says, I the First and 


question of time does not come in, else 
creatures would come second to the 
Creation, as if His and their duration 
admitted of a common measure. ‘ First”’ 
then does not imply succession, but is 
equivalent to ἀρχή; a word which, as 
‘“‘ Father,” does not imply that the Son 
is not from eternity. 

d Jt is no inconsistency to say that 
the Father is first, and the Son first 
also, for comparison or number does 
not enter into this mystery. Since Each 
is ὅλος θεὸς, Each, as contemplated by 
our finite reason, at the moment of con- 
templation excludes the Other. Though 
we say Three Persons, Person hardly 
denotes one abstract idea, certainly not 
as containing under it three individual 
subjects, but it is a ferm applied to the 


trine of the Fathers, that, though we 
use words expressive of a Trinity, yet 
that God is beyond number, and that 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 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 what- 
ever; and as if it were, strictly speak- 
ing, incorrect to speak of a Person, or 
otherwise than of ἐλ Person, whether 
of Father, or of Son, or of Spirit. The 
question has. almost been admitted by 
S. Austin, whether it is not possible to 
say that God is One Person, (Trin. 
vii. 8.) for He is wholly and en- 
tirely Father, and at the same time 
wholly and entirely Son, and wholly 
and entirely Holy Ghost. Some pas- 


EEE 


in whom the whole creation are made sons. 


413 


because the First is in Him, and also Offspring from the 
Father, in whom the whole creation is created and adopted 


into sonship. 


sages from the Fathers shall be given 
on that subject, infr. 36 fin. vid. also supr. 
p. 407, notes. Meanwhile the doctrine 
here stated will account for such ex- 
pressions as “God from God,” i.e. the 
One God (who is the Son) from the One 
God (who is the Father) ; vid. supr. p. 
155, note f. Again, 7 οὐσία αὕτη τῆς 
οὐσίας τῆς πατρικῆς ἐστὶ γέννημα. de 
Syn. 48, b. Vid. also infr. Orat. iv. 1 
and 2. where he argues against the 
Sabellian hypothesis as making the 
Divine Nature compound, (the Word 
being a something in It,) whereas the 
Catholic doctrine preserves unity because 
the Father is the One God simply and 


entirely, and the Son the One God 
singly and entirely, (vid. supr. p. 334, 
note y.); the Word not a sound, which 
is nothing, nor a quality which is un- 
worthy of God, but a substantial Word 
and a substantial Wisdom. ‘As,’ he 
continues, ‘‘the Origin is One substance, 
so Its Word and Wisdom is One, sub- 
stantial and subsistent; for as from God 
is God, and from Wise Wisdom, and 
from rational (λογικοῦ) a Word, and 
from Father a Son, so from a subsistence 
is He subsistent, and from substance 
substantial and substantive, and from 
existing existing,’’ &c. 


CHAP. 


XXIV. 


Disc. 
111. 


§. 10. 


1 Aste- 
rius, p- 
401 init. 


CHAPTER XXV. 


TEXTS EXPLAINED; NINTHLY, JOHN x. 30; xvii. 11, &e. 


Arian explanation, that the Son is one with the Father in will and judg- 


ment; but so are all good men, nay things inanimate; contrast of the 
Son. Oneness between them is in nature, because oneness in operation. 
Angels not objects of prayer, because they do not work together with 
God, but the Son; texts quoted. Seeing an Angel, is not seeing God. 
Arians in fact hold two Gods, and tend to Gentile polytheism. Arian 
explanation that the Father and Son are one, as we are one with Christ, 
is put aside by the Regula Fidei, and shewn invalid by the usage of 
Scripture in illustrations; the true force of the comparison; force of 
the terms used. Force of “in us;” force of “‘as;” confirmed by S. John. 


In what sense we are “in God” and His “ sons.” 


1. However here too they introduce their private fictions, 
and contend that the Son and the Father are not in such 
wise “one,” or “like,” as the Church preaches, but, as they 
themselves would have 108. For they say, since what the Father 
wills, the Son wills also, and is not contrary either in what He 
thinks or in what He judges, but is in all respects concordant 
with Him, declaring doctrines which are the same, and a word 
consistent and united with the Father’s teaching, therefore it 
is that He and the Father are One; and some of them have 


dared to write as well as say this’. 


ἃ ὡς αὐτοὶ θέλουσι. vid. p. 411, r. 2. 
and infr. p. 425, r. 2 ‘‘not as you say, 
but as we will.” This is a common phrase 
with Athan. vid. supr. p. 92, note r. and 
especially Hist. Tract. O. T. p. 266, note 
ἃ. (vid. also Sent. Dion. 4, b. 14, b.) 
It is here contrasted to the Church’s 
doctrine, and connected with the word 
ἴδιος, for which supr. p. 78, note n. 
p- 233, note a. Vid. also de Mort. Ar. 
fin. Also contr. Apoll. ii. 5 init. in con- 
trast with the εὐαγγελικὸς ὅρος. Apol. 
contr. Ar. 36, d. Vid. also 2, f. de fug. 
ay hs 

Ὁ σύμφωνος. vid. infr, 23. supr. p. 148. 


Now what can be more 


the Arian συμφωνία has been touched on 
supr. p. 107, note f. p. 155, note g. 
Besides Origen, Novatian, the Creed 
of Lucian, and (if so) 5. Hilary, as 
mentioned in the former of these notes, 
‘one ’’ is explained as oneness of will by 
S. Hippolytus, contr. Noet. 7, where he 
explains John 10, 30. by 17, 22. like 
the Arians; and, as might be expected, 
by Eusebius Kecl. Theol. iii. p. 193. 
and by Asterius ap. Euseb. contr. Marc. 
pp- 28, 37. The passages of the Fathers 
in which this text is adduced are col- 
lected by Maldonat. in loc. 


Ifthe Son One with God but inwill, every obedt. creature the Son.415 


extravagant or irrational than this? for if therefore the Son er 
and the Father are One, and if in this way the Word is like 
the Father, it follows forthwith® that the Angels? too, and the 
other beings above us, Powers and Authorities, and Thrones 
and Dominions, and what we see, Sun and Moon, and the 
Stars, should be sons also, as the Son; and that it should be 
said of them too, that they and the Father are one, and that 
each is God’s Image and Word. For what God wills, that 
will they; and neither in judging nor in doctrine are they 
discordant, but in all things are obedient to their Maker. 
For they would not have preserved their own glory, unless, 
what the Father willed, that they had willed also. He, for 
instance, who did not preserve it, but became deranged, 
heard the words, How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, is 14, 
son of the morning ? 

2. But if this be so, how is only He Only-begotten Son 
and Word and Wisdom? or how, whereas so many are like 
the Father, is He only an Image? for among men too will be 
found many like the Father, numbers, for instance, of mar- 
tyrs, and before them the Apostles and Prophets, and again 
before them the Patriarchs. And many now too keep the 
Saviour’s command, being merciful as their Kather which is aa τι 
in heaven, and observing the exhortation, Be ye ther efore 4 E ob. 5, 
followers of God as dear children, and walk in love, as Christ 1. 2. 
also hath loved us; many too have become followers of Paul 
as he also of Christ. And yet no one of these is Word or 
Wisdom or Only-begotten Son or Image; nor has any one of 
them had the audacity to say, I and the Father are One, or, soe Nes 
in the Father, and the Father in Me; but it is said of all of τ 14, 
them, Who is like unto Thee among the Gods, O Lord? and 10 vid. Ps. 
who shall be likened to the Lord among the sons of God? and of 86,8; 
Him on the contrary that He only is Image true and natural . 
of the Father. For though we were made after the Image’, ae 
and called both image and glory of God, yet not on our own vii. fin. 
account still, but for that Image and true Glory of God in- 
habiting us, which is His Word, who was for us afterwards 
made flesh, have we this grace of our designation. 


© ὥρα. vid. p. 130, note c. also Orat. Thesaur. p. 256 fin. 
ii. 6, b. iv. 19, c. d. Euseb. contr. Mare. a This argument is found above, 
Ρ- 47, Ὁ. p. 91, Ὁ. Cyril. Dial. p. 456. p. 148. vid. also Cyril. de Trin. i. p. 407. 


Disc. 
111. 


ep ΠΕ 


1 2 

ἅπα- 
ράλλακ- 
τος 


2 κατ᾽ 
οὐσίαν 
ὅμοιος, 
Ρ. 210, 
note 6. 

8 ψεύδον- 
ται 


4p. 406. 


416 Where the Son works, there the Father works in the Son. 


3. This their notion then being evidently unseemly and / 
irrational as well as the rest, the likeness and the oneness/ 
must be referred to the very Substance of the Son; for unless \] 
it be so taken, He will not be shewn to have any thing, 
beyond things generate, as has been said, nor will He be’ 
like the Father, but He will be like the Father’s doctrines ; 
and He differs from the Father, in that the Father is Father®, | 
but the doctrines and teaching are the Father’s. If then in . 
respect to the doctrines and the teaching the Son is like the 
Father, then the Father according to them will be Father in 
name only, and the Son will not be an unvarying* Image, or 
rather will be seen to have no propriety at all or likeness of β 
the Father ; for what likeness or propriety has he who is so 
utterly different from the Father? for Paul taught like the 
Saviour, yet was not like Him in substance*. Having then 
such notions, they speak falsely *; whereas the Son and the 
Father are one in such wise as has been said, and in such 
wise is the Son like the Father Himself and from Him, as we 
may see and understand son to be towards father, and as we 
may see the radiance towards the sun. 

4. Such then being the Son, therefore when the Son works, 
the Father is the Worker‘, and the Son coming to the Saints, 
the Father is He who cometh in the Son‘, as He has promised 


6 § μὲν πατὴρ, πατήρ ἐστι. And referring us back to the Origin of all 


so, ‘in the Godhead only, 6 πατὴρ κυρίως 
ἐστὶ πατὴρ, Kal 6 vids κυρίως vids.” 
Serap. i. 16. vid. the whole passage. 
He speaks of ‘receding from things 
generate, casting away human images, 
and ascending to the Father.’”’ supr. 
p. 153. and of men “not being in nature 
and truth benefactors,’? Almighty God 
being Himself the type and pattern. 
infr. pp. 427, 8. and note r._ Vid. pp. 
211, 214, 215. and p. 18, note o. p. 211, 
note f. p. 212, noteg. AndsoS. Cyril, 
τὸ κυρίως τίκτον ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ τὸ θεῖόν 
ἐστιν, ἡμεῖς δὲ κατὰ μίμησιν Thesaur. 
Ῥ. 133. πατὴρ κυρίως, ὅτι μὴ καὶ vids. 
ὥσπερ καὶ υἱὸς κυρίως, ὅτι μὴ καὶ πατήρ. 
Naz. Orat. 29, 5. vid. also 23, 6 fin. 25, 
16. vid. also the whole of Basil. adv. 
Eun. ii. 25. ‘‘One must not say,” he 
observes, ‘‘that these names properly 
and primarily, κυρίως καὶ πρώτως belong 
to men, and are given by us but by a 
figure καταχρηστικῶς (p. 335, note a.) 
to God. For our Lord Jesus Christ, 


and True Cause of beings, says, ‘ Call 
no one your father upon earth, for One 
is your Father, which is in heaven.’ ” 
He adds, that if He is properly and not 
metaphorically even our Father, (vid. 
p- 56, note k.) much more is He the 
πατὴρ τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν υἱοῦ. Vid. also 
Kuseb. contr. Marc. p. 22, c. Eccl. 
Theol. i. 12. fin. ii. 6. Marcellus, on 
the other hand, said that our Lord was 
κυρίως λόγος, not κυρίως vids. ibid. ii. 
10 fin. vid. supr. p. 307, note d. 

f And so ἐργαζομένου τοῦ πατρὸς, 
ἐργάζεσθαι καὶ τὸν υἱόν. Inillud Omn. 
Ι, d. Cum luce nobis prodeat, In Patre 
totus Filius, et totus in Verbo Pater. 
Hymn. Brey. in fer. 2. Ath. argues 
from this oneness of operation the one- 
ness of substance. And thus S. Chry- 
sostom on the text under review argues 
that if the Father and Son are one 
κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν, They are one also in 
οὐσία. in Joan. Hom. 6], 2, 4. Tertul- 
lian in Prax. 22. and S. Epiphanius, 


The Father and the Son One Source of grace. 417 


when He says, 1 and My Father will come, and will make 


CHAP. 


Our abode with him; for in the Image is contemplated the ‘joka 14 


Father, and in the Radiance is the Light. 
said just now, when the Father gives grace and peace, 
the Son also gives it, as Paul signifies in every Epistle, 
writing, Grace to you and peace from God our Father and 
the Lord Jesus Christ. For one and the same grace is from 
the Father in the Son, as the light of the sun and of the 
radiance is one, and the sun’s illumination is effected through 
the radiance ; and so too when he prays for the Thessalonians, 


Therefore, as we 23. 


in saying, Now God Himself even our Father, and the Lord \ Thess. 
Jesus Christ, may He direct our way unto you, he has guarded yk: 


the unity of the Father and of the Son. For he has not said, 
“May they direct,’ as if a double grace were given from 
two Sources, This and That, but Day He direct, to shew 
that the Father gives it through the Son ;—at which these 
irreligious ones will not blush, though they well might. For 
if there were no unity, nor the Word the proper Offspring of 
the Father’s Substance, as the radiance of the light, but the 
Son were divided in nature from the Father, it were sufficient 
that the Father alone should give, since none of generate 
things is a partner with his Maker in His givings; but, as it 
is, such a mode of giving shews the oneness of the Father and 
the Son. No one, for instance, would pray to receive from 
God and the Angels’, or from any other creature, nor would 


Her. 57. p. 488. seem to say the same 
on the same text. vid. Lampe in loc. 
And so 5, Athan. τριὰς ἀδιαίρετος τῇ 
φύσει, καὶ μία ταύτης 7 ἐνέργεια. Serap. 
i. 28, f. ἐν θέλημα πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ 
βούλημα, ἐπεὶ καὶ ἣ φύσις μία. In illud 
Omn. 5. Various passages of the Fathers 
to the same effect, (e.g. of S. Ambrose, 
si unius voluntatis et operationis, unius 
est essentiz, de Sp. ii. 12 fin. and of 
S. Basil, ὧν μία ἐνέργεια, τούτων καὶ 
οὐσία μία, of Greg. Nyss. and Cyril 
Alex.) are brought together in the 
Lateran Council. Concil. Hard. t. 3, 
p- 859, &c. The subject is treated at 
length by Petavius Trin. iv. 15. 

& Vid. Basil de Sp. 5. ο. 13. “‘ There 
were men,’”’ says S. Chrysostom on 
Col. 2. “‘who said, We ought not to 
have access to God through Christ, but 
through Angels, for the former is beyond 
our power. Hence the Apostle every 


where insists on his teaching concerning 
Cirist, ‘through the blood of the Cross,’ ”” 
&c. And Theodoret on Col. 3, 17. says, 
“Following this rule, the Synod of 
Laodicea, with a view to cure this an- 
cient disorder, passed a decree against 
the praying to Angels, and leaving our 
Lord Jesus Christ.’’ ‘All supplica- 
tion, prayer, intercession, and thanks- 
giving is to be addressed to the Su- 
preme God, through the High Priest 
who is above all Angels, the Living 
Word and God... . But Angels we may 
not fitly call upon, since we have not 
obtained a knowledge of them which 
is above men.’”’ Origen contr. Cels. v. 
4, 5. vid. also for similar statements 
Voss. de Idololatr. i. 9. These ex- 
tracts are made in illustration of the 
particular passage to which they are 
appended, not as if they contain the 
whole doctrine of Origen, Theodoret, 


§. 12. 


Disc. 


ΠῚ: 


1 ἑνρειδῇ 
δόσιν, 
vid. p. 
144, γν. 2. 


Gen. 48, 
15. 16. 


Is. 9, 6. 
Sept. 


Gen. 32, 
26. 30. 


Gen. 28, 
15. Sept. 


418 Angels not associated with God in Scripture, but the Son. 


any one say, “God and the Angel may He give thee;” but 
from Father and the Son, because of Their oneness and 
the oneness’ of Their giving. For through the Son is given 
what is given; and there is nothing but the Father operates 
it through the Son; for thus is grace secure to him who 
receives it. 

5. And if the Patriarch Jacob, blessing his grandchildren 
Ephraim and Manasses, said, God which fed me all my 
life long unto this day, the Angel which delivered me from 
all evil, bless the lads*, yet none of created and natural 
Angels did he join to God their Creator, nor rejecting God 
that fed him, did he from Angel ask the blessing on his 
grandsons; but in saying, Who delivered me from all evil, he 
shewed that it was no created Angel, but the Word of God, 
whom he joined to the Father in his prayer, through whom, 
whomsoever He will, God doth deliver. For knowing that 
He is also called the Father’s Angel of great Counsel, he 
said that none other than He was the Giver of blessing, and 
Deliverer from evil. Nor was it that he desired a blessing 
for himself from God, but for his grandchildren from the 
Angel, but whom He Himself had besought saying, J will 
not let Thee go except Thou bless me, (for that was God, as he 
says himself, I have seen God face to face,) Him he prayed to 
bless also the sons of Joseph. 

6. It is proper then to an Angel to minister at the 
commmand of God, and often does he go forth to cast out 
the Amorite, and is sent to guard the people in the way; 
but these are not his doings, but of God who commanded 
and sent him, whose also it is to deliver, whom He will 
deliver. Therefore it was no other than the Lord God 
Himself whom he had seen, who said to him, And behold I 
am with thee, to guard thee in all the way whither thou 


or S. Chrysostom on the cultus ange- Augustine, for he says, ‘‘ what was seen 


lorum. Of course they are not incon- 
sistent with such texts as 1 Tim. 5, 21. 
The doctrine of the Gnostics, who wor- 
shipped Angels, is referred to supr. Orat. 
i. 56. p. 262, note f. 

h Vid. Serap. i. 14. And on the 
doctrine vid. p. 120, note 5. Infr. p. 
421. he shews that his doctrine, when 
fully explained, does not differ from 8. 


was an Angel, but God spoke in him,’’ 
i. e. sometimes the Son is called an 
Angel, but when an Angel was seen, 
it was not the Son; and if he called 
himself God, it was not he who spoke, 
but the Son was the unseen speaker. 
vid. Benedictine Monitum in Hil. Trin. 
iv. For passages vid. Tertull. de Preescr. 
p- 447, note f. O. T. 


is 


God the only Deliverer, in the Prayers of Scripture Saints. 419 


goest ; and it was no other than God whom he had seen, C#A?- 
- : 2 XXV. 
who kept Laban from his treachery, ordering him not to 
speak evil words to Jacob; and none other than God did 
he himself beseech, saying, ‘Rae me from the hand of my oe 31, 
brother Esau, for I fear him; for in conversation too with 11 oie. 
his wives he said, God hath not suffered Laban to injure 
me. Therefore it was none other than God Himself that ὃ. 19. 
David too besought concerning his deliverance, When I Ps. 120, 
was in trouble, I called upon the Lord, and He heard me; "~~ 
deliver my soul, O Lord, from lying lips and from a deceitful 
tongue. To Him also giving thanks he spoke the words of 


the Song in the seventeenth Psalm, in the day in which the 


Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and 
from the hand of Saul, saying, I will love Thee, O Lord my Ps. 18, 1. 
strength; the Lord is my strong rock and my defence and 
deliverer. And Paul, after enduring many persecutions, to 
none other than God gave thanks, saying, Out of them all = 
the Lord delivered me; and He will oe in whom we 3, wee 
trust. And none other than God blessed Abraham a ΣΌΣ ᾿ 
Isaac; and Isaac praying for Jacob, 5614, May God bless en 28, 
thee and increase thee and multiply thee, and thou shalt be for i a 
many companies of nations, and may He give thee the blessing of 
Abraham my father. 

7. But if it belong to none other than God to bless and to 
deliver, and none other was the deliverer of Jacob than the 
Lord Himself, and Him that delivered him the Patriarch 
besought for his grandsons, evidently none other did he join 
to God in his prayer, than God’s Word, whom therefore 
he called Angel, because it is He alone who reveals the 
Father. Which the Apostle also did when he said, Grace 
unto you and peace from God our Father and the Lord 
Jesus Christ. For thus the blessing was secure, because of 
the Son’s indivisibility’ from the Father, and for that the? ἀδιαίρε- 
grace given by Them is one and the same. For though the rea 
Father gives it, through the Son is the gift; and though the 
Son be said to vouchsafe it, it is the Father who supplies it 
through and in the Son; for 1 thank my God, says the Apostle 1 Cor. 1, 
writing to the Corinthians, always on your behalf, for the grace τὰ 
of God which is given you in Christ Jesus. And this one 
may see in the instance of light and radiance; for what the 


Disc. 
III. 


g. 14. 


1 ποιητι- 
κὸν αἴτιον 
p- 310, 
note h. 


Heb. 1, 
14. 


420 Angels are ministers and servants. 


light enlightens, that the radiance irradiates; and what the 
radiance irradiates, from the light is its enlightenment. So 
also when the Son is beheld, so is the Father, for He is the 
Father’s radiance; and thus the Father and the Son are one. 

8. But this is not so with things generate and creatures ; 
for when the Father works, it is not that any Angel works, 
or any other creature; for none of these is an efficient cause’, 
but they are of things which come to be; and moreover 
being separate and divided from the only God, and other in 
nature, and being works, they can neither work what God 
works, nor, as I said before, when God gives grace, can they 
give grace with Him. Nor, on seeing an Angel would a 
man say that he had seen the Father; for Angels, as it is 
written, are ministering spirits sent forth to minister, and 
are heralds of gifts given by Him through the Word to those 
who receive them. And the Angel on his appearance, 
himself confesses that he has been sent by his Lord’, as 
Gabriel confessed in the case of Zacharias, and also in 


the case of Mary, Mother of God’. And he who beholds a 


i τῆς θεοτόκου Μαρίας. vid. also infr. Lup. Ephes. Ep. 94. He adds that it, 
29, 33. Orat. iv. 32. Incarn. c. Ar. 8, as well as ἀνθρωποτόκος, was used by 
22. supr. p. 244, note 1. As to the ‘‘the great doctors of the Church.’ 


history of this title, Theodoret, who 
from his party would rather be disin- 
clined towards it, says that “ἐλ most 
ancient (τῶν πάλαι καὶ πρόπαλαι) he- 
ralds of the orthodox faith taught to 
name and believe the Mother of the 
Lord θεοτόκον, according to the Aposto- 
lical tradition.” Her. iv. 12. And 
John of Antioch, whose championship 
of Nestorius and quarrel with 5. Cyril 
are well known writes to the former. 
“This title no ecclesiastical teacher 
has put aside; those who have used it 
are many and eminent, and those who 
have not used it have not attacked those 
who used it.”” Concil. Eph. part i. c. 
25. (Labb.) And Alexander, the most 
obstinate or rather furious of all Nes- 
torius’s adherents, who died in banish- 
ment in Egypt, fully allows the ancient 
reception of the word, though only into 
popular use, from which came what he 
considersthe doctrinal corruption. ‘That 
in festive solemnities, or in preaching 
and teaching, θεοτόκος should be un- 
guardedly said by the orthodox without 
explanation, is no blame, because such 
statements were not dogmatic, nor said 
with evil meaning. But now after the 
corruption of the whole world, &c.”’ 


Socrates Hist. vii. 32. says that Origen, 
in the first tome of his Comment on the 
Romans, (vid. de la Rue in Rom. lib. i. 
5. the original is lost,) treated largely 
of the word; which implies that it 
was already in use. ‘Interpreting,’ 
he says, ‘‘ how θεοτόκος is used, he dis- 
cussed the question at length.’’ Con- 
stantine implies the same in a passage 
which divines, 6. g. Pearson (On the 
Creed, notes on Art. 3.) have not dwelt 
upon, (or rather have apparently over- 
looked, in arguing from Ephrem ap. 
Phot. Cod. 228, p. 776. that the literal 
phrase ‘“‘ Mother of God” originated in 
S. Leo,) in which, in pagan language 
indeed and with a painful allusion, as it 
would seem, to heathen mythology, he 
says, ‘‘ When He had to draw near to a 
body of this world, and to tarry on earth, 
the need so requiring, He contrived a 
sort of irregular birth of Himself, νόθην 
τινὰ γένεσιν; for without marriage was 
there conception, and childbirth, εἰλ εἰ- 
θυια, of a pure Virgin, and a maid the 
Mother of God, θεοῦ μήτηρ κόρη." ad 
Sanct. Coet. p. 480. The idea must 
have been familiar to Christians before it 
could thus be paralleled or represented. 
vid. notes on 29, 33 infr. 


Appearances of the Son in Scripture distinct from those of Angels.421 


vision of Angels, knows that he has seen the Angel and not od 
God. For Zacharias saw an Angel; and Esaias saw the : 
Lord. Manoe, the father of Samson, saw an Angel; but 
Moses beheld God. Gideon saw an Angel, but to Abraham 
appeared God. And neither he who saw God, beheld an 
Angel, nor he who saw an Angel, considered that he saw 
God; for greatly, or rather wholly, do things by nature 
generate differ from God the Creator. But if at any time, 
when the Angel was seen, he who saw it heard God’s voice, 
as took place at the bush; for the Angel of the Lord was τὴ Ex. 
“seen in a flame of fire out of the bush, and the Lord called" δὲ 
Moses out of the bush, saying, I am the God of thy father, 
the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of 
Jacob, yet was not the Angel the God of Abraham, but in 
the Angel God spoke. And what was seen was an Angel; 
but God spoke in him’. For as He spoke to Moses in the ' p- 418, 
pillar of a cloud in the tabernacle, so also God appears and ne a 
speaks in Angels. So again to the son of Nave He spake 
by an Angel. But what God speaks, it is very plain He | \3 
speaks through the Word, and not through another. And 
the Word, as being not separate from the Father, nor unlike? ὁ ἀνόμοιος 
and foreign to the Father’s Substance, what He works, those 
are the Father’s works, and His framing of all things is one 
with His; and what the Son gives, that is the Father’s gift. 
And he who hath seen the Son, knows that, in seeing Him, 
he has seen, not Angel, nor one merely greater than Angels, 
nor in short any creature, but the Father Himself. And he 
who hears the Word, knows that he hears the Father; as he 
who is irradiated by the radiance, knows that he is en- 
lightened by the sun. 

9. For divine Scripture wishing us thus to understand the §. 15. 
matter, has given such illustrations, as we have said above, 
from which we are able both to press the traitorous Jews, and 
_to refute the allegation of Gentiles who maintain and think, 
on account of the Trinity, that we profess many gods*. For, 
as the illustration shews, we do not introduce three Origins, 
or three Fathers, as the followers of Marcion and Manicheeus; 
since we have not suggested the image of three suns, but sun 


k Serap. 1, 28 fin. Naz. Orat. 23, 8. Catech. 3. p. 481. 
Basil. Hom. 24 init. Nyssen. Orat. 


Disc. 


Ill. 


1 τρόπον 


2 infr. 8. 
64. Ep. 
Kg. 14, 
Ὁ: 


3 p. 423, 
notes m 
and n. 

4 Erepo- 
ειδές 


5 ἕνα τῶν 
πάντων 

6 εἶδος, 
kind or 
face 


7 πολυει- 
δοῦς 


8. 16. 


422 The Father pervades αἰ ἴῃ, the Son, acts in all in the Spirit. 


and radiance. And one is the light from the sun in the ra- 
diance ; and so we know of but one origin; and the All-framing 
Word we profess to have no other manner’ of godhead, than 
that of the Only God, because He is born from Him. Rather 
then will the Ario-maniacs with reason incur the charge of 
polytheism or else of atheism’, because they idly talk of the 
Son as external and a creature, and again the Spirit as from 
nothing. For either they will say that the Word is not God; 
or saying that He is God’*, because it is so written, but not 
proper to the Father’s Substance, they will introduce many 
because of their difference of kind*; (unless forsooth they 
shall dare to say that by participation only, He, as all things 
else, is called God; though, if this be their sentiment, their 
irreligion is the same, since they consider the Word as one 
among all things’.) But let this never even come into our 
mind. For there is but one face® of Godhead, which is also 
in the Word; and one God, the Father, existing by Himself 


according as He is above all, and appearing in the Son}, 


according as He pervades all things, and in the Spirit ac- 
cording as in Him He acts in all things through the Word}. 
For thus we confess God to be one through the Trinity, 
and we say that it is much more religious than the godhead 
of the heretics with its many kinds’ and many parts, to enter- 
tain a belief of the One Godhead in Trinity. 

10. For if it be not so, but the Word is a creature and a 
work out of nothing, either He is not True God, because He 
is Himself one of the creatures, or if they name Him God 


1 And so infr. “The Word is in the 
Father, and the Spirit is given from the 
Word.” 25. ‘‘ That Spirit is in us which 
is in the Word which is in the Father.” 
ibid. ‘The Father in the Son taketh 
the oversight of all.’’ 36 fin. ‘‘ The sanc- 
tification which takes place from Father 
through Son in Holy Ghost.” Serap. i. 
20, b. vid. also ibid. 28, f. a. 30, a. 31, 
ἃ. iii. 1, Ὁ. 5 init. et fin. Eulogius says, 
“The Holy Ghost, proceeding from 
the Father, having the Father as an 
Origin, and proceeding through the 
Son unto the creation.”’ ap. Phot. cod. 
p- 865. Damascene speaks of the Holy 
Spirit as δύναμιν τοῦ πατρὸς προερχομέ- 
νὴν καὶ ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ἀναπανομένην, F. Ο. 
i. 7. and in the beginning of the ch. 


says that ‘‘the Word must have Its 
Breath (Spirit) as our word is not with- 
out breath, though in our case the 
breath is distinct from the one sub- 
stance.” ‘The way to knowledge of 
God is from One Spirit through the 
One Son to the One Father.” Basil. de 
Sp. 5. 47, 6. ‘‘We preach One God 
by One Son with the Holy Ghost.” 
Cyr. Cat. xvi. 4. ‘The Father through 
the Son with the Holy Ghost bestows 
all things.” ibid. 24. “ All things have 
been made from Father through the 
Son in Holy Ghost.”’ Pseudo-Dion. 
de Div. Nom. i. p. 403. ‘ Through Son 
and in Spirit God made all things con- 
sist, and contains and preserves them.”’ 
Pseudo-Athan. c. Sab. Greg. 10, e. 


— βναβηδουΣ 


i 


Arians either deny our Lord’s Divinity or worship two Gods. 423 


from regard for the Scriptures, they must of necessity say 
that there are two Gods™, one Creator, the other creature, 
and must serve two Lords’, one Ingenerate, and the other 
generate and a creature; and must have two faiths, one in 
the True God, and the other in one who is made and fashioned 
by themselves and called God. And it follows of necessity, 
in so great blindness, that, when they worship the Ingene- 
rate, they renounce the generate, and when they come to the 
creature, they turn from the Creator. or they cannot see 
the One in the Other, because their natures and operations 
are foreign and distinct”. And with such sentiments, they 
will certainly be going on to more gods, for this will be the 
essay * of those who revolt from the One God. Wherefore 
then, when the Arians have these speculations and views, do 
they not rank themselves with the Gentiles? for they too, as 
these, worship the creature more than God the Creator of 
all"; and though they shrink from the Gentile name, in order 
to deceive the unskilful, yet they secretly hold* a like senti- 
ment with them. 

11. For their subtle saying which they are accustomed to 
urge, “We say not two Ingenerates’,” they plainly say to 
deceive the simple’; for in their very professing “We say 
not two Ingenerates,” they imply two Gods, and these with 
different natures, one generate and one Ingenerate. And 
though the Greeks worship one Ingenerate and many generate, 
but these one Ingenerate and one generate, this is no differ- 
ence from them; for the God whom they call generate is 
one out of many, and again the many gods of the Greeks 
have the same nature with this one, for both he and they 


Wretched are 


m vid. p. 118, note m. p. 63, note g. 
p- 150, note y. The Arians were in 
the dilemma of holding two gods or wor- 
shipping the creature, unless they de- 
nied to our Lord both divinity and wor- 
ship. On the consequent attempt, 
especially of the Semi-Arians, to con- 
sider Our Lord neither as God nor a 
creature, vid. p. 10, note n. p. 224, 
note a. But ‘‘every substance,” says 
S. Austin, ‘“‘which is not God, is a 
creature, and which is not a creature, 
is God.” de Trin. i. 6. And so 3. 
Cyril, ‘We see God and creation and 
besides nothing; for whatever falls ex- 


are creatures. 


they and the more for that 


ternal to God’s nature, is certainly ge- 
nerate; and whatever is clear of the 
definition of creation, is certainly within 
the definition of the Godhead.’”’ In 
Joan. p. 52. vid. also Naz. Orat. 31, 6. 
Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 31. 

n vid. supr. p. 301, notec. Petavius 
gives a large collection of passages, de 
Trin. ii. 12. §. 5. from the Fathers in 
proof of the worship of Our Lord ονὶ- 
dencing His Godhead. On the Arians 
as idolaters vid. supr. p. 191, note d. 
also Ep. Aig. 4, 13. and Adelph. 3 init. 
Serap. i. 29, d. Theodor. in Rom. 1, 25. 


CHAP. 
XV 


1 κύριοις, 
masters 


4 ὑποκρί- 
νονται 


δ υ». ΦΘΑΣ 
note ἃ. 
δὰ κεραίων 


Disc. 
IIL. 


1 guyku- 
λίονται, 
vid. Orat. 
i. 23, 6. a. 
ii. 1 init. 
Decr. 9 


2 βεοστυ- 
ets, infr. 
41. Ath. 
Hist. Tr. 
pez 
ref. 2. 
John 5, 
Bi. 


3 τὸ πα- 
τρικὸν 
εἶδος 


Gen. 32, 
31. 


John 14, 
9; 10, 30. 


424 Ariansdeny Christas Jews, acknowledge many gods as Gentiles. 


their fault is blasphemy against Christ; for they have fallen 
from the truth, and are greater traitors than the Jews in 
denying the Christ, and they wallow’ with the Gentiles, 
hateful” as they are to God, worshipping the creature and 
many deities. 

12. For there is One God, and not many, and One is His 
Word, and not many; for the Word is God, and He alone 
has the Face°® of the Father*. Being then such, the Saviour 
Himself troubled the Jews with these words, The Futher 
Himself which hath sent Me, hath borne witness of Me; ye have 
neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His Face; and ye 
have not His Word abiding in you; for whom He hath sent, 
Him ye believe not. Suitably has He joined the Word to the 
Face, to shew that the Word of God is Himself Image and 
Expression and Face of His Father; and that the Jews who 
did not receive Him who spoke to them, thereby did not re- 
ceive the Word, which is the Face of God. This too it was 
that the Patriarch Jacob having seen, received a blessing 
from Him and the name of Israel instead of Jacob, as divine 
Scripture witnesses, saying, And as he passed by the Face of 
God, the sun rose upon Him. And This it was who said, 
He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, and, I in the 
Father and the Father in Me, and, I and the Futher are 


© εἶδος, also in Gen. 32, 30. 31. Sept. 
where translated ‘face,’ E. T. though 
in John 5. “shape.” vid. Justin Tryph. 
126. and supr. p. 154. where vid. note e. 
for the meaning of the word. In p. 422. 
it was just now used for ‘‘ kind.”” Athan. 
says, p. 154, ‘‘there is but one face of 
Godhead ;” yet the word is used of the 
Son as synonymous with ‘image.’ It 
would seem as if there are a certain class 
of words, all expressive of the One Divine 
Substance, which admit of more appro- 
priate application either ordinarily or 
under circumstances, to This or That 
Divine Person who is also that One 
Substance. Thus “ Being’ is more 
descriptive of the Father as the πηγὴ 
θεότητος, and He is said to be ‘‘ the 
Being of the Son;”’ yet the Son is really 
the One Supreme Being also. On the 
other hand the word ‘‘ form,” μορφὴ, and 
“‘face,”’ εἶδος, are rather descriptive of 
the Divine Substance in the Person of 
the Son, and He is called ‘‘ the form’”’ 
and “the face of the Father,’ yet 


there is but one Form and Face of Di- 
vinity, who is at once Each of Three 
Persons ; while “ Spirit”? is appropri- 
ated to the Third Person, though God 
is a Spirit. Thus again 8. Hippolytus 
says ἐκ [τοῦ πατρὸς) δύναμις λόγος, yet 
shortly before, after mentioning the Two 
Persons, he adds, δύναμιν δὲ μίαν. contr. 
Noet. 7 and 1]. And thus the word 
“‘Subsistence,’’ ὑπόστασις, which ex- 
presses the One Divine Substance, has 
been found more appropriate to express 
that Substance viewed personally. 
Other words may be used correlatively 
of either Father or Son; thus the Father 
is the Life of the Son, the Son the Life 
of the Father; or, again, the Father is 
in the Son and the Son in the Father. 
Others in common, as “the Father’s 
Godhead is the Son’s,’’ ἡ πατρικὴ υἱοῦ 
θεότης, as indeed the word οὐσία itself. 
Other words on the contrary express 
the Substance in This or That Person 
only, as “ Word,” “ Image,”’ &c. 


Arians say that the Son is in, and one with, the Father, as we. 425 


e; for thus God is One, and one the faith in the Father eee. 
and Son ; for, though the Word be God, the Lord our God is ——— 
one Lord ; for the Son is proper to that One, and inseparable 
according to the propriety and peculiarity’ of His Substance.,' bas 

13. The Arians, however, not even thus abashed, reply, “¢ Ἢ “UT. 
“Not as you say, but as we will’; for, whereas you have ? p. 414, 
overthrown our former expedients a we have invented a new Bae 
one, and it is this:—So are the Son and the Father One, 
and so is the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father, 
as we too may become one in Him. For this is written in 
the Gospel according to John, and Christ desired it for us in 
these words, Holy Father, keep through Thine own Name, Jobn 17, 
those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, as! 
Weare. And shortly after; Neither pray I for these alone, twid. 
but for them also which shall believe on Me through their ἢ 
word; that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in Me, 
and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us, that the 
world may believe that Thou hast sent Me. And the glory 
uhich Thou gavest Me I have given them, that they may be 
one, even as We are one; I in them, and Thou in Me, that 
they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may 
know that Thou hast sent Me.” Then, as having found an 
evasion, these men of craft? add, “ If, as we become one in 
the Father, so also He and the Father are one, and thus He 
too is in the Father, how pretend you from His saying, I 
and the Father are One, and I in the Father and the Father 
in Me, that He is proper and like * the Father’s Substance ? * he anes 
for it follows either that we too are proper to the Father’s infr. 
Substance, or He foreign to it, as we are foreign.” $6.4 

14. Thus they idly babble ; but in this their perverseness® " Κακονοίᾳ 
I see nothing but unreasoning audacity and recklessness 
from the devil °, since it is saying after his pattern, ‘We will ° διαβολι- 
ascend to heaven, we will be like the Most High.” For wena 
what is given to man by grace, this they would make equal 7 ἃ. 
to the Godhead of the Giver. Thus hearing that men are 


P of δόλιοι, crafty as they are, also 16, c. of παράνομοι. Ep. Aig. 16, ἃ οἱ 
infr. 59, b. And so of θεοστυγεῖς. supr. ἄτιμοι. Serap. i. 15, f. of ἀνόητοι. Ora’. 
16. of kaxdppoves. infr. 26, Ὁ. of δείλαιοι. 11. 11, c. of μηδὲν ἀληθεύοντες. Hist. Ar. 
ibid. d. of παράφρονες. de Decr. 8, a. of 7, b. οἱ ἀπάνθρωποι καὶ μισόκαλοι. ibid. 6. 
ἄθλιοι. Orat. ii. 39 fin. of δυσσεβεῖς. in οἱ ὕποπτοι. ibid. 9, d. of ToAunpol. ibid. 
illud Omn. 3 fin. of θαυμαστοί. Ep. Aig. 20, 6. of ἄφρονες. ibid. 47, ἃ. &c. &c. 
14, ¢. 16 init. of πανοῦργοι. Ep. Aig. 


2 FE 


Disc. 


1 vid. 


4 supr. 
p. 16 
init. 
p- 218, 
note a. 


5 vid. 
Ath. 
Hist. Tr. 
p- 292, 
note n. 


6 infr. §. 
58, note 


7 p. 355, 
note c. 
Orat. iv. 
33 init. 
8 τὰ ἐκ 
προαιρέ- 
σεως κι- 


426 This objection inconsistent with our Lord being the Word. 


called sons, they thought themselves equal to the True Son 
by nature such’. And now again hearing from the Saviour 
that they may be one as We are, they deceive themselves, 
and are arrogant enough to think that they may be such as 
the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son; not 
considering the fall of their father the devil®, which happened 
upon such an imagination. If then, as we have many times 
said, the Word of God is the same with us, and nothing differs 
from us except in time, let Him be like us, and have the same 
place * with the Father as we have; nor let Him be called 
Only-begotten, nor Only Word or Wisdom of the Father ; 
but let the same name be of common application to all us 
who are like Him. For it is right, that they who have one 
nature, should have their name in common, though they 
differ from each other in point of time. For Adam was a 
man, and Paul a man, and he who is begotten at this day is 
aman, and time is not that which alters the nature of the 
race *. If then the Word also differs from us only in time, 
then we must be as He. But in truth neither we are Word 
or Wisdom, nor is He creature or work; else why are we all 
sprung from one, and He the Only Word ? but though it be 
suitable in them thus to speak, in us at least it is unsuitable 
to entertain their blasphemies. And yet, needless * though it 
be to refine upon 4 these passages, considering their so clear 
and religious sense, and our own orthodox belief, yet that 
their religion may be shewn here also, come let us shortly, 
as we have received from the fathers *, expose their hetero- 
doxy from the passage in question. 

15. It is a custom’ with divine Scripture, to take the 
things of nature as images and illustrations for mankind; 
and this it does, that from these physical objects the moral 
impulses * of man may be explained ; and thus their conduct 
shewn to be either bad or righteous. For instance, in the 
case of the bad, as when it charges, Be ye not like to horse 
and mule which have no understanding. Or as when it 
says, complaining of those who have become such, Jan, 


4 περιεργάζεσθαι. vid. p. 328, note k. it is otherwise explained as embracing 
p. 386, r. 5. p. 399, r. 4. infr. 43 init. various kinds of bad books, in Ortlob. 
Orat. iv. 33 init. Serap. i. 15 fin. 17, 4. Dissert. ap. Thesaur. Nov. Theol.-Phil. 
18, e. περίεργα in Acts 19, 19. is in N. T. t. 2. 
generally interpreted of magic, though 


Our moral excellences are but imitations of Glod’s attributes. 427 


being in honour, hath no understanding, but is compared Caae 
unto the beasts that perish. And again, They were as Sed 555, 8 
horses in the morning. And the Saviour to expose Herod 

said, Tell that fox; but, on the other hand, charged His es 13, 
disciples, Behold I send you forth as sheep in the midst of 3 Matt 10, 
wolves; be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as τ 
doves. And He said this, not that we may become in nature 

beasts of burden, or become serpents and doves; for He hath 

not so made us Himself, and therefore nature does not allow 

of it; but that we might eschew the irrational motions of the 

one, and being aware of the wisdom of that other animal, 

might not be deceived by it, and might take on us the meek- 

ness of the dove. Again, taking patterns for man from ἃ. 19. 
divine subjects, the Saviour says; Be ye merciful, as your Τρ; 
Father which is in heaven is merciful; and, Be ye ρογοοί,Ὶ ae Bs 
as your heavenly Father is perfect. And He said this too, 48. 

not that we might become such as the Father; for to 
become, as the Father, is impossible for us creatures, who 

have been brought to be out of nothing; but as He charged 

us, Be ye not like to the horse, not lest we should become 

as draught animals, but that we ought not imitate their 

want of reason, so, not that we might become as God, did 

He say, Be ye merciful as your Father, but that looking at 

His beneficent acts, what we do well, we might do, not for 

men’s sake, but for His sake, so that from Him and not from 

men we may have the reward. Foras, although there be one 

Son by nature, ‘True and Only-begotten, we too become 


ς 


n 
° 
5 
ὯΝ 
Ξ 
° 
te 
pe) 
nm 
Ε 
μι. 
[κω] 
B 
99 
lob 
ΙΕ 
Nec} 
Ke") 
99 
5 
[or 
Com ad 
iar] 
=| 
ict 
a 
ἘΣ 
i=) 
ts 
ie} 
fe) 
QO 
ΘΟ 
kB 
jon 
pee 
5 
σῷ 
σι. 
ο 
ει 
Sr 
[6] 


grace of Him that calleth, and chews we are men Scorn the 
earth, are yet called gods', not as the True God or His . io 
Word, but as has pleased God who has given us that grace; τ 1, 
so also, as God do we become merciful, not by being made 
equal to God, nor becoming in nature and truth benefactors, 
(for it is not our gift” to benefit but belongs to God,) but in ? εὕρεμα 
order that what has accrued to us from God Himself by grace, 
these things we may impart to others, without making dis- 
tinctions, but largely towards all extending our kind service. 
For only in this way can we any how become imitators, in no 
other, when we minister to others what comes from Him. 

16. And as we put a fair and orthodox * sense upon these * i any 

2¥Fr2 


428 We become like the Father and Son as our nature admits. 


Disc. texts, such again is the sense of the passage in John. For 
——— he does not say, that, as the Son is in the Father, such we 
must become :—whence could it be? when He is God’s Word 

and Wisdom, and we were fashioned out of the earth, and 

He is by nature and substance Word and true God, (for thus 

ΤΩ speaks John, We know that the Son of God is come, and He 
hath given us an understanding to know Him that is true, 
and we are in Him that is True, even in His Son Jesus 
Christ; this is the true God and eternal life;) and we are 

made sons through Him by adoption and grace, as partaking 

ΤΩΝ 1, of His Spirit, (for as many as received Him, he says, to them 
gave He power to become children of God, even to them that 

believe on His Name,) and therefore also He is the Truth, 

Ib. 14, 6. (saying, I am the Truth, and in His address to His Father, 
1b.17,17. He said, Sanctify them throuyh Thy Truth, Thy Word is 
1 ἐνάρετοι Truth ;) but we by imitation * become virtuous * and sons :— 
ae therefore not that we might become such as He, did He say 
oa that they may be one as We are; but that as He, being the 
Ep.i. Word, is in His proper Father, so that we too, taking 
ae τ: an exemplar* and looking at Him, might become one 
towards each other in concord and oneness of spirit, nor 

be at variance as the Corinthians, but mind the same thing, 

as those five thousand in the Acts, who were as one. For it 

is as sons, not as the Son; as gods, not as He Himself; 

and not as the Father, but merciful as the Father. And, 

as has been said, by so becoming one, as the Father and the 

Son, we shall be such, not as the Father is by nature in the 

Son and the Son in the Father, but according to our own 

3 τυπωθῆ- nature, and as it is possible for us thence to be moulded * and 
ὃν to learn how we ought to be one, just as we learned also to 
be merciful. For like things are naturally one with like ; 

4 pp.313, thus all flesh is ranked together in kind *; but the Word is 
aes: unlike us and like the Father.’ ®And therefore, while He is 
in nature and truth one with His own Father, we, as being 


tr κατὰ μίμησιν. Clem. Alex. τῶν εἰ- torium. August. Serm. 101, 6. mediator 
κόνων τὰς μὲν ἐκτρεπομένους, τὰς δὲ non solum per adjutorium, verim etiam 
μιμουμένους. Pedag. i. 3. p. 102. ed. per exemplum. August. Trin. iv. 17. 
Pott. μιμήσει τοῦ νοὺς ἐκείνου. Naz. Ep. also ix. 21. and Eusebius, though with 
102. p. 95. (Ed. Ben.) ut exempium an heretical meaning, κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ 
sequerentur imitando. Leo in various μίμησιν. Eccl. Theol. iii. 19, a. For 
places, supr. p. 357, note e. ut imitatores inward grace as opposed to teaching, 
operum, factorum, sermonum, &c.Iren. vid. supr. p. 360, note g. and p. 393, 
Her. v. 1. exemplum verum et adju- note 6. 


We attain moral unity by contemplating Giod’s real unity. 429 


of one kind* with each other, (for from one were all made, and a 
one is the nature of all men,) become one with each other in Ties 
good disposition *, having as our copy* the Son’s natural unity véis, p. 
with the Father. For as He taught us meekness from Him- mat 
self, saying, Learn of Me, for Iam meek and lowly in heart, 
not that we may become equal to Him, which is impossible, but ἡδιαθέσει, 
that looking towards Him, we may remain meek continually, ?” Ep ed 
so also here, wishing that our good disposition towards each ie 
other should be true and firm and indissoluble, from Himself Noet. 7. 
taking the pattern, He says, that they may be one as We are, τ 
whose oneness is indivisible’; that is, that they learning from # ἀδιαί- 
us of that indivisible Nature, may preserve in like manner *”” 
agreement one withanother. And this imitation of thingswhich 
are in nature is especially safe for man, as has been said ; for, 
since they remain and never change, whereas the conduct of 
men is very changeable, one may look to what is unchange- 
able by nature, and avoid what is bad and remodel® himself ἢ Se v- 
on what is best. 
17. And for this reason also the words that they may be one in 

Us, have an orthodox sense. If, for instance, it were possible for ὃ- 21. 
us to become as the Son in the Father, the words ought to run, 
“ that they may be one in Thee,” as the Son is in the Father; 
but, as it is, He has not said this; but by saying iz Us He has 
pointed out the distance and difference; that He indeed is Only 
in the Only Father, as Only Word and Wisdom ; but we in the 
Son, and through Him in the Father. And dates speaking, He 
meant this only, “By Our unity may they also be so one with 
each other,as We are one in nature and truth; for otherwise }€ 
they could not be one, except by learning unity in Us.” And 
that in Us has this signification, we may learn from Paul, who 
says, These things I have in a figure transferred to myself and : Cor. 4, 
to Apollos, that ye may learn in us not to be puffed up above that ” 
is written. The words in Us then, are not ‘in the Father,” as 
the Son is in Him; but imply an example and image, instead 
of saying, “ Let them learn of Us.’? For as Paul to the 
Corinthians, so is the oneness of the Son and the Father 
a pattern® and lesson to all, by which they may learn, looking 
to that natural unity of the Father and the Son, how they 
themselves ought to be one in spirit towards each other. 

Or if it needs to account for the phrase otherwise, the words 


ie 11: 


Disc. 
lie 


vid. 
: ες ἣν 


Pe 60, 
; 13; 
ot 44,7. 


1 ταὐτό- 
τητα. 


§. 22. 


2 , 
γέγονεν 
ἐν ἡμῖν, 


p- 57,r.1. 


3 cis αὐτό 


vid. Eph. 
4, 13. 


4 ἀλλο- 
δοξία 

5 ἄπολε- 
λυμένως, 
supr. p. 
370, 
note |. 


430 Weare in the Son as man, and the Son is in the Father as God. 


im Us may mean the same as saying, that in the power of the 
Father and the Son they may be one, speaking the same 
things ; for without God this is impossible. And this mode 
of speech also we may find in the divine writings, as In God 
will we do great acts; and In God I shall leap over the 
wall; and In Thee will we tread down our enemies’. 
Therefore it is plain, that in the name of Father and Son 
we shall be able, becoming one, to hold firm the bond of 
charity. 

18. For, dwelling still on the same thought, the Lord 
says, And the glory which Thou gavest Me, I have given to 
them, that they may be one as We are one. Suitably has He 
here too said, not, “that they may be in Thee as I am, but as 
We are; now he who says as‘, signifies not identity’, but an 
image and example of the matter in hand. The Word then 
has the real and true identity of nature with the Father; but 
to us it is given to imitate it, as has been said; for He 
immediately adds, I in them and Thou in Me; that they 
may be made perfect in one. Here at length the Lord asks 
something greater and more perfect for us ; for it is plain that 
in us the Word came to be’, for He has put on our body. 
And Thou Father in Me; “for I am Thy Word, and since 
Thou art in Me, because I am Thy Word, and I in them 
because of the body, and because of Thee the salvation of 
men is perfected in Me, therefore I ask that they also may 
become one, according to the body that is in Me and accord- 
ing to its perfection ; that they too may become perfect, having 
oneness with It, and having become one in It*; that, as if all 
were carried by Me, all may be one body and one spirit, and 
may grow up unto a perfect man.”’ For we all, partaking of 
the Same, become one body, having the one Lord in our- 
selves. The passage then having this meaning, still more 
plainly is refuted the heterodoxy* of Christ’s enemies. I repeat 
it ; if He had said simply and absolutely ’, “ that they may be 
one in Thee,” or “ that they and I may be one in Thee,”’ God’s 
enemies had had some plea, though a shameless one; but in 
fact He has not spoken simply, but, As Thou, Father, in Me, 
and I in Thee, that they may be all one. 


S vid. Olear. de Styl. N. T. p. 4. (ed. τ This remark which comes in abruptly 
1702.) is pursued presently, vid. pp. 431, 432. 


Analogy is not direct similitude. 431 
19. Moreover, using the word as, He signifies those who ΞΕ: 


become distantly as He is in the Father; distantly not in 
place but in nature; for in place nothing is far from God", 
but in nature only all things are far from Him. And, as I 
said before, whoso uses the particle as implies, not identity, 
nor equality, but a pattern of the matter in question, viewed in 
a certain respect *. Indeed we may learn also from our Saviour 8. 23. 
Himself, when He says, For as Jonas was three days and three Matt. 12, 
nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man be three i 

days and three nights in the heart of the earth. For Jonas 

was not as the Saviour, nor did Jonas go down to hell; nor 

was the whale hell; nor did Jonas, when swallowed up, 

bring up those who had before been swallowed by the whale, 

but he alone came forth when the whale was bidden. There- 

fore there is no identity nor equality signified in the term as, 


but one thing and another; and it shews a certain kind’ of 


u vid. p. 18, note n. which is ex- 
plained by the present passage. When 
Ath. there says, ‘‘ without all in nature,” 
he must mean as here ‘‘far from all 
things in nature.’’ He says here dis- 
tinctly ‘in place nothing is far from 
God.” 5. Clement. loc. cit. gives the 
same explanation, as there noticed. It 
is observable that the contr. Sab. Greg. 
(which the Benedictines consider not 
Athan.’s.) speaks as Athan. supr. p. 18. 
“ποῦ by being co-extensive with all 
things, does God fill all; for this be- 
longs to bodies, as air; but He com- 
prehends all as a power, for He is an 
incorporeal, invisible power, not en- 
circling, not encircled.”” 10. Eusebius 
- says the same thing, Deum circumdat 
nihil, cireumdat Deus omnia non cor- 
poraliter ; virtute enim incorporali adest 
omnibus, &c. de Incorpor. i. init. ap. 
Sirm. Op. p. 68. vid. 8S. Ambros. Quo- 
modo creatura in Deo esse potest, &c. 
de Fid. i. 106. and supr. p. 39, note b. 

x vid. Glass. Phil. Sacr. iii. 5. can. 
27. and Dettmars de Theol. Orig. ap. 
Lumper. Hist. Patr. t. 10, p. 212. Vid. 
also supr. p. 359, note f. 

Y ὁμοιότητά πως. and so at the end of 
22. κατά τι θεωρούμενον. ‘* Even when 
the analogy is solid and well-founded, 
we are liable to fall into error, if we 
suppose it to extend farther than it 
really does .... Thus because a just 
analogy has been discerned between 
the metropolis of a country, and the 


heart in the animal body, it has been 
sometimes contended that its increased 
size is a disease, that it may impede 
some of its most important functions, 
or even be the means of its dissolution.’’ 
Copleston on Predestination, p. 129. 
Shortly before the author says, ‘‘ A re- 
markable example of this kind is that 
argument of Toplady against Freewill, 
who, after quoting the text, ‘Ye also 
as lively stones are built up a spiritual 
house,’ triumphantly exclaims, ‘This 
is giving Free-will a stab under the 
fifth rib, for can stones hew themselves, 
and build themselves into a regular 
house?’” p. 126. The principle here 
laid down, in accordance with S. Athan., 
of course admits of being made an ex~ 
cuse for denying the orthodox meaning 
of ‘Word, Wisdom, &c.”’ under pre- 
tence that the figurative terms are not 
confined by the Church within their 
proper limits; but here the question is 
about the matter of fact, which inter- 
pretation is right, the Church’s or the 
objector’s. Thus a later writer says, 
“The most important words of the 
N. T. have not only received an in- 
delibly false stamp from the hands of 
the old Schoolmen, but those words 
having, since the Reformation, become 
common property in the language of 
the country, are, as it were, thickly in- 
crusted with the most vague, incorrect, 
and vulgar notions .... Any word. 

if habitually repeated in connexion with 


432 The Word perfects and immortalizes human nature by assuming tt. 


Disc. 
ΤΠ: 


1 συμφω- 
νία, 

Ρ. 414, 
note b. 

2 ἄλλο 
καὶ ἄλλο 


3 Cyril in 
Joan. 


p- 227, 
&e. 


4 p. 374, 
note t. 


5 θεοφο- 
ρουμένους 
p- 380, 
note h. 


parallel in the case of Jonas, on account of the three days. 


In 


like manner then we too when the Lord says as, neither become 
as the Son in the Father, nor as the Father is in the Son. 
For we become one as the Father and the Son in mind and 
agreement’ of spirit, and the Saviour will be as Jonas in the 
earth ; but as the Saviour is not Jonas, nor, as he was swallowed 
up, so did the Saviour descend into hell, but it is but a pa- 
rallel’, in like manner, if we too become one, as the Son in 
the Father, we shall not be as the Son, nor equal to Him; 


for He and we are but parallel 2. 


For on this account is the 


word as applied to us; since things differing from others in 
nature, become as they, when viewed in a certain relation’. 
20. Wherefore the Son Himself, simply and without any 
condition is in the Father; for this attribute He has by \/ 
nature ; but for us, to whom it is not natural, there is needed 
an image and example, that He may say of us, As Thou in 


Me, and I in Thee. 


“And when they shall be so perfected,” 


He says, “‘ then the world knows that Thou hast sent Me, 
for unless I had come and borne this their body, no one of 
them had been perfected; but one and all had remained 
corruptible*. Work Thou then in them, O Father; and as Thou 
hast given to Me to bear this, grant to them Thy Spirit, that 
they too in It may become one, and may be perfected in Me. 
For their perfecting shews that Thy Word has sojourned 
among them ; and the world seeing them perfect and full of 
God’*, will believe altogether that Thou hast sent Me, and I 


have sojourned here. 


For whence is this their perfecting, 


but that I, Thy Word, having borne their body, and become 
man, have perfected the work, which Thou gavest Me, O 
Father? And the work is perfected, because men, redeemed 


certain notions, will appear to reject 
all other significations, as it were, by a 
natural power.”’? Heresy and Orthod. 


“pp. 21, 47. Elsewhere he speaks of 


words ‘‘ which were used in a language 
now dead to represent objects . . . which 
are now supposed to express figuratively 
something spiritual and quite beyond 
the knowledge and comprehension of 
man.” p. 96. Of course Ath, assumes 
that, since the figures and parallels 
given us in Scripture have but a partial 
application, therefore there is given us 
also an interpreter to apply them. 

z Here too the writer quoted in the 


beginning of the foregoing note, follows 
S. Athanasius: ‘ Analogy does not 
mean the similarity of two things, but 
the similarity or sameness of two re- 
lations. ... Things most unlike and dis- 
cordant in their nature may be strictly 
analogous to one another. Thus a cer- 
tain proposition may be called the basis 
of a system .... it serves a similar office 
and purpose... . the system res/s upon 
it; it is wseless to proceed with the ar- 
gument till this is well established: if 
this were removed, the system must 
(411. On Predest. pp. 122, 3. 


We are in God by means of the gift of the Spirit. 43838 


from sin, no longer remain dead; but being made gods’, have oo 
in each other, by looking at Me, the bond “of charity ἡ. ἘΩ͂ 7 am 
21. We then, by way of giving a rude* view of ther. 4. 
expressions: in this passage, have been led into many words ; πὰς. 
but blessed John in his Epistle will shew the sense of the μον τῆς 
words, concisely and much more perfectly than we can. And ἀΥ aaa 
he will both disprove the interpretation of these irreligious fin. 
men, and will teach how we become in God and God in us; ico 
and how again we become One in Him, and how far the Son 
differs in nature from us, and will stop the Arians from any 
longer thinking that they shall be as the Son, lest they hear 
it said to them, Thou art a man and not God, and, Stretch not tz. 28, 2. 
thyself, being poor, beside the rich. John then thus writes; Ae 
Hereby know we that we dwell in Him and He in us, 1 Jobn4, 
because He hath given us of His Spirit. Therefore because 1 
of the grace of the Spirit which has been given to us, in 
Him we come to be, and He in us*; and since it is the Spirit ὁ p. 430, 
of God, therefore through His becoming in us, reasonably ἀν 
are we, as having the Spirit, considered to be in God, and 
thus is God in us. Not then as the Son in the Father, so 
also we become in the Father; for the Son does not merely 
partake the Spirit, that therefore He too may be in the 
Father; nor does He receive the Spirit, but rather He sup- 
plies It Himself to all; and the Spirit does not unite the 1Ὁ 
Word to the Father, but rather the Spirit receives from the | | 
Word?. And the Son is in the Father, as His proper Word 
and Radiance; but we, apart from the Spirit, are strange 
and distant from God, and by the participation of the Spirit ) 4 
we are knit into the Godhead; so that our being in the 
Father is not ours, but is the Spirit’s which is in us and 
abides in us, while by the true confession we preserve It in 
us, John again saying, Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Lage 4, 
Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in God. 
22. What then is our likeness and equality to the Son? 
rather, are not the Arians confuted on every side? and espe- 
cially by John, that the Son is in the Father in one way, and 
we become in Him in another, and that neither we shall ever 
be as He, nor is the Word as we; except they shall dare, as 


a vid. the end of this section and 25 Cat. xvi. 24. Epiph. Ancor. 67 init. 
init. supr. pp. 202, 3. also Cyril Hier. Cyril in Joan. pp. 929, 930. 


434 The grace of the Spirit irrevocable and abiding. 


= commonly, so now to say, that the Son also by participation 
— of the Spirit and by improvement of conduct became Him- 
self also in the Father. But here again is an excess of irre- 
ligion, even in admitting the thought. For He, as has been 
said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit hath, He 
8. 20. hath from* the Word. The Saviour, then, saying of us, As 
ἴ ‘41, Lhou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they too may be 
1. one in Us, does not signify that we were to have identity with 
Him ; for this was shewn from the instance of Jonas; but it 
is a request to the Father, as John has written, that the Spirit 
should be vouchsafed through Him to those who believe, 
through whom we are found to be in God, and in this 
.  Tespect to be united in Him. For since the Word is in the 
3 ἐκ Father, and the Spirit is given from’ the Word, He wills 
that we should receive the Spirit, that, when we receive It, 
thus having the Spirit of the Word which is in the Father, 
we too may be found on account of the Spirit to become One | 
in the Word, and through Him in the Father. 
23. And if He say, as we, this again is only a request that 
such grace of the Spirit as is given to the disciples may be 
3.372, without failure or revocation*. For what the Word has in 
, the way of nature‘, as I said, in the Father, that He wishes \ 
φύσιν, to be given to us through the Spirit irrevocably ; which the 
p.56, Apostle knowing, said, Who shall separate us from the love of 
nate on Christ ? for the gifts of God and grace of His calling are with- 


Le hs "» 


35. | out repentance. Tt is the Spirit then which is in God, and not 
Ma 11, we viewed in our own selves; and as we are sons and gods * 


2 Eo because of the Word in τ, so we shall be in the Son and 
Lis nh. in the Father, and we shall be accounted’ to have become one 


ἡ $66, in Son and in Father, because that that Spirit is in us, which 
Τνομισθη- 18 in the Word which is in the Father. When then a man 
σόμεθα falls from the Spirit for any wickedness, if he repent upon 
Ssupr. his fall, the grace remains irrevocably to such as are willing’; 
P54. otherwise he who has fallen is no longer in God, (because 
that Holy Spirit and Paraclete which is in God has deserted 
him,) but the sinner shall be in him to whom he has subjected 
himself, as took place in Saul’s instance; for the Spirit of 


1 Kings God departed from him and an evil spirit afflicted him. 
16, 14. 
b βελτιώσει πράξεως, and soad Afros. it is rather some external advance. 
τρόπων BeATtiwots. 8. Supr. pp. 234, 242. 


All this the Arians cannot bear to hear. 435 


God’s enemies hearing this ought to be henceforth abashed, CHar. 
and no longer to feign themselves equal to God. But they 
neither understand (for the irreligious, he saith, does not un- eae 
derstand knowledge) nor endure religious words, but find them νοεῖ, Ath. 


συνήσει 
heavy even to hear. Sept. τὺ 


Disc. 
1Π. 

g. S96). 
1 πατρι- 

κῆς θεό- 
TNTOS, 
p- 400, 
note d. 


2 ὅμοιος 
κατ᾽ ov- 
olay 
Mat. 28, 
18. 
John 5, 
22. 
John 3, 
35 36. 
Mat. 11, 
ΤΙΣ 
John 6, 


John ΝΣ 
27. 2 


CHAPTER XXVI. 


INTRODUCTORY TO TEXTS FROM THE GOSPELS ON THE 
INCARNATION. 


Enumeration of texts still to be explained. Arians compared to the Jews. 
We must recur to the Regula Fidet. Our Lord did not come into, but 
became, man, and therefore had the acts and affections of the flesh. The 
same works divine and human. Thus the flesh was purified, and men 
were made immortal. Reference to 1 Pet. iv. 1. 


1. For behold, as if not wearied in their words of irreligion, 
but with hardened Pharaoh, while they hear and see the Sa- 
viour’s human attributes in the Gospels*, they have utterly 
forgotten, like Samosatene, the Son’s paternal Godhead’, and 
with arrogant and audacious tongue they say, “ How can the 
Son be from the Father by nature, and be like Him in sub- 
stance’, who says, AJ/ power is given unto Me; and the Father 
judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the 
Son; and The Father loveth the Son, and hath given ail 
things into His hand; he that believeth in the Son hath 
everlasting life; and again, All things are delivered unto 
Me of My Father, and no one knoweth the Father save the 
Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him; and 
again, All that the Father hath given unto Me, shall come 
ἕο Me*.” On this they observe, “If He was, as ye say, Son 
by nature, He had no need to receive, but He had by nature 
as a ec 

“Or how can He be the natural and true Power of the 
ΠΝ who near upon the season of the passion says, Vow 
is My soul troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save Me 
Jrom this hour; but for this came I unto this hour. Father, 
glorify Thy Name. Then came there a voice from heaven, 


ἃ This Oration alone, and this en- 
tirely, treats of texts from the Gospels; 
hitherto from the Gospel according to 
St. John, and now chiefly from tke first 
three. From the subject of these por- 
tions of Scripture, it follows that the 


objections which remain chiefly relate 
to our Lord’s economy for us. Hence 
they lead Athan. to treat more dis- 
tinctly of the doctrine of the Incarna- 
tion, and to anticipate a refutation of 
both Nestorius and Eutyches. 


Texts from the Gospels urged against our Lord’s Divinity. 437 


saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify τέ again. πεν 
And He said the same another time; Luther, if it be possible, Ὡπ ΕΙ 
let this cup pass from Me; and When Jesus had thus said, He 39. 


was troubled in spirit and testified and said, Verily, verily, Re i 
I say unto you, that one of you shall betray Me’.’’ Then these ae ὃν 
perverse” men argue; “If He were Power, He had not feared, 2 kaxs- 
but rather He had supplied power to others.” ὍΡΟΙΣ 

3. Further they say; “1 He were by nature the true and 
proper Wisdom of the Father, how is it written, And Jesus Luke 2, 
increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God 3s 
and man* ? In like manner, when He had come into the ?infr. 88. 
parts of Ceesarea Philippi, He asked the disciples whom men i i 
said that He was; and when He was at Bethany He asked ee a 
where Lazarus lay; and He said besides to His disciples, 34. 
How many loaves have ye‘? How then,’ say they, “is He Hee ὧν, 
Wisdom, who increased in wisdom, and was ignorant of what ‘ infr. 
He asked of others ?” ὅδ: 

4. This too they urge; “ Howcan He be the proper Word 
of the Father, without whom the Father never was, through 
whom He makes all things, as ye think, who said upon the 
Cross, Wy God, My God, why hast Thow forsaken Me? and Mat. 27, 
before that had prayed, Glorify Thy Name, and, O Father, eae 12, 
glorify Thou Me with the glory which I had with Thee 28; 17, 
before the world was. And He used to pray in the deserts 3 
and charge His disciples to pray lest they should enter into 
temptation ; and, The spirit indeed is willing, He said, but Mat. 26, 
the flesh is weak. And, Of that day and that hour knoweth ae 
no man, no, nor the Angels, neither the δον". Upon this again see 
say the miserable men, ‘‘ If the Son were, according to your 42—50. : 
interpretation’, eternally existent with God, He had not been ἐλ τὸν 
ignorant of the day, but had known as Word; nor had ὅ8, ο. 
been forsaken as being co-existent ; nor had asked to receive pee τ 
glory, as having it in the Father; nor would have prayed at 
all; for, being the Word, He had needed nothing ; but since 
He is a creature and one of things generate, therefore He thus 
spoke, and needed what He had not; for it is proper to 
creatures to require and to need what they have not.” 

5. This then is what the irreligious men allege in their ἃ, 27, 
discourses ; and if they thus argue, they might consistently 


speak yet more daringly ; ‘‘ Why in the first instance did the 


Disc. 
III. 


1 pp. 2. 
fin. 183. 


John 6, 
42; 8, 58. 


ξ, 28, 


2 οἴκειον 


438 Comparison of the Arians with the Jews. 


Word become flesh?”’ and they might add; “For howcould He, 
being God, become man?” or, “‘Howcould the Immaterial beara 
body?” orthey might speak with Caiaphasstill more Judaically, 
“Wherefore at all, did Christ, being a man, make Himself 
God’ ?” for this and the like the Jews then muttered when 
they saw, and now the Ario-maniacs disbelieve when they 
read, and have fallen away into blasphemies. If then a man 
should carefully parallel the words of these and those, he will 
of a certainty find them both arriving at the same unbelief, and 
the daring of their irreligion equal, and their dispute with us 
a common one. For the Jews said; ‘“ How, being a man, 
can He be God ?”” And the Arians, “If He were very God, 
from God, how could He become man?” And the Jews were 
offended then and mocked, saying, “Had he been Son of God, 
He had not endured the Cross;” and the Arians standing 
over against them, urge upon us, “ How dare ye say that Heis 
the Word proper to the Father’s Substance, who had a body, 
so as to endure all this?” Next, while the Jews sought to 
kill the Lord, because He said that God was His proper 
Father, and made Himself equal to Him, as working what 
the Father works, the Arians also, not only have learned to 
deny, both that He is equal to God and that God is the proper 
and natural Father of the Word, but those who hold this they 
seek to kill. Again, whereas the Jews said, “‘ Is not this the 
Son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know ? how then 
as it that He saith, Before Abraham was, I am, and I came 
down from heaven?” the Arians on the other hand make 
response” and say conformably, “How can He be Word or 
God who slept as man, and wept, and inquired?” Thus both 
parties deny the Eternity and Godhead of the Word in con- 
sequence of those human attributes which the Saviour took 
on Him by reason of that flesh which He bore. 

6. Extravagance then like this being Judaic, and Judaic 
after the mind of Judas the traitor, let them openly confess 
themselves scholars of Caiaphas and Herod, instead of cloking 
Judaism with the name of Christianity, and let them deny 
outright, as we have said before, the Saviour’s appearance in 
the flesh, for this doctrine is akin* to their heresy ; or if they 


> ἐπακούουσιν. Montfaucon (Onomas- word. vid. Apol. contr. Ar. 88. (O. T. 
ticon in t. 2 fin.) so interprets this p. 122, note k.) 


Jo 


Arians should become Christians, if they will not become Jews. 439 


fear openly to Judaize and be circumcised ', from servility Cav. 
towards Constantius and for their sake whom they have —— 
beguiled, then let them not say what the Jews say; for if my 
they disown the name, let them in fairness renounce the 
doctrine?. For we are Christians, O Arians, Christians we ; ? φρόνημα 
our privilege is it well to know the Gospels concerning the 
Saviour, and neither with Jews to stone Him, if we hear of His 
Godhead and Eternity, nor with you to stumble at such lowly 
sayings as He may speak for our sakes as man. If then you 

would become Christians*, put off Arius’s madness, and cleanse* ὃ Hist. 
with the words of religion those ears of yours which blas- p. 208, 
pheming has defiled; knowing that, by ceasing to be Arians, ee ᾿ 
you will cease also from the malevolence of the present Jews. c. Sab. 
Then at once will truth shine on you out of darkness, and ye ee § 
will no longer reproach us with holding two Eternals’, but ye 

will yourselves acknowledge that the Lord is God’s true Son 

by nature, and not as merely’ eternal‘, but revealed as co- ' ἁπλῶς 
existing in the Father’s eternity. For there are things called 

eternal of which He is Framer ; for in the twenty-third Psalm 

it is written, Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and be ye lift Ps. 24, 7. 
up, ye everlasting doors ; and it is plain that through Him 


¢ Vid. supr. p. 43, d. The peculi- 
arity of the Catholic doctrine, as con- 
trasted with the heresies on the subject 
of the Trinity, is that it professes a 
mystery. It involves, not merely a 
contradiction in the terms used, which 
would be little, for we might solve it 
by assigning different senses to the 
same word, or by adding some limita- 
tion, (e. g. if it were said that Satan 
was an Angel and not an Angel, or 
man was mortal and immortal,) but an 
incongruity in the ideas which it intro- 
duces. Not indeed ideas directly and 
wholly contradictory of each other, as 
“circulus quadratus,’’ but such as are 
partially or indirectly antagonist, as per- 
haps ‘‘ montes sine valle.’’ To say that 
the Father is wholly and absolutely the 
one infinitely-simple God, and then that 
the Son is also, and yet that the Father 
is eternally distinct from the Son, is to 
propose ideas which we cannot harmonize 
together ; and our reason is reconciled to 
this state of the case only by the con- 
sideration (though fully by means of it) 
that no idea of ours can embrace the 
simple truth, while we are obliged to 
separate it into portions, and view it in 
aspects, and adumbrate it under many 


ideas, if we are to make any approxima- 
tion towards it at all; as in mathematics 
we approximate to a circle by means of 
a polygon, great as is the dissimilarity 
between the two figures. 

4 οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἀΐδιος i. 6. ἀΐδιος is not 
one of our Lord’s highest titles, for things 
have it which the Son Himself has 
created, and whom of course He pre- 
cedes. Instead of two ἀΐδια then, as 
the Arians say, there are many ἀΐδια ; 
and our Lord’s high title is not this, 
but that He is ‘‘the Son,” and thereby 
eternal in the Father’s eternity, or 
there was not ever when He was not, 
and ‘Image’? and ‘ Radiance.’”’ The 
same line of thought is implied through- 
out his proof of our Lord’s eternity in 
Orat. i. ch. 4—6. pp. 195—210. This 
is worth remarking, as constituting a 
special distinction between ancient and 
modern Scripture proofs of the doctrine, 
and as coinciding with what was said 
supr. p. 283, note c. p. 341, note i. His 
mode of proofis still more clearly brought 
by what he proceeds to say about the 
σκοπὸς, or general bearing or drift of the 
Christian faith, and its availableness 
as a κανὼν or rule of interpretation. 


440 We must interpret Scripture by the Regula Fidei. 


Disc. 


τὰς these things were made ; but if even of things everlasting He 


is the Framer, who of us shall be able henceforth to dispute Ὁ 
that He is anterior to those things eternal, and in consequence, 
is proved to be Lord not so much from His eternity, as in 


'axé- that He is God’s Son ; for being the Son, He is inseparable * 

proves from the Father, and never was it when He was not, but 
He was always; and being the Father’s Image and Radiance, 
He has the Father’s eternity. 

7. Now what has been briefly said above may suffice to 
shew their misunderstanding of the passages they then 
alleged; and that of what they now allege from the Gospels 

5διάνοιαν, they certainly give an unsound interpretation ἡ, we may easily 
Pe see, if we now consider the drift* of that faith which we 
" σκοπὸς, Christians hold, and using it as a rule *, apply ourselves, as the 
μὰν a Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture. For 
ἡ κανόνι Christ’s enemies, being ignorant of this drift, have wandered 
from the way of truth, and have stumbled on a stone of 
§. 29. stumbling, thinking otherwise than they should think. Now 
the drift and character of Holy Scripture, as we have often 

said, is this, it contains a double account of the Saviour if) 2 
that He was ever God, and is the Son, being the Father’s 
svid. Word and Radiance and Wisdom*; and that afterwards for 
ee > us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary Mother of God®, and was 


© θεοτόκου. vid. supr. p. 420, note i. 
Vid. 5. Cyril’s quotations in his de 
Recta Fide, p. 49, &c. ‘‘ The flesh- 
less,’’? says Atticus, ‘‘ becomes flesh, 
the impalpable is handled, the perfect 
grows, the unalterable advances, the 
rich is brought forth in an inn, the 
coverer of heaven with clouds is swathed, 
the king is laid in a manger.”’ Antio- 
chus speaks of Him our Saviour ‘ with 
whom yesterday in an immaculate 
bearing Mary travailed, the Mother of 
life, of beauty, of majesty, the Morn- 
ing Star, &c.’’ ‘The Maker of all,” 
says S. Amphilochius, “is born to us 
to-day of a Virgin.” ‘She did com- 
pass,’ says S. Chrysostom, ‘“ without 
circumscribing the Sun of righteous- 
ness. To-day the Everlasting is born, 
and becomes what He was not. He 
who sitteth on a high and lofty throne 
is placed in a manger, the impalpable, 
incomposite, and immaterial is wrapped 
around by human hands, He who snaps 
the bands of sin is environed in swath- 
ing bands.’”’ And in like manner S. 


Cyril himself, ‘‘As a woman, though 
bearing the body only, is said to bring 
forth one who is made up of body and 
soul, and that will be no injury to the 
interests of the soul, as if it found in 
flesh the origin of its existence; so also 
in the instance of the Blessed Virgin, 
though she is Mother of the holy 
flesh, yet she bore God of God the 
Word, as being in truth one with It.’ 
Ado. Nest. i. p. 18. ‘* God dwelt in the 
womb, yet was not circumscribed ; 
whom the heaven containeth not, the 
Virgin’s frame did not straiten.” Procl. 
Hom. i. p. 60. ‘When thou hearest 
that God speaks from the bush, and 
says to Moses, ‘I am the God, &c.’ 
and that Moses falling on his face wor- 
ships, believest thou, not considering 
the fire that is seen but God that speaks; 
yet, when I mention the Virgin Womb, 
dost thou abominate and turn away? 
....In the bush seest thou not the 
Virgin, in the fire the loving-kindness 
of Him who came? &c.” Theodot. ap. 
Conc. Eph. (p. 1529. Labbe.) ‘ Not 


Two distinct views of our Lord in Scripture. 


made man. 


441 


And this scope is to be found throughout 
inspired Scripture, as the Lord Himself has said, Search 
the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me. 


lest I should exceed in writing, by bringing together all the 
passages on the subject, let it suffice to mention as a speci- 
men, first John saying, Jn the beginning was the Word, and ae Ι, 


the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 
was in the beginning with God. 


The same 
All things were made by 


CuHap. 
MSV 
John 5, 
But 39. 


Him, and without Him was made not one thing; next, And v. 14. 
the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we be- 
held His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father ; 


and next Paul writing, Who being in the form of God, thought 
it not robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no 


reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and 
was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion 
like a man, He humbled Einself, and became obedient unto 


death, even the death of the Cross. 


Any one, beginning with 


these passages and going through the whole of Scripture upon 


only did Mary bear her Elder,’’ says 
Cassian in answer to an _ objector, 
“but ber Author, and giving birth to 
Him from whom she received it, she 
became parent of her Parent. Surely 
it is as easy for God to give nativity 
to Himself, as to man; to be born of 
man as to make men born. For God’s 
power is not circumscribed in His own 
Person, that He should not do in Him- 
self what He can do in all.” Incarn. 
iv. 2. ‘*The One God Only-begotten, 
of an ineffable origin from God, is in- 
troduced into the womb of the Holy 
Virgin, and grows into the form of a 
human body. He who contrives all, 
. . is brought forth according to the 
law of a human birth; He at whose 
voice Archangels tremble . . and the 
world’s elements are dissolved, is heard 
in the wailing of an infant, &c.’”’ Hil. 
Trin. ii. 25. ‘My beloved is white 
and ruddy ;’ white truly, because the 
Brightness of the Father, ruddy, be- 
cause the Birth of a Virgin. In Him 
shines and glows the colour of each 
nature; .. He did not begin from a 
Virgin, but the Everlasting came into 
a Virgin.” Ambros. Virgin. i. n. 47. 
“Him, who, coming in His simple God- 
head, not heaven, not earth, not sea, 
not any creature had endured, Him the 
inviolate womb of a Virgin carried.” 


Chrysost. ap. Cassian. Ircarn. vii. 30. 
“‘ Happily do some understand by the 
‘closed gate,’ by which only ‘the Lord 
God of Israel eters,’ that Prince on 
whom the gate is closed, to be the 
Virgin Mary, who both before and after 
her bearing remained a Virgin.” Je- 
rom. in Ezek. 44 init. ‘‘ Let them tell 
us,’ says Capreolus of Carthage, ‘“‘ how 
is that Man from heaven, if He be not 
God conceived in the womb?” ap. 
Sirm. Opp. t. i. p. 216. ‘*He is made 
in thee,’ says S. Austin, ‘‘ who made 
thee, . . . nay, through whom heaven 
and earth is made; .. the Word of 
God in thee is made flesh, receiving 
flesh, not losing Godhead. And the 
Word is joined, is coupled [0 the flesh, 
and of this so high wedding thy womb 
is the nuptial chamber, &c.’’ Serm. 
291, 6. ‘Say, O blessed Mary,’ says 
8. Hippolytus, ‘* what was It which by 
thee was conceived in the womb, what 
carried by thee in that virgin frame? 
It was the Word of God, &c.” ap. 
Theod. Eran. i. p. 55. “ We Lave 
also as a physician,’’ says S. Ignatius, 
“our Lord God Jesus the Christ, who 
before the world was Only-begotten 
Son and Word, and afterwards was man 
also from Mary the Virgin, the In- 
corporeal in a body, the Impassible, - 
&e.” Ep. and Eph. 7. 


ΩΣ 


Phil. 2, 
6—S: 


442 He became man, not came into man. 


ΓΟ the interpretation’ which they suggest, will perceive how in 
— the beginning the Father said to Him, Let there be light, 
vi δ ” and Let there be a Jirmament*, and Let us make man; but in 
Gen. a fulness of the ages, He sent Him into the world, not that He 
: ΠΣ might judge the world, but that the world by Him might be 
p. 120, saved, and how it is written, Behold, a Virgin shall be with 
ea child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call His Name 
23. Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is God with us. The 
δ. 30. reader then of divine Scripture may acquaint himself with 
these passages from the older books ; and from the Gospels on 
the other hand he will perceive that the Lord became man ; 
ul 1, for the word, he says, became flesh, and dwelt among us. 
; 8. And He became man, and did not come into man; for 
this it is necessary to know, lest perchance these irreligious 
men, fall into this notion also, and beguile any into thinking, 
that, as in former times the Word was used to come into each 
3 ἐπεδή- of the Saints, so now He sojourned * in a man, hallowing him 
ὁ φανερού. 2180, and manifesting * Himself as in the others. For if it were 
Hevos, go, and He only appeared in a man, it were nothing strange, 
Fas #2 nor had those who saw Him been startled, saying, Whence is 

He? and wherefore dost Thou, being a man, make Thyself 

God? for they were familiar with the idea, from the words, 
Sad And the Word of the Lord came to the Prophets* one by one. 
He aq Dut now, since the Word of God, by whom all things came 
Max. 2. to be, endured to become also Son of man, and humbled Him- 

self, taking a servant’s form, therefore to the Jews the Cross 
1Cor.1, of Christ is a scandal, but to us Christ is God’s power and 
God’s wisdom; for the Word, as John says, became flesh ; (it 
‘infr.iv. being the custom® of Scripture to call man by the name of 
Wien flesh, as it says by Joel the Prophet, I will pour out My Spirit 
28. «ἃ LO” all flesh; and as Daniel said to Astyages, I may not 
Dr.5. worship idols made with hands, but the Living God, who hath 

created the heaven and the earth, and hath sovereignty over 
ἃ. 31. all flesh; for both he and Joel call mankind flesh.) Of old 

time He was wont to come to the Saints individually, and 
7γνησίως, to hallow those who rightly’ received Him; but neither, on 
p. 236, their birth, was it said that He had become man, nor, when 
notec. they suffered, was it said that He Himself suffered. But when 
He came* among us from Mary once in fulness of the ages 


for the abolition of sin, (for so it was pleasing to the Father, 


He used the body as His instrument. 443 


to send His own Son made of a woman, made under the Cuar. 
Law,) then it is said, that He took flesh and became man, - G ——— ri 
and in that flesh He suffered for us, (as Peter says, Christ Pet. 4, 
therefore having suffered for us in the flesh,) that it might be 

shewn, and that all might believe, that whereas He was ever 

God, and hallowed those to whom He came, and ordered all 

things according to the Father’s will‘, afterwards for our 

sakes He became man, and bodily, as the Apostle says, the Col. 2, 9 
Godhead dwelt in the flesh ; as much as to say, “ Being God, 

He had His own body, and using this as an instrument 8, He 


became man for our sakes.” 


9. And on account of this, the properties of the flesh are 


said to be His, since He was in it, such as to hunger, to 
thirst, to suffer, to weary, and the like, of which the flesh is 
capable; while on the other hand the works proper to the 
Word Himself, such as to raise the dead, to restore sight to 
the blind, and to cure the woman with an issue of blood, 


He did through his own body" 


ἔ κατὰ τὸ βούλημα. vid. Orat. i. 63. 
infr. p. 490, notes πὶ and n. ‘ When 
God commands others, then the hearer 
answers, for each of these has the 
Mediator Word which makes known the 
will of the Father; but when the Word 
Himself works and creates, there is no 
questioning and answer, for the*Father 
is in Him, and the Word in the Father; 
but it suffices to will, and the work is 
done.”’ supr. p. 324. where vid. note 
b. for passages in which Ps. 33, 9. is 
taken to shew the unity of Father and 
Son from the instantaneousness of the 
accomplishment upon the willing, as 
well as the Son’s existence before crea- 
tion. Hence the Son not only works 
κατὰ τὸ βούλημα, but is the βουλὴ of the 
Father. ibid. note c. - For the contrary 
Arian view, even when it is highest, 
vid. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. iii. 3. quoted 
supr. p. 373, note 5. In that passage 
the Father’s νεύματα are spoken of, a 
word common with the Arians. Euseb. 
ibid. p. 75, a. de Laud. Const. p. 528, 
c. Eunom. Apol. 20 fin. The word is 
used of the Son’s command given to 
the creation, in Athan. contr. Gent. 
e. g. 42, 44, 46. S. Cyril. Hier. fre- 
quently as the Arians, uses it of the 
Father. Catech. x. 5. xi. passim. xv. 25, 
Χο. The difference between the or- 


thodox and Arian views on this point, 


is clearly drawn out by S. Basil contr. 
Eunom. i. 21. 


And the Word bore the 


Β τούτῳ χρώμενος ὀργάνῳ infr. 42. 
and ὄργανον πρὸς τὴν ἐνέργειαν καὶ τὴν 
ἔκλαμψιν τῆς θεότητος. 53. This wasa 
word much used afterwards by the Apol- 
linarians, who looked on cur Lord’s 
manhood as merely a manifestation of 
God. vid. p. 291, note k. vid. σχῆμα 
ὀργανικὸν in Apoll. 1. 2, 15. vid. a pa- 
rallel in Euseb. Laud. Const. p. 536. 
However, it is used freely by Athan. 
6. g. infr. 35, 53. Incarn. 8, 9, 43, 44. 
And he mentions πρὸς gavépwow καὶ 
γνῶσιν, 41 fin. but he also insists upon 
its being not merely for manifestation, 
else our Lord might have come in a 
higher nature. ibid. 8. vid. also 44. 
This use of ὄργανον must not be con- 
fused with its heretical PEp Henson to 
our Lord’s Divine Nature, vid. Basil 
de Sp. 8. πὶ 19 fin. of which supr. p. 
118, note n. It may be added that ¢a- 
vépwo.s is a Nestorian as well as Euty- 
chian idea; vid. p. 442,r.4. Facund. 
Tr. Cap. ix. 2, 3. and the Syrian use of 
parsopa Asseman. B. O, t. 4. p. 219. 
Thus both parties really denied the 
Atonement, vid. supr. p. 267, note 1. 
p- 292, note m. 

h Orat. iv. 6. and fragm. ex Euthym. 
p- 1275. ed. Ben. This interchange is 
called theologically the ἀντίδοσις or com- 
municatio ἰδιωμάτων. ‘ Because of the 
perfect union of the flesh which was as- 
sumed, and of the Godhead which as- 
sumed it, the names are interchanged, 


De Ga es 


1 ὑπούργει 


Is. 5%, 4. 


2 ἐθερά- 
πευσεν 


3 παθῶν, 
vid. p. 
446, r. 5. 
4 supr. 


444 He took on Him the infirmities of the flesh. 

infirmities of the flesh, as His own, for His was the flesh; 
and the flesh ministered’ to the works of the Godhead, be- 
cause the Godhead was in it, for the body was God’si, v And 
well has the Prophet said carried ; and has not said, “ He re- 
medied*” our infirmities, lest, as being external to the body, 
and only healing it, as He has always done, He should leave 
men subject still to death; but He carries our infirmities, and 
He Himself bears our sins, that it might be shewn that He 
became man for us, and that the body which in Him bore 
them, was His proper body ; and, while He received no hurt* 
Himself by bearing our sins in His body on the tree, as Peter 
speaks, we men were redeemed from our own affections *, and 
were filled with the righteousness * of the Word. Whence it 


so that the human is called from the 
divine and the divine from the human. 
Wherefore He who was crucified is 
called by Paul Lord of glory, and He 
who is worshipped by all creation of 
things in heaven, in earth, and under 
the earth is named Jesus, &c.’’ Nyssen. 
in Apoll. t. 2. pp. 697, 8. Leon. Ep. 
28, 51. Ambros. de fid. ii. 58. Nyssen. 
de Beat. p. 767. Cassian. Incarn. v3. 
22. Aug. contr. Serm. Ar. c. 8 init. 
Plain and easy as such statements seem 
in this and some following notes, they 
are of the utmost importance in the 
Nestorian and Eutychian controversies. 

1 θεοῦ ἦν σῶμα. also ad Adelph. 3. 
ad Max. 2. and so τὴν πτωχεύσασαν 
φύσιν θεοῦ ὅλην γενομένην. c. Apoll. ii. 
11. τὸ πάθος τοῦ λόγου. ibid. 16, c. σὰρξ 
τοῦ λόγου. infr. 34. σῶμα σοφίας infr. 53. 
also supr. p. 296, r. 1. πάθος Χριστοῦ 
τοῦ θεοῦ μου. Ignat. Rom. 6. 6 θεὸς 
πέπονθεν. Melit. ap. Anast. Hodeg. 12. 
Dei passiones. Tertull. de Carn. Christ. 
5. Dei interemptores. ibid. caro Deitatis. 
Leon. Serm. 65 fin. Deus mortuus et 
sepultus. Vigil. c. Eut. ii. p. 502. vid. 
supr. p. 244, notel. Yet Athan. objects 
to the phrase, ‘‘God suffered in the 
flesh,” i. e. as used by the Apollinarians. 
vid. contr. Apoll. ii. 13 fin. 

Κ οὐδὲν ἐβλάπτετος “For He was 
not shut up in the body, nor was He in 
such sort in the body, as not to be else- 
where, &c.’”’ Incarn. 17. Also ἐβλάτ- 
TETO μὲν γὰρ αὐτὸς οὐδέν. &c. ibid. 54. 
μὴ βλαπτόμενος, ἀλλὰ ἐξαφανίζων. infr. 
34, b. ‘For the Sun too which He 
made and we see, makes its circuit in 
the sky, and is not defiled by touching, 
&c.”? de Incarn. 17. “As the rays of 
sun-light would not suffer at all, though 
filling all things and touching bodies 


dead and unclean, thus and much more 
the spiritual virtue of God the Word 
would suffer nothing in substance nor 
receive hurt, &c.’’ Euseb. de Laud. 
Const. p. 536. and 538. also Dem. 
Evang. vii. p. 348. ‘The injuries of 
the passion even the Godhead bore, but 
the passion His flesh alone felt; as we 
rightly say that a sunbeam or a body of 
flame can he cut indeed by a sword but 
not divided. I will speak yet more 
plainly; the Godhead {divinitatis, qu. 
tas] was fixed with nails, but could not 
Itself be pierced, since the flesh was 
exposed and offered room for the wound, 
but God remained invisible, &c.’’ Vigil. 
contr. Eutych. ii. p. 5037 (B. P. ed. 
1624.) ‘There were five together on 
the Cross, when Christ was nailed to it ; 
the sun light, which first received the 
nails and the spear, and remained un- 
divided from the Cross and unhurt by 
the nails, next, &c.’’ Anast. Hodeg. 
6. 12. p. 220. (ed. 1606.) also p. 222. 
Vid. also the beautiful passage in 
Pseudo-Basil : “" God in flesh, not work- 
ing with aught intervening as in the 
prophets, but having taken to Him a 
manhood connatural with © Himself 
(συμφυῆ, i. 6. joined to His nature) and 
made one, and through His flesh akin 
to us drawing up to Him all humanity. 
.... What was the manner of the God- 
head in flesh? as fire in iron, not 
transitively, but by communication. 
For the fire does not dart into the iron, 
but remains there and communicates 
to it of its own virtue, not impaired by 
the communication, yet filling wholly 
its recipient, ἅς." Hom. in Sanct. 
Christ. Gen. (t. 2. p. 596. ed. Ben.) also 
Ruffin. in Symb. 12. Cyril. Quod unus 
est Christus. p. 776. Damase. F, O. 


Through the properties of the flesh He did divine works. 445 


was that, when the flesh suffered, the Word was not external 
to it; and therefore is the passion said to be His: and when 
He did divinely His Father’s works, the flesh was not ex- 
ternal to Him, but in the body itself did* the Lord do them!'., 
Hence, when made man, He said, Jf I do not the works of 
the Father, believe Me not; but if I do, though ye believe not 
Me, believe the works, that ye may know that the Father is in Me 
and I in Him. 

10. And thus when there was nced to raise Peter’s wife’s 
mother who was sick of a fever, He stretched forth His hand 
humanly, but He stopped the illness divinely. And in the 
case of the man blind from the birth, human was the spittle 
which He gave forth from the flesh, but divinely did He 
open the eyes through the clay. And in the case of Lazarus, 
He gave forth a human voice, as man; but divinely, as God, 
did He raise Lazarus from the dead™. These things were so 
done, were so manifested, because He had a body, not in 
appearance, but in truth"; and it became the Lord, in putting 


iii. 6 fin. August. Serm. 7. p. 26 init. also pp. 30, 87, 8. ed. 1644. 
ed. 1842. Suppl. 1. m «The birth of the flesh is a mani- 
1 «Two natures,” says S. Leo, festation of human nature, the bearing 


“met together in our Redeemer, and, 
while the proprieties of each remained, 
so great a unity was made of either 
substance, that from the time that the 
Word was made flesh in the Blessed 
Virgin’s womb, we may neither think 
of Him as God without this which is 
man, nor as man without This which 
is God. Each nature certifies its own 
reality under distinct actions, but neither 
disjoins itself from connexion with 
the other. Nothing is wanting from 
either towards other; there is entire 
littleness in majesty, entire majesty in 
littleness; unity does not introduce 
confusion, nor does propriety divide 
unity. There is one thing passible, an- 
other inviolable, yet His is the con- 
tumely whose is the glory. He is in 
infirmity who is in power; the Same is 
both capable and conqueror of death. 
God then did take on Him whole man, 
and so knit Himself into him and him 
into Himself in pity and in power, that 
either nature was in other, and neither 
in the other lost its own propriety.” 
Serm. 54, 2. ‘‘Suscepit nos in suam 
proprietatem illa natura, quae nec nos- 
tris sua, nec suis nostra consumeret, 
&e.”’ Serm. 72. p. 286. vid. also Ep. 
165, 6. Serm. 30, 5. Cyril. Cat. iv. 9. 
Amphiloch. ap. Theod. Eran. i. p. 60. 


of the Virgin a token of divine power. 
The infancy of a little one is shewa in 
the lowliness of the cradle, the great- 
ness of the Highest is proclaimed by 
the voices of Angels. He has the 
rudiments of men whom Herod im- 
piously plots to kill, He is the Lord of 
all whom the Magi delight suppliantly 
to adore, &c. &c. To hunger, thirst, 
weary, and sleep are evidently human ; 
but to satisfy five thousand on five 
loaves, and to give the Samaritan living 
water... . to walk on the sea and the 
feet not to sink, and to lay the tossing 
waves with a rebuke, is unambiguously 
divine.”’ Leo’s Tome (Ep. 28.) 4. 
“When He touched the leper, it was 
the man that was seen; but something 
beyond man, when He cleansed him, 
&c.”’? Ambros. Epist. i. 46, n. 7. Hil. 
Trin. x. 23 fin. vid. infr. 56 note, and 
S. Leo’s extracts in his Ep. 165. Chry- 
sol. Serm. 34 and 35. Paul. ap. Conc. 
Eph. (p. 1620. Labbe.) These are in- 
stances of what is theologically called 
the θεανδρικὴ ἐνέργεια, i. 6. the union of 
the energies of both Natures in one act. 

ἢ μὴ φαντασίᾳ ἀλλ᾽ ἀληθῶς. vid. In- 
carn. 18, d. ad Epict. 7, 6. The passage 
is quoted by Κα, Cyril. Apol. ady. Orient. 
p. 194. 


CHAP. 
XXVI. 


P 
VardgvAw 
> / 


ἐποίει 
John 10, 
ois 20s 
vid. In- 


carn. 18. 


1 πάθη, 
suffer- 
ings 


9 


2 κατόρ- 
θωμα 


8 ἀπικα- 
Astucba 


§. 33. 


4 ἐθεοποι- 
ἤθη 


5 p. 254, 
note k. 
p- 360, 
note g. 
p- 378, 
10fe 6. 
p. 447, 
note u. 


446 The Word took a man’s body and affections, 


on human flesh, to put it on whole with the affections proper 
to it; that, as we say that the body was proper to Him, so 
also we may say that the affections of the body were only 
proper to Him, though they did not touch Him according to > 
His Godhead. If then the body had been another’s, to him 
too had been the affections attributed; but if the flesh is the 
Word’s, (for the Word became flesh,) of necessity then the 
affections also of the flesh are ascribed to Him, whose the 
flesh is. And to whom the affections’ are ascribed, such 
namely as to be condemned, to be scourged, to thirst, and the 
cross, and death, and the other infirmities of the body, of 
Him too is the triumph? and the grace. For this cause then, 
consistently and fittingly such affections are ascribed not to 
another °, but to the Lord; that the grace also may be from 
Him?, and that we may become, not worshippers of any 
other, but truly devout towards God, because we pray * to no 
creature, no ordinary? man, but the natural and true Son 
from God, who has become man, yet is not the less Lord and 
God and Saviour. 

11. Who will not admire this? or who will not agree that 
such a thing is truly divine ? for if the works of the Word’s , 


Godhead had not taken place through the body, man had 95 


not been made god‘; and again, had not the properties of the 
flesh been ascribed to the Word, man had not been thoroughly 
delivered from them’; but though they had ceased for a little 
while, as I said before, still sin had remained in him and 
corruption, as was the case with mankind before Him; and 
for this reason:—Many for instance have been made holy and 
clean from all sin; nay, Jeremias was hallowed’ even from 


© οὐκ ἄλλου, ἀλλὰ τοῦ κυρίου: and and denying the nature, they do not 


so οὐχ ἑτέρου τινὸς, Incarn. 18; also 
Orat. i. 45, supr. p. 244. and Orat. iv. 
35. Cyril. Thes. p. 197. and Anathem. 
11. who defends the phrase against the 
Orientals. 

p “Tf any happen to be scandalized 
by the swathing bands, and His lying 
in a manger, and the gradual increase 
according to the flesh, and the sleep- 
ing in a vessel, and the wearying in 
journeying, and the bungering in due 
time, and whatever else happen to one 
who has become really man, let them 
know that, making a mock of the suf- 
ferings, they are denying the nature; 


believe in the economy; and not be- 
lieving in the economy, they forfeit the 
salvation.”’ Procl. ad Armen. p. 516. 
ed. 1630. 

4ᾳ κοινόν. opposed to ἔδιον. vid. infr. 
p- 472, r. 6. Cyril. Epp. p. 23, e. com- 
munem, Ambros. de Fid. i. 94. 

T vid. Jer.i. 5. And so S. Jerome, 
S. Leo, &c. as mentioned in Corn. a 
Lap. in loc. who adds that 5. Ephrem 
considers Moses also sanctified in the 
womb, and S. Ambrose Jacob; S. Jerome 
implies a similar gift in the case of 
Asella, ad Marcell. (Ep. 24, 2.) And 
so 8. John Baptist, Maldon. in Luc. 


᾿ 
᾿ 
; 
| 


that He might hallow and spiritualize what He had taken. 447 


the womb, and John, while yet in the womb, leapt for joy at case 
the voice of Mary Mother of God*; nevertheless death . m3 
reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those that had 1. 

not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression ; 

and thus man remained mortal and corruptible as before, 
liable to the affections proper to their nature. But now the 
Word having become man and having appropriated' the 
affections of the flesh, no longer do these affections touch 

the body, because of the Word who has come in it, but they 

are destroyed" by Him, and henceforth men no longer re- 

main sinners and dead according to their proper affections, 

but having risen according to the Word’s power, they abide * ? διαμέ- 
ever immortal and incorruptible. Whence also, whereas the >. 380, 


flesh is born® of Mary Mother of God*, He Himself is said to si ᾿ is 
have been born, who furnishes to others a generation® of being; note a. 
in order that He may transfer our generation into Himself, and plone 
we may no longer, as mere earth, return to earth, but as being * γένεθιν τ 
knit into the Word from heaven, may be carried to heaven by; Mi i = 
Him. Therefore in like manner not without reason has He Does 


1,16. It is remarkable that no ancient whose end is death, and His deathless 


writer, (unless indeed we except S. 
Austin,) refers to the instance of S. 
Mary ;—perhaps from the circumstance 
of its not being mentioned in Scripture. 

5 θεοτόκου. For instances of this word 
vid. Origen. ap. Socr. vii. 32. Euseb. V. 
Const. iii. 43. in Psalm p. 703. Alexandr. 
Ep. ad Alex. ap. Theodor. Hist. i. 3. p. 
745. Athan. (supra) Cyril. Cat. x. 19. 
Julian Imper. ap. Cyril. c. Jul. viii. p. 
262. Amphiloch. Orat. 4. p. 41. (if Am- 
phil.) ed. 1644. Nyssen. Ep. ad Eustath. 
p- 1093. Chrysost. apud Suicer Symb. 
p- 240. Greg. Naz. Orat. 29, 4. Ep. 181. 
p- 85. ed. Ben. Antiochus and Ammon. 
ap. Cyril. de Recta Fid. pp. 49, 50. 
Pseudo-Dion. contr. Samos. 5. Pseudo- 
Basil. Hom. t. 2. p. 600. ed. Ben. 

τ ἰδιοποιουμένου. vid. also infr. p. 455, 
r. 6. ad Epict. 6, 6. fragm. ex Euthym. 
(t. i. p. 1275. ed. Ben.) Cyril. in Joann. 
p- 151, a. For ἴδιον, which occurs so 
frequently here, vid. Cyril. Anathem. 11. 
And οἰκείωται, contr. Apoll. ii. 16, e 
Cyril. Schol. de Incarn. p. 782, d. Con- 
cil. Eph. pp. 1644, d. 1697, b. (Hard.) 
Damase. F. O. iii. 3. p. 208. ed. Ven. 
Vid. Petav. de Incarn. iv. 15. 

ἃ vid. pp. 245, 247, &c. p. 374, note 
t. Vid. also iv. 33. Incarn. c. Arian. 12. 
contr. Apoll. i. 17. ii. ὁ." Since God the 
Word willed to annul the passions, 


nature was not capable of them, .. Heis 
made flesh of the Virgin, in the way He 
knoweth, &c.’’ Procl. ad Armen. p. 616. 
also Leon. Serm. 22. pp. 69. 71. Serm. 
26. p. 88. Nyssen contr. Apoll. t. 2. 
p- 696. Cyril. Epp. p. 138, 9. in Joan. 
p- 95. Chrysol. Serm. 148. 

X θεοτόκου. supr. p. 420, notei. p. 440, 
note e. and just above, note s. For 
“mater Dei’’ vid. before 8S. Leo, 
Ambros. de Virg. ii. 7. Cassian. Incarn. 
ii. 5. vii. 25. Vincent. Lir. Commonit. 
21. It is obvious that θεοτόκος, though 
framed as a test against Nestorians, was 
equally effective against Apollinarians 
and Eutychians, who denied that our 
Lord had taken human flesh at all, as is 
observed by Facundus Def. Trium Cap. 
i. 4. And so 8. Cyril, ‘‘ Let it be care- 
fully observed, that nearly this whole 
contest about the faith has been created 
against us for our maintaining that the 
Holy Virgin is Mother of God; now, if 
we hold,’ as was the calumny, “‘ that the 
Holy Body of Christ our common Sa- 
viour was from heaven, and not born 
of her, how can she be considered as 
Mother of God?” Epp. pp. 106, 7. 
Yet these sects, as the Arians, main- 
tained the term. vid. supr. p. 292, 
note π. 


Disc. 
Tt 


ΐ 


448 The Word suffered, 


transferred to Himself the other affections of the body also ; 


———— that we, no longer as being men, but as proper to the Word, 


may have share in eternal life. For no longer according to 
that former generation in Adam do we die; but henceforward 
our generation and all infirmity of flesh being transferred to 
the Word, we rise from the earth, the curse from sin being re- 


1p. 366, moved, because of Him who is in us’ and who has become a 
note c. 


1 Pet.4, Christ then having suffered for us in the flesh. 


ὃ. 34. 


curse for us. And with reason; for as we are all from earth 
and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above of water and 
Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened; the flesh being no 
longer earthly, but being henceforth made the Word’, by 
reason of God’s Word who for our sake became flesh. 

12. And that one may attain to a more exact knowledge of 
the impassibility of the Word’s nature and of the infirmities 
ascribed to Him because of the flesh, it will be well to listen 
to the blessed Peter; for he will be a trustworthy witness 
concerning the Saviour. He writes then in his Epistle thus ; 
Therefore also 
when He is said to hunger and thirst and to toil and not to 
know, and to sleep, and to weep, and to ask, and to flee, and 
to be born, and to deprecate the cup, and in a word to 
undergo all that belongs to the flesh’, let it be said, as is 
congruous, in each case, “ Christ then hungering and thirst- 
ing for us in the flesh ;” and “saying He did not know, and 
being buffeted, and toiling 707 us in the flesh ;” and “being 
exalted too, and born, and growing in the flesh;” and “fearing 


ae 26, and hiding in the flesh;” and “saying, If it be possible let 


this cup pass from Me, and being beaten, and receiving, 
Jor us in the flesh ;” and in a word all such things 702" us in 
the ficsh. For on this account has the Apostle himself said, 


Y λογωθείσης τῆς σαρκός. Thisstrong 
term is here applied to human nature 
generally; Damascene speaks of the 
Adywois of the flesh, but he means 
especially our Lord’s flesh. F. O. iv. 
18. p. 286. (Ed. Ven.) for the words 
θεοῦσθαι, &c. vid. supr. p. 380, note ἢ. 

z « ΑἹ] this belongs to the Economy, 
not to the Godhead. On this account 
He says, ‘ Now is My soul troubled,’.., 
so troubled as to seek for a release, if 
escape were possible. ... As to hunger 
is no blame, nor to sleep, so is it none 
to desire the present life. Christ had 
a body pure from sins, but not exempt 


from physical necessities, else it had 
not been a body.” Chrysost. in Joann. 
Hom. 67. 1 and 2: ~‘‘ He used His own 
flesh as an instrument for the works of 
the flesh and physical infirmities and 
whatever such is blameless, &c.”” Cyril. 
de Rect. Fid. p. 18. ‘As a man He 
doubts, as a man He is troubled; it is 
not His Power (virtus) that is troubled, 
not His Godhead, but His soul, &c.’’ 
Ambros. de Fid. ii. n. 56. vid. a beautiful 
passage in S. Basil’s Hom. iv. 5. in 
which he insists on our Lord’s having 
wept to shew us how to weep neither 
too much nor too little. 


a OE Erle eel 


but in the flesh, not in His Godhead. 449 


Christ then having suffered, not in His Godhead, but for us CHa. 
in the flesh, that these affections may be acknowledged as, —— 
not proper to the very Word by nature, but proper by nature 
to the very flesh. 

13. Let no one then stumble at these human affections, 
but rather let a man know that in nature the Word Himself 
is impassible, and yet because of that flesh which He put on, 
these things are ascribed to Him, since they are proper to 
the flesh, and the body itself is proper to the Saviour. And 
while He Himself, being impassible in nature, remains as He 
is, not harmed’ by these affections, but rather obliterating ᾿ βλαπτό- 
and destroying them, men, their passions as if changed and 4a 
abolished” in the Impassible, henceforth become themselves ai 
also impassible and free* from them for ever, as John teaches note u. 
when he says, And ye know that He was manifested to take \ John 3, 
away our sins, and in Him is no sin. And this being so, no ᾿ 
heretic shall object, ‘‘ Wherefore rises the flesh, being by 
nature mortal? and if it rises, why not hunger too and thirst, 
and suffer, and remain mortal? for it came from the earth, 
and how can its natural condition pass from it?”’ since the flesh 
is able now to make answer to this so contentious heretic, 

“1 am from earth, being by nature mortal, but afterwards I 
became the Word’s flesh, and He carried my affections, 
though He is without them*; and so I became free from ὅ ἀπαθής 
them, being no more abandoned to their service because of 

the Lord who has made me free from them. For if thou 
objectest that I am rid of that corruption which is by nature, 

see that thou objectest not that God’s Word took my form 

of servitude; for as the Lord, putting on the body, became _ 5; 
man, so we men are made gods* by the Word as being taken |*@coro.d- 
to Him through His flesh, and henceforward inherit life ““” 
everlasting.” 


ἃ yid. p. 360, note g. ‘‘Assince the did no sin, nor was guile found in His 


flesh has become the all-quickening 
Word’s, it overbears the might of cor- 
ruption and death, so, I think, since 
the soul became His who knew not 
error, it has an unchangeable condition 
for all good things established in it, and 
far more vigorous than the sin that of 
old time tyrannized over us. For, first 
aud only of men on the earth, Christ 


mouth; and He is laid down as a root 
and firstfruit of those who are refashioned 
unto newness of life in the Spirit, and 
unto immortality of body, and He will 
transmit to the whole human race the 
firm security of the Godhead, as by 
participation and by grace.”’ Cyril. de 
Rect. Fid. p. 18. 


Disc. 
IIl. 


§. 39. 

1 ὀργάνου, 
p. 443, 
note g. 


2 ὀρθῶς 


5 γένεσιν 
6 pp. 130, 
189. infr. 


τ Saviour, they have judged Him a creature. 


- selves with Manichees °*. 


‘450 It was One, who wrought as God and suffered as man. 


14. These points we have found it necessary first to 
examine, that, when we see Him doing or saying aught 
divinely through the instrument’ of His own body, we may 
know that He so works, being God, and also, if we see Him 
speaking or suffering humanly, we may not be ignorant that 
He bore flesh and became man, and hence He so acts and 
so speaks. For if we recognise what is proper to each, and 
see and understand that both these things and those are 
done by One’, we are right” in our faith, and shall never 
stray. But if a man looking at what is done divinely by the 
Word, deny the body, or looking at what is proper to the 
body, deny the Word’s presence in the flesh, or from what is 
human entertain low thoughts concerning the Word, such a 


. one, as a Jewish vintner*, mixing water with the wine’, 


shall account the cross an offence, or as a Gentile, will deem 
the preaching folly. This then is what happens to God’s 
enemies the Arians; for looking at what is human in the 
Therefore they 
ought, looking also at the divine works of the Word, to deny* 
the generation of His body’, and henceforth to rank them- 
But for them learn they, however 
tardily, that the Word became flesh; and let us, retaining the 
general scope’ of the faith, acknowledge that what they 
interpret ill, has a right interpretation *. 


Ὁ vid. infr. 39—41. and p. 479, note b. 
‘Being God, and existing as Word, 


passible; that, as was befitting for 
our cure, One and the Same Mediator 


while He remained what He was, He 
became flesh, and a child, and a man, 
no change profaning the mystery. The 
Same both works wonders and suffers, 
by the miracles signifying that He is 
what He was, and by the sufferings 
giving proof that He had become what 
He had framed.” Procl. ad Armen. 
p. 615. ‘Without loss then to the pro- 
priety of either nature and substance,” 
(salva proprietate, and so Tertullian, 
Salva est utriusque proprietas sub- 
stantie, &c. in Prax. 27.) ‘“‘yet with 
their union in one Person, Majesty 
takes on it littleness, Power infirmity, 
Eternity mortality, and, to pay the 
debt of our estate, an inviolable Nature 
is made one with a nature that is 


between God and man, the man Jesus 
Christ, might both be capable of death 
from the Gne, and incapable from the 
other.’’ Leo’s Tome (Ep. 28, 3.) also Hil. 
Trin. ix. 11 fin. ‘ Vagit infans, sed in 
ceelo est, &c.’’ ibid. x. 54. Ambros. de 
Fid. ii. 77. Erat vermis in cruce sed 
dimittebat peccata. Non habebat 
speciem, sed plenitudinem divinitatis, 
δα. Id. Epist. i. 46, n. 5. Theoph. Ep. 
Pasch. 6. ap. Conc. Ephes. p. 1404. 
Hard. 

¢ Thus heresies are partial views of 
the truth, starting from some truth 
which they exaggerate, and disowning 
and protesting against other truth, 
which they fancy inconsistent with it. 
vid. supr. p. 219, note b. 


CHAPTER XXVII. 


TEXTS EXPLAINED; TENTHLY, MATTHEW xxviii. 18. 
JOHN 11. 385. &e. 


These texts intended to preclude the Sabellian notion of the Son; they 
fall in with the Catholic doctrine concerning the Son; they are ex- 
plained by “so” in John 5, 26. (Anticipation of the next chapter.) 
Again they are used with reference to our Lord’s human nature; for 
our sake, that we might receive and not lose, as receiving in Him. And 
consistently with other parts of Scripture, which shew that He had the 
power, &c., before He received it. He was God and man, and His 
actions are often at once divine and human. 


1. For, The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things John 3, 
into His hand; and, All things are given unto Me of My * Matt 
Father; and, I can do nothing of Myself, but as I hear, [11,2 
judge; and the like passages, do not shew that the Son once Sohn 5, δ, 
had not these prerogatives,— (for had not He eternally what 
the Father has, who is the Only Word and Wisdom of the 
Father in substance, who also says, All that the Father hath Jobn 26, 
are Mine, and what are Mine, are the Father’s? for if the a τὰ 
things of the Father are the Son’s and the Father hath them 
ever, it is plain that what the Son hath, being the Father’s, 
were ever in the Son,)—not then because once He had them 
not, did He say this, but because, whereas the Son hath 
eternally what He hath, yet He hath them from the Father. 
For lest a man, perceiving that the Son has all that the §. 36. 
Father hath, from the unvarying likeness’ and identity of ! ἀπα- 
that He hath, should wander into the irreligion of Sabellius??7-"" 
considering Him to be the Father’, ierafors He has said Js 2 note on 
given unto Me, and I have received, and Are delivered to Me, γεν: 
only to shew that He is not the Father, but the Father’s Word, ae 
and the Eternal Son, who because of His likeness to thejg = ” 
Father, hath eternally what He hath from Him, and because 


He is the Son, hath from the Father what eternally He hath. 


ΠῚ 


John 5, 
26. 


3 p. 359, 
note ἢ, 


452. The Son receives, not because He is not God, but not the Futher. 


2. Moreover that Ls given and Are delivered, and the like, 
do not impair’ the Godhead of the Son, but rather shew Him 
to be truly* Son, we may learn from the passages them- 
selves. or if all things are delivered unto Him, first, He is 
other than that all which He has received; next, being Heir 
of all things, He alone is the Son and proper according to 
the Substance of the Father. For if He were one of all, 
then He were not fir of all, but every one had received 
according as the Father willed and gave. But now, as 
receiving all things, He is other than them all, and alone 
proper to the Father. 

3. Moreover that Js given and Are delivered do not shew 
that once He had them not, we may conclude from a similar 
passage, and in like manner concerning them all; for the 
Saviour Himself says As the Futher hath life in Himself, so 
hath He given also to the Son to have life in Himself. Now 
from the words Hath given, He signifies that He is not the 
Father; but in saying so, He shews the Son’s natural likeness 
and propriety towards the Father. If then once the Father 
had not, plainly the Son once had not; for as the Father, so 
also the Son has, But if this is irreligious to say, and 
religious on the contrary to say that the Father had ever, is 
it not extravagant in them when the Son says that, as the 
Father has, so also the Son has, to say that He has not so’, 
but otherwise? Rather then is the Word faithful, and all 
things which He says that He has received, He has always, | 
yet has from the Father; and the Father indeed not from any, 
but the Son from the Father. For as in the instance of the 
radiance, 1f the radiance itself should say, “All places the 
light hath given me to enlighten, and I do not enlighten from 
myself, but as the light wills,” yet, in saying this, it does 


not imply that it once had not, but it means, “I = \ 
‘proper to the light, and all things of the light are mine;” 


so, and much more, must we understand in the instance 
of the Son. For the Father, having given all things to the 
Son, in the Son still* hath all things; and the Son having, 


a πάλιν. vid. p. 203, noted. Thus the Son is in Himself, as distinct from 
iteration is not duplication in respect the Father; we are but told His re- 
to God; though how this is, is the in- /a/ion towards the Father, and thus the 
scrutable Mystery of the Trinity in sole meaning we are able to attach to 
Unity. Nothing can be named which Person is a relation of the Son towards 


ee ee ee ῶτς: 


.» 


The Father gives the Son all things, yet still has them. 


453 


still the Father hath them; for the Son’s Godhead is the (πάρ. 
Father’s Godhead, and thus the Father in the Son takes the 


oversight ἡ of all things. 


the Father; and distinct from and be- 
yond that relation, He is but the One 
God, who is also the Father. This 
sacred subject has been touched upon 
supr. p. 412, noted. In other words, 


.there is an indestructible essential re- 


lation existing in the One Indivisible 
infinitely simple God, such as to con- 
stitute Him, viewed on each side of 
that relation, (what in human lan- 
guage we call) Two, (and in like 
manner Three) yet without the no- 
tion of number really coming in. 
When we speak of “ Person,’”’ we mean 
nothing more than the One God in sub- 
stance, viewed relatively to Him the One 
God, as viewed in that Correlative which 
we therefore call another Person. These 
various statements are not here in- 
tended to explain, but to bring home to 
the mind what it is which faith re- 
ceives. .|We say “Father, Son, and 
Spirit,’ but when we would abstract a 
general idea of Them in order to number 
Them, our abstraction really does but 
carry us back to the One Substance. 
There will be different ways of express- 
ing this, but such seems the meaning of 
such passages as the following. ‘‘ Those 
who taunt us with tritheism, must be 
told that we confess One God not in 
number, but in nature. For what is 
Ove in number is not really one, nor 
single in nature; for instance, we call 
the world one in number, but not one in 
nature, four we divide it into its ele- 
ments; and man again is one in number, 
but compounded of body and soul. If 
then we say that God is in nature one, 
how do they impute number to us, who 
altogether banish it from that blessed 
and spiritual nature? For number be- 
longs to quantity, and number is con- 
nected with matter, ἕο." Basil. Ep. 
8,2. ‘That which saveth us, is faith, 
but number has been devised to indicate 
quantity .... We pronounce Each of 
the Persons once, but when we would 
number Them up, we do not proceed by 
an unlearned numeration to the notion 
of a polytheism.” (vid. the whole pas- 
sage,) ibid. de Sp. 5. c. 18. ‘* Why 
passing by the First Cause, does he 
[S. John] at once discourse to us of the 
Second? We will decline to speak of 
‘first’ and ‘second ;’ for the Godhead 
is higher than number and succession 


of times.’’ Chrysost. in Joan. Hom. ii. 
3 fin. ‘In respect of the Adorable 
and most Royal Trinity, ‘first’ and 
*second’ have no place; for the God- 
head is higher than number and times.’ 
Isid. Pel. Ep. 3, 18. ‘‘ He calls,’’ says 
S. Maximus commenting on Pseudo- 
Dionysius, ‘fecundity, the Father’s 
incomprehensible progression to the 
production of the Son and the Holy 
Ghost; and suitably does he says ‘as a 
Trinity,’ since not number, but glory is 
expressed in ‘The Lord God is One 
Lord.’’’ in Dionys. Opp. t. 2. p. 101. 
‘We do not understand ‘one’ in the 
Divine Substance, as in the creatures; 
in whom what is properly one is not to 
be seen; for what is one in number, as 
in our case, is not properly one. It is 
not one in number, or as the beginning 
of number, any more than It is as 
magnitude or as the beginning of mag- 
nitude .... That One is ineffable and 
indescribable; since It is the cause of 
what is one itself, mdons ἑνάδος ἑνοποιόν.᾽ 
Eulog. ap. Phot. 230. p. 864. ‘ Three 
what? I answer, Father and Son and 
Holy Ghost. See, he urges, you have 
said Three; but explain Three what? 
Nay, do you number, I have said all 
about the Three, when I say, Father and 
Son and Holy Ghost. Not, as there 
are two men, so are They two Gods; for 
there is here something ineffable, which 
cannot be put into words, that there 
should both be number in Three, and not 
number. For see if there does not seem 
to be number, Father and Son and 
Holy Spirit, a Trinity. If Three, 
Three what? number fails. Then 
God neither is without number, nor is 
under number. . . . They imply number, 
only relatively to Each Other, not in 
Themselves.”’ August. in Joan. 39, 
3 and 4. ‘* Wesay Three ‘ Persons,’ as 
many Latins of authority have said in 
treating the subject, because they found 
no more suitable way of declaring an 
idea in words which they had without 
words. Since the Father is not the 
Son, and the Son not the Father, and 
the Holy Ghost neither Father nor 
Son, there are certainly Three; but 
when we ask, Three what? we feel 
the great poverty of human language. 
However, we say Three ‘ Persons,’ 
not for the sake of saying that, but of 


XXVIT. 


Ἰ πρόνοιαν 


p- 416, 
note f. 
). 422, 


note ]. 


Disc. 
III. 


§. 37, 


1 vid. 
infr. 46. 
John 11, 
34. 
Matt. 
16, 13. 
Mark 6, 


note i. 


John 6, 
6. 


John 11, 
14. 


454 Our Lord’s asking does not argue ignorance. 


4. And while such is the sense of these passages, those too 
which speak humanly concerning the Saviour, admit of a 
religious meaning also. For with this end have we examined 
them beforehand, that, if we should hear Him asking where 
Lazarus is laid ', or when He asks on coming into the parts 
of Caesarea, Whom do men say that I am? or, How many 
loaves have ye? and, What will ye that I shall do unto you ? 
we may know, from what has been already said, the orthodox? 
sense of the passages, and may not stumble as Christ’s 
enemies the Arians. First then we must put this question to 
the irreligious, why they consider Him ignorant? for one 
who asks, does not for certain ask from ignorance; but it is 
possible for one who knows, still to ask concerning what he 
knows. Thus John was aware that Christ, when asking, 
How many loaves have ye? was not ignorant, for he says, 
And this He said to prove him, for He Himself knew what 
He would do. But if He knew what He was doing, therefore 
not in ignorance, but with knowledge did Heask. From’this 
instance we may understand similar ones; that, when the 
Lord asks, He does not ask in ignorance, where Lazarus lies, 
nor again, whom men do say that He is; but knowing the 
thing which He was asking, aware what He was about to do. 

5. And thus with ease is their sophism overthrown; but if 
they still persist on account of His asking, then they must 


be told that in the Godhead indeed ignorance is not, but to| bs, 


the flesh ignorance is proper, as has been said. And that 
this is really so, observe how the Lord who inquired, where 
Lazarus lay, Himself said, when He was not on the spot but 
a great way off, Lazarus is dead, and where he was dead; 


not saying nothing.” de Trin. v. 10. 
“ Unity is not number, but is itself the 
principle of all things.” Ambros. de 
Fid. i. n. 19. “That is truly one, in 
which there is no number, nothing in It 
beyond That which is.... There is no 
diversity in It, no plurality from di- 
versity, no multitude from accidents, 
and therefore not number.... but 
Unity only. For when God is thrice 
repeated, and Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost is named, three Unities do not 
make plurality of number in Him 
which They are... . This repetition of 
Unities is iteration rather than nu- 
meration.... Asif I say, Sun, Sun, Sun, 


I have not made three Suns, but named 
one so many times.... A trine numera- 
tion then does not make number, which 
they rather run into, who make some 
difference between the Three.’”’? Boeth. 
Trin. unus Deus, p. 959. The last re- 
mark is found in Naz. Orat. 31, 18. 
Many of these passages are taken from 
Thomassin de Trin. 17. 

b Petavius refers to this passage in 
proof that 5. Athanasius did not in his 
real judgment consider our Lord ig- 
norant, but went on to admit it in ar- 
gument after having first given his own 
real opinion. vid. p. 464, note f. 


ee 


He receives gifts in the flesh, that He may transmit them to us. 455 


and how that He who is considered by them as ignorant, Ra 
is He Himself who foreknew the reasonings of the disciples, ——— 
and was aware of what was in the heart of each, and of what Jobn 2, 
was in man, and, what is greater, alone knows the Father wa 
and says, Tin the Father and the Father in Me. Therefore ἃ. 38. 
this is plain to every one, that the flesh indeed is ignorant, but 
the Word Himself, considered as the Word’, knows all things ᾽ ἣ λόγος 
‘even before they come to be. For He did not, when He ἢ 
became man, cease to be God*; nor, whereas He is God does ’ Ρ- 391, 
He shrink from what is man’s; perish the thought; but ee 
rather, being God, He has taken to Him the flesh, and being 
in the flesh makes the flesh God *. For as He asked questions * θεοποιεῖ 
in it, so also in it did He raise the dead; and He shewed to 
all that He who quickens the dead and recals the soul, much 
more discerns the secrets of all. And He knew where Lazarus 
lay, and yet He asked; for the All-holy Word of God, who 
endured all things for our sakes, did this, that so carrying 
our ignorance, He might vouchsafe to us the knowledge 
of His own only and true Father, and of Himself sent 
because of us for the salvation of all, than which no grace 
could be greater. 

6. When then the Saviour uses the words which they 
allege in their defence, Power is given to Me, and, Glorify 
Thy Son, and Peter says, Power is given unto Him, we 
understand all these passages in the same sense, that hu- 
manly because of the body He says all this. For though 
He had no need, nevertheless He is said to have received 
what He received humanly, that on the other hand, inas- 
much as the Lord has received, and the grant is lodged 
with Him, the grace may remain sure. For while mere man 
receives, he is liable to lose again, (as was shewn in the case 
of Adam, for he received and he lost*,) but that the grace ‘ p. 379. 
may be irrevocable, and may be kept sure’ by men, therefore SEEDED: 
He Himself appropriates* the gift; and He says that He has aa 
received power, as man, which He ever had as God, and He ine 
says, Glorify Me, who glorifies others, to shew that He hath cia, 
a flesh which has need of these things. Wherefore, when Ὁ, 447, 
the flesh receives, since that which receives is in Him, and by note t. 
taking it He hath become man, therefore He is said Himself 
to have received. If then, (as has many times been said,) §. 59. 


1) λόγος 
ἐστί 


2 infr. 5]. 


3 βελτιω- 
θείς 

4 vid. 
supr. p. 
235. 

5 re. 
demp- 
tion an 
internal 
work. 
vid. supr. 
p. 357, 
note 6. 

6 θβεοποιή- 
σῃ 


Luke 10, 


29, 


1 Cor. 8, 
6. 


1 ον: Ὁ; 
ὃ. 


456 Ifthe Word received as the Word, what hope is there for man ? 


the Word did not become man, then ascribe to the Word, as 
you would have it, to receive, and to need glory, and to be 
ignorant; but if He has become man, (and He has become,) 
and it is man’s to receive, and to need, and to be ignorant, 
wherefore do we consider the Giver as receiver, and the 
Dispenser to others do we suspect to be in need, and divide 
the Word from the Father as imperfect and needy, while we 
strip human nature of grace? For if the Word Himself, 
considered as Word’, has received and been glorified for His 
own sake, and if He according to His Godhead is He who 
is hallowed and has risen again, what hope is there for men ? 
for they remain as they were, naked, and wretched, and 
dead, having no interest in the things given to the Son. 
Why too did the Word come among us, and become flesh ? 
if that He might receive these things, which He says that 
He has received, He was without them before that, and of 
necessity will rather owe thanks Himself to the body’, because, 
when He came into it, then He receives these things from 
the Father, which He had not before His descent into the 
flesh. For on this shewing He seems rather to be Himself 
promoted * because of the body*, than the body promoted 
because of Him. But this notion is Judaic. But if that He 
might redeem mankind *, the Word did come among us; and 
that He might hallow them and make them gods, the Word 
became flesh, (and for this He did become,) who does not 
see that it follows, that what He says that He received, when 
He became flesh, that He mentions, not for His own sake, 
but for the flesh? for to it, in which He was speaking, 
pertained the gifts given through Him from the Father. 

7. But let us see what He asked, and what the things alto- 
gether were which He said that He had received, that in this 
way also they may be brought to feeling. He asked then glory, 
yet He had said, Ad? things are delivered unto Me. And 
after the resurrection, He says that He has received all 
power; but even before that He had said, ἂμ things are de- 
livered unto Me, He was Lord of all, for ad/ things were made 
by Him ; and there is One Lord by whom are all things. And 
when Ie asked glory, He was as He is, the Lord of glory ; 
as Paul says, If they had known it, they would not have 
crucified the Lord of glory; for He had that glory which 


176 received what He had before. 457 


He asked when He said, the glory which I had with Thee ees 
before the world was. Also the power which He said He 40. 
received after the resurrection, that He had before He ~~ 
received it, and before the resurrection. For He of Himself ἐψ 1; -" 
rebuked Satan’ saying, Get thee behind Me, Satan ; and note c. 
to the disciples He gave the power against him, when on rigs 4, 
their return He said, I beheld Satan, as lightning, fall from Luke 10, 
heaven. And again, that what He said that He had received, a 
that He possessed before receiving it, appears from His 
driving away the devils, and from His unbinding what Satan vid. 
had bound, as He did in the case of the daughter of Abraham; ie oe 
and from His remitting sins, saying to the paralytic, and to the Matt. 9, 
woman who washed His feet, Thy sins be forgiven thee ; and Luke 7, 
from His both raising the dead, and repairing the first nature 1: 
of the blind, granting to him to see. And all this He did, 
not waiting till He should receive, but being possessed of'ls. 9, 6. 
power. ἼΔΕ: 

8. From: 811 this it is plain that what he had as Word, τῇς. 
that when He had become man and was risen again, He 
says that He received humanly’; that for His sake men ? p, 245. 
might henceforward upon earth have power against devils, as 
having become partakers of a divine nature; and in heaven, 
as being delivered from corruption, might reign everlastingly. 
Thus we must acknowledge this once for all, that nothing 
which He says that He received, did He receive as not 
possessing before; for the Word, as being God, had them Ὡς αμεί- 
always; but in these passages He is said humanly to have ¥», p. 
received that, whereas the flesh received in Him, henceforth orien 
from it the gift might abide* surely for us. For what is said }7, . 
by Peter, receiving from God honour and glory, Angels being 22. 
made subject unto Him, has this meaning; for as He, Can 
inquired humanly, and raised Lazarus divinely, so He γεῖς, 
received is spoken of Him humanly, but the subjection of 4" Py, 
the Angels marks the Word’s Godhead. infr. p. 

9. Cease then, O ye abhorred of God *, and degrade not the a, he: 
Word; nor detract from His Godhead, which is the Father’s’, Ar. 1. 

. Ε In illud 

as though He needed or were ignorant ; lest ye be casting Omn. 6, 
your own arguments against the Christ, as the Jews who once ᾿ or 
stoned Him. For these are not the Word’s, as the Word’; note ἃ. 
but are proper to men; and, as when Ile spat, and stretched τωρ 


2 ἘΠ 


458 He was Very God in the flesh, and true flesh in the Word. 


ba forth the hand, and called Lazarus, we did not say that the 
i garop. triumphs’ were human, though they were done through the 
θώματα body, but were God’s, so, on the other hand, though human 
things are ascribed to the Saviour in the Gospel, let us, con- 
sidering the nature of what is said and that they are foreign 
to God, not impute them to the Word’s Godhead, but to His 
manhood. For though the Word became flesh, yet to the 
flesh are the affections proper; and though the flesh is 
2 θεοφο- possessed* by God in the Word, yet to the Word belong the 
oad grace and the power. He did then the Father’s works 
through the flesh; and as truly contrariwise were the af- 
fections of the flesh displayed in Him; for instance, He 
inquired and He raised Lazarus, He chid* His Mother, 

John 2, 


: saying, My hour is not yet come, and then at once He made 
the water wine. For He was Very God in the flesh, and He 
was true flesh in the Word. Therefore from His works He\ _ 
revealed both Himself as Son of God, and His own Father, } ὁ 
and from the affections of the flesh He shewed that He hore | 


a true body, and that it was proper to Him. 


iii. 16, n. 7. who thinks S. Mary de- 


ς ἐπέπληττε; and so ἐπετίμησε, 


Chrysost. in loc. Joann. and Theophyl. 
ὡς δεσπότης ἐπιτιμᾷ, Theodor. Eran. ii. 
p. 106. ἐντρέπει, Anon. ap. Corder. Cat. 
in loc. μέμφεται, Alter Anon. ibid. 
ἐπιτιμᾷ οὐκ ἀτιμάζων ἀλλὰ διορθούμενος, 
Euthym. in loc. οὐκ ἐπέπληξεν, Pseudo- 
Justin. Quest. ad Orthod. 136. It is 
remarkable that Athan. dwells on these 
words as implying our Lord’s humanity, 
(i.e. because Christ appeared to decline 
a miracle,) when one reason assigned 
for them by the Fathers is that He 
wished, in the words τί μοι καί σοι, to 
remind S. Mary that He was the Son of 
God and must be ‘‘ about His Father’s 
business.’’ ‘‘ Repellens ejus intem- 
pestivam festinationem,” Iren. Her. 


sired to drink of His cup; others that 
their entertainer was poor, and that she 
wished to befriend him. Nothing can 
be argued from S. Athan.’s particular 
word here commented on how he would 
have taken the passage. That the tone 
of our Lord’s words is indeed (judg- 
ing humanly and speaking humanly) 
cold and distant, is a simple fact, but 
it may be explained variously. It is 
observable that ἐπιπλήττει and ἐπιτιμᾷ 
are the words used (infr. p. 477, note a.) 
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. 


CHAPTER XXVIII. 


TEXTS EXPLAINED; ELEVENTHLY, MARK Xili. 32, AND 
LUKE ii. 52. 


Arian explanation of the former text is against the Regula Fidei; and 
against the context. Our Lord said He was ignorant of the Day, by reason 
of His human nature; from sympathy with man. Ifthe Holy Spirit knows 
the Day, therefore the Son knows; if the Son knows the Father, therefore 
He knows the Day; If He has all that is the Father’s, therefore know- 
ledge of the Day; if in the Father, He knows the Day in the Father; if 
the Father’s Image, He knows the Day; if He created and upholds all 
things, He knows the Day when they will cease to be. He knows not, as 
representing us, argued from Matt. 24,42. As He asked about Lazarus’s 
grave, &c. yet knew, so He knows; as S. Paul says, “whether in the body I 
know not,” &c. yet knew, so He knows. He said He knew not for our 
profit, that we be not curious, (as in Acts 1, 7. where on the contrary He 
did not say He knew not;) that we be not secure and slothful. As the 
Almighty asks of Adam and of Cain, yet knew, so the Son knows. Again, 
He advanced in Wisdom also as man, else He made Angels perfect before 
Himself. He advanced, in that the Godhead was manifested in Him \ 
more fully as time went on. 


1. Tuese things being so, come let us now examine into g. 42. 
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, neither the Mark 13, 
Angels of God nor the Son*; for being in great ignorance as °~” 
regards these words, and being stupified' about them, they ? σκοτοδι- 
think they have in them an important argument for their *‘“”’** 


de Decr. 
heresy. But I, when the heretics allege it and prepare Sati i 
- 5 ° τ δ - p. 336, 
themselves with it, see in them the giants’ again fighting ᾿ ὁ, 
2 γίγαν- 
a 5, Basil takes the words οὐδ᾽ 6 vids, 30, 16. S. Irenzeus seems to adopt ἊΝ Este 
εἰ μὴ 6 πατὴρ, to mean, ‘nor does the same when he says, “The Son i 
the Son know, except the Father was not ashamed to refer the know- 395 
knows,” or “ΠΟΥ would the Son but ledge of that day to the Father ;’’ Heer. Ἐν 


for, &c.’”’ or ‘‘nor does the Son know, 
except as the Father knows.’’ ‘“ The 
cause of the Son’s knowing is from the 
Father.” Ep. 236, 2. 5. Gregory alludes 
to the same interpretation, οὐδ᾽ ὁ vids 
ἢ ὡς ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ, “Since the Father 
knows, therefore the Son.’’ Naz. Orat. 


ij. 28, n. 6. as Naz. supr. uses the words 
ἐπὶ τὴν αἰτίαν ἀναφερέσθω. And so Pho- 
tius distinctly, εἰς ἀρχὴν ἀναφέρεται. 
“Νοῦ the Son, but the Father, that is, 
whence knowledge comes to the Son as 
from a fountain.” Epp. p. 342. ed. 
1641. 


2 2 


460 Our Lord knew the last day, for He described its antecedents. 


ἜΣ against God. For the Lord of heaven and earth, by whom 
— all things were made, has to litigate before them about day 
and hour; and the Word who knows all things, is accused 

by them of ignorance about a day ; and the Son who knows 

the Father, is said to be ignorant of an hour of a day ; now 


what can be spoken more contrary to sense, or what madness 
can be likened to this? Through the Word all things were 
made, times and seasons and night and day and the whole 
creation ; and is the Framer of all said to be ignorant of His 

᾿ εἰρμός work? And the very context’ of the passage shews that 
the Son of God knows that hour and that day, though the 
Arians fall headlong in their ignorance. For after saying, 
nor the Son, He relates to the disciples the approaches of 
the day, saying, “ This and that shall be, and then the end.” 
But He who speaks of the antecedents of the day, knows 
certainly the day also, which shall be manifested subsequently 
to the things foretold. Butif He had not known the hour, He 
had not signified the events before it, as not knowing when it 
should be. And as any one, who, by way of pointing out a house 
or city to those who were ignorant of it, gave an account of the 
things that preceded the house or city, and having described 
all particulars, said, “Then immediately comes the city or the 
house,”’ would know of course, where the house or the city was, 
(for had he not known, he had not described these antecedents, 
lest from ignorance he should throw his hearers far out of 
the way, or in speaking he should unawares go beyond the 
object,) so the Lord saying what shall precede that day and 
that hour, knows exactly, not is ignorant, when the hour and 
the day are at hand. 

ἃ. 43. ὦ. Now why it was that, though He knew, He did not tell 
ὁ 1 sou, Lis disciples plainly at that time, no one may be curious® 
Ρ. 426, where He has been silent; for who hath known the mind of 
ie ,, the Lord, or who hath been His counsellor 5 but why, though 
34. | He knew, He said, no, not the Son knows, this I think none of 

the faithful is ignorant, viz. that He made this as those other 
8 ἐλάτ- declarations as man by reason of the flesh. For this as 
Ser before is not the Word’s deficiency*, but of that human 
r. I. nature’ whose property it is to be ignorant. And this again 
vid. Will be well seen by honestly examining into the occasion, 
when and to whom the Saviour spoke thus. Not then when 


He professed an ignorance which was natural to the flesh. 461 
the heaven was made by Him, nor when He was with the 
Father Himself, the Word disposing all things, nor before 
He became man did He say it, but when the Word became 
jlesh. On this account it is reasonable to ascribe to His 
manhood every thing which, after He became man, He 
speaks humanly. For it is proper to the Word to know what 
was made, nor be ignorant either of the beginning or the end 
of these, (for the works are His,) and He knows how many 
things He has wrought, and the limit of their consistence. 
And knowing of each the beginning and the end, He knows 
surely the general and common end of all. 

3. Certainly when He says in the Gospel concerning 
Himself in His human character, Futher, the hour is come, 


glorify Thy Son, it is plain that He knows also the hour of the ! 


end of all things, as the Word, though as man He is ignorant 
of it, for ignorance is proper to man”, and especially ignorance 
of these things. Moreover this is proper to the Saviour’s 
love of man; for since He was made man, He is not ashamed, 
because of the flesh which is ignorant’, to say “1 know not,” 
that He may shew that knowing as God, He is but ignorant 


Ὁ Though our Lord, as having two humanitatis.” Epp. x. 39. However, 


natures, had a human as well as a 
divine knowledge, and though that 
human knowledge was not only limited 
because human, but liable to ignorance 
in matters in which greater know- 
ledge was possible; yet it is the doc- 
trine of the Church, that in fact He 
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. As then (supra p. 344, note f.) 
His manhood was created, yet He may 
not be called a creature even in His 
manhood, and as (supra p. 300, note b.) 
His flesh was in its abstract nature a 
servant, yet He is not a servant in fact, 
even as regards the flesh; so, though 
He 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 soul 
can know. vid. Eulog. ap. Phot. 230. 
Ῥ. 884. As Pope Gregory expresses 
it, ‘* Novit in natura, non ex natura 


this view of the sacred subject was re- 
ceived by the Church after 5. Atha- 
nasius’s day, and it cannot be denied 
that he and others of the most eminent 
Fathers 
facie is inconsistent with it. They 
certainly seem to impute ignorance to 
our Lord as man, as Athan. in this 
passage. Of course it is not meant 
that our Lord’s soul has the same per- 
fect knowledge as He has as God. 
This was the assertion of a General 
of the Hermits of S. Austin at the time 
of the Council of Basil, when the pro- 
position was formally condemned, ani- 
mam Christi Deum videre tam claré et 
intensé quam claré et intensé Deus videt 
seipsum. vid. Berti Opp. t. 3. p. 42. 
Yet Fulgentius had said, “I think 
that in no respect was full know- 
ledge of the Godhead wanting to that 
Soul, whose Person is one with the 
Word: whom Wisdom so assumed that 
it is itself that same Wisdom.” ad 
Ferrand. iii. p. 223. ed. 1639. Yet, 
ad Trasmund. i. 7. he speaks of ig- 
norance attaching to our Lord’s human 
nature. 


use language which prima 


CHAP. 
XXVIII. 


Prov. 8, 
27. Sept. 
John 1, 

14. 


John 17, 


1p. 469, 


Disc. 
ἘΠ: 


1) λόγος 
ἐστί 
ο 
2p, 9 

Ρ. 248. 
Serap. i. 
20 fin. 
3 λειτουρ- 
ylas 


462 Ifthe Holy Spirit not said to be ignorant, the Son not ignorant. 


according to the flesh*. And therefore He said not, “no, 
not the Son of God knows,” lest the Godhead should seem 
ignorant, but simply, no, not the Son, that the ignorance 
might be the Son’s as born from among men. On this 
account, He alludes to the Angels, but He did not go further 
and say, “ποῦ the Holy Ghost,” but He was silent, with a 
double intimation ; first that if the Spirit knew, much more 
must the Word know, considered as the Word!, from whom 
the Spirit receives’; and next by His silence about the Spirit, 
He made it clear, that He said of His human ministry’, no, 


not the Son. 


4. And a proof of it ‘is this; that, when He had spoken 
humanly" No, not the Son knows, He yet shews that divinely 


He knew all things. 


¢ And so Athan. ad Serap. ii. 9. 
8. Basil on the question being asked him 
by S. Amphilochius, says that he shall 
give him the answer he had “heard 
from a boy from the fathers,’ but 
which was more fitted for pious Chris- 
tians than for cavillers, and that is, that 
‘our Lord says many things to men 
in His human aspect; as ‘ Give me to 
drink,’ ... yet He who asked was not 
flesh without a soul, but Godhead using 
flesh which had one.’’ Ep. 236, 1. He 
goes on to suggest another explanation 
which has been mentioned p. 459, note a. 
And S. Cyril, “Let them then [the 
Arians] strip the Word openly of the 
flesh and what it implies, and destroy 
outright the whole Economy, and then 
they will clearly see the Son as God; or, 
if they shudder at this as impious and 
absurd, why blush they at the conditions 
of the manhood, and determine to find 
fault with what especially befits the 
economy of the flesh?” Trin. pp. 623, 
4. vid. also Thes. p. 220. ‘As He sub- 
mitted as man to hunger and thirst, so 
.... to be ignorant.” p. 221. vid. also 
Greg. Naz. Orat. 30, 15, Theodoret 
expresses the same opinion very strongly, 
speaking of a gradual revelation to the 
manhcod from the Godhead, but in an 
argument where it was to his point to 
doso;in Anath. 4. t.v. p. 33. ρα. Schutze, 
Theodore of Mopsuestia also speaks 
of a revelation made by the Word, ap, 
Leont. c. Nest. (Canis. i. p. 579.) 

ἃ Leporius, in his Retractation, 
which 5. Augustine subscribed, writes, 
“That I may in this respect also leave 
nothing to be cause of suspicion to any 
one, I then said, nav I answered when 


For that Son whom He declares not 


it was put to me, that our Lord Jesus 
Christ was ignorant as He was man, 
(secundim hominem.) But now not 
only do I not presume to say so, but I 
even anathematize my former opinion 
expressed on this point, because it may 
not be said, that the Lord of the Pro- 
phets was ignorant even as He was 
man.” ap. Sirm. t. i. p. 210. A sub- 
division also of the Eutychians were 
called by the name of Agnoete from 
their holding that our Lord was ignorant 
of the day of judgment. ‘ They said,’ 
says Leontius, ‘“‘that He was ignorant 
of it, as we say that He underwent 
toil.” de Sect. 5. cire. fin. Felix of 
Urgela held the same doctrine accord- 
ing to Agobard’s testimony, as contained 
p- 466, note g. The Ed. Ben. observes 
on the text, that the assertion of our 
Lord’s ignorance ‘seems to have been 
condemned in no one in ancient times, 
unless joined to other error.’’ And Pe- 
tavius, after drawing out the authorities 
for and against it, says, ‘‘ Of these two 
opinions, the latter, which is now re- 
ceived both by custom and by the 
agreement of divines, is deservedly pre- 
ferred to the former, For it is more 
agreeable to Christ’s dignity, and more 
befitting His character and office of 
Mediator and Head, that is, Fountain 
of all grace and wisdom, and moreover 
of Judge, who is concerned in know- 
ing the time fixed for exercising that 
function, In consequence, the former 
opinion, though formerly it received the 
countenance of some men of high emi- 
nence, was afterwards marked as a 
heresy.”’ Incarn. xi. 1. δ. 15, 


ee 


If the Father not ignorant, the Son not ignorant. 409 


to know the day, Him He declares to know the Father ; 
for No one, He says, knoweth the Father save the Son. And 
all men but the Arians would join in confessing, that He 
who knows the Father, much more knows the whole history’ of 
the creation ; and in that whole, its end. And if already the 
day and the hour be determined by the Father, it is plain 


that through the Son are they determined, and He knows 


Himself what through Him has been determined’; for there is 


. nothing, but has come to be and has been determined through τ. 


the Son. Therefore, He, being the Framer of the universe, 
knows of what nature, and of what magnitude, and with what 
limits, the Father has willed it to be made; and in the how 
much and how far is included its period*®. And again, if all that 
is the Father’s, is the Son’s, (and this He Himself has said,) 
and it is the Father’s attribute to know the day, it is plain 
that the Son too knows it, having this proper to Him from 
the Father. And again, if the Son be in the Father and the 
Father in the Son, and the Father knows the day and the 
hour, it is clear that the Son, being in the Father and knowing 
the things of the Father, knows Himself also the day and the 
hour. And if the Son is also the Father’s Very Image, and 
the Father knows the day and the hour, it is plain that the 
Son has this likeness ὃ also to the Father of knowing them. 
And it is not wonderful if He, through whom all things were 
made, and in whom the universe consists, Himself knows 
what has been brought to be, and when the end will be of 
each and of all together; rather is it wonderful that this 
audacity, suitable as it is to the madness of the Ario-maniacs, 
should have forced us to have recourse to so long an explana- 
tion. For ranking the Son of God, the Eternal Word, among 
things generate, they are not far from venturing to main- 
tain that the Father Himself is second to the creation; 
for if He who knows the Father knows not the day nor the 


CHAP. 
ΧΧΝΊΙΙΙ. 
Matt. 11, 
Zhe 
1 τὸ ὅλον 


2 pp. 338, 
412, 466, 


3 ἀλλαγή 
John 16, 
15. 


hour, I fear lest knowledge of the creation, or rather of | 


the lower portion of it, be greater, as they in their madness 
would say, than knowledge concerning the Father, 


e Basil. Ep. 236, 1. Cyril, Thes. word “living”? commonly joined to such 
p. 220. Quomodo vultis hee fecisse wordsas εἰκὼν, σφραγὶς, βουλὴ, ἐνέργεια, 
Dei filium? numquid quasi annulum when speaking of our Lord, 6. g. Naz. 
qui non sentit quod exprimit? Ambros. Orat. 30. 20, ο, Vid. p. 491, note ἢ, 
de fid. ν. 197. Hence the force of the 


Disc. 
111. 


§. 45, 
ΤΡ: ΦΌΩΣ 
note ἢ. 


2 χριστο- 
φόροι 


464 The Word said He was ignorant, to shew His nanhood. 


5. But for them, when they thus blaspheme the Spirit, 
they must expect no remission ever of such irreligion, as the 
Lord has said’; but let us, who love Christ and bear Christ 
within us’, know that the Word, not as ignorant, considered 
as Word*, has said 7 know not, for He knows, but as shewing 
His manhood ᾧ, in that to be ignorant is proper to man, and 


f It is a question to be decided, 
whether our Lord speaks of actual ig- 
norance in His human Mind, or of 
the natural ignorance of that Mind 
considered as human; ignorance in or 
ex natura; or, which comes to the same 
thing, whether He spoke of a real ig- 
norance, or of an economical or pro- 
fessed ignorance, in a certain view of 
His incarnation or office, as when He 
asked, ‘‘ How many loaves have ye?’ 
when ‘“‘He Himself knew what He 
would do,” or as He is called sin, 
though sinless. Thus it has been no- 
ticed, supra p. 359, note f. that Ath. 
seems to make His infirmities altogether 
but imputative, not real, as if shew- 
ing that the subject had not in his day 
been thoroughly worked out. In like 
manner S. Hilary, who, if the passage 
be genuine, states so clearly our Lord’s 
ignorance, de Trin. ix. fin. yet, as 
Petavius observes, seems elsewhere 
to deny to Him those very affections 
of the flesh to which he has there 
paralleled it. And this view of Athan.’s 
meaning is favoured by the turn of 
his expressions. He says such a de- 
fect belongs to “that human nature 
whose property it is to be ignorant ;’’ 
§. 43. that ‘since He was made man, 
He is not ashamed, because of the flesh 
which is ignorant, to say ‘I know not;’” 
ibid. and, as here, that “as shewing 
His manhood, in that to be ignorant is 
proper to man, and that He had put on 
a flesh that was ignorant, being inwhich, 
He said according to the flesh, ‘I 
know not;’’”? “that He might shew 
that as man He knows not;”’ ὃ. 46. that 
“as man,”’ (i.e. on the ground of being 
‘man, not in the capacity of man,) ‘‘ He 
knows not;’ ibid. and that ‘ He asks 
about Lazarus humanly,’’ even when 
“Ἢρ was on His way to raise him,”’ 
which implied surely knowledge in His 
human nature, The reference to the 
parallel of S. Paul’s professed ignorance 
when He really knew, §. 47. leads us to 
the same suspicion. And so ‘for our 
profit,as I think, did He this.” 8. 48—50. 
The natural want of precision on such 
questions in the early ages was shewn or 


fostered by such words as οἰκονομικῶς, 
which, in respect of this very text, is used 
by 5. Basil to denote both our Lord’s 
Incarnation, Ep. 236, 1 fin. and His 
gracious accommodation of Himself and 
His truth, Ep. 8, 6. and with the like va- 
riety of meaning, with reference to the 
same text, by Cyril. Trin. p. 623. and 
Thesaur. p. 224. (And the word dispen- 
satio in like manner, Ben. note on Hil. 
x, 8.) In the latter Ep. 5. Basil suggests 
that our Lord ‘ economizes by a feigned 
ignorance.” §. 6. And S. Cyril. in The- 
saur. 1. c. in spite of his strong language 
quoted above, ‘‘The Son knows all 
things, though economically He says 
He is ignorant of something.’”’ Thesaur. 
p. 224. And even inde Trin. vi. he 
seems fo recognise the distinction laid 
down just now between the natural and 
actual state of our Lord’s humanity ; 
‘“‘God would not make it known even 
to the Son Himself, were he a mere 
man upon earth, as they say, and not 
having it in His nature to be God.” 
p. 629. And 5. Hilary arguing that 
He must as man know the day of judg- 
ment, for His coming is as man, says, 
‘‘Since He is Himself a sacrament, 
let us see whether He be ignorant in 
the things which He knows not. For 
if in the other respects a profession of 
ignorance is not an intimation of not 
knowing, so here too He is not ignorant 
of what He knows not. For since His 
ignorance, in respect that all treasures 
of knowledge lie hid in Him, is rather 
an economy (dispensation) than an ig- 
norance, you have a cause why He is 
ignorant without an intimation of not 
knowing’ Trin. ix. 62. And he gives 
reasons why He professed ignorance, - 
n. 67. viz. as S. Austin words it, Chris- 
tum se dixisse nescientem, in quo alios 
facit occultando nescientes. Ep. 180, 3. 
S. Austin follows him, saying, Hoc 
nescit quod nescienter facit. Trin. i. 23. 
Pope Gregory says that the text ‘is 
most certainly to be referred to the Son 
not as He is Head, but as to His body 
which we are.” Ep. x. 39. And S. 
Ambrose distinctly; ‘“‘The Son which 
took on Him the flesh, assumed our 


He said He was ignorant to represent us men who are ignorant. 465 


that He had put on a flesh that was ignorant’, being in which, ΧΧΎΤΙ. 
He said according to the flesh, 1 know not. And for this , τ. 469, 


reason, after saying, No not the Son knows, and mentioning the r. 1. 
ignorance of the men in Noe’s day, immediately He added, 
“ Watch therefore, for ye know not in what hour your Matt. 24, 
Lord doth come, and again, In such an hour as ye think not, 
the Son of man cometh. For I too, having become as you for 
you, said no, not the Son.” For, had He been ignorant 
divinely, He must have said, ‘‘ Watch therefore, for I know 
not,” and, ‘In an hour when I think not ;” but in fact this 
hath He not said; but by saying Ye know not and When ye 
think not, He has signified that it belongs to man to be 
ignorant ; for whose sake He too having a flesh like theirs 
and having become man, said No, not the Son knows, for He 
knew not in flesh, though knowing as Word. 

6. And again the example from Noe exposes the shame- 
lessness of Christ’s enemies; for there too He said, not, “I 
knew not,” but They knew not until the flood came. For men ee 24, 
did not know, but He who brought the flood (and it was the” 
Saviour Himself) knew the day and the hour, in which He 
opened the windows of heaven, and broke up the fountains 
of the great deep, and said to Noe, Come thou and all thy house ΕἸΣ τῇ 
into the ark. For were He ignorant, He had not foretold to! 
Noe, Yet seven days and I will bring a flood upon the earth. v- 4- 
But if in describing the day, He makes use of the parallel of 
Noe’s time, and He did know the day of the flood, therefore He 
knows also the day of His own appearing. Moreover, after §. 40. 
narrating the parable’ of the Virgins, again He shews more 3 ὁμοίωσιν 
clearly who they are who are ignorant of the day and the 
hour, saying, Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor Matt. 
the hour. He who said shortly before, No one knoweth, no ale 
not the Son, now says not “1 know not,” but ye know not. 
In like manner then, when His disciples asked about the 
end, suitably said He then, no, nor the Son, according to the 


affections, so as to say that He knew 
not with our ignorance; not that He 
was ignorant of any thing Himself, for, 
though He seemed to be man in truth of 
body, yet He was the life and light, and 
virtue went out of Him, &c.’’ de δά. 
v. 222. And so Casakius: Qu. 20. and 
Photius Epp. p. 366. Chrysost. in 


Matth. Hom. 77, 3. Theodoret, how- 
ever, but in controversy, is very severe 
on the principle of Economy. ‘If He 
knew the day, and wishing to conceal 
it, said He was ignorant, see what a 
blasphemy is the result. Truth tells an 
untruth.” 1, c. pp. 23, 4. 


Disc. 


466 Other instances in Scripture of our Lord’s economical ignorance. 


flesh because of the body; that He might shew that, as man, 


———— He knows not; for ignorance is proper to man £. If however 


Eph. 4, 
14. 


' vid. 
p- 454. 


Παῖτο 10, 


22. 


§. 47: 


He is the Word, if it is He who is to come, He to be Judge, 
He to be the Bridegroom, He knoweth when and in what 
hour He cometh, and when He is to say, Awake, thou that 
sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee 
light. For as, on becoming man, He hungers and thirsts and 
suffers with men, so with men, as man He knows not, though 
divinely, being in the Father Word and Wisdom, He knows, 
and there is nothing which He knows not. 

7. In like manner also about Lazarus’ He asks humanly, 
who was on His way to raise him, and knew whence He 
should recall Lazarus’s soul; and it was a greater thing to 
know where the soul was, than to know where the body lay ; 
but He asked humanly, that He might raise divinely. So 
too He asks of the disciples, on coming into the parts of 
Ceesarea, though knowing even before Peter made answer. 
For if the Father revealed to Peter the answer to the Lord’s 
question, it is plain that through the Son’ was the revelation, 
for No one knoweth the Son, saith He, but the Father, neither 
the Father but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son shall 
reveal Him. But if through the Son is revealed the know- 
ledge both of the Father and the Son, there is no room for 
doubting that the Lord who asked, having first revealed it to 
Peter from the Father, next asked humanly; in order to 
shew, that asking after the flesh, He knew divinely what 
Peter was about to say. The Son then knew, as knowing all 
things, and knowing His own Father, than which knowledge 
nothing can be greater or more perfect. 

8. This is sufficient to confute them; but to shew still 


Β The mode in which Athan. here to have been ignorant of the sepulchre 


expresses himself, is as if he did not 


‘ascribe ignorance literally, but apparent 


ignorance, to our Lord’s soul, vid. supr. 
p. 464, note f; not certainly in the 
broad sense in which heretics have done 
so. As Leontius, e. g. reports of Theo- 
dore of Mopsuestia, that he considered 
Christ ‘‘to be ignorant so far, as not to 
know, when He was tempted, who 
tempted Him;’’ contr. Nest. iii. (Canis. 
t. i. p.. 679.) and Agobard of Felix the 
Adoptionist that he held ‘Our Lord 
Jesus Christ according to the flesh truly 


of Lazarus, when He Said to his sisters, 
‘Where have ye laid him?’ and was 
truly ignorant of the day of judgment; 
and was truly ignorant what the two 
disciples were saying, as they walked 
by the way, of what had been done at 
Jerusalem; and was ¢ruly ignorant 
whether He was more loved by Peter 
than by the other disciples, when He 
said, ‘Simon Peter, Lovest thou Me 
more than these ?’”’ B. P. t. 9. p. 1177. 
The Agnoetz have been noticed just 
above. 


Tf δ. Paul said ‘I know not, yet knew, much more our Lord. 467 


further how hostile they are to the truth and Christ’s enemies, ate 


I could wish to ask them a question. The Apostle in the ——— 
Second Epistle to the Corinthians writes, I knew a man in ae 
Christ, above fourteen years ago, whether in the body I do’ 
not know, or whether out of the body I do not know; God 
knoweth™. What now say ye? Knew the Apostle what had 
happened to him in the vision, though he says I know not, 

or knew he not? If he knew not, see to it, lest, being familiar 

with error, ye err in the trespass’ of the Phrygians‘ who say 1 zapavo- 
that the Prophets and the other ministers of the Word know rie us 
neither what they do nor concerning what they announce. »°tef. 
But if he knew when he said J know not, for he had Christ 


within him revealing to him 


h §. Augustine understands the pas- 
sage differently, i.e. that S. Paul really 
did not know whether or not he was in 
the body. Gen. ad lit. xii. 14. 

i §. Jerome on the first words of the 
book of Nahum says, ‘‘ He speaks not 
in ecstacy, as Montanus, Prisca, and 
Maximilla rave; but what he prophe- 
sies, is a book of vision of one who un- 
derstands all that he says, and a burden 
of enemies of one who has a vision among 
his people.” Pref. in Naum. In like 
manner Tertullian in one of his Mon- 
tanistic works speaks of ‘‘amentia, as 
the spiritalis vis qua constat prophetia ;” 
and he considers Adam’s sleep as an 
ecstacy, and “" This is bone of my bone, 
&c.’’ as his prophecy. de Anim. 2]. 
And a contemporary writer in Eusebius, 
says that Montanus ‘‘had suddenly a 
seizure and ecstacy, and was in a trans- 
port, and began to speak and to utter 
an unknown language, ξενοφωνεῖν, pro- 
phesying beside the custom of the 
Church, as received by tradition and 
succession from antiquity.”’ Hist. v. 16. 
Epiphanius too, noticing the failure of 
Maximilla’s prophecies, says, ‘‘ What- 
eyer the prophets have said, they spoke 
with understanding, following the 
sense.”” Her. 48. p. 403. And he 
proceeds to speak of their ‘settled 
mind,” and their “self-possession,”’ 
and their not being ‘“‘carried away as 
if in ecstacy,’’ which gained them the 
name of ‘‘Seers;’’ and he instances 
Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. 
And so 8. Cyril of the True Spirit : 
“His coming is gentle, the perception 
of Him is: fragrant, most light is His 
burden, beams of light and knowledge 
gleam forth before His coming, &c.’’ 
Cat. xvi. 16. “It is to be observed,” 
says Leslie, “that the beginnings of 


all things, is not the heart of 


several heresies and sects have been at- 
tended with these sort of violent and 
preternatural transports, as in John of 
Leyden, Knipperdolling, and some later 
enthusiasts among ourselves, besides 
the Quakers. Such punishments did 
in the primitive Church often follow 
the sentence of excommunication upon 
notorious offenders.”” Works, vol. 5. 
p- 64. Since his time the Wesleyans 
furnish an instance not very dissimilar. 
“Many of those that heard,’ says 
Wesley, ‘began te call upon God with 
strong cries and tears; some sank down, 
and there remained no strength in them; 
others exceedingly trembled and quaked ; 
some were torn with a kind of convulsive 
motion in every part of their bodies, and 
that so violently, that often four or five 
persons could not hold one of them.” 
Southey’s Wesley, vol. i. p. 271. And 
so the French Prophets; ‘‘ She leaned 
back in her chair, and had strong work- 
ings in her breast, and uttered deep sighs. 
Her head, and her hands, and by turns 
every part of her body, were affected with 
convulsive motions, &c.” ibid. p. 279. 
And so of the Irvingite prophetesses, 
Mr. Pilkington says, ‘‘ The ‘Tongue’. . 
burst forth .... with an astonishing and 
terrible crash, so suddenly and in such 
short sentences, that I seldom recovered 
the shock before the English commenced 
...- Her whole frame was in violent 
agitation, but principally the body from 
the hips to the shoulders, which worked 
with a lateral motion, &c.’”’ The Un- 
known Tongues, pp. 5 and 17. ‘‘ With 
an appearance of surprise he asked me 
what 1 intended by it? I replied, ‘ It 
is what I understand the Tongues to 
‘mean.’ ‘How can you, Sir, under- 
take to interpret the words of God? 
&e.’’’ Bacchatur vates, magnum si pec- 


Disc. 
III. 


Tit, 3.- 


1 δεσπο- 
TIS, p. 


479, γ᾿ 5. 


468 And if Eliseus knew, yet seemed not to know, about Elias. 


God’s enemies indeed perverted and se/f-condemned? for 
when the Apostle says, J know not, they say that he knows ; 
but when the Lord says, “I know not,” they say that He does 
not know. For if since Christ was within him, Paul knew 
that of which he says, I know not, does not much more 
Christ Himself know, though he say, “1 know not?”? The 
Apostle then, the Lord revealing it to him, knew what 
happened; for on this account he says, I knew a man in 
Christ ; and knowing the man, he knew also how the man 
was caught away. Thus Eliseus, who beheld Klas, knew 
also how he was taken up; but though knowing, yet when 
the sons of the Prophets thought that Elias was cast upon 
one of the mountains by the Spirit, he knowing from the 
first what he had seen, tried to persuade them; but when 
they urged it, he was silent, and suffered them to go after 
him. Did he then not know, because he was silent? he 
knew indeed, but as if not knowing, he suffered them, that 
they being convinced, might no more doubt about the as- 
sumption of Elias. Therefore much more Paul, himself 
being the person caught away, knew also how he was caught; 
for Elias knew ; and had any one asked, he would have said 
how. And yet Paul says J know not, for these two reasons, 
as I think at least, one, as he has said himself, lest because 
of the abundance of the revelations any one should think of 
him beyond what he saw; the other, because, our Saviour 
having said “I know not,” it became him also to say I know 
not, lest the servant should appear above his Lord, and the 
disciple above his Master. Therefore He who gave to Paul 
to know, much rather knew Himself; for since He spoke of 
the antecedents of the day, He also knew, as I said before, 
when the Day and when the Hour, and yet though knowing, 
He says, Wo, not the Son knoweth. 

9. Why then said He at that time “I know not,” what 
He, as Lord’, knew? as we may by searching conjecture, for 
our profit *, as I think at least, did He this; and may He 


tore possit Excussisse Deum, &c. Virg. 
/En. vi. 78. p. 19. In thede Syn. 4. supr. 
p- 78. Athan. speaks of the Montanists as 
making a fresh beginning of Christian- 
ity ; i.e. they were the first heretics who 
professed to prophesy and to introduce a 
new or additional revelation. vid. Ne- 
ander’s Church History, (Rose’s tr.) 
vol. 2. pp. 176—187. 


k This expression, which repeatedly 
occurs in this and the following sections, 
surely implies that there was something 
economical in our Lord’s profession of 
ignorance. He said with a purpose, 
not as a mere plain fact or doctrine. 
And so 5. Cyril, ‘‘ He says that He is 
ignorant for our sake, and among us, as 
man;” Thes. p. 221. ‘economically 


Our Lord for our profit told something, not every thing. 469 


grant to what we are now proposing a true meaning! On 
both sides did the Saviour secure our advantage; for He 
hath made known what comes before the end, that, as He 
said Himself, we might not be startled nor scared, when they 
happen, but from them may expect the end after them. And 


concerning the day and the hour He was not willing to say | 


according to His Divine nature, “ I know,” but after the flesh, 
“1 know not,” for the sake of the flesh which was ignorant’, 
as I have said before; lest they should ask Him further, 
and then either He should have to pain the disciples by not 
speaking, or by speaking might act to the prejudice of them 
and us all. For whatever He does, that altogether He does 
for our sakes, since also for us the Word became flesh. For us 
therefore He said No, not the Son knoweth; and neither 
was He untrue in thus saying, (for He said humanly, as man, 
«1 know not,”’) nor did He suffer the disciples to force Him 
to speak, for by saying “I know not” He stopped their 
inquiries. 

10. And so in the Acts of the Apostles it is written, when 
He went upon the Angels, ascending as man, and carrying 
up to heaven the flesh which He bore, on the disciples 
seeing this, and again asking, “ When shall the end be, and 
when wilt Thou be present?” He said to them more clearly, 
It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which 
the Father hath put in His own power. And He did not 
then say, Wo, not the Son, as He said before humanly, but, 
It is not for you to know. For now the flesh had risen and 
put off its mortality and been made God’; and no longer did 


effecting, oixovoua@v,something profitable 
and good.’ ibid. And again, after 
stating that there was an objection, and 
paralleling His words with His question 
to S. Philip about the loaves, he says, 
“Knowing as God the Word, He can, 
as man, be ignorant.’’ p. 223. ‘It is 
not a sign of ignorance, but of wisdom, 
for it was inexpedient that we should 
know it.’”’? Ambros. de Fid. v. 209. 5. 
Chrysostom seems to say the same, de- 
nying that the Son was ignorant. in 
Matt. 24,36. And Theophylact, ‘‘ Had 
He said, ‘I know, but I will not tell 
you,’ they had been cast down, as if 
despised by Him; but now in saying 
‘not the Son but the Father only,’ He 


hinders them asking... . for how can 
the Son be ignorant of the day?” 
Theophyl. in loc. Matt. ‘ Often little 
children see their fathers holding some- 
thing in their hands, and ask for it, but 
they will not give it. Then the children 
cry as not receiving it. At length the 
fathers hide what they have got and shew 
their empty hands to their children, 
and so stop their crying For our 
profit hath He hid it.” ibid. in loc. 
Mare. ‘For thee He is ignorant of 
the hour and day of judgment, though 
nothing is hid from the Very Wisdom 
....+ But He economizes this because 
of thy infirmity, &c.’’ Basil. Ep. 8, 6. 


CHAP. 
XXVEDL. 


-- 
ν᾽ 


Tp, 461, 
1 


6} 
Ρ. 465, 
ἘΠῚ 


Acts 1,7. 


A 
2 βεοποιη- 
θεῖσα 


Disc. 


vid. 
Phil. 3, 
19: 


Mat. 24, 
42. 


470 Various ends answered by our Lord’s professed ignorance. 


it become Him to answer after the flesh when He was going 
into the heavens; but henceforth to teach after a divine 
manner, J¢ is not for you to know times or seasons which the 
Father hath put in His own power; but ye shall receive 
Power’. And what is that Power of the Father but the Son ? 


. for Christ is God’s Power and God’s Wisdom. The Son 


then did know, as being the Word; for He implied this in 
what He said,—“I know but it is not for you to know; for it 
was for your sakes that sitting also on the mount I said accord- 
ing to the flesh, No, not the Son knoweth,” for the profit of you 
and all. Forit is profitable to you to hear 80 much both of the 
Angels and of the Son, because of the deceivers which shall 
be afterwards; that though devils should be transfigured as 
Angels, and should attempt to speak concerning the end, 
you should not believe, since they are ignorant ; and that, if 
Antichrist too, disguising himself, should say, ‘I am Christ,” 
and should try in his turn to speak of that day and end, to 
deceive the hearers, ye, having these words from Me, No 
not the Son, may believe him no more than the rest. 

11. And further, not to know when the end is, or when 
the day of the end, is expedient for man, lest knowing, they 
may become negligent of the time between, awaiting the 
days near the end; for they will argue that then only must 
they attend to themselves™. Therefore also has He been 
silent of the time when each shall die, lest men, being 
elated on the ground of knowledge, should forthwith neglect 
themselves for the greater part of their time. Both then, the 
end of all things and the limit of each of us hath the Word 
concealed from us, (for in the end of all is the end of each, 
and in the end of each the end of all is comprehended,) that, 
whereas it is uncertain and always in prospect, we may 
advance day by day as if summoned, reaching forward to the 
things before us and forgetting the things behind. For who, 
knowing the day of the end, would not be dilatory with the 
interval? but if ignorant, would not be ready day by 
day? It was on this account that the Saviour added, 
Watch therefore, for ye know not what hour your Lord 


! vid. Basil. Ep. 8, 6. Cyril. Thes. 26, 4. de Trin. ix. 67. Ambros. de Fid. 
p. 222. Ambros. de fid. v. 212. Chry- v. c. 17. Isidor. Pelus. Epp. i. 117. 
sost. and Hieron. in loc. Matt. Chrysost. in Matt. Hom. 77, 2 and 3. 

m vid. Hilar. in Matt. Comment. 


In the Old Testament the Almighty asks as if ignorant. 471 


doth come; and, In such an hour as ye think not, the Son oe 

of man cometh. For the advantage then which comes of Lake 12, 

ignorance has He said this; for in saying it, He wishes that 40. 

we should always be prepared; “for you,” He says, ‘“ know 

not; but I, the Lord, know when I come, though the Arians 

do not wait for Me, who am the Word of the Father.’’ The &. 50. 

Lord then’, knowing what is good for us beyond ourselves, } ὁ μὲν 

thus secured the disciples; and they, being thus taught, set ”” **’ 

right those of Thessalonica when likely on this point to run vid. 

into error. δ 
12. However’, since Christ’s enemies do not yield even to ὅ.--- ἐπει- 

these considerations, I wish, though knowing that they πᾶν 

a heart harder than Pharaoh, to ask them again concerning 

this. In Paradise God asks, Adam, where art thou ? and Gen. 3, 

He inquires of Cain also, Where is Abel, thy brother 33" 3 9. 

What then say you to this? for if you think Him ignorant 

and therefore to have asked, you are already of the party of 

the Manichees, for this is their bold thought ; but if, fearing 

the open name, ye force yourselves to say, that He asks 

knowing, what is there extravagant or strange in the doc- 

trine, that ye should thus fall, on finding that the Son, 


n This seems taken from Origen. 
‘“He who knows what is in the heart 
of men, Christ Jesus, as He has taught 
us in the Gospel of John, asks, yet is 
not ignorant. But since He has now 
taken on Him man, He adopts all that 
is man’s, and among them the asking 
questions. Nor is it strange that the 
Saviour should do so, since the very 
God of all, accommodating Himself to 
the habits of man, as a father might to 
his son, inquires, for instance, ‘ Adam, 
where art thou?’ and ‘ Where is Abel 
thy brother?’’’ in Matt. t. 10. 8. 14. 
vid. also Pope Gregory and Chrysost. 
infr. 

° §. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, and 
Pope Gregory, in addition to the in- 
stances in the text, refer to ‘I will go 
down now, and see whether they have 
done, &c. and if not, I will know.” 
Gen. 18, 21. ‘The Lord came down 
lo see the city and the tower, &c.”’ Gen. 
11, 5. ‘‘ God looked down from heaven 
upon the children of men fo see, &c.” 
Ps. 53, 3. ‘It may be they will re- 
verence My Son.’’ Matt. 21, 37. Luke 
20, 13. ‘Seeing a fig tree afar off, 


having leaves, He came, if haply He 
might find, ἕο." Mark 11, 13. ‘‘Simon, 
lovest thou Me?” John 21, 15. vid. 
Ambros. de Fid. v. c. 17. Chrys. 
in Matt. Hom. 77, 3. Greg. Epp. x. 
39. Vid. also the instances supr. §. 37. 
Other passages may be added, such as 
Gen. 22, 12. vid. Berti Opp. t. 3. 
p- 42. 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 5. 
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. He refers 
in illustration of this view to such texts 
as, ‘I have not spoken of Myself, but 
the Father which sent Me, He gave 
Me commandment what I should say 
and what I should speak. ... Whatsoever 
I speak therefore, even as the Father 
said unto Me, so I speak.” John 12, 
49. 50. 


472 The Word did not, for He could not, advance in wisdom. 


pe: in whom God then inquired, that same Son who now is clad 
——in flesh, inquires of the disciples as man? unless forsooth, 
A τ having become Manichees, you are willing to blame! the 
* question then put to Adam, and all that you may give full 

> γεανιεύ- play” to your perverseness. 
née, vid. 18. For being exposed on all sides, you still make a 
init. de whispering* from the words of Luke, which are appropriately 


Fug. ἄγε ς- Ά a Ε 
3 Seis said, but ill understood by you*. And what is this, we must 


ere vad state, that so also their corrupt* meaning may be shewn. 
8.51. Now Luke says, And Jesus advunced in wisdom and stature, 
Luke 2, and in grace with God and man. This then is the passage, 
4.341, and since they stumble in it, we are compelled to ask them, 
_as the Pharisees and the Sadducees, of the person concerning 
μέν, Whom Luke speaks. And the case stands thus. Is Jesus 
Christ man, as all other men, or is He God, bearing flesh ? 
“ κοινὸς, Tf then He is an ordinary *® man as the rest, then let Him, as 
ee aman, advance; this however is the sentiment of Samosatene, 
which virtually indeed you entertain also, though in name you 
7 σάρκα deny it because of men. But if He be God bearing flesh’, as 
φορῶ He truly is, and the Word became flesh, and being God 
8 προκο- Gescended upon earth, what advance* had He who existed 
τὴν equal to God? or how had the Son increase, being ever in 
the Father? For if He who was ever in the Father, advanced, 
what, I ask, is there beyond the Father from which His ad- 
vance might be made? Next it is suitable here to repeat what 
was said upon the point of His receiving and being glorified. 
*vid If He advanced* when He became man, it is plain that, 
p. 108, before He became man, He was imperfect®; and rather the 
notel. flesh became to Him a cause of perfection, than He to the 
ae ae flesh. And again, if, as being the Word, He advances, what 
as iv. has He more to become than Word and Wisdom and Son 
and God’s power? Forthe Word is all these, of which if one 
can any how partake as it were one ray, such a man becomes 
all-perfect among men, and equal to Angels. For Angels, 
and Archangels, and Dominions, and all the Powers, and 
Thrones, as partaking the Word, behold always the face of 
His Father. How then does He who to others supplies 
perfection, Himself advance later than they P For Angels 
10 yéeow even ministered to His human birth”, and the passage from 
Luke comes later than the ministration of the Angels. How 


Se | 


ee 


The Word,who could not advance, humbled Himself that we might.473 


then at all can it even come into thought of man? or how Cnuap. 


did Wisdom advance in wisdom? or how did He who to~* 
others gives grace, (as Paul says in every epistle’, 


XXVIII. 


knowing! p, 417. 


that through Him grace is given, Zhe grace of our Lord 
Jesus Christ be with you all,) how did He advance in grace ἢ 


for either let them say that the Apostle is untrue’, 
sume to say that the Son is not Wisdom, or else if He is 


and pre- 3 ψεύ- 
δεσθαι 


Wisdom, as Solomon has said, and if Paul has written, Christ 
God’s Power and God’s Wisdom, of what advance did Wisdom 


admit further ? 


14. For men, creatures as they are, are capable ina certain § 52. 


way of reaching forward and advancing in virtue ?. 


Enoch, 


for instance, was thus translated, and Moses increased and 


was perfected ; 


and Isaac by advancing became great; 
the Apostle said that he reached forth 


and vid. Gen. 
day by day to 2% '3- 


προκόπ- 


what was before him. For each had room for advancing, τῶν Ath. 
looking to the step before him. But the Son of God, who is ΤΕΥ 


One and Only, what room had He for reaching forward? for all vid- 


Phil. 3, 


things advance by looking at Him; and He, being Oneand Only, 13. 
is In réhe Only Father, out of whom never does He reach, but 


in him abideth ever *. 


To men then belongs advance; but 3 p. 403, 


the Son of God, since He could not advance, being perfect °° L. 
in the Father, humbled Himself for us, that in His humbling 


we on the other hand might be able to increase. 


And our 


increase is no other than the renouncing things sensible, and 


coming* to the Word himself; 
nothing else than His taking our flesh. 
the Word, considered as the Word’, who advanced, who is ἐστί 
perfect from the perfect Father’, 
brings forward others to an advance ; but humanly is He here 
also said to advance, since advance belongs to man’, 


P It is the doctrine of the Church 
that Christ, as man, was perfect in 
knowledge from the first, as if ig- 
norance were bardly separable from 
sin, and were the direct consequence or 
accompaniment of original sin. ‘ That 
ignorance,’ says S. Austin, ‘I in no 
wise can suppose existed in that Infant, 
in whom the Word was made flesh 
to dwell among us; nor can I suppose 
that that infirmity of the mind belonged 
to Christ as a babe, which we see in 


ἘΠ iis humbling is “γενέσθαι 
€ 
It was not then 5 3 λόγος 


who needs nothing, nay note 1. 


Hence p- 


Serm. 
Maj. de 
Fid. 18. 


babes. For in consequence of it, when 
they are troubled with irrational emo- 
tions, no reason, no command, but pain 
sometimes andthe alarm of pain restrains 
them, &c.’’ de Pecc. Mer. ii. 48. As 
to the limits of Christ’s perfect know- 
ledge as man, Petavius observes, that 
we must consider ‘‘that the soul of 
Christ knew all things that are or ever 
will be or ever have been, but not what 
are only in posse, notin fact.’? Incarn. 
x1. 3, 6. 


Ὁ 


Disc. 
III. 


1 p. 298, 


note a. 


2 φανέ- 
pwots, 

p- 443, 
note g. 


Matt. 
16, 16; 
27, 54. 
3p. 282, 
note a. 


§. 53. 
4 isolated 
sen- 
tence. 

5 θεοποίη- 
σις, p- 
380, 

note h. 


474 He advanced, while His Godhead was manifested in His flesh. 


the Evangelist, speaking with cautious exactness’, has 
mentioned stature in the advance; but being Word and 
God He is not measured by stature, which belongs to bodies. 
Of the body then is the advance; for, it advancing, in it 
advanced also the manifestation? of the Godhead to those 
who saw it. And, as the Godhead was more and more 
revealed, by so much more did His grace as man increase 
before all men. For as a child He was carried to the T’em- 
ple; and when He became a boy, He remained there, and 
questioned the priests about the Law. And by degrees His 
body increasing, and the Word manifesting Himself? in it, 
He is confessed henceforth by Peter first, then also by all, 
Truly this is the Son of God ; however wilfully the Jews, 
both the ancient and these modern *, blink with their eyes, lest 
they see that to advance in wisdom is not the advance of 
Wisdom Itself, but rather the manhood’s advance in It. For 
Jesus advanced in Wisdom and grace; and, if we may speak 
what is explanatory as well as true, He advanced in Himself’; 
for Wisdom hath builded Herself an house, and in Herself She 
gave the house advancement. (What moreover “is this advance 
that is spoken of, but, as I said before, the deifying " and grace 
imparted from Wisdom to men, sin being obliterated in them 
and their inward corruption, according to their likeness and 
relationship to the flesh of the Word?) For thus, the body 
increasing in stature, there progressed in and with it the 
manifestation of the Godhead also, and to all was it displayed 
that the body was God’s Temple*, and that God was in the 
body ’. 


q It is remarkable, considering the 
tone of his statements in the present 
chapter, that here and in what follows 
Athan. should resolve our Lord’s ad- 
vance 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. Naz. 
says the same, Ep. ad Cled. 101. p. 86. 
which is the more remarkable since he 
is chiefly writing against the Apolli- 
narians who considered a φανέρωσις the 
great end of our Lord’s coming ; and 
Cyril. c. Nest. iii. p. 82. Theod. Hor. 
vy. 13. On the other hand, S. Epiphanius 
speaks of Him as growing in wisdom as 
man. Her. 77. p. 1019—24. and S. 


Ambrose, Incarn.7!—74. Vid. however 
Ambr. de fid. as quoted supr. p. 465, 
note f. The Ed. Ben.in Ambr. Incarn. 
considers the advancement of knowledge 
spoken of to be that of the ‘‘ scientia ex- 
perimentalis ”’ alluded to in Hebr. 5, 8. 
which is one of the three kinds of know- 
ledge possessed by Christ as man. vid. 
Berti Opp. t.3.p.41. Petavius, however, 
omits the consideration of this know- 
ledge, which S. Thomas first denied in 
our Lord, and in his Summa ascribes to 
Him, as lying beyond his province. ‘ De 
hac lite neutram in partem pronuntiare 
audeo. Hujusmodi enim questiones 
ad Scholas relegande sunt; de quibus 
nihil apud antiquos liquidi ac definiti 
reperitur.”” Incarn. xi. 4. §. 9. 


He advanced when the manhood advanced in Him. 475 


15. And if they urge, that The Word become flesh is called x 
Jesus, and refer to Him the term advanced, they must be told - 
that neither does this impair’ the Father’s Light’, which is the * La 244, 
Son, but that it still shews that the Word tes become man, 2 S "424, 
and bore true flesh. And as we said*® that He suffered in on. 448, 
the flesh, and hungered in the flesh, and was fatigued in the 
flesh, so also reasonably may He be said to have advanced 
in the flesh; for neither did the advance, such as we have 
described it, take place with the Word external to the flesh, 
for in Him was the flesh which advanced and His is it called, 
and that as before, that man’s advance might abide* and fail ‘ p. 380, 
not, because of the Word which is with it. Neither then was ἐν: 
the advance the Word’s, nor was the flesh Wisdom, but the 
flesh became the body of Wisdom’. Therefore, as we have ὅ se ἽΝ 
already said, not Wisdom, as Wisdom’, advanced in respect ὁ 
of Itself ; but the manhood advanced in Wicdbav transcending 
by degrees human nature, and made God’, and becoming and 7θεοποιού- 
appearing to all as the organ* of Wisdom for the operation S hrvanes 
and the shining forth® of the Godhead. Wherefore neither Be one 
said he, “The Word advanced,” but Jesus, by which name 9 tae 
the Lord was called when He became man; so that the ad- 353, By Ι. 
vance is of the human nature in such wise as we have above, 
explained. 


7 ee 


as) 
-- 
vo 


τ, δά. 


Ι ἰδιότητα 
2 διανοίᾳ, 
p- 

r. 6. 

et pas- 
sim. 

3% ἄνω καὶ 
κάτω, 
vid. 

p- 22, 
note y. 
p- 328, 
note k. 
John 11, 


27. 
Matt. 26, 


9. 
Mark 
15, 34. 
4 p. 394, 
note g. 
5 ψιλός. 
§ p. 478, 
rl. 
Luke 12, 
4. 


Gen. 15, 
1; 26, 24, 
Exod. 4. 
Josh 1, 
6. 


CHAPTER XXIX. 


TEXTS EXPLAINED; TWELFTHLY, MATTHEW xxvi. 39; 
JOHN xii. 27. &e. 


Arian inferences are against the Regula Fidei, as before. He wept and 
the like, as man. Other texts prove Him God. God could not fear. 
He feared because His flesh feared. 


1. Tuererore as, when the flesh advanced, He is said to 
have advanced, because the body was proper’ to Him, so also 
what is said at the season of His death, that He was troubled, 
that He wept, must be taken in the same sense’. For they, 
going up and down’, as if thereby τεθυεα  τοῆϊηη τὴ their heresy 
anew, allege; “Behold, He wept, and said, Now is My soul 
troubled, and He besought that the cup might pass away ; 
how then, if He so spoke, is He God, ἘΠῚ Word of the 
Father 2?” Yea, it is written that He wept, Ὁ God’s enemies, 
and that He said, “1 am troubled,” and on the Cross He 
said, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani, that is, My God, My God, 
why hast Thou forsaken Me? and He besought that the cup 
might pass away. Thus certainly it is written; but again I 
would ask you, (for the same rejoinder must of feces be 
made to each of your objections*,) If the speaker is mere* man, 
let him weep and fear death, as being man; butif He is the 
Wordin flesh °, (forone must not be reluctant torepeat*,) whom 
had He to fear being God ? or wherefore should He fear death, 
who was Himself Life, and was rescuing others from death ἢ 
or how, whereas He said, “ Fear not him that kills the body,” 
should He Himself fear him? And how should He who said 
to Abraham, Fear not, for I am with thee, and encouraged 
Moses against Pharaoh, and said to the son of Nun, Be 
strong, and of a good courage, Himself feel terror before 
Herod and Pilate? Further, He who succours others against 


fe could not really fear, who was God. 477 


fear, (for the Lord, says Scripture, is on my side, I will not ᾿ς 
Sear what man doeth unto me,) did He fear governors, mor- τς Ἴ8,. 
tal men ? did He who Himself was come against death, feel 6. 
terror of death ? Is it not both extravagant aid irreligious to 
say that He was terrified at death or hell, whom the keepers of 
hell’s gates’ saw and shuddered? But if, as you would hold, the ' supr. 
Word was in terror, wherefore, when He spoke long before ae Ῥ. 
of the conspiracy of the Jews, did He not flee, nay said when 479: 
actually sought, J am He ? for He could have avoided death, John 18, 
as He said, I have power to lay down My life, and I have power oy ee 
to take it again; and No one taketh it from Me’. oe ie 
2. But these affections were not proper to the nature of g 55. 
the Word, as far as He was Word*; but in the flesh which ° δὰ ΠΣ 
was thus affected was the Word, O Christ’s enemies and 
unthankful Jews! For He said not all this prior to the flesh ; 
but when the Word became flesh, and became man, then is it 
written that He said this, that is, hamanly. Surely He of whom 
this is written, was He who raised Lazarus from the dead, 
and made the water wine, and vouchsafed sight to the man 
born blind, and said, J and My Father are one. Tf then is 10, 
they make His human attributes a ground for grovelling  ~ 
thoughts concerning the Son of God, nay consider Him 
altogether man from the earth, and not* from heaven, where- 4 ἄνθρω- 


wn 
fore not from His divine works recognise the Word who is in rea Ἂν 
the Father,. and henceforward renounce {Ποῖ self-willed 3° fn. 


irreligion ? For they are given to see, how He who did the ae 


works, is the same as He who shewed that His body was ?*°° 
passible by His permitting* it to weep and hunger, and to 


ἃ This our Lord’s suspense or per- the Spirit,’ that is, He in some way 


mission, at His will, of the operations 
of His manhood is a great principle in 
the doctrine of the Incarnation. ‘ That 
He might give proof of His human 
nature,’ says Theophylact, on John 
1], 34. “* He allowed It to do Its own 
work, and chides It and rebukes It by 
the power of the Holy Spirit. The 
Flesh then, not bearing the rebuke, is 
troubled and trembles and gets the 
better of Its grief.’ And 5. Cyril: 
‘‘When grief began to be stirred in 
Him, and His sacred flesh was on the 
verge of tears, He suffers it not to be 
affected freely, as is our custom, but 
‘He was vehement (ἐνεβριμήσατο) in 


chides His own Flesh in the power of 
the Holy Ghost; and It, not bearing 
the movement of the Godbead united to 
It, trembles, &c....For this I think is 
the meaning of ‘troubled Himself.’ ’’ 
fragm. in Joan, p. 685. Sensus cor- 
porei vigebant sine lege peccati, et 
veritas affectionum sub moderamine 
Deitatis et mentis. Leon. Ep. 35, 3. 
“Thou art troubled against thy will; 
Christ is troubled, because He willed 
it. Jesus hungered, yes, but because 
He willed it; Jesus slept, yes, but be- 
cause He willed it; Jesus sorrowed, 
yes, but because He willed it; Jesus 
died, yes, but because He willed it, 


Disc. 


478 As His Attributes shew Him to be God,so His terror to be man. 


shew other properties of a body. For while by means of 
such He made it known that God, though impassible, had 
taken a passible flesh; yet from the works He shewed Him- 
self the Word of God, who had afterwards become man, saying, 
“Though ye believe not Me, beholding Me clad in a human 


John 10, body, yet believe the works, that ye may know that J am in 


38; 14, 
10. 


the Father and the Father in Me.’ And Christ’s enemies 
seem to me to shew plain shamelessness and blasphemy ; 


John 10, for, when they read I and the Father are one, they violently 


30. 


δ. 56. 


distort the sense, and separate the unity of the Father and 
the Son; but reading of His tears or sweat or sufferings, 
they do not advert to His body, but on account of these rank 
in the creation Him by whom the creation was made. What 
then is left for them to differ from the Jews in? for as the 
Jews blasphemously ascribed God’s works to Beelzebub, so 
also will these, ranking with the creatures the Lord who 
wrought those works, undergo the same condemnation as 
theirs without mercy. But they ought, when they read 
I and the Father are one, to see in Him the oneness of the 
Godhead and the propriety of the Father’s Substance ; and 
again when they read, He wept and the like, to say that these 
are proper to the body; especially since on each side they 
have an intelligible ground, viz. that this is written as of 
God and that with reference to His manhood. For in the 
incorporeal, the properties of body had not been, unless He 


'p.-241-3, had taken a body corruptible and mortal’; for mortal was 


notes h 
and i. 

p- 375, 
note u. 
Serm. 

Maj. de 
Fid. 9. 
Tertull. 


de Carn, 


Chr. 6. 


Holy Mary, from whom was His body. Wherefore of necessity 
when He was in a body suffering, and weeping, and toiling, 
these things which are proper to the flesh, are ascribed to 
Him together with the body. If then He wept and was 
troubled, it was not the Word, considered as the Word’, who 
wept and was troubled, but it was proper to the flesh; and if 


* λόγος too He besought that the cup might pass away, it was not the 


Godhead that was in terror, but this affection too was proper 
to the manhood. 
It was in His power to be affected so 


or so, or not to be affected.” Aug. 
in Joan. xlix. 18. vid. infr. p. 481, 


that He suffered merely ‘‘by permission 
of the Word.”’ Leont. ap. Canis. t. 1. 
p. 563. In like manner Marcion or 


note e. The Eutychians perverted this 
doctrine, as if it implied that our Lord 
was not subject to the laws of human 
nature; vid. supr. p. 243, note i. and 


Manes said that His “ flesh appeared 
from heaven in resemblance, ὡς ἠθέλη- 
σεν." Athan. contr. Apoll. ii. 3. 


| 


τ, 


Sid 


He was in fear, as He bore other affections of the flesh. 479 


3. And that the words Why hast Thou forsaken Me? are Cuar. 
His, according to the foregoing explanations; though He : 
suffered nothing, (for the Word was impassible,) is notwith- 
standing declared by the Evangelists; since the Lord became 
man, and these things are done and said as from a man, that 
He might Himself lighten’ these very sufferings of the flesh, ' pp. 448, 
and ae it from them’. Whence neither can the Lord be Zand a 
forsaken by the Father, who is ever in the Father, both before ἢ ee 
He spoke, and when He uttered these words. Nor is it 
lawful to say that the Lord was in terror, at whom the keepers 
of hell’s gates shuddered* and set open hell, and the graves pp. 83. 
did gape, and many bodies of the saints arose and appeared 577: 
to their own people*. Therefore be every heretic dumb, nor ὁ vid. 
dare to ascribe terror to the Lord whom death, as a serpent, ΘΕΟῚ 
flees, at whom devils tremble, and the sea is in alarm; for see a 
whom the heavens are rent and all the powers are shaken. In illu 
For behold when He says, Why hast Thou forsaken Me, the Sia 3: 
Father shewed that He was ever and even then in Him; for 
the earth knowing its Lord’ who spoke, straightway πέσεν ὁ δεσπο- 
and the veil was rent, and the sun was hidden, and the rocks ls ar 
were torn asunder, and the graves, as I have said, did gape, 
and the dead in them arose; and, what is wonderful, they 
who were then present and had before denied Him, then 


. = slr . ͵ vid. 
seeing these signs, confessed that truly He was the Son of \r- 27, 
54. 


God”. 


b Vid. p. 303 init. p. 450, note b. 
“ Each form acts, in communion with 
the other, those acts which belong 
to itself; the Word working what is 
the Word’s, and the flesh executing 
what is of the flesh. One of them is 
glorious in miracles, the other succumbs 
to injuries. ... He is One and the Same, 
truly Son of God, and truly Son of man 

... It belongs not to the same nature to 
weep with pity over a dead friend, and 
removing the stone of a fourth-day 
burial, to rouse him to life at the bidding 
of His voice; or to hang on the wood, 
and to turn day into night and make 
the elements shudder ; or to be pierced 
through with nails, and to open the gates 
of paradise tothe faith of the robber, &c.”’ 
Leo’s Tome, (Ep. 28.) 4. “The flesh 
is of a passible nature, but the Word 
of an operative.... Neither does the 
human nature quicken Lazarus, nor 
does the impassible Power weep over 


him in the grave ; but the tear is proper 
to the man, and the life to the True 
Life. Human poverty doth not feed 
the thousands, nor doth Almighty 
Power run to the fig-tree. Who is the 
wearied from His journeying, and who 
the giver of subsistence to the universe 
without effort? What is that out- 
streaming of glory, what that nailed 
thing? What form is buffetted upon 
His passion, and what form is glori- 
fied from everlasting, &c.”’ Nyssen. 
contr. Eunom. iv. p. 161. ‘ When He 
wept dead Lazarus, He wept as a 
man; but He was more than a man, 
when He bade the dead shake off his 
fetters and come forth. He was seen 
as a man when He hung at the cross, 
but as more than a man when He un- 
locked the tombs and raised the dead.” 
Ambros. Epist. i. 46. n. 7. vid. Hil. 
Trin. x. 48. Also vid. Athan. Sent. 
D. 9 fin, Serm. Maj. de Fid. 24. 


Disc. 
ΠῚ 


Wie 
Matt. 
16, 23. 


ἢ ,.3 f 
ἐπετίμα, 


‘the Father’s will as a servant... 


480. 


He willed as God what He deprecated as man. 


4, And as to His saying, Jf it be possible, let the cup pass, 
observe how, though He thus spake, He rebuked! Peter, 
saying, Thou savourest not the things that be of God, but 


those that be of men. 


For He willed* what He deprecated, 


for therefore had He come ; but His was the willing, (for for it 
He came,) but the terror belonged to the flesh. Wherefore 
as man He utters this speech also, and yet both were said by 
the Same, to shew that He was God, willing in Himself, but 
when He had become man, having a flesh that was in terror. 
For the sake of this flesh He combined His own will with 
human weakness?, that destroying this affection He might in 


5. “J say not, perish the thought, 
that there are two wills in Christ at 
variance with each other, as you con- 
sider, and in opposition; nor at all a 
will of flesh, or of passion, or evil 
.. But, since it was perfect man that He 
took on Him, that He might save him 
whole, and He is perfect in manhood, 
therefore we call that sovereign dis- 
posal of His orders and commands by 
the name of the Divine will in Christ, 
and we understand by human will the 
intellectual soul’s power of willing, given 
it after the image and likeness of God, 
and breathed into it by God, when it 
was made, by means of this power to 
prefer and to obey, and to do the divine 
will and the divine orders. If then the 
soul of Christ was destitute of the power 
of reason, will, and preference, it is 
not indeed after the image of God, nor 
consubstantial with our souls... . and 
Christ cannot be called perfect in man- 
hood. Christ then, being in the form 
of God, has according to the Godhead 
that lordly will which is common in 
Father and Holy Ghost; and, as having 
taken the form of a servant, He does 
also the will of His intellectual and 
immaculate soul, &c...... Else if this 
will be taken away, He will according 
to the Godhead be subject, and fulfil 
. as 
if there were two wills in the Godhead 
of Father and of Son, the Father’s that 
of a Lord, the Son’s that of a servant.” 
Anast. Hodeg. i. p. 12. 

d Tt is observable that, as elsewhere 
we have seen Athan. speak of the na- 
ture of the Word, and of, not the na- 
ture of man as united to Him, but 
of flesh, humanity, &c. (vid. p. 344, 
note g.) so here, instead of speaking 
of two wills, he speaks of the Word’s 


willing and human weakness, terror, 
&c. In another place he says still 
more pointedly, ‘‘ The wil/ was of the 
Godhead alone; since the whole naiure 
of the Word was manifested in the 
second Adam’s human form and visible 
flesh.” contr. Apoll. ii. 10. Yet else- 
where he distinctly expresses the 
Catholic view ; ‘* When He says, 
‘Father, if it be possible, &c.’ and 
‘the spirit is willing, &c.’ He mentions 
two wills, the one human, which belongs 
to the flesh, the other Divine, which 
belongs to God; for the human, be- 
cause of the weakness of the flesh, prays 
against the passion, but His divine 
will is ready.” de Incarn. c. Ar. 21. 
S. Leo on the same passage begins like 
Athan. in the text vaguely, but ends, as 
in Athan.’s second passage, distinctly ; 
“The first request is one of infirmity, 
the second of power; the first He asked 
in our [character], the second in His 
own.... The inferior will gave way to 
the superior, &c.’’ Serm. ὅθ, 2. vid. a 
similar passage in Nyssen. Antirrh. 
adv. Apol. 32. vid. also 31. An ob- 
vious objection may be drawn from such 
passages, as if the will “of the flesh” 
were represented as contrary (vid. fore- 
going note) to the will of the Word. 
It is remarkable, as Petavius observes, 
Incarn. ix. 9. that Athan. compares 
(as in the text) the influence of our 
Lord’s divine will on His human, in the 
passage from the Incarn. quoted above, 
to His rebuke of S. Peter, “‘ Get thee 
behind Me, &c.” vid.supr. p. 477, notea. 
But this is but an analogous instance, 
not a direct resemblance. 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 


Tf the Apostles and Martyrs, so surely our Lord,disdained to fear.481 


turn make man undaunted in the thought of death. Behold _ 
then a thing strange indeed! He to whom Christ’s enemies 
impute Seni of terror, He by that so-called* terror renders ! νομιζο- 
men undaunted and fearless. And so the Blessed Apostles ae Ν iia 
after Him from such words of His conceived so great δ Serie ap 
contempt of death, as not even to care for those who ques- ὁ ὁ 
tioned them, but to answer, We ought to obey God rather ae 
than men. And the other Holy Martyrs were so bold, as to 

think that they were rather passing to life than undergoing 

death. Is it not extravagant then, to admire the courage of 

the servants of the Word, yet to say that the Word Himself 

was in terror, through whom they despised death? But from 

that most enduring purpose and courage of the Holy Martyrs 

is shewn, that the Godhead was not in terror, but the Saviour 

took away our terror. For as He abolished death by death, 

and by human means all human evils, so by this so-called’ 

terror did He remove our terror, and brought about that never 

more should men fear death. His word and deed go together. 

For human were the sounds, Let the cup pass, and Why 

hast Thou forsaken Me? and divine the act whereby the 

Same did cause the sun to fail and the dead to rise. Again 

He said humanly, Now is My soul troubled; and He said John 12, 
divinely, I have power to lay down My life, and power to εἴς τ 
take it again. For to be troubled was proper to the flesh, 

and to have power to lay down His life* and take it again, 


His own life? for any one who will 
may kill himself. But He says not 


as God; but the former part is from the 
sinless infirmity of our nature, the latter 


from His human will expressing its ac- 
quiescence in His Father’s, that is, in 
His Divine Will. ‘His Will,’’ says 
S. Greg. Naz. ‘was not contrary to 
God, being all deified, θεωθὲν ὅλον.᾽᾽ 

e This might be taken as an illustra- 
tion of the ut voluit supr. p. 243, notei. 
And so the expressions in the Evan- 
gelists, ‘‘Into Thy hands I commend 
My Spirit,’ “Η bowed the head,” 
“He gave up the ghost,” are taken to 
imply that His death was His free act. 
vid. Ambros. in loc. Luc. Hieron. in 
loc. Matt. also Athan. Serm. Maj. de 
Fid. 4 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. 
‘“ Who,” says 5. Chrysostom on John 
10, 18. “has not power to lay down 


this, but how ? ‘I have power to lay it 
down in such sense that no one can do 
it against My will.... I alone have 
the disposal of My life,’ which is not 
trueof us.’”’ And still more appositely 
Theophylact, “It was open to Him 
not to suffer, not to die ; for being with- 
out sin, He was not subject to death. 

. If then He had not been willing, 
He had not been crucified.’’ in Hebr. 
12, 2. “Since this punishment is 
contained in the death of the body, that 
the soul, because it has deserted God 
with its will, deserts the body against 
its will....the soul of the Mediator 
proved, how utterly clear of the punish- 
ment of sin was its coming to the death 
of the flesh, in that it did not desert 
it unwillingly, but because it willed, 
and when it willed, and asit willed... . 


Disc. 
III. 


Ps. 
11: 


2p. 


16, 


374, 


note t. 


3 διαμεί- 
νωσι, p. 
380, r. 1. 


i 


r. 6. 


. 474, 


482 Men die of necessity, our Lord of choice. 


when He will, was no property of men but of the Word’s 
power. For man dies, not by his own power, but by neces- 
sity of nature and against his will; but the Lord, being 
Himself immortal, but having a mortal flesh, had power, as 
God, to become separate from the body and to take it again, 
when He would. Concerning this too speaks David in the 
Psalm, Thou shalt not leave My soul in hell, neither shalt 
Thou suffer Thy Holy One to see corruption. For it beseemed, 
that the flesh, corruptible as it was, should no longer after its 
own nature remain mortal, but because of the Word who had 
put it on, should abide incorruptible. For as He, having come 
in our body, was conformed’ to our condition, so we, receiving 
Him, partake of the immortality that is from Him. 

5. Idle then is the excuse for stumbling, and narrow the 
notions concerning the Word, of these Ario-maniacs, because 
it is written, He was troubled, and He wept. For they seem not 
even to have human feeling, if they are thus ignorant of man’s 
nature and properties; which do but make it the greater 
wonder, that the Word should be in such a suffering flesh, 
and neither prevented those who were conspiring against 
Him, nor took vengeance of those who were putting Him to 
death, though He was able, He who hindered some from dying, 
and raised others from the dead. And He let His own body 
suffer, for therefore did He come, as I said before, that in the 
flesh He might suffer, and thenceforth the flesh might be 
made impassible and immortal’, and that, as we have many 
times said, contumely and other troubles might determine 
upon Him and come short of others after Him, being by 
Him annulled utterly; and that henceforth men might for 
ever abide* incorruptible, as a temple of the Word*. Had 
Christ’s enemies thus dwelt on these thoughts, and recog- 
nised the ecclesiastical scope as an anchor for the faith, 
they would not have of the faith made shipwreck, nor been 
so shameless as to resist those who would fain recover them 
from their fall, and to deem those as enemies who are 
admonishing them to be religious’. 

And this did they specially admire, were commonly tortured by a lingering 
who were present, says the Gospel, death.... But He was a wonder, (mi- 
that after that work, in which He set raculo fuit,) because He was found 


forth a figure of our sin, He forthwith dead.’’ August. de Trin. iv. 16. 
gave up the ghost. For crucified men f Thus ends the exposition of texts, 


ἑν, 


which forms the body of these Orations. 
It is remarkable that he ends as he 
began, with reference to the ecclesias- 
tical scope, or Regula Fidei, which 
has so often come under our notice, vid. 
p- 328, note l. p. 341, note i. as if dis- 
tinctly to tell us, that Scripture did not 
so force its meaning on the individual 
as to dispense with an interpreter, and 
as if his own deductions were not to be 
viewed merely in their own logical 
power, great as that power often is, but 
as under the authority of the Catholic 
doctrines which they subserve. Vid. 
p- 426,n. 14 fin. It is hardly a paradox 
to say that in patristical works of contro- 
versy the conclusion in a certain sense 
proves the premisses. As then he here 
speaks of the ecclesiastical scope ‘‘ as 
an anchor for the faith;’’ so supr. 
p- 233. where the discussion of texts 
began, he introduces it by saying, in 


483 


accordance with the above remark, 
‘since they allege the divine oracles 
and force on them a misinterpretation 
according to their private sense, it be- 
comes necessary to meet them just so 
Sar as to lay claim t othese passages, 
and to shew that they bear an orthodox 
sense, and that our opponents are in 
error.’ Again supr. p. 410. he says, 
“‘ What is the difficulty, that one must 
need take such a view of such passages ?’” 
He speaks of the σκοπὸς as a κανὼν or 
rule of interpretation, supr. §. 28. vid. 
also 8. 29 init. 35, c. Serap. ii. 7, a. 
Hence too he speaks of the ‘‘ ecclesi- 
astical sense,” e.g. Orat. i. 44. Serap. 
iv. 15. and of the φρόνημα Orat. ii. 31 
init. Decr. 17 fin. Inii. p. 326. supr. he 
makes the general or Church view of 
Scripture supersede inquiry into the 
force of particular iJlustrations. 


CHAP. 


XXIX. 


Disc. 
ILf. 

1 διεφθαρ- 
μένην, 
p- 485, 
r. 4. 
p. 472, 
r. 3. 
Serap. i. 
18, e. 
2 p. 485, 
Yr. 5. 
3 θεοστυ- 


CHAPTER XXX. 
OBJECTIONS CONTINUED, AS IN CHAPTERS vVil—X. 


Whether the Son is begotten of the Father's will? This virtually the same 
as whether once He was not? and used by the Arians to introduce the 
latter question. The Regula Fidei answers it at once in the negative by 
contrary texts. The Arians follow the Valentinians in maintaining a 
precedent will; which really is only exercised by God towards creatures. 
Instances from Scripture. Inconsistency of Asterius. If the Son by 
will, there must be another Word before Him. If God is good, or exist, 
by His will, then is the Son by His will. If He willed to have reason 
or wisdom, then is His Word and Wisdom at His will. The Son is the 
Living Will, and has all titles which denote connaturality. That will 
which the Father has to the Son, the Son has to the Father. The 
Father wills the Son and the Son wills the Father. 


1. Bur, as it seems, a heretic is a wicked thing in truth, 
and in every respect his heart is depraved’ and irreligious. 
For behold, though convicted on all points, and shewn to be 
utterly bereft of understanding, they feel no shame; but as 
the hydra’ of Gentile fable, when its former serpents were 
destroyed, gave birth to fresh ones, contending against the 
slayer of the old by the production of new, so also they, 
hostile’ and hateful to God*, as hydras*, losing their life in 
the objections which they advance, invent for themselves other 
questions Judaic and foolish, and new expedients, as if Truth 
were their enemy, thereby to shew the rather that they are 
Christ’s opponents in all things. After so many proofs against 
them, at which even the devil who is their father*® had himself 
been abashed and gone back, again as from their perverse heart 
they mutter forth other expedients, sometimes in whispers, 


a This chapter is in a very different 
style from the foregoing portions of this 
Book, and much more resembles the 
former two ; not only in its subject and 
the mode of treating it, but in the words 
introduced, e.g. ἐπισπείρουσι, ἐπινοοῦσι, 
γογγύζουσι, καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς, ἄτοπον, λεξείδιον, 


εἷς τῶν πάντων, ἕο. And the references 
are to the former Orations. 

b θεομάχοι vid. p. 6, note n. p. 325, 
noted. Vid. Dissert. by Bucher on 
the word in Acts 5, 39. ap. Thesaur. 
Theol. Phil. N. T. ὦ 2. 


This position of Arians a new form of their original statements. 485 


sometimes with the drone® of gnats; ‘ Be it so,’ 


᾽ 


say they ; 


“interpret these places thus, and gain the victory in reasonings 
and proofs; still you must say that the Son has been begotten 
by the Father at His will and pleasure ;” for thus they de- 
ceive many, putting forward the will and the pleasure of God. 
Now if any orthodox believer were to say this in simplicity ', ' ἁπλού- 


CHAP. 
D9... 


στερον 


there would be no cause to be suspicious of the expression, p, 433, 


the orthodox intention’ prevailing over that somewhat simple 


use of words °. 


1 


and the words of heretics are suspicious, and, as it is written, 


re ae 
2 διανοίας 


But since the phrase is from the heretics ‘, inter- 


pretation, 
Ρ. 437, 


The wicked are deceitful, and The words of the wicked are. 6- 
. . - rov. 
deceit, even though they but make signs’*, for their heart is 15, 5. 6. 


depraved ‘, come let us examine this phrase also, lest, though 5°P*: 
Ῥ Ρ gn; 


p- 34. 


convicted on all sides, still, as hydras’, they invent a fresh ‘ p. 484, 
word, and by such clever language and specious evasion, they pe 481, 
scatter again that irreligion of theirs in another way. For he *- 3: 

who says, “The Son came to be at the Divine will,” has the 
same meaning as another who says, “‘ Once He was not,” and 
“The Son came to be out of nothing,” and “ He is acreature.” 
But since they are now ashamed of these phrases, these crafty 


ones have endeavoured to convey their meaning in another ° 


way, putting forth the word “ will,” as cuttlefish their black- 
ness, thereby to benighten the innocent’, and to make sure of 


their peculiar’ heresy. 


© περιβομβοῦσι. p. 22, note y. Also 
de fug. 2, 6. Naz. Orat. 27, 2. c. 

ἃ §. Ignatius speaks of our Lord as 
“Son of God according to the will 
(θέλημα) and power of God.’ ad 
Smyrn. 1. 8S. Justin as ‘‘ God and Son 
according to His will, βουλήν." Tryph. 
127. and “ begotten from the Father at 
His will, θελήσει." ibid. 61. and he says, 
δυνάμει καὶ βουλῇ αὐτοῦ. ibid. 128. S. 
Clement, “issuing from the Father’s 
will itself quicker than light.’”” Gent. 
10 fin. S. Hippolytus, ‘* Whom God 
the Father, willing, βουληθεὶς, begat as 
He willed, ὡς 70¢Ancev.”’ contr. Noet. 
16. Origen, ἐκ θελήματος. ap. Justin ad. 
Menn. vid. also cum filius charitatis 
etiam voluntatis. Periarch. iv. 28. 

e In like manner he says elsewhere, 
‘Had these expositions of theirs pro- 
ceeded from the orthodox, from such as 
the great confessor Hosius, Maximinus, 
Philogonius, Eustathius, Julius, &c.’’ 
Ep. Ag. 8. and supr. ‘Terms do not 


disparage His Nature; rather that 
Nature draws to Itself those terms and 
changes them.’’ p. 285. Also de Mort. 
Ar. fin, Vid. supr. p. 17, note m. And 
vid. Leont. contr. Nest. iii. 41. (p. 581. 
Canis.) He here seems alluding to the 
Semi-Arians, Origen, and perhaps the 
earlier Fathers 

f Of these Tatian had said θελήματι 
προπηδᾷ 6 λόγος. Gent. 5. Tertullian 
had said, Ut primum voluit Deus ea 
edere, ipsum primum protulit sermonem. 
adv. Prax.6. Novatian, Ex. quo,quando 
ipse voluit, Sermo filius natus est. 
de Trin. 31. And Constit. Apost. τὸν πρὸ 
αἰώνων εὐδοκίᾳ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα. 
vii. 41. Pseudo-Clem. Genuit Deus volun- 
tate precedente, Recognit. iii. 10. Euse- 
bius, κατὰ γνώμην καὶ προαίρεσιν βουλη- 
θεὶς 6 θεός" ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πατρὺς βουλῆς καὶ 
δυνάμεως. Dem. iv. 3. Arius, θελήματι 
kal βουλῇ ὑπέστη. ap. Theod. Hist i. 4. 
p- 750. vid. also supr. p. 97. 


ἀκε- 
ραίους 
Hist. T. 
p- 299, 
note g. 
7 ἰδίας 


2 κακό- 
νοιαν 


3 δύο (υ- 
yous, Co- 
telier 

corr. συ- 


(yous 


486 It is opposed to the texts which speak of our Lord as God. 


2. For whence bring they “ by will and pleasure ?”’ or 
from what Scripture ? let them say who are so suspicious in 
their words and so inventive of irreligion. For the Father 
who revealed from heaven His own Word, declared, This is 


_My beloved Son; and by David He said, My heart has burst 


with a good Word; and John He bade say, In the beginning 
was the Word; and David says in the Psalm, With Thee is 
the well of life, and in Thy light shall we see light ; and the 
Apostle’ writes, Who being the Radiance of Glory, and again, 
Who being in the form of God, and, Who is the Image of 
the invisible God. All every where tell us of the being of 
the Word, but none of His being “ by will,” or at all of His 
making; but they, where, I ask, did they find will or pleasure 
“precedent δ᾽ to the Word of God, unless forsooth, leaving the 
Scriptures, they simulate the perverseness” of Valentinus ὃ 
For Ptolemy the Valentinian said that the Ingenerate had a 
pair * of attributes, Thought and Will, and first He thought 


8. And so supr. p. 30. “ by what 
Saint have they been taught ‘ at will?’”’ 
That is, no one ever taught it in the 
sense in which ¢hey explained it ; thus 
he has just said, ‘‘He who says ‘at 
will,’ has the same meaning as he who 
says ‘Once He was not.’” Again 
infr. ‘Since it is all one to say ‘at 
will’ and ‘Once He was not,’ let them 
make up their minds to say ‘Once He 
was ποῦ." p. 488; also pp. 492, 495. 
Certainly as the earlier Fathers had 
used the phrase, so those which came 
after Arius. Thus Nyssen in the pas- 
sage in contr. Eum. vii. referred to 
in the next note. And 5. Hilary, 
“Nativitatis perfecta natura est, ut qui 
ex substantia Dei natus est, etiam ex 
consilio ejus et voluntate nascatur.’’ 
Hilar. Syn. 37. The same father 
says, unitate Patris et virtute. Psalm 
91, 8. and ut voluit, ut potuit, ut scit 
qui genuit. Trin. iii. 4. And he ad- 
dresses Him as non invidum bonorum 
tuorum in Unigeniti tui nativitate. 
ibid. vi. 21. 85. Basil too speaks of our 
Lord as αὐτοζωὴν καὶ αὐτοάγαθον, ‘from 
the quickening Fountain, the Father’s 
goodness, ἀγαθότητος." contr. Eum. ii. 
25. And Cesarius calls Him ἀγάπην 
πατρός. Quest. 39. Vid. Ephrem. Syr. 
adv. Scrut. R. vi. 1. O.T. and note there. 
Maximus Taurin. says, that God is per 
omnipotentiam Pater Hom. de trad. 
Symb. p. 270. ed. 1784. vid. also 
Chryso!. Serm. 61. Ambros. de Fid. 


iv. 8. Petavius refers in addition to 
such passages as one just quoted from 
8. Hilary, as speak of God as not in- 
vidus, so as not to communicate Him- 
self, since He was able. Si non potuit, 
infirmus; si voluit, invidus. August. 
contr. Maxim. iii. 7. 

h προηγουμένην and 61 fin. The 
antecedens voluntas has been men- 
tioned in Recogn. Clem. supr. note f. 
For Ptolemy vid. Epiph. Her. 
p- 215. The Catholics, who allowed 
that our Lord was θελήσει, explained 
it as a σύνδρομος θέλησις, and not a 
προηγουμένη ; as Cyril. Trin. ii. p. 56. 
And with the same meaning S. Am- 
brose, nec voluntas ante Filium nec 
potestas. de Fid. v. 224. And S. 
Gregory Nyssen, ‘‘ His immediate 
union, ἄμεσος συνάφεια, does not exclude 
the Father’s will, βούλησιν, nor does 
that will separate the Son from the 
Father.” contr. Eunom. vii. p. 206, 7. 
vid. the whole passage. The alternative 
which these words, σύνδρομος and προ 
ἡγουμένη, expressed was this; whether 
an act of Divine Purpose or Will 
took place before the Generation of 
the Son, or whether both the Will 
and the Generation were eternal, as 
the Divine Nature was eternal. Hence 
Bull says, with the view of exculpating 
Novatian, Cum Filius dicitur ex Patre, 
quando ipse voluit, nasci, velle illud 
Patris «ternum fuisse intelligendum.” 
Defens. F. N. iii. 8. 8. 8. 


Asterius said that if all offsprings, therefore the First, by will. 487 


and then He willed; and what He thought, He could not CHAP. 
put forth', unless when the power of the Will was added. ;7 aa. 
Thence the Arians taking a lesson, wish will and pleasure to Ac, de- 

- precede the Word. For them then, let them rival the doctrine bis 
of Valentinus ; but we, when we read the divine discourses, »°te b- 
found He was applied to the Son, but of Him only did we 

hear as being in the Father and the Father’s Image; while in 

the case of things generate only, since also by nature these 

things once were not, but afterwards came to be’, did we ? émyé- 
recognise a precedent will and pleasure, David saying in the 216, ε ie 
hundred and thirteenth Psalm, As for our God He is in heaven, P- 352, 
He hath done whatsoever pleased Him, and in the hundred τοῦ, τ ce 
and tenth, The works of the Lord are great, sought out unto Ὁ otis 
all His good pleasure ; and again, in the hundred* and thirty- Ps. 111, 


fourth, Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did He in heaven, 3 2. Sept. 
and in earth, and in the sea, and in all deep places. a 


Ps. 135, 
3. If then He be work and thing made, and one among 6. i 


others*, let Him, as others, be said ‘‘ by will” to have come to " εἷς τῶν 
be, and Scripture shews that these are thus brought into being. ia 
And Asterius, the hired pleader® for the heresy, acquiesces, 5 ξυνήγα- 
when he thus writes, “ For if it be unworthy of the Framer of {7 P ek 
all, to make at pleasure, let His being pleased be ἐπε τ ἰς 
equally in the case of all, that His Majesty be preserved unim- 

paired. Or if it be befitting God to will, then let this better 

way obtain in the case of the first Offspring. Tor it is not 
possible that it should be fitting for one and the same God to 

make things at His pleasure, and not at His will also.” In spite 

of the Sophist having introduced abundant irreligion in his 

words, namely, that the Offspring and the thing made are the 

same, and that the Son is one offspring out of all offsprings 

that are, He ends with the conclusion that it is fitting to say 

that the works are by will and pleasure. Therefore if He be ἃ. 61. 
other than all things, as has been above shewn‘, and through °e. g. ch. 
Him the works rather came to be, let not “by will” be ae 
applied to Him, or He has similarly come to be as the things 

consist which through Him come to be. For Paul, whereas 

he was not before, became afterwards an Apostle by the 1 Cor. 1, 
will of God; and our own calling, as itself once not being, ἡ 

but now taking place afterwards’, is preceded by will, and, as a υυγοῆ 


P ν μένη 
Paul himself says again, has been made according to the good ie l, 


488° But our Lord was not one among many, but their Creator. 


DES pleasure of His will. And what Moses relates, Let there be light, 


1 supr. 
ch. xviii. 


2 βουλεύε- 


ται 


3 βουλη- 
θείς. 
James 
1, 18. 

4 BovAn- 
σις 

5 p. 131, 
note d. 
1 Thes. 
5, 18. 


and Let the earth appear, and Let Us make man, is I think, ac- 
cording to what has gone before’, significant of the will of the 
Agent. For things which once were not but happened after- 
wards from external causes, these the Framer counsels? to 
make; but His proper Word begotten from Him by nature, 
concerning Him He did not counsel’ beforehand; for in Him 
the Father makes, in Him frames, other things whatever He 
counsels*; as also James the Apostle teaches, saying, Of His 
own will* begat He us with the Word of Truth. Therefore the 
Will* of God concerning all things, whether they be begotten 
again or are brought into being at the first, isin His Word, in 
whom He both makes and begets again what seems right to 
Him; asthe Apostle’ again signifies, writing to the Thessalo- 
nians; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. 

4. But if, in whom He makes, in Him also is the will, and 
in Christ is the pleasure of the Father, how can He, as others, 
come into being by will and pleasure? For if He too came 
to be, as you maintain, by will, it follows that the will con- 
cerning Him consists in some other Word, through whom 
He in turn comes to be; for it has been shewn that God’s will 
is not in the things which He brings into being, but in Him 
through whom and in whom all things made are brought to be. 
Next, since it is all one to say “ By will” and “ Once He was 


not,” let them make up their minds to say ‘“‘Once He was 


6 βουλή 


7 εἷς τῶν 
πάντων 


δ. 69. 


not,” that, perceiving with shame that times are signified by 
the latter, they may understand that to say “by will” is to 
place times before the Son ; for counselling goes before things 
which once were not, as in the case of all creatures. But if 
the Word is the Framer of the creatures, and He co-exists 
with the Father, how can to counsel precede the Everlasting as 
if He were not? for if counsel® precedes, how through Him 
are all things ? For rather He too, as one among others’ is by 
will begotten to be a Son, as we too were made sons by the 
Word of Truth; and it rests, as was said, to seek another Word, 
through whom He too was brought to be, and was begotten 
together with all things, which were according to God’s 
pleasure. 

5. If then there is another Word of God, then be the Son 


brought into being by a Word; but if there be not, as is the 


4 


Ἶ 


The Son neither by necessity nor by will, but by nature. 489 


case, but all things by Him were brought to be, which the Father 
has willed, does not this expose the many-headed’ craftiness 
of these men? that feeling shame at saying ‘“ work,” and 
- “creature,” and “God’s Word was not before His genera- 
tion,”’ yet in another way they assert that He is a creature, 
putting forward “will,” and saying, ‘‘ Unless He has by will 
come to be, therefore God had a Son by necessity and against 
His good pleasure.’”’ And whois it then who imposes necessity 
on Him, O men most wicked, who draw every thing to the 
purpose of your heresy ? for what is contrary to will they see; 
but what is greater and transcends’ it, has escaped their per- 
ception. For as what is beside purpose is contrary to will, so 
what is according to nature transcends and precedes coun- 
selling'*. A man by counsel* builds a house, but by nature he 
begets a son; and what is in building at will began to come 
into being, and is external to the maker; but the son is 
proper offspring of the father’s substance, and is not external 
to him; wherefore neither does he counsel concerning him, 
lest he appear to counsel about himself. As far then as the Son 
transcends the creature, by so much does what is by nature 
transcend the will*. They then, on hearing of Him, ought 


i Thus he makes the question a nu- 
gatory one, as if it did not go to the 
point, and could not be answered, or 
might be answered either way, as the 
case might be. Really Nature and Will 
go together in the Divine Being, but in 
order, as we regard Him, Nature is 
first, Will second, and the generation be- 
longs to Nature, not to Will. And so 
supr. ‘A work is external to the nature, 
but a son is the proper offspring of the 
substance. The workman frames the 
work when he will; but <n offspring is 
not subject to the will, but is proper 
to the substance.’”’” p. 222. Again; 
‘“ Whereas they deny what is by na- 
ture, do they not blush to place before 
it what is by will? If they attribute to 
God the willing about things which are 
not, why recognise they not that in God 
which lies above the will? now it isa 
something that surpasses will that He 
should be by nature, and should be 
Father of His proper Word.” p. 284. 
In like manner S. Epiphanius: ‘‘ He 
begat Him neither willing θέλων nor 
not willing, but in nature, which is 
above will, βουλήν. For He has the 
nature of the Godhead, neither needing 


will, nor acting without will.” Her. 
69, 26. vid. also Ancor. 51. vid. also 
Ambros. de Fid. iv. 4. vid. others, as 
collected in Petav. Trin. vi. 8. §. 14 -- 
16. 

k Two distinct: meanings may be at- 
tached to “ by will,’’ (as Dr. Clark ob- 
serves, Script. Doct. p. 142. ed. 1738.) 
either a concurrence or acquiescence, 
or a positive act. S. Cyril uses it in 
the former sense, when he calls it σύν- 
δρομος, as quoted p. 486, note h; and 
when he says (with Athan. infr.) that 
“the Father wills His own subsist- 
ence, θελητής ἐστι, but is not what He is 
from any will, ἐκ βουλήσεως tivds,’’ Thes. 
p. 56.; Dr. Clark would understand it in 
the latter sense, with a view of inferring 
that the Son was subsequent to a Divine 
act, i.e. not eternal; but what Athan. 
says leads to the conclusion that it dces 
not matter which sense is taken. He 
does not meet the Arian objection, ‘“ if 
not by will therefore by necessity,’”’ by 
speaking of a concomitant will, ormerely 
saying that the Almighty exists or is 
good, by will, with S. Cyril, but he says 
that ‘“ nature transcends will and ne- 
cessify also.’’ Accordingly, Petavius 


2k 


CHap. 

KOK 
1 p. 492, 
note p. 


2 ὑπερ- 
κείμενον 


3 βουλεύ- 
εσθαι 
Ἑβουλευό- 
μενος 


Disc. 
IIL. 


1 ῥοπὴν,Ῥ. 
495 r. 1 


2 πάθος 


§. 68. 


3 βουλευ- 
a 
σάμενος 


4 ἀσύ- 

στατος 

5 > / 
ov θέμις 

δ ἄλογον 


490 If God exists, so may His Son, by nature not by will. 


not to measure by will what is by nature ; forgetting however 
that they are hearing about God’s Son, they dare to apply 
human contrarieties in the instance of God, “ necessity”’ and 
“beside purpose,” to be able thereby to deny that there is a 
true Son of God. 

6. For let them tell us themselves,—that God is good and 
merciful, does this attach to Him by will or not ? if by will, we 
must consider that He began to be good, and that His not being 
good is possible; for to counsel and choose implies an in- 
clination' two ways, and is the property” of a rational nature. 
But if it be too extravagant that He should be called good 
and merciful upon will, then what they have said themselves 
must be retorted on them,—“ therefore by necessity and not 
at His pleasure He is good;” and, “ who is it which imposes 
this necessity on Him?” But if it be extravagant to speak of 
necessity in the case of God, and therefore it is by nature 
that He is good, much more is He, and more truly, Father of 
the Son by nature and not by will. Moreover let them 
answer us this:—(for against their recklessness I wish to 
urge a further question, bold indeed, but with a religious 
intent ; be propitious, O Lord'!)—the Father Himself, does 
He exist, first having counselled *, then being pleased, or 
before counselling ? For since they are as bold in the in- 
stance of the Word, they must receive the like answer, that 
they may know that this their presumption reaches even to the 
Father Himself. IRf then they shall themselves take counsel 
about will, and say that even Heis from will, what then was He 
before He counselled, or what gained He, as ye consider, after 
counselling ? But if such a question be extravagant and self- 
destructive’, and shocking® even to ask, (for it is enough only 
to hear God’s Name for us to know and understand that He is 
He that Is,) willit not also be against reason® to have parallel 
thoughts concerning the Word of God, and to make pre- 
tences of will and pleasure? for it is enough in like manner 
only to hear the Name of the Word, to know and understand 
as voluntas de voluntate, than, as Athan. 


is led to do, as the voluntas Dei. 
1 vid. p. 216, note c. Also Serap. i. 


is even willing to allow that the ex βουλῆς 
is to be ascribed to the γέννησις in the 


sense which Dr. Clark wishes, i.e. he 
grants that it may precede the γέννησις, 
i.e. in order, not in time, in the suc- 
cession of our ideas, Trin. vi. 8. §. 20, 
21; and follows S. Austin, Trin. xv. 20. 
in preferring to speak of our Lord rather 


15, b. 16 init. 17, c. 20, e, a. iv. 8, 14. 
Ep. g. 11 fin. Didym. Trin. iii. 3. 
Ρ. 341. Ephr. Syr. adv. Her. Serm. 
55 init. (t. 2. p. 557.) Facund. Tr. Cap. 
iii. 3 init. 


The Son is not by the Will, but is the Will, of the Father. 491 
that He who is God not by will, has not by will but by Cuar- 


i ΧΧΧΙ 
nature His proper Word. .And does it not surpass all con- ——— 


ceivable madness, to entertain the thought only, that God 
- Himself counsels and considers and chooses and proceeds to 
have a good pleasure, that He be not without Word and 
without Wisdom, but have both? for He seems to be con- 
sidering about Himself, who counsels about what is proper to 
His Substance. 

7. There being then much blasphemy in such a thought, it 
will be religious to say that things generate have come to be 
“by favour’ and will,’”’ but the Son is not a work of will, nor 1 εὐδοκίᾳ 
has come after’, as the creation, but is by nature the proper ° a 
Offspring of God’s Substance. For being the proper Word lone? 
of the Father, He allows us not to account® of will as before * λογίσα- 
Himself, since He is Himself the Father’s Living Counsel™, μὰ αὶ. 
and Power, and Framer of the things which seemed good to "" ἢ: τὰ Ἶ 
the Father. And this is what He says of Himself in the vers. 
Proverbs; Counsel* is Mine and security, Mine is under- ae 
standing, and Mine strenyth. Yor as, although Himself the ΤΩΣ, δ 
Understanding, in which He prepared the heavens, and 
Himself Strength and Power, (for Christ is God's Power and 1 Cor. 1, 
God’s Wisdom,) He here has altered the terms and said, Mine ~ ois 
is understanding and Mine strength, so while He says, dine is 
counsel’, He must Himself be the Living" Counsel of the 
Father ; as we have learned from the Prophet also, that He 
is become the Angel of great Counsel, and is called the good Is. 9. 6. 
pleasure of the Father; for thus we must refute them, using 


5 p. 326, 
ote f. 


ξ, 64. 


human illustrations’ concerning God. Therefore if the works 
subsist “ by will and favour,” and the whole creature is made " 
“at God’s good pleasure,” and Paul was called to be an Apostle 


Father. But I think it better to speak 
of Him as Counsel from Counsel, Will 
from Will, as Substance from Substance, 
Wisdom from Wisdom.” Trin. xv. 20. 
And so Cesarius, ἀγάπη ἐξ ἀγάπης. Qu. 


m ἀγαθοῦ πατρὸς ἀγαθὸν βούλημα. 
Clem. Ped. iii. circ. fin. σοφία, χρηστό- 
της, δύναμις, θέλημα παντοκρατορικόν, 
Strom. v. p. 847. Voluntas et potestas 
patris. Tertull. Orat. 4. Natus ex 


Patri quasi voluntas ex mente proce- 
dens. Origen. Periarch, i. 2. 8. 6. S. Je- 
rome notices the same interpretation of 
“ by the will of God” in the beginning 
of Comment. in Ephes. 5. Austin on 
the other hand, as just now referred to, 
says, ‘‘ Some divines, to avoid saying 
that the Only-Begotten Word is the Son 
of God’s counsel or will, have named 
Him the very Counsel or Will of the 


39. vid. for other instances Tertullian’s 
Works, O, Tr. Note I. 

n ζῶσα βουλή. supr. 284, r. 3, Cyril 
in Joan. p. 213. ζῶσα δύναμις. Sabell. 
Greg. 5. c. ζῶσα εἰκών. Naz, Orat. 30, 
20. ο. ζῶσα ἐνέργεια. Syn. Antioch. ap, 
Routh. Reliqu. t.2. p. 469. ζῶσα ἰσχύς. 
Cyril.inJoan. p. 951. ζῶσα σοφία. Origen, 
contr. Cels. iii. fin. (@vAdyos. Origen. ibid, 


ζῶν ὄργανον. (heretically) Eus. Dem iv.2. 


mn ke 


492 Tf the Son by will, another Word before Him. 


Disc. by the will of God, and our calling has come about by His 
jE : : 

good pleasure and will, and all things have been brought into 

being through the Word, He is external to the things which 

have come to be by will, but rather is Himself the Living 

Counsel of the Father, by which all these things were brought 

to be; by which David also gives thanks in the seventy- 

Ps.73, second Psalm, Zhou hast holden me by my right hand; Thou 
Bee Schall guide me with Thy Counsel. 

8. How then can the Word, being the Counsel and Good 

Pleasure of the Father, come into being Himself “by 

good pleasure and will” as every thing else? unless, as I said 

before, in their madness they repeat that He was brought 

into being by Himself, or by some other®. Who then is it 

by whom He came to be? let them fashion another Word ; 

and let them name another Christ, rivalling the doctrine of 

1 p. 486. Valentinus’; for Scripture itis not. And though they fashion 

another, yet assuredly he too comes into being through some 

one; and so, while we are thus reckoning up and investigating 

the succession of them, the many-headed? heresy of the 

? p. 340, Atheists’ is discovered to issue in polytheism* and madness 


note g. sl se . . δ πὰ α 
3 p. 433, unlimited; in the which, wishing the Son to be a creature 


ἢ Ἐ and from nothing, they imply the same thing in other words 
n. 5 . . . 

p. 442, by pretending the words will and pleasure, which rightly 
sacs belong to things generate and creatures. Is it not irreligious 


then to impute the characteristics of things generate to the 
Framer of all? and is it not blasphemous to say that will was 
in the Father beforethe Word? for if will precedesin the Father, 
the Son’s words are not true, J in the Futher; or evenif He is 
in the Father, yet He willhold but a second place, and it became 
Him not to say J in the Father, since will was before Him, in 
which all things were brought into being and He Himself sub- 
sisted, as you hold. For though He excel in glory, He is not 
the less one of the things which by will come into being. And, 
as we have said before, if it be so, how is He Lord and they 
4 κύριος... servants‘? but He is Lord of all, because He is one with 
oe the Father’s Lordship ; and the creation is all in servitude, 
269, &c. © δι’ ἑτέρου τινός. Thisideahasbeen πανουργία, p. 489, τ. 1. The allusion is 
p. 313. urged against the Arians again and to the hydra, with its ever-springing 
again, as just above, p. 488, n. 4. E.g. heads, as introduced p. 484, r. 4. and 
p. 13. p.41. fin. p. 203. vid. p. 494.r.1. with a special allusion to Asterius who 
also Epiph. Her. 76. p. 951. Basil. is mentioned, p. 487. andin de Syn. 18. 


contr. Eunom. ii. 11. c. 17, a. &e. supr. p. 100. is called πολυκ. σοφιστής. 
P πολυκέφαλος αἵρεσις. Andso πολυκ. 


The Son the Father’s Wisdom, Understanding, Counsel, Truth. 493 


since it is external tothe Oneness of the Father, and, whereas pers 

it once was not, was brought to be. 
9. Moreover, if they say that the Son is by will, they should §. 65. 

-say also that He came to be by understanding ; for I consider 

understanding and will to be the same. For what a man coun- 

sels, about that also he has understanding ; and what he has in 

understanding, that also he counsels. Certainly the Saviour 

Himself has made them correspond, as being cognate, when 

He says, Counsel is Mine and security ; Mine is understanding, 

and Mine strength. Forasstrength and security are the same, 

(for they mean one attribute';) so we may say that Under- 1 δύναμις 

standing and Counsel are the same, which is the Lord. But 

these irreligious men are unwilling that the Son should be 

Word and Living Counsel; but they fable that there is with 

God‘, as if a habit", coming and going’, after the manner 

of men, understanding, counsel, wisdom ; and they leave 

nothing undone, and they put forward the “ Thought” and 

“ Will” of Valentinus, so that they may but separate the Son 

from the Father, and may call Him a creature instead of the 

proper Word of the Father. To them then must be said 


what was said to Simon Magus; “the irreligion of Valen- Acts 8, 
20. 


? 


tinus perish with you;” and let every one rather trust to Solo- 

mon, who says, that the Word is Wisdom and Understanding. 

For he says, The Lord by Wisdom hath founded the earth, by Prov. 3, 

Understanding hath He established the heavens. And as here by τ 

Understanding, so in the Psalms, By the Word of the Lord Ps. 33, 6. 

were the heavens made. And as by the Word the heavens, so Hes Be 

He hath done whatsoever pleased Him. And as the Apostle if Thess. 

writes to the Thessalonians, the will of God is in Christ Jesus’. 5 heres 
10. The Son of God then, Heisthe Word and the Wisdom ; 

He the Understanding and the Living Cownse/; andin Him 

is the Good pleasure of the Father ; He is Truth and Light and 

Power of the Father. But if the Will of God is Wisdom and 

Understanding, and the Son is Wisdom, he who says that 

the Son is “ by will,” says virtually that Wisdom has come 

into being in Wisdom, and the Son is made in the Son, and 


4 περὶ τὸν θεόν. vid. p. 38,r.1. p. 202, 8 συμβαίνουσαν καὶ ἀποσυμβαίνουσαν. 
r. 3. Also Orat. i. 27, d. where (supr. vid. p. 37, note y. σύμβαμα, Euseb. 
p. 220.) itis mistranslated. Euseb. Eccl. Eccl. Theol. iii. p. 150. in the same, 
Theol. iii. p. 150. vid. p. 131, note 6. though a technical sense. vid. also supr. 
and περιβολὴ, p. 38, note z. p- 18, note p. p. 37, note y. Serap. 
T ἕξιν vid. p. 334, note y. infr. p.515, i. 26, e. Naz. Orat. 31, 15 fin, 
note r. ; 


494 The Son wills the Father by that will 


the Word created through the Word'; which is incompatible 
Tap. With God and is opposed to His Scriptures. For the Apostle 
proclaims the Son to be the proper Radiance and Expression, 
not of the Father’s will’, but of His Substancet Itself, saying, 
Who being the Radiance of His Glory and the Expression of 
3. His Subsistence. But if, as we have said before, the Father’s 
Substance and Subsistence ἢ be not from will, neither, as is very 
plain, is what is proper to the Father’s Subsistence from will ; 
for such as, and so as, that Blessed Subsistence, must also be 
the proper Offspring from It. And accordingly the Father 
Himself said not, “This is the Son brought into being at 
My will,” nor “the Son whom I have by My favour,” but 
simply My Son, or rather, in whom I am well pleased ; 
meaning by this, This is the Son by nature; and “in Him is 
lodged My will about those things which please Me.” 

11. Since then the Son is by nature and not by will, is He 
without the pleasure * of the Father and not with the Father’s 
will? No, verily; but the Son is with the pleasure of the 
Father, and, as He says Himself, The Father loveth the Son, 
and sheweth Him all things. For as not “from will” did 
He begin to be good, nor yet is good without will and 
pleasure, (for what He is, that also is His pleasure,) so also 
that the Son should be, though it came not ‘ from will,” yet 
it is not without His pleasure or against His purpose. For as 
His own subsistencet is by His pleasure, so also the Son, being 
proper to His Substance, is not without His pleasure. Be then 
the Son the subject of the Father’s pleasure and love ; and thus 
let every one religiously account of * the pleasure and the not 
unwillingness of God. For by that good pleasure wherewith 
the Son is the subject of the Father’s pleasure, is the Father 
the subject of the Son’s love, pleasure, and honour; and one 
is the good pleasure which is from Father in-Son, so that 
here too we may contemplate the Son in the Father and the 
Father in the Son. Let no one then, with Valentinus, in- 
troduce a precedent will; nor let any one, by this pretence of 


4 λογι- 
ζέσθω τις 
p. 491, 
7. εἰς 


t οὐσία and ὑπόστασις are in these 
passages made synonymous; and so 
infr. Orat. iv.]; f. Andiniv. 3$ fin. to 


the Sonisattributed 7 πατρικὴ ὑπόστασις... 


Vid. also ad Afros. 4. quoted supr. 
p. 70. Ὑπ. might have been expected too 
in the discussion in the beginning of 
Orat. iii. did Athan. distinguish be- 
tween them. It is remarkable how 


seldom it occurs at all in these Orations, 
except as contained in Heb. 1,3. Vid. 
also Hist. Tr. O. Tr. p. 300, note m. 
Yet the phrase τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις is cer~ 
tainly found in Illud Omn. fin. and in 
Incarn. c. Arian. 10. (if genuine) and 
apparently in Expos. Fid. 2. Vid. also 
Orat. iv. 25. init. 


by which the Father wills the Son. 495 


“‘counsel,”’ intrude between the Only Father and the Only C#ar. 
: - : = XXX. 

Word; for it were madness to place will and consideration 
between them. For it is one thing to say, “ Of will He came 
to be,’ and another, that the Father has love and good 
pleasure towards His Son who is proper to Him by nature. 
For to say, “ Of will He came to be,” in the first place implies 
that once He was not; and next it implies an inclination’ two ! ῥοπὴν, 
ways, as has been said, so that one might suppose that the Father Β΄ Lapse 
could even not will the Son. But to say of the Son, “ He might 
not have been,” is an irreligious presumption reaching even 
to the Substance of the Father, as if what is proper to Him 
might not have been. For it is the same as saying, ‘‘ The 
Father might not have been good.” And as the Father is 
always good by nature, so He is always generative* by ? γεννη- 
nature; and to say, “ The Father’s good pleasure is the Son,” ae 
and “The Word’s good pleasure is the Father,” implies, not Ma ; 
a precedent will, but genuineness of nature, and propriety note b. 
and likeness of Substance. For as in the case of the radiance ake 
and light one might say, that there is no will preceding 
radiance in the ἜΝ but it is its natural offspring, at the 
pleasure of the light which begat it, not by will and consider- 
ation, but in nature and truth, so also in the instance of the 
Father and the Son, one would be orthodox to say, that the 
Father has love and good pleasure towards the Son, and the 
Son has love and good pleasure towards the Father. 

12. Therefore call not the Son a work of good pleasure; §. 67. 
nor bring in the doctrine of Valentinus into the Church ; but 
be He the Living Counsel, and Offspring in truth and nature, 
as the Radiance from the Light. For thus has the Father 
spoken, My heart has burst with a good Word; and the Son pg. 45, 
conformably, ZI in the Father and the Father in Me. But τὸς a 
if the Word be in the heart, where is will ? and if the Son in 10. 
the Father, where is good pleasure ? and if He be Will Him- 
self, how is counsel in Will? itis extravagant; else the Word 
come into being in a word, and the Son in a Son, and 
Wisdom in a w sealer as has been repeatedly * said. For the ὃ P- 494, 
Son is the Father’s All‘; and nothing was in the Father‘ πάντα 
before the Word; but in the Word is Will also, and τοῦ πα- 
through Him the subjects of will are carried into effect, τὸ 
as holy Scriptures have shewn. And I could wish that fae ἀλογίαν 
irreligious men, having fallen into such want of reason ἢ as to re 8. 


Disc. 
III 


1p. 218. 


2 λῆμμα 
p- 283. 
note c. 


3p. 494, 
Σ- Ὁ: 


1 Ρ- Ὁ, 
note o. 
Orat. i. 
747/65 ἃ. 

ἯΣ 4. Ds 
Apol. α. 
Ἄγ: 50. 
5.» 401]; 
Tos 


496 Human illustrations may beused for, when usedagainsttheTruth. 


be considering about will, would now ask their childbear- 
ing women no more, whom they used to ask, ‘“ Hadst 
thou a Son before conceiving Him’?” but the father, “‘ Do 
ye become fathers by counsel, or by the natural law of 
your will?” or “Are your children like your nature and 
substance" ?” that, even from fathers they may learn shame, 
from whom they assumed this proposition’? about generation, 
and from whom they hoped to gain knowledge in point. 
For they will reply to them, ‘ What we beget, is like, 
not our good pleasure*, but like ourselves; nor become 
we parents by previous counsel, but to beget is proper to 
our nature ; since we too are images of our fathers.” Hither 
then let them condemn themselves*, and cease asking women 
about the Son of God, or let them learn from them, that the 
Son is begotten not by will, but in nature and truth. Becoming 
and suitable to them is a refutation from human instances’, 
since the perverse-minded men dispute in a human way 
concerning the Godhead. 

13. Why then are Christ’s enemies still mad ? for this, as 
well as their other pretences, is shewn and proved to be mere 
fantasy and fable ; and on this account, they ought, however 
late, contemplating the precipice of folly down which they 
have fallen, to rise again from the depth and to flee the snare 
of the devil, as we admonish them. For Truth is loving 
unto men, and cries continually, “If because of My clothing 
of the body * ye believe Me not, yet believe the works, that ye 
may know that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, 
and I and the Father are one, and He that hath seen Me 
hath seen the Father’. But the Lord according to His 
wont is loving to man, and would fain help them that are 
Jallen, as the lauds of David speak; but the irreligious men, 
not desirous to hear the Lord’s voice, nor bearing to see 
Him acknowledged by all as God and God’s Son, go about, 
miserable men, as beetles, seeking with their father the devil’ 
pretexts for irreligion. What pretexts then, and whence will 
they be able next to find? unless they borrow blasphemies of 
Jews and Caiaphas, and take atheism * from Gentiles ἢ for the 
divine Scriptures are closed to them, and from every part of 
them they are refuted as insensate and Christ’s enemies. 


ἃ τῆς οὐσίας ὅμοια. Vid. p.210, notee. p. 4,r. 4. 
Also ii. 42, Ὁ. p. 416, r. 2. p. 421, r. 2. 


el ae NC aa 


ον ;- 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 


ON 


DISCOURSE IY. 


§. 1. On the Structure of the Book. 


THERE is a general agreement among Critics that the ‘“ Four 
Orations” or “ Discourses against the Arians,” as they are styled in 
the Benedictine Edition, and also in this Translation, are parts of 
one work. Nay, such might seem to have been the opinion of 
Photius when he speaks of Athanasius’s “ five books against Arius 
and his doctrines!” Montfaucon even goes so far as to consider 
external evidence unnecessary, and appeals to the structure of the 
Orations, as even determining their number. ‘“ Nihil opus est 
longiore disputatione,” he says, “cum clarum sit ex hisce ipsis 
Quatuor Orationibus, nihil eas commune cum ullo alio opere habere, 
sed ita inter se coherere, ut unum ipse opus simul conficiant. 
quarum prima sit principium, quarta autem omnium sit finis ; quam 
sane ob causam sola hee ultima solitéa terminatur conclusione.” 
t. i. pp. 408,4. However he so far modifies or explains this state- 
ment, in his Pref. p. xxxv, and Vit. Ath. p. xxii, as to allow that 
they were not written on any exactly determined previous plan, 
but that the later Orations are in one sense amplifications or 
defences of what had gone before, in consequence of the continu- 
ance of the controversy. This view of their structure is princi- 
pally derived from the commencement of the Second and Third, 
in which §. Athanasius, according to his custom on other oc- 
casions, speaks of himself as resuming a discussion which he 
considered already sufficiently extended. 

Tillemont speaks as decidedly of the unity and integrity of the 
Four Orations. ‘‘ Les quatre oraisons,” he says, ‘‘sont toutes liées 
ensemble, et en un méme corps, comme il paroit principalement, 
parce-quwil n’y a que la dernicre qui finisse par la glorification or- 
dinaire.” Mem. Eccl. t. 8. p. 701. And again, “Il est certain 
que ces quatre discours...semblent...ne faire qu'une seule piece, 
qu’on aura partagée tantot en quatre, tantot en cing.” p. 191. 

Ceillier follows Tillemont almost word for word. Aut. Eccl. t. v. 
pp- 217, 218, observing with Montfaucon that the later Discourses 
are successively defences of the earlier. 

Petavius had already incidentally expressed the same opinion 
in his work de Incarnatione ; and that the more strongly, though 
indirectly, because, like Tillemont, he is at the very time engaged 
in shewing that the Epist. ad Ep. A%g. et Lib. does not form 
part of the general Treatise, as the editions of his day considered 
it, inasmuch as it is but partly engaged with the subject of Arian 
doctrine ; vid. Ep. Ag. (O. T.) p. 125. “Non est ejusdem cum 
sequentibus argumenti, nam in istis adversus Arianam heresim 
disputat, &c.... prima autem (1. 6. ad Ep. Aég. et Lib.) nihil horum 
facit.” de Incarn. v. 15. §. 9. 


1} πεντά- 
βιβλος, 
cod. 140. 


INTROD. 
TO 
Disc. 
IV. 


1 Eran. ii. 
p- 136. 
and supr. 
p- 381. 

2 ad Men- 
nam. and 
supr. 

p- 308. 

3 Ep. i. 
p. 4. and 
supr. 

Ρ. 440. 
4Tr Cap. 
lil. 3. 
and supr. 
p- 451. 

5 Secr. 5. 
and supr. 
p- 443. 

6 Ep. ad 
Impp. 
and supr. 
Ρ. 449. 

7 Act iv. 
and supr. 
p- 405. 

8 supr. 


Peres 


498 Introduction to Discourse IV. 


Yet in spite of authorities so great and so concordant, I think 
it may be made plain with very little tr ouble, that the Fourth of 
these Orations, which is now to follow, is not written against the 
Arians, nor is an Oration, nor is even a continuous discussion, but 
is a collection of fragments or memoranda of unequal lengths, and 
on several subjects, principally on the Photinian heresy, partly on 
the Sabellian and Samosatene, and partly indeed, but least of all, 
on the Arian. Some remarks shall now be made in behalf of this 
representation. 

1. And here it may be premised, that no passage in the so- 
called Fourth Oration is quoted, I believe, by any early writer or 
authority, as a part of S. Athanasius’s work ‘against the Arians,” 
or “on the Trinity ;” whereas the Second and Third are quoted 
by Theodoret’, Justinian’, S. Cyril’, Facundus*, the Lateran 
Council under Pope Martin 1.5 Pope Agatho®’, and others, and 
designated too by the numbers they respectively bear in the Bene- 
dictine Edition. And though Photius, as has already been ob- 
served, speaks of the whole work as consisting of five parts, while 
the Seventh General Council’ and the Greek version of Pope 
Agatho’s Epistle in the Sixth ὃ, certainly speak of the Benedictine 
Third as the Fourth, this furnishes no proof that the Book which 
is here to follow under the name of the Fourth formed the con- 
cluding portion or Fifth of Photius’s Pentabiblus. For in one 
MS. this Fourth is called the Sixth; and this obliges us to look 
out for another Fifth, which Montfaucon considers he has dis- 
eovered in the De Incarn. contra Arian., which in some MSS. is 
actually so named. It may be added that the Epist. ad Ep. Ag. 
et Lib. which was once commonly regarded as the First, is in some 
MSS. called the Fourth, while in one of Montfaucon’s MSS. the 
so-called Fourth is altogether omitted. Ina MS. in the Bodleian 
Library (Roe 29, dated 1410.) the Incarn. c. Arian. comes after 
the first Three in the place of the present Fourth. In others the 
present Fourth is called the Fifth; and in others the Epist. ad 
Ep. /Eg. et Lib. is numbered as the “ Third against the Arians,” 
the de Sent. Dion., divided into two parts, being apparently 
reckoned as the First and Second. With variations then so con- 
siderable, no evidence can be drawn from these titles on any side. 

2. Next, the very opening of the Book shews that it is no 
Oration or Discourse of a character like the Three which precede 
it. ‘The Second and Third begin with a formal introduction, in 
which allusion is made to the general argument of which they pro- 
fess to be the continuation; but there is no pretence of composi- 
tion or method in the commencement of the Fourth. It enters 
abruptly into its subject, whatever that be, for it does not propose 
it, with a categorical statement supported by a text ; “ The Word is 
God from God, for ‘the Word was God,’”—a mode of treating so 
sacred a subject most unlike the ceremoniousness, as it may be 
called, which is observable in the Author’s finished works. 

Abrupt transitions of a similar character are also found in the 
course of it, and are introductory of fresh subjects; for instance, 
in §§. 6, 9, and 25, as the commencement of Subjects ii. v. and 


Introduction to Discourse IV. 499 


vili. in the Translation will shew. And so little idea of any con- Ixrrop. 
tinuity of subject was entertained by transcribers, that in five Da 
MSS. a place is apparently assigned between §§. 12 and 13.to Ἵν 
the Tract de Sabbatis et Circumcisione, doubtfully ascribed to 
S. Athanasius, and contained in the Benedictine, tom. ii. p. 54. 
Strikingly in contrast is his ordinary style, running one subject 
into another, and intimately combining even distinct arguments, so 
that it is often an extreme difficulty to divide the composition into 
paragraphs. 

It may be added that the Three Orations refer backwards and 
forwards to each other, and, in spite of whatever is supplemental 
in the Second and Third, are constructed on a definite plan*, which ? vie. pp. 
comes to an end with, or shortly before, the conclusion of the Third. τυ ὩΣ: 
The main portion of the Three Orations, extending from chapter p. 306, 
xi. to chapter xxix. inclusive, is engaged in the interpretation of note b. 
passages of Scripture, chiefly such as were urged by the Arians pp. 398; 
against the Catholic doctrine. The remainder is employed upon oe 7. 
the notorious Arian formule condemned at Nica, or the equally ἘΣ Ἢ 
notorious interrogations which, as 5. Athanasius so often says, p. 482, 
they circulated every where, never tired with the repetition. The note f. 
Fourth Oration has hardly any thing in common with them here. P- 484, 

There is some difference too in phraseology between the first i 
Three and the Fourth of these Orations. The word ὁμοούσιον 
occurs in the Fourth three times, §§. 10 and 12, as it is found in 
Athanasius’s other works ; but it cannot be said to have occurred 
any where throughout the former Three; for the solitary passage 
in which it is found, i. 9. is rather a sort of doctrinal confession 
than a part of the discussion ; and it is actually omitted in places 
where it might naturally have been expected ; vid. p. 210, note d. 
p- 262, note f. p. 264, note g. Moreover in the Second Oration, 
supr. p. 391, τ. 3. p. 898, τ. 2. as in earlier works of the Author, 
the term αὐτοσοφία is admitted, vid. Gent. 40, 46. Incarn. V. D. 
20. Serap. iv. 20. whereas in the Fourth, (p. 514, note p.) if 
Petavius (Trin. vi. 11.) be right, it is abandoned as Sabellian. 
And so again there is a difference, which it is not too minute to 
mention, between the Fourth and the Orations which precede it, 
in one of his most familiar illustrations of the Holy Trinity ; the 
Three using the image of φῶς and its ἀπαύγασμα, but the last that 
of πῦρ and its ἀπαύγασμα, and πῦρ and φώς. p. 515, note t. The 
corrupt state of the text is a further characteristic of this Oration 
compared with the foregoing. 

3. Nay, we might even fancy that at least some passages of the 
Book were fragments of one or more treatises, or first draughts of 
trains of thought, or instructions for controversy, which have 
accidentally been thrown together into one. The interpolation 
formerly of an entirely heterogeneous tract, perhaps not Athana- 
sius’s, in some of its MSS. has already been mentioned ; and it is 
remarkable that this very Tract, in all the existing MSS. noticed 
by the Benedictines but one, is thrown together with the In illud 
Omnia and a passage from the de Deeretis, thus affording an 
instance in point. A somewhat similar instance is afforded by the 


INTROD. 
TO 
Disc. 
IV. 


500 Introduction to Discourse IV. 


Sermo Major de Fide published in Montfaucon’s Nova Collectio, 
which seems to be hardly more than a set of small fragments from 
Athanasius’s other works. Further, in the case of the work before 
us, some MSS. supply distinct titles to separate portions, as in δ. 
9. and 11. which they respectively head Τοὺς σαβελλίζοντας καὶ τοὺς 
ἄλλους “EAAnvas ἔρεσθαι οὕτως, and Ipods τοὺς λέγοντας ὅτι ἣν ὃ 
λόγος ἐν τῷ θεῷ σιωπώμενος ὕστερον δὲ προβέβληται δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ἵνα ἡμεῖς 
κτισθῶμεν. Moreover, “they” and “he” are at times found with- 
out antecedents, (vid. references infr. p. 502.) The abruptness too, 
already noticed for another reason, is of course also a proof of 
dissimilarity in the contents. And the §. 25. breaks into the middle 
of a continuous discussion which runs from §. 15. to δ. 36. And 
§. 11. begins with an allusion to a subject which might have been 
expected, but is not found, in the passage which now stands 
immediately before it. Also §§. 6. and 7. the only passage which 
directly relates to the Arian controversy, is interposed suddenly 
between lines of argument quite foreign to it; moreover its style 
is of the flowing oratorical character which obtains throughout the 
Three Discourses, and which is not found in the sections which 
precede and follow it. The same oratorical character attaches in 
a manner to §§. 14, 17, 27, 28, and 34. 

Further, Montfaucon tells us in the Monitum prefixed to the 
Kpist. Encyel. that the phrase of περὶ Εὐσέβιον is never used by 
S. Athanasius after Eusebius’s death; “ Neque enim,” he says, 
*““sequaces Eusebii jam defuncti usquam apud Athanasium oi περὶ 
Εὐσέβιον vocantur, sed. κοινωνοὶ τῶν περὶ Εὐσέβιον vel κληρονόμοι 
τῆς ἀσεβείας τοῦ EtoeBiov.” t. i. p. 110. Now the phrase occurs 
in §. 8. of this Oration, but Eusebius died A.D. 341, whereas the 
First Oration was written about A.D. 358. If Montfaucon then 
be correct in his remark, either the Oration called the Fourth was 
written many years prior to those which it is considered to follow, 
or it is made up of portions belonging to separate dates. 

Also §§. 1—5, 9, 10, are engaged upon a line of thought alto- 
gether different from any other part of the Book. The main sub- 
ject of these sections is the μοναρχία ; and it is observable more- 
over that the word ἀρχὴ, there used for ‘ origin,” as in the former 
Orations, is in other places used simply and only in the sense of 
“beginning,” vid. §§. 8, 25, 26, 27. And here we may add, as a 
peculiarity of the passage contained in §§. 30—36, its use of the 
word θεῖος as an epithet of our Lord, viz. 31, d. twice, f. a 34 init. 
36 init. Also of the verb νοεῖν. 3 

-And what is one of the special peculiarities of the Book, so as 
quite to give a character to the style, and to prove it, or at least 
great part of it, to be a collection of notes or suggestions for con- 
troversy, is the repeated occurrence of such phrases as πευστέον, 
2, 6. ἐρωτητέον, 3, f. 4, a. λεκτέον, 4 init. 6, ἃ. 10, a. ἐλεγχτέον, ὃ, a. 
4, 6. ἔρεσθαι δίκαιον, καλὸν. &e. 11, ἃ. 14, a. 28, b. (vid. also the 
Benedictine note ¢. on §. 9. which has been already used in another 
connection.) Of the same character is the frequent clause “ In 
that case the same extravagant consequences, arora, follow,” and 
the like; e. g. 2, 6. 4, 6. 4 fin. 15 init. 25, b. 26 init. with which 


Introduction to Discourse IV. 501 


may be contrasted 6. g. the more finished turn of sentence Orat. ii. 
24, Ὁ. καλὸν αὐτοὺς ἔρεσθαι καὶ τοῦτο, ἵν᾽ ἔτι μᾶλλον ὁ ἔλεγχος κιτιλ. To 
these may be added, τὸ δ᾽ αὐτὸ δὲ καὶ περὶ δυνάμεως, §. 8. ; which, 
as well as the foregoing, remind the reader of Aristotle rather 
than S. Athanasius; and the abrupt setting down of texts for 
discussion in the beginnings of §§. 1, 5, 9, and 31. which are in 
the same style. 

In the same Aristotelie style is his enunciation of theological 
principles ; 6. g. εἰ ἄγονος Kal ἀνενέργητος ὃ θεός. 4 fin. τὸ ἔκ τινος 
ὑπάρχον, υἱός ἐστιν ἐκείνου. 15, c. οὐδὲν ἕν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, εἰ μὴ τὸ 
ἐξ αὐτοῦ. 17, ἃ. ὧν οὔκ ἐστιν εἰς τὰς καρδίας ὁ υἱὸς, τούτων οὐδὲ πατὴρ 
ὃ θεός. 22, b. εἰ μὴ υἱὸς, οὐδὲ λόγος. εἰ μὴ λόγος, οὐδὲ vids. 24 fin. 

4. Further, §. Athanasius frequently implies that he is opposing 
certain definite teachers of heresy, as well as heretical doctrine 
itself; yet very seldom does he use names, contrary to his practice 
when in controversy with the Arians, who are freely specified as 
oi ᾿Αρειανοὶ, ot ᾿Αρειομανῖται, of περὶ Εὐσέβιον, not to mention the 
severe and condemnatory epithets by which he has noted them. 
Here however, though we read of of ἀπὸ τοῦ Ξαμοσάτεως, and 
vaguely of κατὰ Ξαβέλλιον, we meet more frequently with anony- 
mous opponents in the singular or plural, as signified by φατὲ, §. 9 
init. πίπτουσι, ὃ. 11 init. ὑπέλαβε, ὃ. 13 init. αὐτὸν τοιαῦτα λέγοντα, 
§. 14, ἃ. οἱ τοῦτο λέγοντες, §. 15 init. κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς, §. 21 init. κατ᾽ 
ἐκείνους, §. 22, c. Wid also §§. 8, ὁ. 18, 6. 20 init. 28, ὁ. 24, a. 
25, b. 28 init. The omission of words of denunciation marks 
either the absence of an oratorical character in the Book, or sug- 
gests, what will presently come to be considered, the presence of 
other parties, perhaps known and tried friends, in the heretical 
company. 

Next, it should be observed, that, though the heresy combated 
through the greater part of the Book is of a Sabellian character, 
yet it is not Sabellianism proper, for he compares it to Sabellian- 
ism ; 6. g. SaPeAXiov τὸ ἐπιτήδευμα, ὃ. 9. and ὅσα ἄλλα ἐπὶ Σαβελλίου 
ἄτοπα ἀπαντᾷ, ὃ. 25. It is observable too, that in contrasting the 
opposite heresies in a sentence at the end of §. 3, while, as usual, 
he speaks of the ᾿Αρειανοὶ, he does not on the other hand speak of 
the Σαβελλιανοὶ, but of the Σαβελλίζοντες ; these, and not actual 
Sabellians, being the persons in controversy with him. 

Also, he is opposing a heresy of the day ; his mode of speaking 
of it shews this, and the other heresies which he combats in his 
writings are such. Even when he speaks of the heresy of Paul of 
Samosata, (δ. 30.) it is not as it existed a hundred years before, 
but in the shape it took in ὃ. Athanasius’s own time. Indeed it 
is not conceivable, that in the midst of so fierce a struggle with 
living errors, dominant or emergent, as was the portion of this great 
Saint, he should address himself to the controversies of a past age. 

All this leads to the suspicion, that the heresy which forms the 
principle subject of the Book, is that imputed to his friend Mar- 
cellus, and persons connected with him; for it is well known that 
in the exactly parallel case of Apollinaris, while he writes Tract 
after Tract against the heresy in the severest terms, he observes 


INTROD. 
TO 
Disc. 
IV. 


INTROD. 
TO 
Disc. 
ite 


1 Arist. 
Eth. i. 6. 


init. 


1 Montf. 
says from 
Eus.’s 
Work, 
AD. 
336—8. 
Nov. 
Coll. 

p- lu. 


502 Introduction to Discourse IV. 


throughout a deep silence about its promulgator. Eusebius too 
argues with a like reserve against his Arian associates, Eccl. 
Theol. i. 9, 10; as Vincent of Lerins is supposed to do in reference 
to S. Augustine. But it is needless to refer to parallel instances 
of a procedure so natural, that we find it in the schools of philo- 
sophy ' as well as in those of the Church. 

An actual comparison of what is known of the teaching of the 
school of Marcellus and of the tenets opposed in this Oration, which 
I shall presently attempt, abundantly confirms this suspicion, and, 
as I think, makes it clear that the Oration is engaged with that 
teaching, and with the kindred doctrines of Sabellius and Paul of 
Samosata, and that as truly though not as systematically as the 
former Orations are engaged on Arianism. In saying this, I put 
aside the two sections 6 and 7, which certainly do treat of a 
definite Arian question, quite foreign to the general subject of the 
Book, whatever be the history of their introduction. 

It is satisfactory to be able to add that, since these remarks were 
drawn up, I have found them incidentally confirmed by the writer 
of a small work in duodecimo, entitled, “ In Eusebii contra Mar- 
cellum Libros Selecte Observationes, Auctore R. 5. C. Lipsia, 
1787.” Having mentioned Athanasius’s “ fifth book,” as he ealls 
it, “against the Arians,” he continues, ‘77 enim, ut in libro de 
“Ἐπ. Subst. Fil. et Sp. S. sententiam Marcelli, suppresso tamen 
nomine, refellit. Quod an aliis jam sit observatum, ignoro.” p. 28. 


§. 2. On the main subject of the Book. 


Before shewing the bearing of this Oration upon the heresy of 
Marcellus and his pupil Photinus, it will be useful briefly to state 
the historical connexion between S. Athanasius and the former. 

In the early years of S. Athanasius’s episcopate, Marcellus wrote 
his Answer to the Arian Asterius, which was the occasion, and 
forms the subject of Eusebius’s “ contra Marcellum” and “ Eecle- 
siastica Theologia,” and which shall presently be used, as Eusebius 
cites it, as the only existing document of his opinions. He was 
in consequence condemned in several Arian Councils, and retired 
to Rome, as did 5. Athanasius, about the year 341, when both of 
them were formally acquitted of heterodoxy by the Pope in 
Council. Both were present, and both were again acquitted at 
the Council of Sardica in 347. From this very date’, however, 
the charges against him, which had hitherto been confined to the 
Arians, begin to find a voice among the Catholies. §S. Cyril in 
his Catechetical Lectures, A.D. 347, speaks of the heresy which 
had lately arisen in Galatia, which denied Christ’s eternal reign, 
a description which both from country and tenet is evidently 
levelled at Marcellus. He is foliowed by 5. Paulinus at the 
Council of Arles, and by 5. Hilary, in the years which follow ; 
but S. Athanasius seems to have acknowledged him down to about 
A.D. 360. At length the latter began to own that Marcellus “was 
not far from heresy,” vid. Athan. Hist. O. Tr. p. 52, note 1. and 
S. Hilary and S. Sulpicius say that he separated from his com- 
munion. §. Hilary adds (Fragm. ii. 21.) that Athanasius was 


Introduction to Discourse IV. 503 


decided in this course, not by Marcellus’s work against Asterius, 
but by publications posterior to the Council of Sardica. Photinus, 
the disciple of Marcellus, who had published the very heresy im- 
puted to the latter before A.D. 345, had now been deposed, with 
the unanimous consent of all parties, for some years. Thus for 
ten years Marcellus was disowned by the Saint with whom he 
had shared so many trials; but in the very end of 5. Athanasius’s 
life a transaction took place between himself, S. Basil, and the 
Galatian school, which issued in his being induced again to think 
more favourably of Marcellus, or at least to think it right in charity 
to consider him in communion with the Church. S. Basil had 
taken a strong part against him, and wrote to §. Athanasius on 
the subject, Ep. 69, 2. thinking that Athanasius’s apparent coun- 
tenance of him did harm to the Catholic cause. Upon this the 
accused party sent a deputation to Alexandria, with a view of 
setting themselves right with Athanasius. Eugenius, deacon of 
their Church, was their representative, and he in behalf of his 
brethren subscribed a statement in vindication of his and their 
orthodoxy, which was countersigned by the clergy of Alexandria 
and apparently by S. Athanasius, though his name does not appear 
among the extant signatures. This important document, which 
was brought to light and published by Montfaucon, speaks in the 
name of “the Clergy and the others assembled in Ancyra of 
Galatia, with our father Marcellus.” He, as well as Athanasius 
himself, died immediately after this transaction, Marcellus in ex- 
treme age, being at least twenty years older than Athanasius, who 
himself lived till past the age of seventy. One might trust that 
the life of the former was thus prolonged, till he really recanted 
the opinions which go under his name; yet viewing him histo- 
rically, and not in biography, it still seems right, and is in accord- 
ance with the usage of the Church in other cases, to consider him 
rather in his works and in his school and its developments, than in 
his own person and in his penitence. Whether S. Athanasius 
wrote the controversial passages which follow against him or 
against his school, in either case it was prior to the date of the 
explanatory document signed by Eugenius ; nor is its interpreta- 
tion affected by that explanation. As to S. Hilary’s statement 
above referred to, that 5. Athanasius did not condemn the par- 
ticular work of Marcellus against Asterius, of which alone portions 
remain to us, and which is now to be quoted, his evidence in other 
parts of the history is not sufficiently exact to overcome the plainly 
heretical import of the statement made in that work. Those state- 
ments were as follows :— 

Marcellus held, according to Eusebius, that (1) there was but 
one person, πρόσωπον, in the Divine Nature ; but he differed from 
Sabellius in maintaining, (2) not that the Father was the Son and 
the Son the Father, (which is called the doctrine of the υἱοπάτωρ,) 
but that (3) Father and Son were mere names or titles, and (4) 
not expressive of essential characteristics,—names or titles given 
to Almighty God and (5) His Eternal Word, on occasion of the 
Word’s appearing in the flesh, in the person, or subsistence 


INTROD. 
TO 
Disc. 
IV. 


INTROD. 
TO 
Disc. 
IV. 


504 Introduction to Discourse IV. 


(ὑπόστασις) of Jesus Christ, the Son of Mary. The Word, he 
considered, was from all eternity in the One God, being analogous 
to man’s reason within him, or the ἐνδιάθετος λόγος of the philoso- 
phical schools. (6) This One God or μονὰς has condescended to 
extend or expand Himself, πλατύνεσθαι, to effect our salvation. 
(7 and 8) The expansion consists in the action, ἐνέργεια, of the 
λόγος, which then becomes the λόγος προφορικὸς or voice of God, 
instead of the inward reason. (9) The incarnation is a special 
divine expansion, viz. an expansion in the flesh of Jesus, Son of 
Mary ; (10) in order to which the Word went forth, as at the end 
of the dispensation He will return. Consequently the Adyos is not 
(11) the Son, nor (12) the Image of God, nor the Christ, nor the 
First-begotten, nor King, but Jesus is all these; and if these titles 
are applied to the Word in Scripture, they are applied prophetically, 
in anticipation of His manifestation in the flesh. (13) And when 
He has accomplished the object of His coming, they will cease to 
apply to Him; for He will leave the flesh, return to God, and be 
merely the Word as before; and His Kingdom, as being the King- 
dom of the flesh or manhood, will come to an end. 

This account of the tenets of Marcellus comes, it is true, from an 
enemy, who was writing against him, and moreover from an Arian 
or Arianizer, who was least qualified to judge of the character of 
tenets which were so opposite to his own. Yet there is no reason 
to doubt its correctness on this account. Eusebius supports his 
charges by various extracts from Marcellus’s works, and he is cor- 
roborated by the testimony of others. Moreover, if Athanasius’s 
account of the tenets against which he himself here writes, answers 
to what Eusebius tells us of those of Marcellus, the coincidence 
confirms Eusebius as well as explains Athanasius. And further, 
the heresy of Photinus, the disciple of Marcellus, which consisted 
in the very doctrines which Eusebius deduces from the work of 
Marcellus, gives an additional weight to such deductions. 


I shall now set down in order the distinct propositions contained 
in the foregoing statement, attempt to bring them home to Mar- 
cellus or his school, and set against them the extracts from the 
(so-called) Fourth Oration, which are parallel to them. 

Marcellus then held :— 

1. That there is but one Person in the Divine Nature. I set 
this down to introduce the subject, though I find nothing parallel 
to it in the Fourth Oration, and do not wish to lay much stress on 
the use of a word,—however startling a use, especially as inter- 
preted by what is to follow,—especially as in one passage, Mar- 
cellus qualifies it by the epithet which he connects with it. After 
quoting the phrase κύριος 6 θεὸς in Exod. iii. 15. by way of evading 
the ‘“‘one God, one Lord,” in Eph. iv. 5, 6. he says, ὁρᾷς ὅπως ἕν 
ἐπιδεικνὺς ἡμῖν ἐνταῦθα πρόσωπον, TO αὐτὸ κύριον Kal θεὸν προσαγορεύει; 
Euseb. p. 192, a. Again, τὸ γὰρ ἐγὼ, ἑνὸς προσώπου δεικτικόν ἐστιν; 
Ρ. 1338, ἃ. he goes on to make πρόσωπον synonymous with 4 τῆς 
θεότητος μονάς. vid. also again, évos πρόσωπον, ibid. b. Again, ἀνάγκη 
yap εἰ δύο διαιρούμενα, ὡς ᾿Αστέριος ἔφη, πρόσωπα εἴη, ἢ τὸ πνεῦμα 


κτλ. p. 168, ¢. 


Introduction to Discourse IV. 505 


2. That, whereas Sabellius adopts the doctrine of the viordrwp INTROD. 


that the Father is the Son, and the Son the Father,— 

Σαβέλλιος εἰς αὐτὸν πλημμελῶν τὸν πατέρα, ὃν υἱὸν λέγειν ἐτόλμα, 
Euseb. p. 76, ἃ. And so Eugenius, in his Explanation addressed 
to Athanasius, anathematizes Sabellius and those who say with him, 
αὐτὸν τὸν πατέρα εἶναι υἱὸν, καὶ ὅτε μὲν γίνεται υἱὸς, μὴ εἶναι τότε αὐτὸν 
πατέρα, ὅτε δὲ γίνεται πατὴρ, μὴ εἶναι τότε υἱόν. Nov. Coll. t. 2. p. 2. 
And 5. Basil: ὃ ᾿Σαβέλλιος εἰπὼν, τὸν αὐτὸν θεὸν, ἕνα τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ 
ὄντα, πρὸς τὰς ἑκάστοτε παραπιπτούσας χρείας μεταμορφούμενον, νῦν 
μὲν ὡς πατέρα, νῦν δὲ ὡς υἱὸν, νῦν δὲ ὡς πνεῦμα ἅγιον διαλέγεσθαι. 
Ep. 210, 5 fin. 

3. On the contrary, Father and Son are but titles applied in 
time to the relation existing between the Almighty and His 
Eternal λόγος, when, instead of abiding within Him (or being 

ἐνδιάθετος) it became προφορικὸς in the person or subsistence of 
Jesus Christ. 

Μάρκελλος καινωτέραν ἐξεῦρε τῇ πλάνῃ μηχανὴν, θεὸν καὶ τὸν ἐν αὐτῷ 
λόγον ἕ <va. μὲν εἶναι ὁριζόμενος, δύο δ᾽ αὐτῷ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ χαριζόμενος 
ἐπηγορίας. Euseb. p. 76, a. vid. also p. 63, 6. Accordingly, to mark 
his sense of the mere figurative meaning of the term Father, he 
called God “ Father of the Word,” ἐν τῷ [τὸν Χριστὸν) φάσκειν 
[τὸν θεὸν, μηδὲ τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ λόγου κύριον εἶναι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τούτου τὸν 
πατέρα, ἀφαιρεῖσθαι τὸν πατέρα τὰ ἴδια τοῦ παιδὸς δείκνυσιν. ibid. p. 38. 

This agrees with the heretic introduced into the contr. Sabell. 
Gregal. §. 5. whom R. 8. C. p. 28. considers to be Marcellus ; 
Kayo, φησὶν, ὁμολογῶ γέννησιν" γεννᾶται yap ὃ λόγος, ὅτε καὶ λαλεῖται 
και γινώσκεται. 

Elsewhere Eusebius says that he held αὐτὸν [θεὸν] εἶναι τοῦ ἐν 
αὐτῷ λόγου πατέρα. ibid. p. 167, ο. though this is mere catholic 
language i in contrast to that Arianism of which Eusebius is guilty ; 
and need not have been remarked upon, but for the following 
passage about Photinus in a sermon of Nestorius, which may be 
taken to illustrate it. ‘ Sabellius viordropa dicit ipsum Filium, 
quem Patrem, et ipsum Patrem, quem Filium; Photinus vero 
λογοπάτορα [Vv erbum-patrem. |” Mereat. t. 2. p. 87. 

4. That the Word is in truth the Word, ἀληθῶς λόγος, and only 
improperly a Son. λόγον γὰρ εἶναι δοὺς τὸν ἐν τῷ θεῷ, ἕν τε καὶ ταὐτὸν 
ὄντα αὐτῷ τοῦτον δρισάμενος. πατέρα τούτου χρηματίζειν αὐτὸν ἔφη: τόν 
τε λόγον᾽ υἱὸν εἶναι αὐτῷ, οὐκ ἀληθῶς ὄ ὄντα υἱὸν ἐν οὐσίας ὑποστάσει, 
κυρίως δὲ καὶ ἀληθῶς ὄντα ,λόγον. ἐπισημαίνεται γοῦν ὅτι μὴ κατα- 
χρηστικῶς λόγον, ἀλλὰ κυρίως καὶ ἀληθῶς ὄ ὄντα, . λόγον, καὶ μηδὲν ἕ ἕτερον 
ἢ λόγον. εἰ δὲ μηδὲν ἕ ἕτερον, δῆλον ὅτι οὐδὲ υἱὸς HV κυρίως καὶ ἀληθῶς, 
μέχρι δὲ φωνῆς καὶ ὀνόματος καταχρηστικῶς ὠνομασμένος. 860. 
p- 61, a, b. 

5. That the Word is from eternity in God, or ἐνδιάθετος, a8 an 
attribute. 

He says, πλὴν θεοῦ, οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἦν’ εἶχεν οὖν τὴν οἰκείαν δόξαν ὃ 
λόγος ὧν ἐν τῷ πατρί. Euseb. p. 39, ec. Where, it should be observed, 
that the phrase ἐν τῷ θεῷ was, as Montfaucon tells us, (Coll. Nov. 
t. 2. p. lvii.) considered suspicious by many Fathers, as being a 
substitution for the Scriptural πρὸς τὸν θεὸν, which S. John (i, 1.) 


2:1 


TO 


Disc. 


IV. 


506 Introduction to Discourse IV. 


INTROD. uses, οὐκ εἰπὼν, says Eusebius, p. 121, b. ἐν τῷ θεῷ, ἵνα μὴ κατα- 


TO 


Disc. 


UAE 


βάλῃ ἐ ἐπὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ὃ ὁμοιότητα, ὡς ἐν ὑποκειμένῳ συμβεβηκός. 
And so S. Basil, οὐκ εἶπεν, ἐν τῷ θεῷ ἦν ὁ λόγος, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸν 


------  beov, k.7.. Homil. xvi. 4. p. 137. ‘ed. Ben. 


6. That there has been an expansion or dilatation of the Eternal 
Unity into a Trinity, and again there will be a collapse into Unity. 

Marcellus says, εἰ τοίνυν 6 λόγος φαίνοιτο ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πατρὸς 
ἐξελθὼν, ... τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, . .. 
οὐ σαφῶς καὶ φανερῶς ἐνταῦθα ἀποῤῥήτῳ λόγῳ ἡἣ μονὰς φαίνεται πλατυ- 
νομένη μὲν εἰς τριάδα, διαιρεῖσθαι δὲ μηδαμῶς ὑπομένουσα ; Euseb. p. 
168, a, b. Vid. also pp. 108, b, ec. 114, b. 

In like manner Theodoret states that Marcellus held, ἔκτασίν 
τινα τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς θεότητος. . . . μετὰ δὲ τὴν σύμπασαν οἰκονομίαν 
πάλιν ἀνασπασθῆναι καὶ συσταλῆναι πρὸς τὸν θεὸν, ἐξ οὗπερ ἐξετάθη" 
τὸ δὲ πανάγιον πνεῦμα παρέκτασιν τῆς ἐκτάσεως, καὶ ταύτην τοῖς ἀπο- 
στόλοις παρασχεθῆναι. Her. ii. 10. And Nestorius quotes Photinus 
as saying, “ Vides quia Deum Verbum aliquando Deum, aliquando 
Verbum appellat, tanquam extensum atque collectum.’’ Mercat. 
t. 2. p. 87. 

7. That this expansion or πλατυσμὸς consists in the action or 
ἐνέργεια of the μονάς. 

Marcellus says that the Word ἐνεργείᾳ μόνῃ, διὰ τὴν σάρκα, κεχω- 
ρῆσθαι τοῦ πατρὸς φαίνεται. Euseb. p. 51, ἃ. 

And accordingly Eusebius argues against him, τὴν μονάδα, [ὡς] 
φησὶ Μάρκελλος, ἐ ἐνεργείᾳ πλατύνεσθαι, ὁ ἐπὶ μὲν σωμάτων χώραν ἔχει, 
ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς ἀσωμάτου οὐσίας οὐκ ἔτι: οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐν τῷ ἐνεργεῖν πλατύνεται, 
οὐδ᾽ ἐν τῷ μὴ ἐνεργεῖν συστέλλεται. p. 108, b, c. Vid. also the 6th 
and 7th anathemas of the Council of Sirmium, supr. p. 119. 
which, compared with the 5th of the Macrostich, supr. p. 114. 
evidently aim at Marcellus and Photinus. 

8. That the first instance of the ἐνέργεια of the λόγος was His 
creation of the world. 

οὐδενὸς ὄντος πρότερον, says Marcellus, ἢ θεοῦ μόνου, πάντων δὲ διὰ 
τοῦ λόγου γίγνεσθαι μελλόντων, προῆλθεν ὃ λόγος δραστικῇ ἐνεργείᾳ. 
Euseb. Ρ. 41. ἃ. And directly after ; πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι ἣν 
ὃ λόγος ἐ ἐν τῷ πατρί: ὅτ: δὲ ὃ θεὸς παντοκράτωρ πάντα τὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς 
καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς προύθετο ποιῆσαι, ἐνεργείας ἡ τοῦ κόσμου γένεσις ἐδεῖτο 
δραστικῆς, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο... ὁ λόγος προελθὼν ἐγίνετο τοῦ κόσμου 
ποιητής. ibid. 

9. That in the πλατυσμὸς of the μονὰς, or ἐνέργεια of the λόγος 
in the flesh, 1. 6. in the man Jesus Christ, consists the Incarnation. 

Marcellus says, εἰ μὲν ἣ Tod πνεύματος ἐξέτασις γίγνοιτο μόνη, ev 
καὶ ταὐτὸν εἰκότως εἶναι τῷ θεῷ φαίνοιτο: εἰ δὲ ἣ κατὰ σάρκα προσθήκη 
ἐπὶ τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐξετάζοιτο, ἐνεργείᾳ ἣ θεότης μόνη πλατύνεσθαι δοκεῖ. 
Euseb. p. 36, a. 

And so Theodoret, éxraciv τινα τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς θεότητος ἔφησεν 
εἰς τὸν Χριστὸν ἐληλυθέναι. Her. ii. 10. 

10. That, as the Word was in action, ἐν ἐνεργείᾳ, or became 
προφορικὸς, or went forth, for certain objects, when those objects 
are accomplished He will return to what He was before. 

Tov ἐν τῷ Ged λόγον, says Eusebius, ποτὲ μὲν ἔνδον εἶναι ἐν τῷ θεῷ 


Introduction to Discourse IV. 507 


ἔφασκε, ποτὲ δὲ προϊέναι τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἄλλοτε πάλιν ἀναδραμεῖσθαι εἰς INTROD. 
τὸν θεὸν, καὶ ἔσεσθαι ἐν αὐτῷ ὡς καὶ πρότερον qv. p.112,e. Orin Dis 
Marcellus’s own words, εἷς θεὸς, καὶ ὃ τούτου λόγος θεὸς προῆλθε μὲν τ 
τοῦ πατρὸς, ἵνα πάντα Se αὐτοῦ γένηται: μετὰ δὲ τὸν καιρὸν τῆς κρίσεως 

καὶ τὴν τῶν ἁπάντων διόρθωσιν καὶ τὸν ἀφανισμὸν τῆς ἀντικειμένης 

ἁπάσης ἐνεργείας, τότε αὐτὸς ὑποταγήσεται τῷ ὑποτάξαντι αὐτῷ τὰ 

πάντα θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ, ἵνα οὕτως ἢ ἐν θεῷ ὃ λόγος, ὥσπερ καὶ πρότερον 

ἦν, πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι. Euseb. p, 41, ο, 4, 

S. Basil in his letter to S, Athanasius about Marcellus confirms 
what is the obvious import of these words: he says that Marcellus 
taught λόγον εἰρῆσθαι τὸν μονογενῆ, κατὰ χρείαν Kal ἐπὶ καιροῦ προσελ- 
θόντα, πάλιν δὲ εἰς τὸν ὅθεν ἐξῆλθεν ἐπαναστρέψαντα, οὔτε πρὸ τῆς 
ἐξόδου εἶναι, οὔτε μετὰ τὴν ἐπάνοδον ὑφεστάναι. Ep. 52. 

11. That not the Word, but Jesus is the Son. This has been 
implied in some of the above extracts, but the tenet forms the sub- 
ject of so large a portion of the Fourth Oration, and is ascribed to 
Marcellus and Photinus by such various authors, that it must be 
dwelt upon. 

Ἱερὸς ἀπόστολός τε καὶ μαθητὴς Tod κυρίου ᾿Ιωάννης, says Marcellus 
in Eusebius, τῆς ἀϊδιότητος αὐτοῦ μνημονεύων, ἀληθὴς ἐγίγνετο τοῦ 
λόγου μάρτυς, ἐν ἀρχῇ ἣν ὃ λόγος, λέγων, kal, . .. οὐδὲν γεννήσεως 
ἐνταῦθα μνημονεύων τοῦ λόγου. Euseb. p. 37, b. vid. also p. 27 fin. 
And again, οὐχ υἱὸν θεοῦ ἑαυτὸν ὀνομάζει, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα διὰ τῆς τοιαύτης 
ὁμολογίας [f. ὀνομασίας. R. 5. 0,17 θέσει τὸν ἄνθρωπον, διὰ τὴν πρὸς 
αὑτὸν κοινωνίαν, υἱὸν θεοῦ γενέσθαι παρασκευάσῃ, Ge e, θέσει υἱὸν 
θεοῦ.] p, 42, a. Again, οὗτός ἐστιν ὃ ἀγαπητὸς, ὃ τῷ λόγῳ ἐνωθεὶς 
ἄνθρωπος. p. 49, a. 

And 80 Epiphanius of Photinus, 6 λόγος ἐν τῷ πατρὶ, φησὶν, ἦν, 
ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἦν υἱός. Heer. p. 830, b. vid. also p. 831. 

And Eugenius, when cleari ing himself and other disciples of 
Marcellus to Athanasius ; οὐ yap ἄλλον τὸν υἱὸν Kat ἄλλον τὸν λόγον 
φρονοῦμεν, ὥς τινες ἡμᾶς δίδθαχον: : and they anathematize the mad- 
ness of Photinus and his followers, ὅτι μὴ φρονοῦσι. τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ 
αὐτὸν εἶναι τὸν λόγον, ἀλλὰ διαιρδῦσυν ἀλόγως καὶ ἀρχὴν τῷ υἱῷ διδοῦσιν 
ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκ Μαρίας κατὰ σάρκα γενέσεως. Coll. Nov. t. 2, p. 3, d. 

And Nestorius says, Cogitur Photinus Verbum dicere, non 
autem Verbum hoc Filium confitetur. Mercat. t. 2. p. 87. vid. also 
Garner. in Mercat. t. 2. p. 314 init, 

And Marcellus himself, in his explanatory statement addressed 
to Pope Julius, lays especially stress on his reception of the point 
of faith which is in these extracts denied, confessing the “ only- 
begotton Son Word,” “of whose kingdom there shall be no end,” 
“the Word, of whom Luke the Evangelist witnesses, ‘as they 
delivered who were eye-witnesses ;’” ‘‘ the Son, that is, the Word 
of Almighty God ;” ‘the Father’s Power, the Son.” Epiph. Her. 
p- 835, 6. 

12. "That not the Word but Jesus is the Christ, the First-be- 
gotten, the Image of God, the King. 

Ei τις, says Eusebius, TOV υἱὸν, ᾧ πάντα παρέδωκεν ὃ ὃ πατὴρ, λόγον 
δὁρίζοιτο μόνον, ὅμοιον τῷ ἐν ἀνθρώποις, εἶτα σάρκα φησὶν ἀνειληφέναι, 
καὶ τότε υἷον θεοῦ γεγονέναι, καὶ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν χρηματίσαι, βασιλέα 


ΔΕ Ὁ 


Disc. 


1 supr. 
Ῥ. 381, 
note i. 


508 Introduction to Discourse IV. 


τε ἀναγορεύεσθαι, εἰκόνα τε τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, καὶ πρωτότοκον πάσης 
κτίσεως, μὴ ὄντα πρότερον, τότε ἀποδεδεῖχθαι, τίς ἂν λείποιτο τούτῳ 
δυσσεβείας ὑπερβολή; p. 6, b, d. The passage, which is here cur- 
tailed, goes through all the alleged tenets of Marcellus. vid. also 
pp- 49, 50. In his own words, concerning the “ First-begotten,” 
οὐ τοίνυν οὗτος ὃ ἁγιώτατος λόγος, πρὸ τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως πρωτότοκος 
ἁπάσης κτίσεως ὠνόμαστο, πῶς γὰρ δύνατον τὸν ἀεὶ ὄντα πρωτότοκον εἶναί 
τινος; ἀλλὰ τὸν πρῶτον καινὸν ἄνθρωπον, εἰς ὃν τὰ πάντα ἀνακεφαλαιώ- 
σασθαι ἐβουλήθη ὃ θεὸς, τοῦτον αἱ θεῖαι γραφαὶ πρωτότοκον ὀνομάζουσι. 
Euseb. p. 44, b, 6. Concerning the ‘‘ Image,” πῶς οὖν εἰκόνα τοῦ 
ἀοράτου θεοῦ τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον ᾿Αστέριος εἶναι. γέγραφε; al yap εἰκόνες 
τούτων, ὧν εἰσὶν εἰκόνες, καὶ ἀπόντων, δεικτικαί εἶσιν: πῶς εἰκὼν τοῦ 
ἀοράτου θεοῦ ὃ λόγος, καὶ αὐτὸς ἀόρατος ὦν; . .. δῆλον, ὁπηνίκα τὴν 
κατ᾽ εἰκόνα τοῦ θεοῦ γενομένην ἀνείληφε σάρκα, εἰκὼν ἀληθῶς τοῦ 
ἀοράτου θεοῦ γέγονε. p. 47, a—d. vid. also p. 142, b. 

And so §. Epiphanius of Photinus’s doctrine about the title 
“Christ ;” φάσκει otros ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς τὸν Χριστὸν μὴ εἶναι, ἀπὸ δὲ 
Μαρίας. p. 829. 

13. That at the end of all things the Word, returning to God, 
will leave the flesh or manhood, whose Kingdom will then end. 

On this point, which may almost be called the peculiarity of this 
doctrine, and gave occasion to an article in the (commonly called) 
Nicene Creed, Marcellus is very full. He argues that ‘“ the flesh 
profiteth nothing ;” how then can it be everlastingly united to the 
Word? pp. 42, 43. that our Saviour adds, “‘ What and if ye shall 
see the Son of Man, &c.” which he seems to refer to the separation 
of the Word from the flesh. p. 51, c. that the Psalmist expressly 
says, “ Sit Thou on My right hand, εὐ I make, ὅσο. and S. Paul, 
“He shall reign εἶ He hath put, &.” p. 51, d. and S. Peter, 
** Whom the hearers must receive until’, ὅσο." p. 52, a. And that 
the object of the dispensation was, not that the Word, but that 
man should conquer his enemy and regain heaven. p. 49, ο, d. 
οὐδὲ yap αὐτὸς καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ὁ λόγος ἀρχὴν βασιλείας εἴληφεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὃ 
ἀπατηθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου ἄνθρωπος, διὰ τῆς τοῦ λόγου δυνάμεως, 
βασιλεὺς γέγονεν, ἵνα βασιλεὺς γενόμενος τὸν πρότερον ἀπατήσαντα 
νικήσῃ διάβολον. Euseb. p. 52, a. that if His Kingdom had a 
beginning 400 years since, it is not wonderful that it should have 
an end. p. 50, d. ὥσπερ ἀρχὴν οὕτω καὶ τέλος ἕξειν. p. 52, ¢. And 
if any one asks what will then become of that immortal flesh, 
which once belonged to the Word, Marcellus answers, δογματίζειν 
περὶ ὧν μὴ ἀκριβῶς | ἐκ] τῶν θείων μεμαθήκαμεν γραφῶν, οὐκ ἀσφαλές. 
Euseb. p. ὅϑ, a. μή μου πυνθάνου περὶ ὧν σαφῶς παρὰ τῆς θείας 
γραφῆς μὴ μεμάθηκα" διὰ τοῦτο τοίνυν οὐδὲ περὶ τῆς θείας ἐκείνης, τῆς 
τῷ θείῳ λόγῳ κοινωνησάσης σαρκὸς, σαφῶς εἰπεῖν δυνήσομαι. ibid. b, ο. 


Such was the doctrine of Marcellus, Photinus, and their school, 
and there is scarcely any one of the heads of it as now drawn out, 
but is distinctly stated and combated in this so-called Fourth 
Oration of S. Athanasius. And what increases the force of the 
coincidence is the independence of his testimony relatively to 
Eusebius, and its connexion with the testimony of S. Basil and 


Introduction to Discourse IV. 509 


Eugenius. When men of such opposite minds and parties as 
S.-Athanasius and Eusebius describe and oppose the very same 
error, it is natural to think that that error did really exist, and in 
that quarter to which Eusebius assigns it, and in which Athanasius 
to say the least does not deny it. On the other hand, Basil, Atha- 
nasius, and Eugenius, are parties in one and the same transaction. 
Basil accuses Eugenius and other followers of Marcellus before 
Athanasius, of a certain definite heresy. Eugenius clears himself 
from the same. When Athanasius then is found to have been 
writing about the very same doctrine, it is obvious to consider 
that he is aiming at that school which S. Basil attacks and which 
Eugenius disowns. 

Now the following are some of the statements, above imputed 
to Marcellus and Photinus, which Athanasius combats in the 
Fourth Oration. 

(1.) At least the twenty-one out of thirty-six sections, of which 
it consists, is devoted to the disproof of the position that “the 
Word is not the Son;” and though seven of these are primarily 
directed against the disciples of Paul of Samosata, this does not 
determine the drift of the remaining and greater portion, which 
needs some object, and will find it in the school of Marcellus. 

(2.) Again, Athanasius protests against the doctrine of the 
Word being like man’s word without subsistence, οὐ διαλελυμένος, 
ἢ ἁπλῶς φωνὴ σημαντικὴ, ἀλλὰ οὐσιώδης λόγος: εἰ yap pH, ἔσται ὃ 
θεὸς λαλῶν εἰς ἀέρα. . .. ἐπειδὴ δὲ οὔκ ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος, οὐκ ἂν εἴη 
οὐδὲ ὃ λόγος αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀσθένειαν. ἃ. 1. Vid. also 
contr. Sabell. Greg. ὃ. ὅ. 6. This is precisely Eusebius’s language 
against Marcellus, 6. g. ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ λόγου, σημαντικὸν αὐτὸν δίδωσι, 
καὶ ὅμοιον τῷ ἀνθρωπίνῳ. p. 118. vid. also p. 128. 

(3.) Again Athanasius argues against the doctrine of previous 
silence and then action in the Divine Nature, such being the 
language under which the heresy he opposes expressed itself; τὸν 
θεὸν, σιωπῶντα μὲν ἀνενέργητον, λαλοῦντα δὲ ἰσχύειν αὐτὸν βούλονται. 

11. vid. also ὃ. 12. And Eusebius charges Marcellus with 
holding that ὃ λόγος ἔνδον μένων ἐν ἡσυχάζοντι τῷ πατρὶ, ἐνεργῶν δὲ 
ἐν τῷ τὴν κτίσιν δημιουργεῖν, ὁμοίως τῷ ἡμετέρῳ, ἐν σιωπῶσι μὲν ἡσυχά- 
ζοντι, ἐν δὲ φθεγγομένοις ἐνεργοῦντι. p. 4, d. Eusebius objects 
elsewhere, that even human artificers can work in silence by an 
inward operation of their minds, p. 167, b ; Athanasius makes the 
same remark, §. 11, d. 

(4.) Again, we have above read a great deal of the πλατυσμὸς 
of the μονὰς in the flesh, and that by an évépyea; now this forms 
one distinct subject of a portion of the Fourth Oration, being con- 
tained in §§. 13, 14, and 25. φησὶ yap, says Athanasius, 6 πατὴρ 
πλατύνεται εἰς υἱὸν καὶ πνεῦμα. ὃ. 25. τίς ἡ ἐνέργεια τοῦ τοιούτου 
πλατυσμοῦ ; φανήσεται ὃ πατὴρ καὶ γεγονὼς σὰρξ, εἴγε αὐτὸς μονὰς dv 
ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐπλατύνθη. §. 14. 

(5.) Eusebius and S. Basil both mention Marcellus’s doctrine of 
the Word’s issuing from and returning to God; now Athanasius 
ascribes precisely the same language to the heretical creed he is 


discussing ; viz. the doctrine of the Word as προελθὼν and παλιν- 


INTROD. 
TO 
Disc. 
Ve 


INTROD. 
TO 
Disc. 


Ve 


510 Introduction to Discourse IV. 


δρομῶν, of His πρόοδος and ἀναδρομὴ, that He προεβάλλετο and 
ἀνακαλεῖται, of His γέννησις, and (as he infers) of παῦλα τῆς γεννή- 
σεως. §. 12. §. 4, 6. 

(6.) Marcellus, as we have seen above, lays a special stress 
upon the phrase ἐν τῷ θεῷ, as applied to the Word; so did the 
heretics opposed by Athanasius, vid. §. 12 throughout, §. 2 init. 
&e. §. 4, 6. 

(7.) Athanasius imputes to this doctrine, as its necessary con- 
sequence, if it be not pure Sabellianism, that it considers an attri- 
bute to be something real and independent in the Divine Nature, 
which therefore becomes σύνθετος ; and this is the very conse- 
quence which Eusebius imputes to the doctrine of Marcellus. 
Athanasius: κατὰ τοῦτο ἡ θεία μονὰς σύνθετος φανήσεται, τεμνομένη 
εἰς οὐσίαν καὶ συμβεβηκὸς, §. 2; Eusebius: σύνθετον ὥσπερ εἰσῆγεν 
τὸν θεὸν, οὐσίαν αὐτὸν ὑποτιθέμενος δίχα λόγου, συμβεβηκὸς δὲ τῇ 
οὐσίᾳ τὸν λόγον. p. 121. vid. p. 149, d. And so Athanasius: εἰ 
τοῦτο, πατὴρ μὲν OTE σοφὸς, υἱὸς δὲ ὅτε σοφία: ἀλλὰ μὴ ὡς ποιότης τις 
ταῦτα ἐν τῷ θεῷ. ὃ. 2. Eusebius: εἰ δ᾽ ἐν καὶ ταὐτὸν ἣν ὃ θεὸς καὶ 
ἡ ἐν ταῖς παροιμίαις σοφία, ἕξις οὖσα σοφὴ ἐν αὐτῷ νοουμένη, καθὸ 
σοφὸς ὃ θεὸς, τὶ ἐκώλυεν, κι τι λ. p. 160, b. 

(8.) Eusebius says that Marcellus supported his doctrine by the 
pretence of defending the μοναρχία, p. 109, Ὁ; and Athanasius 
opens his Oration by shewing how the μοναρχία is preserved in- 
violate in the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. 

(9.) Marcellus, as we have seen, insisted on the temporary 
nature of Christ’s kingdom, or its beginning and ending; and 
Athanasius alludes to a similar doctrine on the part of the heretics 
against whom he is writing, §. 8. implying that they assign a be- 
ginning of being and of rule to the Son. 

(10.) Marcellus denies that the Word is called Son, &e. in the 
Old Testament ; Euseb. p. 131, Ὁ. pp. 83—101. pp. 184—140; 
and so did the heretics opposed by Athanasius, §§. 23—29. 

(11.) Marcellus evaded the force of such texts in the Old 
Testament as spoke of the Son, the Christ, ὥς. by saying that 
they were anticipations; he says, εἰ δέ τις, καὶ πρὸ τῆς νέας διαθήκης, 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ ὄνομα τῷ λόγῳ μόνῳ δεικνύναι δύνασθαι ἐπαγγέλλοιτο, 
εὑρήσει τοῦτο προφητικῶς εἰρημένον. Euseb. p. 82, ἃ. And therefore 
it was that in Rom. 1, 4. he read προορισθεὶς for δρισθείς. vid. 
supr. p. 114, note e. also p. 119, ref. 2. vid. R. S. C.’s Observ. 
p- 10. Epiphanius says of Photinus too that he considered the 
Old Testament text written προκαταγγελτικῶς, προχρηστικῶς. p. 830. 


-And so on the other hand Athanasius of his anonymous heretics : 


ἀλλὰ vat, φασὶ, κεῖται μὲν, προφητικῶς δὲ ἔστω. §. 24. 

(12.) When Psalm 109, (110,) 3. was urged against Marcellus, 
he explained “Lucifer” of the Star which preceded the Magi. 
Euseb. p. 48, b. vid. Epiphan. Her. p. 838, a. Athanasius devotes 
two sections to an examination of that text, §§. 27, 28. 

(138.) It may be well to add, that the view taken of Sabellianism 
by 5. Athanasius, as contrasted with the doctrine of Marcellus, is 
identical with the foregoing statements of Eugenius, S. Basil, and 
Eusebius. Σαβελλίου τὸ ἐπιτήδευμα, says Athanasius, τὸν αὐτὸν υἱὸν 


Introduction to Discourse IV. 611 


καὶ πατέρα λέγοντος, καὶ ἑκάτερον ἀναιροῦντος, ὅτε μὲν vids, τὸν πατέρα, 
ὅτε δὲ πατὴρ, τὸν υἱόν. §. 9. 

These are not all the coincidences which might be drawn out 
between Athanasius’s Fourth Oration on the one hand, and the 
writers against Marcellus and Photinus on the other; and they 
surely make it clear that against the Photinians, and not against 
the Arians, that work is directed. Nor is it an objection of much 
weight, that S. Athanasius is not recorded to have written against 
them, nor against the earlier heresies which originated them, a 
circumstance which Montfaucon urges against the genuineness of 
the contra Sabellii gregales. For if the matter of fact is so, that 
this Oration does treat of Sabellianism and its offshoots, and if it 
certainly is genuine, which no one denies, testimony on the point 
is superfluous, and the absence of it may need an explanation but 
can prove nothing. Such an explanation, however, is afforded in 
Sirmond’s remark upon S. Jerome’s silence concerning Eusebius’s 
Tracts against Sabellius, De infinitis voluminibus, he says, que 
ab Eusebio edita testatur, pauca, certe non omnia [ Hieronymum | 
commemorasse. Opp. t. 1. init. 

Additional evidence, just now alluded to, of a minute character, 
is contained in some of the notes which follow ; in which too is 
pointed out such matters as may be considered, so far as they go, 
to detract from its force. 


It may be right, before concluding, to subjoin a short analysis 
of the general contents of the Oration. 

(1) Seven sections, §§. 1-5, 9, 10, are upon the Monarchia, and 
the cognate subjects of the Divine unity, simplicity and integrity, 
and the generation of the Son; of these one, §. 4, and part of 
another, §. 3, are addressed to the Arians; the rest are directed 
against the Sabellian schools of the day. 

(2) Two sections, §§. 6 and 7, are expressly directed against 
the Arians, and are unconnected with the context of the book 
before and after them. 

(3) Three other sections, §§. 8, 11, 12, contrast the opposite 
schools with each other, dwelling chiefly on the Sabellian. 

(4) Three others, §§. 13, 14, 25, are on a prominent tenet of 
Sabellius and Marcellus. 

(5) The rest of the book, being (with the interposition of one 
section) twenty-one continuous sections, is on one subject, viz. 
the identity of the Word with the Son, as denied by the school of 
Marcellus and Paul of Samosata, §§. 15-24, 26-29. 


INTROD. 
TO 
Disc. 


Vic 


§. 1. 
John 1], 
Ι- 
Rom. 9, 
5. 


DISCOURSE IY. 


Subject I. 


The doctrine of the Monarchia implies or requires, not negatives, 
the substantial existence of the Word and Son. 


gg. 1—5. 
The substantiality of the Word proved from Scripture. Ifthe One Origin 


be substantial, Its Word is substantial. 


Unless the Word and Son be a 


second Origin, or a work, or an attribute (and so God be compounded), 
or at the same time Father, or involve a second nature in God, He is 
from God’s Substance and distinct from Him. Llustration of John 10, 


90. drawn from Deut. 4, 4. 


1. Tue Word is from God*; for the Word was God, and 
again, Of whom are the Fathers, and of whom Christ, who 


is God over all, blessed for ever. 


Amen. And since Christ” 


is God from God, and God’s Word, Wisdom, Son, and Power, 
therefore but One God is declared in the divine Scriptures. 
For the Word, being Son of the One God, is referred* to 


Him of whom also He is; so 


a Jn this opening section, the abrupt- 
ness of which shews that something 
was meant to precede it, the author is 
meeting the objection of Marcellus, 
(urged, e. 5. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. pp. 
δ 705 100: 5. τ: 119 ad.) debs) 
that plurality of Persons involves plu- 
rality of Gods; which he here answers, 
by insisting on the re/ation of the Second 
Person to the First, i.e. as Eusebius, 
by the doctrine of the Monarchy. 

b The introduction of the word 
“‘Christ’’ (vid. also §§. 3 init. 4. c-e. 15,c. 
19, b. 30 init.) seems to shew that he is 
combating a heresy which placed our 
Lord’s personality in the manhood, 
which Arianism did not, but which Sa- 
bellius, Marcellus, Photinus, Nestorius, 
did. There is very little about ‘‘ Christ” 
in the foregoing Discourses against the 
Arians, The text indeed which he here 


that Father and Son are two, 


quotes from Scripture is rather directed 
against Arians (vid. Orat.i. p. 193. Se- 
rap. ii. 2.) than against Sabellians, but 
he seems to mean it to be an admission 
to them, lest he should be thought to 
deny it. It must be granted also, that in 
one place referred to he uses the word 
‘“‘ Christ’? when arguing against the 
Arians, though this is not unnatural, 
when it has once occurred. Nor must 
it be forgotten that S. Hilary uses 
Christus commonly for our Lord’s divine 
nature. vid. Bened. Preef. p. xlii 

€ εἰς αὐτὸν ἀναφέρεται. vid. Nazianz. 
Orat. 20, 7. Damasc. F. O. i. 8. p. 140. 
Theod. Abulc. Opuse 42. p. 642. And 
so ἀνάγεται. Naz. Orat. 42, 15. And 
ἵνα ἡμᾶς ἀναπέμψῃ ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς 
αὐθεντίαν. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. i. p. 84. 
though in an heretical sense. vid. supr. 
p. 459, note a. 


There is but One Substance, One Origin, in the Godhead. 513 


yet the Unity ' of the Godhead is indivisible¢ and inseparable. Svs. 
And thus too we preserve One Origin * of Godhead and not Tov 
two Origins, whence there is properly a divine Monarchy’. unit. 
And of this very Origin the Word is by nature Son, not as if * exh 
another origin, subsisting by Himself, nor having come into 
being externally to that Origin, lest from that diversity a 
Dyarchy and Polyarchy should ensue; but of the one 
Origin He is proper Son, proper Wisdom, proper as 
existing from It. For, according to John, in that Orig gin* 
was the Word, and the Word was with God, for the Origin 
was God; and since He is from It, therefore also the Word 
was God. 

2. And as there is one Origin and therefore one God, so 
one is that Substance and Subsistence? which indeed and 
truly and really is, and which said I am that I am™, and 
not two, that there be not two Origins; and from the One, a 
Son in Nature and Truth, is Its proper Word, Its Wisdom, 
Its Power, and inseparable from It. And as there is not 
another substance, lest there be two Origins, so the Word 
which is from that One Substance has no dissolution *, nor ὅ διαλελυ- 
is a sound significative, but is a substantial Word er es 
substantial Wisdom, which is the true Son. For were He not 
substantial, God would be speaking into the air, and having 
a body’, in nothing differently* from men; but since He 


ἃ μονάδα δὲ θεότητος ἀδιαίρετον. This 
phrase, which occurs p. 515, r. Z. and 
is sufficiently distinctive to scent 
the attention of Petavius, vid. Dogm. 
t. i. pp. 248, 249. though found in other 
writers, appears to be from Marcellus, 
who urged it, and is often remarked on 
by Eusebius. vid. contr. Marc. p. 36, 
τὶ 107, b. 131, Ὁ. In p. 182, ἃ. Mar- 
cellus justifies from Scripture the use 
of μονὰς to express Almighty God. 

e€ The word Monarchia was used as 
a tessera by all parties; by the Sa- 
bellians, (as by Marcellus) against the 
Church and Arians; vid. supr. p. 45, 
note h; by Arians, which is surprising, 
against Catholics; Euseb. Eccl. Theol. 
p. 69; and by Catholics, as supr. p. 
45. and here. Athan. attributes a 
Dyarchy to Marcion and Valentinus, 
de Syn. 62. supr. p. 153. Eusebius re- 
turns a like answer to Marcellus p. 109. 
as Athan. here to his nameless antago- 
nist. The principle of the Catholic 
Monarchia is found infr. 17. οὐδὲν ἐν 
πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, εἰ μὴ τὸ ἐξ αὐτοῦ. 


f ἀρχὴ here means “origin,” as com- 
monly; and stands for the Almighty 
Father, as aaee li. 57 fin. Origen. 
in Joan. Ὁ. i. 17. Method. ap. Phot. 
cod. 235. i, 940. Nyssen. in Eunom. 
p- 106. Cyril. Thesaur. 32. p. 312. 
Kuseb. Eccl. Theol. ii. pp. 118, d. 123, a. 
and Jerome in Calmeton Ps. 109. Infr. 
88. 8, 25, 26, 27. it must be translated 
‘* beginning.” 

& οὐσία καὶ ὑπόστασις ; and so 7 
πατρικὴ ovo. καὶ om. supr. p. 494, and 
note t. The word occurs several times 
towards the end of this Oration. 

h This text is brought as an objection 
to any but the Sabellian view by Mar- 
cellus in Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p. 130, c. d. 

i “σῶμα ἔχων. vid. Euseb. εἰ πνεῦμα, 
κρεῖττον [τὸ] θεῖον παντὸς συνθέτον σώ- 
ματος contr. Mare, p. ὅ, d. 

k οὐδὲν πλέον ; and so Euseb. contr. 
Mare. p. 55, b. and infr. 17. πλεῖον 
οὐδὲν ὁ λόγος τοῦ υἱοῦ ἔχει. Also 20, 6. 
and Serap. ii. 1, b. On the classical use 
of the phrase vid. Blomf. Gloss. in 
Agam. 995. 


Disc. 
Vis 
1 supr. 
p. 329. 


514 Since God is One and Substantive, so is His Word and Son. 


is not man, neither is His Word! according to the infirmity of 
man’. For as the Origin is one Substance, so Its Word is 
one, substantial, and subsisting, and Its Wisdom. For as 
He is God from God, and Wisdom from the Wise™, and 
Word from the Rational, and Son from Father, so is He from 
Subsistence Subsistent, and from Substance Substantial and 
Substantive ἢ, and Being from Being. 

3. Since were He not substantial Wisdom and substantive 
Word, and Son existing, but simply Wisdom and Word and 
Son in the Father", then the Father Himself would have a 
nature compounded of wisdom and reason*. But if so, the 
forementioned extravagances ἡ would follow; and He wili be 
His own Father°, and the Son begetting and begotten by 
Himself; or Word, Wisdom, Son, is a name only, and He 
does not subsist who owns, or rather who is, these titles. 
If then He does not subsist, the names are idle and empty ὅ: 
unless we say that God is Very Wisdom® and Very Word ?. 
But if so, He is His own Father and Son; Father, when 
Wise, Son, when Wisdom‘; but these things are not in God 


1 In a somewhat similar passage, ad 
Ep. Aig. 16. he is arguing against, 
not Sabellians, but Arians. 

m vid. contr. Sabell. Greg. §. 5, d. 
Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 17. Euseb. 
Eccl. Theol. p. 150, a. 

n ἐν τῷ πατρί. he is here opposing the 
usual formula of Sabellius and Marcellus, 
who substituted ἐν τῷ θεῷ for the Scrip- 
tural πρὸς τὸν θεόν. vid. supr. p. 509. (6.) 
infr. note q. 6 ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ λόγος ov πρὸς 
αὐτὸν εἶναι λέγεται, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν αὐτῷ. Basil. 
contr. Sabell. | fin. 

© αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ πατήρ. So Hipp. contr. 
Noet. 7. vid. also Euseb. in Mare. 
pp. 42, b. 61. a. 106, Ὁ. 119, d. υἱὸν 
ἑαυτοῦ γίνεσθαι. supr. Orat. iii. 4 init. 
Ipsum sibi patrem, &c. Auct. Pred. 
(ap. Sirmond. Opp.t. i. p. 278. ed. Ven.) 
Mar. Marc. t. 2. p. 128. ed. 1673. Greg. 
Boet. (ap. Worm. Hist. Sabell. p. 17.) 
Consult Zach. et Apoll. 11. Ll. (ap. 
Dach. Spicil.) Porphyry uses αὐτοπά- 
τωρ, but by a strong figure. Cyril. contr. 
Julian. p. 32. vid. Epiphan. in answer 
to Aetius on this subject. Her. p. 937. 
It must be observed that several Catholic 
fathers seem to countenance such ex- 
pressions, Zeno. Ver. and Marius Vict. 
not to say S. Hilary and 5. Augustine. 
vid. Thomassin. de Trin, 9. For υἱοπά- 
twp vid. supr. p. 97, note k. to which 
add Nestor. Serm. 12. ap. Marc. Mere. 
t. 2. p. 87. and Ep. ad Martyr. ap. 


Bevereg. Synod. t. 2. Not. p. 100. 

P Petavius considers that he here de- 
nies these titles to the Son, though else- 
where he attributes them. E.eg. contr. 
Gent. 40, a. 46 fin. de Incarn. V. D. 
20, b. Orat. ii. 78, d. 79, e. 80, e. Se- 
rap. iv. 20, c. Ifso, there is no inconsist- 
ency ; he admits them, (vid. contr. Gent. 
46.) in contrast to the σοφία, &c. of 
creatures ; he denies them as implying 
defect in the Father, impersonality in 
the Son. Eusebius admits them Ec- 
cles. Theol. p. 121, c. and elsewhere. 

q Vid. supr. note τη. p. 515, note ἃ. 
Serap. i. 20, d. Eusebius introduces 
mention of σοφὸς and σοφία in a similar 
way in Kesl. Theol. pp. 100, 150. 
He distinctly imputes to Marcellus 
the doctrine, here spoken of by Athan. 
viz. that the Son was τὸν ἐν αὐτῷ 
τῷ θεῷ λόγον, καθ᾽ ὃν λογικὸς νοεῖται. 
Eccl. Theol. pp. 90, b. 106, b. 110, d. 
113, Ὁ. 180, a. 150, a. vid. supr. p. 208, 
note b. thus distinguishing him from 
Sabellius, as making the Word a quality, 
and God σύνθετος. ibid. p. 63, c. Cud- 
worth maintains that this same doctrine 
was held by Plato and Photinus; Intell. 
Syst. iv. 36. (p. 675. ed. 1733.) nay, 
by S. Athanasius. Mosheim in loc. 
seems to defend Athan. Petavius im- 
putes it to Athenagoras, Dogm. t. 2. 
Ρ. 22. whom Bull defends, D. F. N. iii. 
5. §. 5. 


If the Word not substantive, God’s nature is not simple. 515 


as a certain quality ; away with the dishonourable' thought; Svs. 
for it will issue in this, that God is compounded of substance | hee 
and quality". For whereas all quality is in substance, it will p. 524. 
clearly follow that the Divine One’, indivisible as it is, must ;° pe 
be compound, being severed into substance and accident’. 

4. We must ask then these reckless men; The Son was 
proclaimed as God’s Wisdom and Word; how then is He 
such ἢ if as a quality, the extravagance has been shown ; but 
if God is that very Wisdom, then it is the extravagance of 
Sabellius. Therefore He is as an Offspring in a proper sense 
from the Father Himself, according to the illustration of 
light. For as there is light from fire‘, so from God is there 
a Word, and Wisdom from the Wise ", and from the Father a 
Son. For in this way the Unity’ remains undivided and 
entire *, and Its Son and Word, is not unsubstantive, nor not 


subsisting, but substantial truly. 


I So σύνθετον τὸν θεὸν ἐκ ποιότητος καὶ 
οὐσίας λέγετε. ad Afros. 8. vid. the whole 
passage, which, however, is directed 
against, not Sabellians, but Arians. This 
is the point of heresy in which the two 
agreed, vid.supr.p. 41, notee. However, 
the argument is not exactly the same. 
For that ad Afros. vid. Basil. Ep. 8, 3. 
and Cyril. Thes. p. 134. Here heis re- 
ferring to the great doctrine, or rather 
mystery, that Christ is ὅλος θεὸς, “ all 
God,’ as fully and entirely the one in- 
finitely simple, all-perfect Being, as if 
there were no Person in the Godhead 
but He; not an attribute, habit, or the 
like, which would be making attributes 
real distinctions in the Divine Nature, 
not aspects (as they are) under which 
we men necessarily view that Nature. 
This the Sabellians seemed to hold, and 
thus made it compound. Vid. in like 
manner supr. p. 334, note υ. Epiph. 
Her. 73. p. 852. Cyril. Thes. p. 145. 
Basil. contr. Sabell. 1. Nyssen. contr. 
Eunom. i. p. 69. App. Max. Cap. de Ca- 
rit. t. 1. p. 445 Damase. F. O.i.13. p. 151. 

5. So Eusebius of Marcellus, σύνθετον 
εἰσῆγεν τὸν θεὸν, οὐσίαν δίχα λόγου συμ- 
βεβηκὸς δὲ τῇ οὐσίᾳ τὸν λόγον. Eccl. 
Theol. p. 121, b. c. Vid. however 
Athan. speaking of Arians, de decr. 
22. supr. p. 38, note y. (where Eu- 
sebius’s opinion has been misstated ; 
vid. also Demonstr. v. pp. 213, c. 215, a.) 
Also supr. p. 493, and notes q, r, 5. ad 
Ep. Ag. §. 16, a. 


t vid. infr. §. 10 fin. this is unusual 
with Athanasius, who commonly speaks 
of Light and its Radiance. vid. supr. 
p- 39, note b. 

u Pater verax, Filius veritas; quid 
est amplius, verax an veritas? Pius 
homo plus est, an pietas? sed plus est 
ipsa pietas; pius enim a pietate, non 
pietas a pio. Plus est pulchritudo quam 
pulcher. Castitas plané plus est quam 
castus. Numguid dicturi sumus plus 
Veritas quam Verax? si hoc dixerimus, 
Filium incipiemus dicere Patre ma- 
jorem. Verax enim Pater non ab ea 
veritate verax est cujus partem cepit, 
sed quam totam genuit. August. in 
Joann. 39, 7. vid. also Ambros. de Fid. 
v. n. 29. 

x It has been observed, p. 326, note g. 
that the Mystery of the Doctrine of the 
Holy Trinity is not merely a verbal con- 
tradiction, but an incompatibility in the 
human ideas conveyed by them. We 
can scarcely make a nearer approach 
to an exact enunciation of it, than that 
of saying that one thing is two things. 
The Father is all that is God; He is 
the One, Eternal, Infinite Being, abso- 
lutely and wholly. And His Nature is 
most simple and free from parts and 
passions. Yet this One God is also 
the Son, and He is the One God as 
absolutely and wholly as the Father, 
yet without being the Father. In this 
world we have often great changes in 
the same being, so that He is one thing 


Disc. 
IV. 


l κατ᾽ 


ἐπίνοιαν 
p- 333, 
note u. 
2 ἁπλῶς 
p. 254, 
note 1. 


John 10, 
30. 


John 14, 
10. 


Ἐπ 


3 ἔξωθεν 


4 αἰτία 


516 The Word, if not from God, is a second Origin or a creature. 


5. For unless it were so, all that is said would be said only 
in notion ' and without a meaning’. Butif we must avoid that 
extravagance, then is a true Word substantial. Foras there is 
a Father truly, so Wisdom truly. In this respect then they 
are two; not because, as Sabellius said, Father and Son are 
the same, but because the Father is Father and the Son Sony 3 
and they are one, because He is Son of the Substance of the 
Father by nature, existing as His proper Word. This the 
Lord said, viz., 1 and the Father are One; for neither is the 
Word separated from the Father, nor was or is the Father 
ever Wordless; on this account He says, I in the Father 
and the Father in Me. 

6. And again, Christ” is the Word of God. Did then He 
subsist by Himself, and after subsisting was joined to the 
Father, or did God make Him and call Him His Word? If 
the former, I mean, if He subsisted by Himself and is God, then 
there are two Origins; and moreover, as is plain, He is not pro- 
per to the Father, as being not of the Father, but of Himself. 
But if on the contrary, He be made externally *, then is He 
a creature. It remains then to say that He is from God 
Himself; but if so, that which is from another is one thing, 
and that from which it is,is asecond ; according to this then 
there are two. But if they be not two, but belong to the 
same, cause * and effect will be the same, and begotten and 
begetting, which has been shown absurd in the instance of 
Sabellius. But if He be from Him, yet not another, He will 
be both begetting and not begetting ; begetting because He 
produces from Himself, and not begetting, because it is 
nothing other than Himself. But if so, the same is called 
Father and Son notionally. But if it be unseemly so to say, 
Father and Son must be two; and they are one, because the 
Son is not from without, but begotten of God. | 

7. But if any one shrinks from saying “ Offspring*,” and 


at one time, and another at another ; 
but the Unchangeable God is Three 
all at once, and that Three Persons. 

y vid. pp. 211,212, notes f and g. and 
p. 416, note e. 

z Here, as in beginning of §. 1. 
“Christ,’”’? not ‘the Word,” is made 
the aubject of the sentence. vid. p. 512, 
note b. 


4 vid. supr. p. 37, note k; to which 
it may be added that 8. Basil seems to 
have changed his mind, for he uses the 
Word in Hom. contr. Sabell. t. 2. p. 
192, c. It is remarkable that this 
Homily in substance (i. e. the contr. 
Sabell. Greg. which is so like it that 
it cannot really be another, unless S. 
Basil copies it) is given to 5, Athan. 


Tf God is wise, Wisdom is from His nature and everlasting. 517 


only says that the Word exists with God, let such a one fear 
lest, shrinking from what is said in Scripture, he fall into an 
extravagance, making God a being of double nature’. For 
not granting that the Word is from the Unity’, but simply 
as if He were joined” tothe Father, He introduces a duality* 
of substance’, and neither of them Father of the other. And 
the same of power*. And we may see this more clearly, if we 
consider it with reference to the Father; for there is One 
Father, and not two, but from that One the Son. As then 
there are not two Fathers, but one’, so not two Origins, but 
One, and from that One the Son substantial. 

8. But the Arians we must ask contrariwise: (for the 
Sabellianizers must be confuted from the notion of a Son 
and the Arians from that of a Father®:) let us say then—Is 
God wise and not word-less: or on the contrary is He 
wisdom-less and word-less* ? if the latter, there is an extra- 
vagance at once ; if the former, we must ask how is He wise 
and not word-less? does He possess the Word and _ the 
Wisdom from without, or from Himself? If from without, 
there must be one who first gave to Him, and before He 
received He was wisdom-less and word-less. But if from 
Himself, it is plain that the Word is not from nothing, nor 
once was not; for He was ever; since He of whom He is 
the Image, exists ever. But if they say that He is indeed 
wise and not word-less, but that He has in Himself His proper 
Wisdom and proper Word, and that, not Christ, but that by 
which He made Christ*®, we must answer that, if Christ in 
that Word was brought to be, plainly so were all things ; and 


Ὁ κεκολλῆσθαι τῷ πατρὶ λόγον. So σύνθετον οὐσίαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ εἶναι. p. 63, c. 


Eusebius of Marcellus, ἡνωμένον τῷ θεῷ 
λόγον. pp. 4 fin. 32, ἃ. &c. vid. next 
note. 

¢ Athanasius here retorts upon the 
Sabellian schools the objection of the 
Monarchia, observing that the fact of 
the derivation of One Person from the 
Other is that which preserves in fact 
the numerical Unity unimpaired, as 
described just above, note x. vid. also 
p- 402, note g. Not that we can un- 
derstand how it does this. Eusebius 
objects to Marcellus his holding the 
συναγένητον. Eccl. Theol. pp. 119, c. d. 
163. d. Adyov ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἡνωμένον καὶ 
συνημμένον αὐτῷ φησὶν, ὡς διπλήντινα καὶ 


And so Athan. in the text, διφυῆ τινα 
εἰσάγων τὸνθεὸν . . δυάδα οὐσίας εἰσάγει. 

4 οὐ δύο πατέρες, ἀλλ᾽ εἷς. So Euse- 
bius against Marcellus, οὐκ ἀναγκά- 
ζεται δύο πατέρας εἰπεῖν οὐδὲ δύο υἱούς. 
p- 109, c. 

6 That is, since the Sabellians de- 
nied our Lord’s substantive  exist- 
ence, and the Arians His divinity, to 
dwell upon a father’s communication of 
nature to his children, was the mode of 
shewing our Lord’s divinity, and to 
dwell on the idea of a son was the mode 
of shewing (vid. Euseb. in Mare. i. 4. 
p. 19.) that He was no abstraction or 
attribute, but a living subsistence, 


Sugg. 
Te 


1 διφυῆ 
τινά 

9 x 

2 μονὰς, 
one, or 
unit. 

3 δυάδα 


4 vid. 
p- 501. 


g. 4. 


5p. 208, 
note b. 


Sp. 512, 
note b. 


Disc. 
τ 


John 1, 
31. 


518 If God has no Son, He has no work. 


it must be he of whom John says, A// things were made 
by Him, and the Psalmist, In Wisdom hast Thou made them 
all. And Christ will be found to speak untruly', I in the 
Father, there being another in the Father. And the Word 


- became flesh is not true according to them. For if, He in 


whom all things came to be, became Himself flesh, and 
Christ is not the Word in the Father, by whom ail things 


‘ came to be, therefore Christ did not become flesh, but, if so 


7 &yovos, 
p 284, 


be, was but called Word. And if so, first, He will be 
some one else beside the name, next, all things were not 
by Him brought to be, but in him in whom Christ was made 
also. 

9. But if they say that Wisdom is in the Father as a 
quality or that He is Very Wisdom’, the extravagances will 
follow already mentioned. For He will be compound ’*, and 
will become His own Son and Father*. Moreover, we must 
confute and silence them on the ground, that the Word 
which is in God* cannot be a creature nor out of nothing. 


But if the Word be but in God, then He must be Christ 


“who says, 1 am in the Father and the Father in Me, who 


also is therefore the Only-begotten, since no other is begotten 
from Him. He is the One Son, who is Word, Wisdom, 
Power ; for God is not compounded of these, but is gene- 
rative® of them, For as He frames the creatures by the 
Word, so according to the nature of His proper Substance 
has He the Word as an Offspring, through whom He frames 
and creates and dispenses all things. For by the Word and 
the Wisdom all things came to be, and all things together 
remain according to His ordinance. And the same concerning 
the word “ Son;” if God be without Son’, then is He without 
Work; for the Son is His Offspring through whom He 


- works*; but if not, the same questions and the same extra- 
- vagances will follow their audacity, 


10. From Deuteronomy; But ye that did attach yourselves 
unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day. 
From this we may see the difference, and know that the 
Son of God 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 things generate, when they make advance, are 
attached unto the Lord. The Word then is in the Father as 


a ee 


Creatures are attached to God, the Word coexists in the Father. 519 


being proper to Him; but things generate, being external, Susy. 
are attached, as being by nature foreign, and attached by free 
choice’. For a son which is by nature, is one’? with him 1 zpow- 
who begat him; but he who is from without, and is made aie 
a son, will be attached to the family. Therefore he imme- Fe b- 
diately adds, What nation is there so great who hath God ΠΕΣ 4, 
drawing nigh unto them ? and elsewhere, I a God drawing ie ἜΣ 
nigh ; for to things generate He draws nigh, as being strange 329- ἘΠ 
to Him, but to the Son, as being proper to Him, He does not 

draw nigh, but He isin Him. And the Son is not attached 


to the Father, but co-exists with Him ; whence also Moses says 
Deut. 


again in the same Deuteronomy, Ye shall obey His voice, and κα Δα 


apply yourselves unto Him; but what is applied, is applied 
from without. 


Subject IT. 


Texts explained against the Arians, viz. Matt. xxviii. 18. 
Phil. i. 9. Eph. i. 20. 


88. 6, 7. 
When the Word and Son hungered, wept, and was wearied, He acted as 
our Mediator, taking on Him what was ours, that He might impart to 
us what was His. 


Disc. 1. AnD in answer to the weak and human notions of the 
IV. Arians, their supposing that the Lord is in want, when He 
says, Ls given unto Me, and I received, and if Paul says, 
28,18. Wherefore hath He highly exalted Him, and He set Him at 
9. ‘the right hand, and the like, we must say, that our Lord, 
τὰ 1, being Word and Son of God, bore a body, and became Son 
; of Man, that, having become Mediator between God and 
1 διακονῇ men, He might minister’ the things of God to us, and ours 
to God. When then He is said to hunger and weep and weary, 
and to ery Eloi, Eloi, which are our human affections, He 
2 pp. 23, receives them from us and offers to the Father’, interceding 
peice for us, that in Him they may be annulled*. And when it is 
andnote said, A// power is given unto Me, and I received,and Where- 
TO hase Jore hath God highly exalted Him, these are gifts* given 
ματα from God to us through Him. For the Word was never in 
50. 945 Want’, nor came into being®; nor again were men sufficient to 
init. _, minister’ these things for themselves, but through the Word 
” pp. 242, ee . 
374,377. : they are given to us; therefore, as if given to Him, they are 
i ala imparted to us. For this was the reason of His becoming 
man, that, as being given to Him, they might be transferred 
®pp.240, tous®. or of such gifts mere * man had not become worthy ; 
Ain bs and again the mere Word had not needed them ”; the Word 
pp. then was united to us, and then imparted to us power, and 
ae 185. highly exalted us". “For the Word being in man, highly 
ΟΝ "ἢ exalted man himself’; and, when the Word was in man, 
θρωπον man himself received. Since then, the Word being in flesh, 
man himself was exalted, and received power, therefore these 


things are referred to the Word, since they were given on 


ab 4 a ae 
pth Me teeth 5" 


The Word receives in our flesh that He may transfer to us. 521 


His account; for on account of the Word in man were these pees 
gifts’ given. And as the Word became flesh, so also man reer 
himself received the gifts which came through the Word. For ματα 
all that man himself has received, the Ward is said to have } ὐπὸ τ 
received *; that it might be shewn, that man himself, being : 5 455. 
unworthy 4s receive, as far as his own nature is concerned, 

yet has received because of the Word become flesh. Where- 

fore if any thing be said to be given to the Lord, or the 

like, we must consider that it is given, not to Him as 
needing it, but to man himself through the Word. For every 

one ἡ intercedes for another, receives the gift in his own 
person *, not as needing, but on his account for whom he 3 αὐτός 
intercedes. 

2. For as He takes our infirmities, not being infirm’, and ἃ. 7. 
hungers not hungering, but offers up what is ours that it may Ae a 
be abolished, so the gifts which come from God instead of our 
infirmities, doth He too Himself receive, that man, being 
united to Him, may be able to partake them. Hence itis that 
the Lord says, All things whatsoever Thou hast given Me, oe 17; 
have given them, and again, I pray for them. For He prayed /— 
for us, having taken on Him what is ours, and He gave while 
He received. Since then, the Word being united to man 
himself’, the Father, regarding Him, vouchsafed to man to ὅ τῷ ἄν- 
be exalted, to have all power and the like, therefore are ee 
referred to the Word, and are as if given to Him, all things 
which through Him we receive. For as He for our sake 
became man, so we for His sake are exalted. It is no 
extravagance then, if, as for our sake He humbled Himself, 
so also for our sake He is said to be highly exalted. So He Phil. 2, 
gave to Him, that is, “‘ to us for His sake;” and He highly 
exalted Him, that is, “us in Him.” And the Word Him- 
self, when we are exalted, and receive, and are succoured, 
as if He Himself were exalted and received and were suc- 
coured, gives thanks to the Father, referring what is ours to 
Himself, and saying, Al/ things, whatsoever Thou hast given Are 17, 
Me, I have given unto them*. ay 


ἃ Similar as these two sections are to severing abidance in holiness, (ἵνα 
passages in the foregoing Orations, as διαμείνῃ.) which occurs so frequently 
shewn in the marginal references, yet above. διαμονὴ is used infr. p. 552. 
many distinctions might be drawn be- Again, the use of διακονεῖν, χαρίσματα 
tween them; e.g. there is no mention is novel, &c. 
of man’s θεοποίησις here, or of his per- 


2M 


Subject IIT. 
Comparison of Photinians with Arians. 


ξ, 8. 


Arians date the Son’s beginning earlier than the Photinians. 


1. THe Eusebians’, that is, the Ario-maniacs, ascribing a 

——=— beginning of being to the Son, yet pretend not to wish Him 
to have a beginning of kingly power. But this is ridiculous ; 
for He who ascribes to the Son a beginning of being, very 
plainly ascribes to Him also a beginning of kingly power ; 
so blind are they, confessing what they deny. Again, those - 
who say that the Son is only a name, and that the Son of 
God, that is, the Word of the Father, is unsubstantial and 
non-subsistent, pretend to be angry with those who say, “Once 
He was not.” This is ridiculous also; for they who give 
Him no being at all, are angry with those who at least grant 
Him to be in time». Thus these also confess what they deny, 
in the act of censuring the others. And again the Eusebians, 
confessing a Son, deny that He is the Word by nature, and 
would have the Son called Word notionally ἡ; and the others 
confessing Him to be Word, deny Him to be Son, and 
would have the Word called Son notionally, equally groping 

in the void. ; 


1 κατ᾽ 
ἐπίνοιαν 


ἃ οἱ περὶ Εὐσέβιον. vid. supr. p. 501. 
Such as Eusebius of Czsarea may 
be glanced at, who brings with great 
indignation the charge against Mar- 
cellus, of his considering our Lord as 
βασιλεὺς only from His incarnation, i. 1. 
p. 6. ii. p. 32, c. or that His Kingdom 
had a beginning, pp. 49, 50, 54. 

Ὁ On this difference between Sabel- 
lians and Arians, vid. supr. p. 114, 


note b. The pre-existence of the Son 
is the main point urged against Mar- 
cellus by Eusebius throughout his work, 
who makes much of what is in fact the 
distinguishing mark between their re- 
spective heresies. Athan. urges it as a 
reductio ad absurdum against the Arian 
interpretation of Phil. ii. 9, 10. that it 
really led to a denial of this doctrine, 
supr. p. 234. 


Subject IV. 
(Being Subject 1. continued.) 
§§. 9, 10. 


Unless Father and Son are two in name only, or as parts and so each 
imperfect, or two gods, they are consubstantial, one in Godhead, and the 
Son from the Father. 


1. Land the Father are One*. That two are one, you say, §. 9. 
is either that one has two names, or again one is divided John 10, 


into two”. 


Now if one is divided into two, that which is 


divided must need be a body, and neither of the two perfect, 


for each is a part and not a whole “. 


But if again one have 


two names, this is the expedient? of Sabellius, who said that 
Son and Father were the same, and denied Each of Them, 
the Father when he confessed a Son, and the Son when he 
confessed a Father. But if the two are one, then of necessity 
while there are two, there is one according to the Godhead, 
and according to the Son’s consubstantiality ' to the Father, 
and the Word’s being from the Father Himself*; so that 


a This and the next section are in 
great part a repetition of Orat. iii. 4. 
but with differences which are remark- 
able; as written at different times 
against different opponents. Mention 
is made of σοφία and σοφὸς here, and 
not there ; the objection of ‘‘ two gods”’ 
is not found there as being written 
against the Arians. A more striking 
difference in regard to the word ὅμο- 
οὔσιον is noticed infr. note h. An illus- 
tration is taken from fire here, from 
light there. 

b This doctrine is imputed to Hiera- 
ces supr. p. 97. to Valentinus, though 
in a different sense, by Nazianz. Orat. 
33, 16. Vid. also Clement. Recogn. i. 
69. 

ὦ contr. Sabell. Greg. 8. 6, c. 

ἃ Σαβελλίου τὸ ἐπιτήδευμα, and so 


infr. 15. ᾿Αρειανῶν τὸ φρόνημα, and 23. 
Μανιχαίων καὶ ᾿Ιουδαίων τὸ ἐπιτήδευμα. 
Again, τοῦΣαμοσάτεωςτὸ φρόνημα. Orat. 
i. 38. Ἑλληνικὸν τὸ φρόνημα. Orat ii. 
22 init. ἐθνικῶν καὶ ᾿Αρειανῶν ἡ τοιαύτη 
πλάνη. ad Adelph. 3 init. ᾿Αρειανῶν τὰ 
τοιαῦτα τολμήματα. contr. Apoll. ii. 11. 
fin. Οὐαλεντίνου τοῦτο τὸ εὕρημα. Serap. 
i. 10. Ὁ. vid. also Orat. iii. 39, c. 50, b. 
51, e. Serap. i. 20, d. 11. 2 init. On the 
contrary, otk ἐστιν οὗτος 6 νοῦς χριστι- 
ανῶν. lii. 7 fin. ; 

€ He is laying down the Catholic ex- 
planation of Oneness in contrast to 
those heretical or hypothetical state- 
ments with which he commenced the 
chapter; viz. that the Godhead is nu- 
merically one, that there is one sub- 
stance, and that there is but one ἀρχὴ 
or πηγὴ θεότητος. 


2M 2 


1 ὅμο- 
οὐσιον 


Disc. 
IV. 


1 p. 515, 


note x. 
John 14, 
10. 


5 dpa, 


p- 415, 
note c. 


524 One God, because the Sonis fromthe Father, and thatindivisibly. 


there are two, because there is Father and Son‘, that is, the 
Word 8, and one because one God’. For if this is not so, He 
would have said, J am the Futher, or I and the Father am; 
but, in fact, in the J He signifies the Son, and in the And the 
Father, Him who begat Him; and in the One the one God- 
head and His consubstantiality". For the Same is not, as the 
Gentiles hold, Wise and Wisdom’; or the Same Father and 
Word; for it were unsuitable* for Him to be His own Father’; 
but the divine teaching knows Father and Son, and Wise 
and Wisdom, and God and Word; while it altogether guards 
His indivisible and inseparable and indissoluble nature in 
all things. 

2. But if any one, on hearing that the Father and the Son 
are two, misrepresent us as preaching two Gods‘, (for this 
is what some feign to themselves, and forthwith cry out 
scofingly, ‘You hold two Gods,”’) we must answer to such, 
If to acknowledge Father and Son, is to hold two Gods, it 
instantly’ follows that to confess but one, we must deny the 
Son and Sabellianise. For if to speak of two, is to fall into 
Gentilism, therefore if we speak of one, we must fail into Sa- 
bellianism. Lut this is not so; perish the thought! but, as 
when we say that Father and Son are two, we still confess 
one God, so when we say that there is one God, let us con- 
sider Father and Son two, while they are one in the Godhead, 
and in the Father’s Word, being indissoluble and indivisible 
and inseparable from Him. And let the fire and the radiance 
from it be a similitude of man, which are two in being and in 
appearance, but one in that its radiance is from it indivisibly. 


f vid. latter part of note fat p. 211 
supr. on ὃ. Gregory Nyssen’s statement 
that ‘‘the First Person in the Holy 
Trinity is not God, considered as 
Father.” 

& Which Marcellus, as other heretics, 
denied. vid. supr. p. 41, note e. 

h Here again is the word ὁμοούσιον. 
Contrast the language of Orat. iii. when 


commenting on the same text, in the 
same way; e.g. ἐν τῇ ἰδιότητι καὶ οἰκειό- 
τητι τῆς φύσεως, καὶ τῇ ταὐτότητι τῆς 
μιᾶς θεότητος, ὃ. 4." 

i Marcellus urged this against, to 
say the least, the Arian doctrine, Euseb. 
p- 69. and Husebius retorts it upon him, 
p- 119, d. also p. 109. 


a ΡΟ Ψ 


Subject V. 
(Being Subject 3. continued.) 


gs. 11, 12. 


Photinians, like Arians, say that the Word was, not indeed created, but 
developed, to create us, as if the Divine silence were a state of inaction, 
and when God spake by the Word, He acted; or that there was a going 
forth and return of the Word; a doctrine which implies change and 
imperfection in Father and Son. 


1. TuHey®* fall into the same folly with the Arians; for 
Arians also say that He was created for us, that He might 
create ἢ us, as if God waited till our creation for His develop- 
ment °, as the one party say, or His creation, as the other. 
Arians then are more bountiful to us than to the Son ; for, they 
say, not we for His sake, but He for ours, came to be; that is, 
if He was therefore created and subsisted, that God through 
Him might create us*. And these, as irreligious or more so, 
give to God less than to us. For we oftentimes, even when 
silent, yet are active in thinking, so that the offspring of our 
thoughts form themselves into images ; but God 5 they would 
have, when silent to be inactive, and when He speaks then to 
exert strength; if so it be that, when silent, He could do 
nothing, and when speaking He began to create. 


a That is, the school of Marcellus and 
Photinus. 

b Even Eusebius takes this view. 
vid. supr. p. 62, note f. vid. also a clear 
and eloquent passage in the Eccl. Theol. 
1, 8. also 13. to shew that our Lord 
was brought into being before all crea- 
tion, ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ τῶν ὕλων. vid. also 11]. 
pp. 153, 4. Vid. supr. p. 316, note c. 

© tva προβάληται ; on the Valentinian 
προβολὴ, development orissue, vid. supr. 
p. 97, note h. If the word here allude 
to Sabellius and Marcellus, it is used 
as an arg. ad invidiam; Valentinus and 
Sabellius are put together (as Valentinus 
and Marcellus, Euseb. Eccl. Theol. ii. 
9.) by S. Alexander, ταῖς τομαῖς ἢ ταῖς 
ἀποῤῥοίαις ὥσπερ Σαβελλίῳ καὶ Badev- 


τίνῳ δοκεῖ. Theodor. Hist. i. 3. p. 743. 
vid also Euseb. p. 114, c. For other 
reasons Valentinus is compared by S. 
Athan. to the Arians, supr. pp. 262, 486, 
492. 

ἃ vid. Cyril. de Trin. iv. p. 536. vi. 
p- 616. in Joann. p. 45. Naz. Orat. 
23, 7. 42, 17. 

€ Husebius makes the same remark 
against Marcellus; ἐπεὶ, καὶ map ἀνθρώ- 
ποις, OLTWAELOT OL τῶν δημιουργῶν, καὶ σιω- 
πῶντες, τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἐκτελοῦσιν ἔργα, καὶ 
μάλιστα ὅτι μηδεὶς αὐτοῖς πάρεστι 
δημιουργοῦσι, τί οὖν ἐκώλυε καὶ τὸν θεὸν 
οὕτω πως τὰ πάντα συστήσασθαι ἔχοντα 
ἐν αὐτῷ τὸν λόγον; Eccl. Theol. p. 
167, b. 


Sik 


526 


Disc. 
Ve 


1p. 108, 
note 1. 
p- 201, 
note c. 


John 14, 
10. 


If Father begat to create, God had not power nor Word perfection, 


2. Moreover it is right to ask them, whether the Word, when 
He was in God, was perfect, so as to be able to make. If on the 
one hand Hewas imperfect, when in God, but by being begotten 
became perfect, we are the cause of hisperfection, thatis, if He 
has been begotten for us; for on our behalf He has received 
the power of making. Butif He was perfect in God, so as to 
be able to make, His generation is superfluous; for He, even 
when in the Father, could frame the world; so that either He 
has not been begotten, or He was begotten, not for us, but 
because He ever is from the Father. For His generation 
evidences, not that we were created, but that He is from 
God; for He was even before our creation. And the same 
presumption will be proved against them concerning the 
Father; for if when silent, He could not make, of necessity 
He has by begetting gained power‘, that is, by speaking. 
And whence has He gained it? and wherefore®? If, when 
He had the Word within Him, He could make, He begets 
needlessly, being able to make even in silence. 

3. Next, if the Word was in God before He was begotten, 
then being begotten He is without and external to Him. 
But if so, how says He now, ZI in the Father and the 
Father in Me? but if He is now in the Father, then always 
was He in the Father, as He is now, and needless is it to say, 
“For us was He begotten, and He reverts after we are 
formed, that He may be as He was. For He was not any 
thing which He is not now, nor is He what He was not; but 
He is as He ever was, and in the same state and in the 
same respects; otherwise He will seem to be imperfect and 
alterable®. For if, what He was, that He shall be afterwards, 
as if now He were it not, it is plain, He is not now what He 


f The same general doctrine is op- 
posed, though by different arguments, 
in Euseb. Eccl. Eccles. pp. 113, 114. 
Neander assumes, Church Hist. 3 cent. 
(vol. 2. p. 277, &c. Rose’s transl.) that 
these sections are directed against Sa- 
bellius. 

8 The same class of objections is 
urged by Eusebius against Marcellus; 
ἐν ὁποίᾳ δὲ ἦν καταστάσει ὁ θεὸς, μὴ ἔχων 
ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὸν οἰκεῖον λόγον. .. 6 θεὸς ἔσται 
ἑαυτῷ ἀνόμοιος. pp. 118, 114. Athan. 
urges the same argument against the 
Arians, supra Orat. ii. p. 335, c. and 


S. Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. p. 664. as 
Origen at an earlier date, as quoted by 
Marcellus, Euseb. contr. M. p. 22. εἰ 
γὰρ ἀεὶ τέλειος 6 θεὸς, .. TL ἀναβάλλεται. 
(vid. R. S. C. Obsery. p. 20. Lips. 1787.) 

Β τρεπτός. We have seen, supr. p. 
230. that the Arians applied this word 
to our Lord; this argument however 
takes it for granted that it cannot be so 
applied, or is reductio ad absurdum, i. 6. 
ad Arianismum, and shews, if additional 
proofs are wanting, that the Arian is 
not the heresy here contemplated. 


nor the Word now in God, and when He returns creation ceases. 527 


was and shall be. I mean, if He was before in God, and συμ. 


afterwards shall be again, it follows that now the Word is nop ——— 
inGod‘i. But our Lord refutes such persons when He says, 

Lin the Father and the Father in Me; for so is He now as 

He ever was. But if so He now is, as He was ever, it follows, 

not that at one time He was begotten and not at another, 

nor that once there was silence with God, and then He spake, 

but there is ever a Father’, and a Son who is His Word, not! p. 211, 
in name’ alone a Word, nor the Word in notion * only a Son, Spore 
but existing consubstantial * with the Father, not begotten for P- 307 
us, for we are brought into being for Him. 

4, For, if He were begotten for us, and in His begetting we oe 
were created, and in His generation the creature consists, and ποῖο τς 
then He returns that He may be what He was before, first, He ae) 
that was begotten will be again not begotten. For if His pro- λει: 
gression be generation, Hisreturn will bethe close’ of that gene- " παῦλα, 
ration*, for when Hehas become in God, God will besilentagain. yi δ τὸς 
But if He shall be silent, there will be what there was when 
He was silent, stillness and not creation, for the creation will 
come to a close. For, ason the Word’s outgoing, the creation 
came to be, and existed, so on the Word’s retiring, the creation 
will not exist’. What use then that it should be made, if it 
will close? or why did God speak, that then He should be 
silent? and why did He develope whom He recalls? and 
why did He beget whose generation He willed to close ? 
Again it is uncertian what He shall be. LHither He will 
ever be silent, or He will again beget, and will devise a 
second creation, (for He will not make the same, else that 
which was made would have remained,) but another; and in 
due course He will bring that also to a close, and will devise δ εἰς 
another, and so on without end°. ἄπεισιν: 


Ρ. 379, 
pope de 


3 κατ᾽ 


And so ἄρα μὴ dv ἐν τῷ θεῷ ὅτε TH 
σαρκὶ συνῆν ; Euseb. contr. Marc. p. 54, 
c. vid. also p. 167, a. 

k παῦλα τῆς γενέσεως. The Catholic 
doctrine of the ἀειγεννὲς is stated supr. 
p- 201, note Ὁ. vid. also p. 495, r. 2. 
Didymus however says, οὐκ ἀεὶ γεννᾶται, 
de Trin. iii. 3. p. 338. but with the in- 
tention of maintaining our Lord’s per- 
fection (supr. p. 201, note c.) and 
eternity, as Hil. Trin. ii. 20. Naz. Orat. 
20. 9 fin. Basil. de Sp. S. n. 20 fin. It 
is remarkable that Pope Gregory objects 
to Semper nascitur as implying imper- 


fection, and prefers Semper natus est. 
Moral. 29. but this is a question of 
words, 

1 Marcellus’s doctrine suggests a 
parallel line of thought to Eusebius. 
He says that, all immortality depend- 
ing on the Son, if the Son cease to be, 
the Saints will lose Him in whom they 
live; οὐ δίχα τοῦ χριστοῦ, κληρονόμο 
ἡμεῖς, πάντα τὰ ἡμῶν ἐκ τῇς αὐτοῦ κοινω- 
vias, p. 34, Ὁ. ἀ. οὐκ ἔτι λαλήσει τοῖς 
ἁγίοις 6 θεὸς τότε, οὐδὲ χρήσεται ἐνεργῷ 
τῷ αὐτοῦ λόγῳ ; p. 118, α. 


Disc. 
IV. 


Ses 


1 > 4 
ἀπείρως 
παύεσθαι 
qu. π., a. 
9 , 
2 πάθος. 
3 lf 
μονάς 
4 oo 
T plas 


Subject VI. 
The Sabellian doctrine of dilatation and contraction. 


ee tg. 17. 


Such a doctrine precludes all real distinctions of personality in the Divine 


Nature. 


Illustration of the Scripture doctrine from 2 Cor. 6, 11, &e. 


1. Tuts perhaps he borrowed* from the Stoics, who main- 


tain that their God collapses and again expands” with the 
creation, and then rests without end’. For what is dilated, is 
first straitened ; and what is expanded, is first in collapse ; 
and it is what it was, and does but undergo an affection*. If 
then the One ἡ being dilated became a Three*, and the One 
was the Father, and the Three is Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost, first the One being dilated, underwent an affection 
and became what it was not; for it was dilated, whereas it 
was not dilated. Next, if the One itself was dilated into a 
Three’, and that, Father and Son and Holy Ghost, then Father 


ἃ ὑπέλαβε. Here an anonymous op- 
ponent is abruptly introduced; also 
14. ἔρεσθαι αὐτὸν καλόν. vid. Introduct. 
to this Oration, supr. p. 501. How- 
ever abrupt, this section seems to be a 
continuation of the foregoing, as the 
words παύσει... . εἰς ἄπειρον there, and 
ἀπείρως παύεσθαι here, shew. 

b And so κατὰ ἔκτασιν καὶ συστολὴν ἢ 
μονὰς δυὰς εἶναι νομίζεται. Clementin. 
xvi. 12. vid. Neander, Church Hist. ({.2. 
p. 276. tr.), who imputes the doctrine to 
the Judeo-Christian theosophists. The 
Benedictine Ed. refers to a passage 
of Diogenes Laertius in Lips. Phys. 
Stoic. ii. 6. in corroboration of what 
Athan. says of the Stoics. Brucker 
dissents t. 1. p. 923. ed. 1767. Peta- 
vius ascribes similar (but orthodox) 
modes of expression to the Platonists, 
referring to Synesius’s adoption of them, 
De Deo ii. 8. 8. 17. Naz. refers to 
them with blame, as of a material cha- 


racter, apparently referring to Plato. 
Orat. 29, 2, b. 

© 7 μονὰς ἐπλατύνθη εἰς τριάδα. the 
very words of Marcellus as quoted by 
Euseb. ἀποῤῥήτῳ λόγῳ ἡ μονὰς φαίνεται 
πλατυνομένη μὲν εἰς τριάδα. Eccl. Theol. 
p- 168, 5, b. Yet πλατυσμὺς seems to 
have been a word of Sabellius, by 
Dionysius’s allusion to it, οὕτω εἴς Te τὴν 
τριάδατὴν μονάδαπλατύνομεν ἀδιαίρετον, 
καὶ kK. T. A. de Sent. Dion. 17 fin. This 
idea of πλατυσμὸς is admitted by other 
Fathers, as by Nazianzen, but of course 
to express the order of Divine Origina- 
tion and Procession, not any actual and 
temporary process; ‘‘the Godhead 
being neither poured out beyond These,” 
the Holy Trinity, ‘‘lest we introduce 
a multitude (δῆμον) of gods, nor limited 
short of Them, &c.” Orat. 38, 8, a. vid. 
also 23, 8. and Basil. de Sp. S. 47. 
But such statements are open to no 
misconstruction. vid. supr. p. 399, note b. 


— i ee eee ee 


——— -τ-“.- 


God at once is Father, and is Son, and is Holy Ghost. 529 


and Son and Spirit become the same, as Sabellius held °; 
unless the One which he speaks of is something besides the 
Father, and then he ought not to speak of dilatation, since the 
One was maker of Three, so that there was a One, and then 
Father, Son, and Spirit. For if the One were dilated and 
expanded itself, it must itself be that which was dilated. 
And a Three when dilated is no longer a One, and when 
a One it is not yet a Three®. And therefore when Father, 
He is not yet Son and Spirit ; and when become These, no 
longer only Father. And a man who thus should lie, might 
ascribe a body to God, and represent Him as passible'; 
for what is dilatation, but an affection? of that which is 
dilated ? or what the dilated, but what before was not so, 
but was strait instead; for it is the same, in time only 
differing from itself. 

2. And this the divine Apostle knows, when he writes to the 
Corinthians, Be ye not straitened in us, but be ye yourselves 


dilated, O Corinthians ; for he advises them, continuing the | 


same, to change from straitness to dilatation. And as, sup- 
posing the Corinthians, being straitened, were in turn dilated, 
they had not been others, but still Corinthians, so if the 
Father was dilated into a Three, the Three again is the 
Father alone. And he says again the same thing, Our heart 
is dilated; and Noe says, God shall dilate Japheth, for the 
same heart, and the same Japheth is in the dilatation. If then 
the One dilated, othersit dilated ; but if it dilated itself, then 
it would be that which was dilated; and what is that but the 
Son and Holy Spirit ? 


ἃ It is difficult to decide what Sa- 
bellius’s doctrine really was; nor is 
this wonderful, considering the per- 
plexity and vacillation which is the 
ordinary consequence of abandoning 
Catholic truth. Also we must distin- 
guish between him and his disciples. 
He is considered by Eusebius, Eccl. 
Theol. i. p. 91. Patripassian, i.e. as 
holding that the Father was the Son ; 
also by Athan. Orat. iii. 36 init. supr. p. 
45], r. 2. de Sent. Dion. 5 and 9. By 
the Eusebians of the Macrostich Creed 
ap. Athan. de Syn. 26. supr. p. 115. By 
Basil. Ep. 210, 5. Ruffin. in Symb, 5. 
By Augustine de Her. 41. By Theodor. 
Her. ii. 9. And apparently by Origen. 
ad Tit. t. 4. p. 695. And 5. Cyprian. Ep. 

. 73. On the other hand, Epiphanius seems 


to deny it, ap. August. 1. c. and Alex- 
ander, by comparing it to the emanating 
doctrine of Valentinus, ap. Theod. 
Hist. i. 3. p. 743. Vid. p. 115, note f. 
and p. 505. 

© vid. a passage similar to this, Orat. 
i. §. 17. supr. pp. 205, 6. where such a 
doctrine is urged as the strongest re- 
ductio ad absurdum against the Arians, 
being a red. ad Sabellismum ; (a similar 
red. ad abs. is mentioned infr. p. 532, n. 
3. in Orat. i. 8. 38. supr. p. 234. vid. also 
supr. p. 526, note Κι) It is there urged 
that the Holy Trinity becomes ἀνόμοιος 
ἑαυτῆς, the charge which Eusebius brings 
against Marcellus, 6 θεὸς ἔσται ἑαυτῷ avd- 
Howtos. p. 114, a. Athan. declares that the 
τριὰς is ὅμοια ἑαυτῇ. Serap. i. 17 init. 20, 
c. 28, c. and 8. Cyril. in Catech. vi. 7. 


SuBs. 
VI. 


1 παθητόν 


3 πάθος 


2 Cor. 6, 
ll. 
en. 9, 


27. 


Disc. 
IV. 
1 ἐνέργεια 


pp. 506, 
7 {es 


2 p. 208, 
note b. 


3 τῷ ἂν- 
θρώπῳ 


530 No divine dilatation either from incarnation or creation. 


3. And it is well to ask him, when thus speaking, what 
was the action’ of this dilatation? or, in very truth, where- 
fore at all it took place? for what does not remain the same, 
but is in course of time dilated, must necessarily have a 
cause of dilatation. If then it was in order that Word 
and Spirit should be with Him, it is beside the purpose 
to say, first “One;” and then “was dilated ;” for Word 
and Spirit were not afterwards, but ever, or God would 
be word-less’, as the Arians hold. So that if Word and 
Spirit were ever, ever was It dilated, and not at first but a 
One; but if it were dilated afterwards, then afterwards is the 
Word. But if for the Incarnation It was dilated, and then 
became a Three, then before the Incarnation there was not 
yet a Three. And it will seem even that the Father became 
flesh, if, that is, He be the One, and was dilated into man’s 
nature *; and thus perhaps there will only be a One, and flesh, 
and thirdly Spirit’; if so be He was Himself dilated, and 
there will be in name only a Three. It is extravagant too 
to say that it was dilated for the sake of creating; for it were 
possible for the Divine Being, remaining a One, to make all; 
for the One did not need dilatation, nor was wanting in 
power before the dilatation; it is extravagant surely and 
impious, to think or speak thus in the caseof God. Another 
extravagance too will follow. For if it was dilated for the 
sake of the creation, and while it was a One, the creation was 
not, but upon the end of all things, it will be again a One after 
dilatation, then the creation too will come to nought. For 
as for the sake of creating it was dilated, so, the dilatation 
ceasing, the creation will cease also. 


f This passage is like one in Euse- θεός. σαφῶς ἐντεῦθεν Tod σωτῆρος περὶ 
bius contr. Mare. τί τοίνυν ἦν τὸ κατελ- τοῦ πατρὸς λέγοντος, ἐλέγχεται Μάρ- 
Ody τοῦτο πρὸ τοῦ ἐνανθρωπῆσαι; πάντως κελλος αὐτὸν τὸν πατέρα ἐνηνθρωπηκέναι 
πού, φησιν, πνεῦμα: εἰ δὲ πνεῦμα, πνεῦμα ὃ εἰπών. pp. 35, 86. 


Subject VII. 


On the Identity of the Word with the Son against Photinians 
and Samosatenes. 


gs. 15—24. 


Since the Word is from God, He must be Son. 


Since the Son is from 


everlasting, He must be the Word; else either He is superior to the 


Word, or the Word is the Father. 


Texts of the New Testament which 


state the unity of the Son with the Father; therefore the Son is the 
Word. Three heretical hypotheses—l. That the Man is the Son; 
refuted. 2, That the Word and Man together are the Son; refuted. 
3. That the Word became Son on His incarnation; refuted. Texts 
of the Old Testament which speak of the Son. If they are 
merely prophetical, then those concerning the Word may be such 


also. 


1. Suc extravagances will be the consequence of saying 


that the One is dilated into a Three. 


But since those who 


say so, dare to separate Word and Son, and to say that the 
Word is one and the Son another, and that first was the 
Word and then the Son, come let us consider this doctrine 


also +. 


Now their presumption takes various forms; for some 
say that the man whom the Saviour assumed, is the Son’; 


? 


and others both that the man and the Word, then became 


Son when they were united’. 


And others say that the Word 
Himself then became Son when He became man? ; 


for 


from being Word, they say, He became Son, not being 


Son before, but only Word. 


2. Now both are Stoic doctrines, whether to say that God 
was dilated or to deny the Son”; but especially is it absurd 


8 The Valentinians, in their system 
of Eons, had already divided the Son 
from the Word; but they considered 
the μονογενὴς first, the Adyos next. 

b Perhaps by saying that the Stoics 
denied the Son, he means to allude to 
their doctrine, that their λόγος or God 
was one of the two Ingenerate Prin- 
ciples, matter being the other. Laer- 


tius first distinguishes between ἀρχαὶ 
and στοιχεῖα, saying that the former 
are ἀγένητοι καὶ ἄφθαρτοι ; and then lays 
down that the ἀρχαὶ τῶν ὅλων are two, 
τὸ ποιοῦν καὶ τὸ πάσχον, then τὸ μὲν πάσ- 
χον τὴν ὕλην εἶναι, τὸ δὲ ποιοῦν τὸν ἐν 
αὐτῇ λόγον τὸν θεόν. vid. Lips. Physiol. 
Stoic. i. 4. 


1 vid. 
§. 20. 


2 vid. 
§. 21. 
3 vid. 
§. 22 fin. 


Disc. 
IV. 


532 If the Word from God, He is Son ; if a Son, He is the Word. 


to name the Word, yet deny Him to be Son. For if the 


——— Word be not from God, reasonably might they deny Him to 


1 p. 529, 

note e. 

+ p. 523, 

note d. 

3 vid. 

supr. 

p- 223. 
ἃ. 16. 


4p. 201, 
note b. 


John 1, 
18. 


be Son; but if He is from God, how see they not that 
what exists from anything is son of him from whom it is‘? 
Next, if God is Father of the Word, why is not the Word 
Son of His own Father ? for he is and is called father, whose 
is the son; and he is and is called son of another, whose 
is the father. If then God is not Father of Christ, neither is 
the Word Son; but if God be Father, then reasonably also 
the Word is Son. 

3. But if afterwards there is Father, and first God, this is 
an Arian! thought®. Next, it is extravagant that God should 
change; for that belongs to bodies; but if He became 
Father, as in the instance of creation He became afterwards 
a Maker, let them know that the change is in the things ἢ 
which afterwards came to be, andnotin Ged. Ifthen the Son 
too were a work, well might God begin to be a Father towards 
Him as others; but if the Son is not a work, then ever was 
the Father and ever the Son*. But if the Son was ever, He 
must be the Word‘; for if the Word be not Son, and this be 
what a man is bold enough to say, either He holds that Word 
to be Father® or the Son superior to the Word. For the Son 
being in the bosom of the Father, of necessity either the 
Word is not before the Son, (for nothing is before Him who 
is in the Father,) or if the Word be other than the Son, the 
Word must be the Father in whom is the Son. But if the 
Word is not Father but Word, the Word must be external 
to the Father, since it is the Son, who 15 in the bosom of the 
Father. For not both the Word and the Son are in the bosom, 
but one must be, and He the Son, who is only-begotten. 
And it follows for another reason, if the Word is one, and the 


© In consequence it is a very diffi- 
cult question in theology, why the 
Holy Spirit is not called a “Son,” 
and His procession ‘‘ generation.” 
This was an objection of the Arians, 
vid. ad Serap. i. 15—17. and Athan. 
only answers it by denying that we may 
speculate. Other writers apply, as in 
other cases, the theological language of 
the Church to a solution of this question. 
It is carefully discussed in Petav. Dogm. 
t. 2. vii. 13, 14. vid. p. 121, note s. 


ἃ i.e. He must be the Word, who 
confessedly is from everlasting. The 
object of this section and the next is to 
shew that ‘‘Son”’ is not a lower title 
than Word, (which certain heretics 
said,) and therefore that they are both 
titles of One and the Same. 

8 This is what Nestorius says of 
Photinus; dicit Verbum istum aliquando 
quidem Patris nomine vocitari, ali- 
quando autem Verbi nomine, &c. ap. 
Mar. Mere. t. 2. p. 87. 


Texts in Scripture which are spoken of the Son, not of the Word. 533 


Son another, that the Son is superior to the Word; for xo 
one knoweth the Father save the Son’, not the Word. Either 
then the Word does not know, or if He knows, it is not true ' 
that no one knows. 

4. And the same of He that hath seen Me, hath seen the 
Father, and I and the Father are One, for this the Son-says, 
and not the Word, as they would have it, as is plain from the 
Gospel; for according to John when the Lord said, 7 and 
the Father are One, the Jews took up stones to stone Him. 
Jesus® answered them, Many good works have I shewed you 


trom My Father, for which of those works do ye stone Me ? 


The Jews answered Him, saying, For a good work we stone 
Thee not, but for blasphemy, and because that Thou, being a 
man, makest Thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not 
written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? Tf he called them 
gods unto whom the Word of God came, and the Scriptures 
cannot be broken, say ye of Him, whom the Father hath 
sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because 
I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of My 
Father, believe Me not. But if I do, though ye believe not 
Me, believe the works, that ye may know and believe that the 
Father is in Me, and I in the Father. And yet, as far as 
the surface of the words intimated, He said neither “I 
am God,” nor “JI am Son of God,” but 7 and the Father are 
One. The Jews, then, when they heard One, thought like 
Sabellius, that He said that He was the Father, but our 
Saviour shews their sin by this argument; “Though I said 
God, you should have remembered what is written, 7 said, 
Ye are gods.” Then to clear up (ἢ and the Father are One, 
He has explained the Son’s oneness with the Father in the 
words, Because I said, I am the Son of God. For if He did 
not say it in the letter’, still He has explained as to the sense 
are One of the Son. For nothing is one with the Father, 
but what is from Him. What is That which is from Him 
but the Son? And therefore He adds, that ye may know 


f Eusebius says that Marcellus, as that is, the Word.’” pp. 77, 78. 


it were, corrected this text, while he & This passage is urged against 
quoted it; ‘‘as if correcting the Sa- Marcellus in the same way by Eusebius, 
viour’s words, instead of ‘Son,’ he 87 


names again ‘ Word,’ thus saying, ‘ No h vid. Euseb. contr, Mare. p. 17. 
one knoweth the Father save the Son, 


Suss. 
VII. 


Matt. 11, 


27. 
1 ψεῦδος 


John 10, 
32—38. 


συ 
μ-ι 


2 τῇ λέξει 


Disc. 
IV. 


John 12, 
45. al. 
text. rec. 
Matt. 10, 
40. 

John 12, 
46—48. 
alot. x: 


1 6 λόγος, 
i.e. τὸ 
κήρυγμα 


534 Ifthe Son not the Word, not the Word but the Son the Superior. 


that I am in the Father and the Father in Me. For, when 
expounding the One, He said that the union and the insepa- 
rability lay, not in This being That, with which It was One, 
but in His being in the Father and the Father in the Son. 
For thus He overthrows both Sabellius, in saying, not, J am 
“the Father,” but, the Son of God; and Arius, in saying, are 
One. 

5. If then the Son and the Word are not the same, it is 
not that the Word is one with the Father, but the Son; nor 
whoso hath seen the Word hath seen the Father, but he that 
hath seen the Son. And from this it follows, either that the 
Son is greater than the Word, or the Word has nothing be- 
yond the Son. For what can be greater or more perfect than 
One, and I in the Father and the Father in Me, and He 
that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father? for all this is 
said by the Son. And hence the same John says, He that 
hath seen Me, hath seen Him that sent Me, and He that 
receiveth Me, receiveth Him that sent Me; and, I am come 
a light into the world, that whosoever believeth in We, 
should not abide in darkness. And if any one hear My 
words and observe them not, I judge him not; for I 
came not to judge the world, but to save the world. The 
word: which he shall hear, the same shall gudge him in the 
last day, because I go unto the Father. The preaching’, He 
says, shall judge him who has not observed the command- 
ment; “ for if,” He says, “I had not come and spoken unto 
them, they had not had sin; but now they shall have no 
cloke, He says, having heard My words, through which those 
who observe them shall reap salvation.” 

6. Perhaps they will have so little shame as to say, that 
this is spoken not by the Son but by the Word; but from 
what preceded it appeared plainly that the Speaker was the 
Son. For He who here says, I came not to yudge the world, 
but to save, is shewn to be no other than the Only-begotten 
Son of God, by the same John’s saying, before’, For God so 
loved the world that He gave His Only-begotten Son, that 
whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have 
everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world 


i These same texts are quoted to ence, &c. of the Son, by Eusebius 
prove the same doctrine, the pre-exist- against Marcellus. p. 86. 


Proof from Scripture that the Son is the Word. 5385 


to condemn the world, but that the world through Him ΕΣ 
might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not con- 
demned, but he that believeth not is condemned already, 
because he hath not believed in the Name of the Only- 
begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that 
light is come into the world, and men loved darkness 
rather than light, because their deeds are evil. If He who 
says, Kor I came not to judge the world, but that I might 
save it, is the Same as says, He that seeth Me, seeth Him os 12, 
that sent Me, and if He who came to save the world and not * 
judge it is the Only-begotten Son of God, it is plain that it 
is the same Son who says, He that seeth Me, seeth Him that 
sent Me. For He who said, He that believeth on Me, and, wv. 44, 
If any one hear My words, I judge him not, is the Son at 
Himself, of whom Scripture says, He that believeth on Him 3, 18, 19. 
as not condemned, but He that believeth not is condemned already, 
because He hath not believed in the Name of the Only-begotten 
Son of God. 

7. And again*:; And this is the condemnation of him who 
believeth not on the Son, that light hath come into the 
world, and they believed not in Him, that is, in the Son; 
for He must be the Light which lighteth every man that 1, 9. 
cometh into the world. And as long as He was upon earth 
according to the incarnation, He was Light in the world, as 
He said Himself, While ye have light believe in the light, 12, 36, 
that ye may be the children of light; for I, says He, am come *® 
a light into the world. This then being shewn, it follows 8, 19. 
that the Word is the Son. But if the Son is the light, 
which has come into the world, beyond all dispute the world 
was made by the Son. For in the beginning of the Gospel, 
the Evangelist, speaking of John the Baptist, says, He was, 8. 
not that Light, but that he might bear witness concerning 
that Light. For Christ Himself was, as we have said before, 
the true Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the 
world!. 

8. For if He was in the world, and the world was made Job 1, 
by Him, of necessity He is the Word of God, concerning ἐν 
whom also the Evangelist witnesses that all things were made 


k vid. in like manner Eusebius contr. ! vid. also Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p. 
Marcell. pp. 83, 87, 117. 142, c. 


Disc. 
TV 


' ὥρα, p. 


524, τ. 5. 


John 10, 
30. 

1, 18. 
12, 46. 


John 14, 
9—13. 


Jor the very works’ sake. 


536 Texts in Scripture which are spoken of the Son not the Word. 


by Him. For either they will be compelled to speak of two 
worlds, that the one may have come into being by the Son 
and the other by the Word, or, if the world is one and the 
creation one, it follows that Son and Word are one and the 
same before all creation, for by Him it came into being. 
Therefore if as by the Word, so by the Son also all things came 
to be, it will not be contradictory, but even identical to say, 
for instance, In the beginning was the Word, or, In the begin- 
ning was the Son™. But if because John did not say, “ In the 
beginning was the Son,” they shall maintain that the attributes 
of the Word do not suit with the Son, it at once’ follows that 
the attributes of the Son do not suit with the Word. But to 
the Son belongs, as was shewn, I and the Father are One, 
and, Which is in the bosom of the Father, and, He that 
seeth Me, secth Him that sent Me; and that “the world was 
brought into being by Him,” is common to the Word and 
the Son ; so that from this the Son is shewn to be before the 
world; for of necessity the Framer is before the things He 
brings into being. 

9. And what is said to Philip must belong, not to the 
Word, as they would have it", but to the Son. For, Jesus 
said, says Seripture, Have I been so long time with you, and 
yet thou hast not known Me, Philip? He that hath seen 
He, hath seen the Father. And how sayest thou then, 
Shew us the Father? Believest thou not, that I am in the 
futher and the Kather in Me? the words that I speak 
unto you, I speak not of Myself, but the Father that 
dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works. Believe Me that I am 
in the Father and the Father in Me, or else, believe Me 
Verily, verily, I say unto you, he 
that believeth on Me, the works that I do shall he do also, 


~and greater works than these shali he do, because I go unto 


the Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in My Name, that 
will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 
Therefore if the Father be glorified in the Son, the Son must 


m A similar passage is found in Eu- 
seb. contr. Marc. p. 122, d. 

n This is what Marcellus argues, as 
quoted by Eusebius, p. 39, a, b. After 
saying that “1 and My Father are 
One” are spoken, not of Him who was 


seen, but of the Word, he continues, 

κἀκεῖνο, τοσούτῳ χρόνῳ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰμὶ, 

Φίλιππε, καὶ λέγεις δεῖξόν μοι τὸν πατέρα, 
x) , ” > - ΕΣ Ἂν Lad 

OU TOUTOLS TOLS ὀφθαλμοῖς, aAAG τοῖς von- 

τοῖς" ἀόρατος yap 6 τεπατὴρ καὶ 6 τούτου 

λόγος. 


᾿ 
Oe 


Against Scripture that not the Word, but the Man, is Son. 537 


be He who said, I in the Father and the Father in Me; — 
and He who said, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father ; ᾿ 
for He, the same who thus spoke, shews Himself to be the 
Son, by adding, that the Futher may be glorified in the Son. 

10. If then they say that the Man whom the Word bore, ὃ. 20. 
and not the Word, is the Son of God the Only-begotten', the 
Man must be by consequence He who is in the Father, in 
whom also the Father is; and the Man must be He who is 
One with the Father, and who is in the bosom of the Father, 
and the True Light. And they will be compelled to say that 
through the Man Himself the world came into being, and 
that the Man was He who came not to judge the world but 
to save it; and that He it was who was in being before 
Abraham came to be. For, says Scripture, Jesus said to 
them, Verily, verily, I say unto you before Abraham was, I Jou 8, 
am. And isit not extravagant to say, as they do, that one ὅδ᾽ 
who came of the seed of Abraham after two and forty 
generations ', should exist before Abraham came to be? is 16 1 via. 
not extravagant, if the flesh, which the Word bore, itself is M@*t- 1. 
the Son, to say that the flesh from Mary is that by which the 
world was made? and how will they retain He was in the 
world ? for the Evangelist, by way of signifying the Son’s 
antecedence to the birth according to the flesh, goes on to say, 
He was in theworld. And how, if not the Word but the Man 
is the Son, can He save the world, being Himself one of the 
world? And if this does not shame them, where shall be the 
Word,the Man being in the Father? And what will the Word 
be to the Father, the Man andthe Father being One? But if 
the Man be Only-begotten, what will be the place of the 
Word? Either one must say that He comes second, or, if 
He be above the Ouly-begotten, He must be the Father 
Himself. For as the Father is One, so also the Only- 
begotten from Him is One; and what has the Word above 
the Man, if the Word is not the Son? For, while Scripture 
says that through the Son and the Word the world was 


T This is the first of the three hypo- as a ¢itle of the Word manifested in 
theses noted above, p. 531. This form the flesh. vid. Euseb. pp. 81, 82. the 
of Sabellianism closely approximates to human being, whom He assumed, being 
what was afterwards Nestorianism. As_ in his creed ‘‘the Son of man,” not of 
to Marcellus, it is a question whether God. vid. ibid. pp. 42, a. 77, c. 87, b. 
he admitted any ‘‘ Son of God,” except 


2N 


Disc. 


ΟἽ: 


Jo 
36 


IV. 


hn 3, 


538 Faith and Baptism in the Son not in the Word. 


brought to be, and it iscommon to the Word and to the Son to 
frame the world, yet as to the sight * of the Father Scripture 
proceeds to place it, not in the Word but the Son, and the 
saving of the world, to attribute it not to the Word, but to 
the Only-begotten Son. For, saith it, Jesus said, Have I 
been so long while with you, and yet hast thou not known 
Me, Philip? He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father. 
Nor does Scripture say that the Word knows the Father, but 
the Son; and that not the Word sees the Father, but the 
Only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father. 

11. And what more does the Word for our salvation than 
the Son, if, as they hold, the Son is One, and the Word 
another ? for the command is that we should believe, not in 
the Word, but in the Son. For John says, He that believeth 
on the Son, hath everlasting life; but he that believeth not 
the Son, shall not see life. And Holy Baptism, in which the 
substance of the whole faith is lodged, is administered not in 
the Word, but in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If then, as 
they hold, the Word is one and the Son another, and the 
Word is not the Son, Baptism has no connection with the 
Word. How then are they able to hold that the Word is 
with the Father, when He is not with Him in the grant of 
Baptism? But perhaps they will say, that in the Father’s 
Name the Word is included ? Wherefore then not the Spirit 
also ? or is the Spirit external to the Father? and the Man 
indeed, (if the Word is not Son,) is named after the Father, 
but the Spirit after the Man? and, instead of being content 
with the One dilating into a Three, they dilate into a Four, 
Father, Word, Son, and Holy Ghost. 

12. Being brought to shame on this ground, they have 
recourse to another, and say that not the Man by Himself 
whom the Lord bore, but both together, the Word and the 
Man, are the Son; for both joined together are named Son, 
as they say. Which then is cause of which ἢ and which. has 
made which a Son? or, to speak more clearly, is the Word 
a Son because of the flesh? or is the flesh called Son because 
of the Word ? or is neither the cause, but the concurrence of 


5 τὸ δὲ ὁρᾶν τὸν πατέραᾳ. The Latin the Fatherin the Word. Yet there is 
version, which is often faulty, renders, a repetition just afterwards of ὁρᾶν τὸν 
Patrem non a Verbo sed ἃ Filio videri; πατέρα in the former sense. 
but Athan. seems to mean our seeing 


Against Scripture that the Word and Man together the Son. 589 


the twoP If then the Word be a Son because of the flesh, of Sent 
necessity the flesh is Son, and all those extravagances follow ——— 
which have been already drawn from saying that the Man is 

Son. But if the flesh is called Son because of the Word, 

then even before the flesh the Word certainly, being such, 

was Son. For how could a being make other sons, not being 
himself a son, especially ‘ when there was a father’? If then! p. 416, 
He makes sons for Himself, then is He Himself Father ; but nore & 
if for the Father, then must He be Son, or rather that Son, 

for whose sake the rest are made sons. For if, while He is ὃ. 22. 
not Son, we are sons, God is our Father and not His. How 

then does He appropriate the name instead, saying, My Father, John 5, 
and, I from the Father ? for if He be common Father of all, ἽΝ ι 
He is not His Father only, nor did He only come out from 

the Father. Now He says, that God is sometimes called our 
Father, because He has Himself become partaker in our flesh. 

For on this account the Word became flesh, that, since the 
Word is Son, therefore, because of the Son dwelling in us’, ? p. 366, 
God may be called our Father also; for He hath sent forth, ae 6 
says Scripture, the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, erying, 

Abba, Father. Therefore the Son in us, calling upon His 

own Father, causes Him to be named our Father also. Surely 

in whose hearts the Son is not, of them neither can God be 

called Father. But if because of the Word the Man is 

called Son, it follows necessarily, since the ancients* are be 548, 
called sons even before the Incarnation, that the Word” 

is Son even before His sojourn among us; for I have begotten ae a 2. 
sons, saith Scripture; and in the time of Noe, When the © Ἀπ 6. 
sons of God saw, and in the Song, Is not He Thy Father ? asi. 
Therefore there was also that True Son, for whose sake they 32, 6. 
too were sons. But if, as they say again, neither of the two 

is Son, but it depends on the concurrence of the two, it 
follows that neither is Son; I say, neither the Word nor the 

Man, but some cause, on account of which they were united; 

and accordingly that cause which makes the Son will precede 


τ ὄντος μάλιστα πατρός. Thisishardly ἐὰν μάλ. Orat. ii. 7, a. ἔνθα μάλ. Orat. 
the sense of μάλιστα which in this ii. 10, c. οἷα μάλ. Orat. ii. 32, b. 
position is common; vid. supr. p. 52, μεγάλως μάλ. Orat. iii. 42 init. ἀκούοντες 
note c. Also εἰ καὶ τὰ μάλιστα. de Syn. μάλ. ad Ep. Ag. 20 fin, 

29, a. ὅταν μάλ. Apol. ad Const. 25. init. 


is 


Disc. 


isp 307, 
note d. 


§. 23. 


2) λόγος 
Matt. 
11..97: 
John I, 
18. 


14, 9. 


1 Sam. 2, 
27. Sept. 


540 Against Scripture that the Word became Son when Man. 


the uniting. Therefore in this way also the Son was before 
the flesh. 

13. When this then is urged, they will take refuge in 
another pretext, saying, neither that the Man is Son, nor 
both together, but that the Word was Word indeed simply 
in the beginning, but when He became Man, then He was 
named’ Son; for before His appearing He was not Son but 
Word only; and as the Word became flesh, not being flesh 
before, so the Word became Son, not being Son before *. 
Such are their idle words; but they admit of an obvious 
refutation. For if simply, when made Man, He became Son, 
the becoming Man is the cause. And if the Man is cause of 
His being Son, or both together, then the same extravagances 
result. Next, if He is first Word and then Son, it will appear 
that He knew the Father afterwards, not before; for not as 
being Word? does He know Him, but as Son. For no one 
knoweth the Father but the Son. And this too will result, 
that He became afterwards in the bosom of the Father, and 
afterwards He and the Father became One; and afterwards 
is, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father. For all 
these things are said of the Son. Hence they will be forced 
to say, the Word was nothing but a name’. For neither is 
it He who is in us with the Father, nor whoso has seen the 
Word, hath seen the Father, nor was the Father known to 
any one at all, for through the Son is the Father known, (for 
so it is written, And he to whomsoever the Son will reveal 
Him,) and, the Word not being yet Son, not yet did any 
know the Father. How then was He seen by Moses, how 
by the fathers? for He says Himself in the book of Kings, 
Was I not plainly revealed to the house of thy father ? 
But if God was revealed, there must have been a Son to 
reveal, as He says Himself, And he to whomsoever the Son 
will reveal Him. 

14. It is irreligious then and foolish to say that the Word 
is one and the Son another, and whence they gained such an 


x Marcellus seems to express this λόγον, συμφυᾷ τῷ θεῷ, ἀϊδίως αὐτῷ 
view in various passages in Eusebius, συνόντα καὶ ἡνωμένον. p. 32. 
who reports him as holding μήτε εἶναι y This is a retort upon Marcellus, 
μήτε προὐφεστᾶναι μήτε ὅλως πώποτε who held that “‘the Son” was a name 
υἱὸν ὑπάρξαι τῷ θεῷ mpd τοῦ τεχθῆναι ΟΥ̓ appellation of the Word. 
διὰ τῆς παρθένου, αὐτὸν δὲ μόνον εἶναι 


Tt is not true that the Son is not named in the Old Testament. 541 


idea it were well to ask them. They answer, Because no pit 
mention is made in the Old Testament of the Son, but of : 
the Word’; and ἴου 0815 reason they are positive in their 
opinion that the Son came later than the Word, because not 
in the Old, but in the New Testament only, is He spoken of. 
This is what they irreligiously say; for first to separate 
between the Testaments, so that the one does not hold with 
the other, is the device of Manichees and Jews, the one of 
whom oppose the Old, and the other the New’. Next, on ' p. 288, 
their shewing, if what is contained in the Old Testament is of DAB, 
older date, and what in the New of later, and times depend °- 6- 
upon the writing, it follows that Z and the Father are One, John 10, 
and Only-begotten, and EHe that hath seen Me hath seen the i Nas 
Father, are later, for these testimonies are adduced not from 
the Old but from the New. But it is not so; for in truth ἃ. 24. 
much is said in the Old Testament also about the Son, as in Ps. 2,7; 
the second Psalm, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten 
Thee; and in the ninth the title, Unto the end concerning Ps. 9 
the hidden things of the Son, a Psalm of David; and in the ae 
forty-fourth, Unto the end, concerning the things that shall 45, title. 
be changed to the Sons of Core for understanding, a song Hohe See 
about the Well-beloved* ; and in Ksaias, I will sing to My 15. 5,1. 
Weill-beloved a song of My Well-beloved touching My vine- 
yard. My Well-beloved hath a vineyard; Who is this Well- 
beloved® but the Only-begotten Son ? as also in the hundred 3 ἀγαπη- 
and ninth, From the womb I have begotten Thee before the πὰ 
morning star, concerning which I shall speak afterwards ; and 3- Sept. 
in the Proverbs, Before the hills He begat Me ; and in Daniel, Prov. 8, 
And the form of the Fourth is like the Son of God; and many aes. 
others. If then from the Old be ancientness, ancient must 25: 
be the Son, who is clearly described in the Old Testament in 
many places. 

15. “ Yes,” they say, ‘so it is, but it must be taken pro- 
phetically ».”” Therefore also the Word must be said to be 


2 


Z This seems to have been an ob- 
jection of Marcellus, which Eusebius 
answers, p. 93, a. p. 96, d. and accounts 
for the fact, if granted, p. 135. 

a yid. also Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p. 99, 


a. 

b And so Eusebius of Marcellus, and 
Epiphanius of Photinus, as quoted supr. 
p-510,(11.) An earlier heretic (Beryllus, 


who afterwards recanted), is referred to 
by Origen (according to De la Rue, ad 
Origenian. i. 3. §. 8.) as holding homi- 
nem Dominum Jesum precognitum et 
predestinatum, qui ante adventum car- 
nalem substantialiter et proprie non ex- 
stiterit. t. 4. p. 695. Paul of Samo- 
sata said the same. vid. supr. p. 114, 
note c. Athan. contr. Apoll. ii. 3. 


Disc. 
IV. 


— that another. 


Ps. 33, 6. 


93, 1. 


Ps. 45, 1. 
Sept. 


Matt. 3, 
17: 


Gen. 22, 
74. 


1 6voma- 
σθεὶς, vid. 
p. 505, 3. 


542 Or is called Son in the Old Testament prophetically. 


uttered prophetically ; for this is not to be taken one way, 
For if Thou art My Son refer to the future, so 
does By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established ; 
for it is not said “ brought to be,’”’ nor “He made.” And 
because established refers to the future, it is said elsewhere, 
The Lord is King, then, He hath so established the earth that 
it can never be moved. And if the words in the forty-fourth 
Psalm for My Well-beloved refer to the future, so does what 
follows upon them, My heart burst with a good Word. And 
if From the womb relates to a man, therefore also From the 
For if the womb is human, so is the heart cor- 
But if what is from the heart is eternal, then what 
is From the womb is eternal. And if the Only-begotten is in 
the bosom, therefore the Wedll-beloved is in the bosom. For 
Only-begotten and Well-beloved are the same, as in the 
words This is My Well-beloved Son. For not as wishing to 
signify His love towards Him did He say, Well-beloved, as if 
it might appear that He hated others, but He made plain 
thereby His being Only-begotten, that He might shew that 
He alone was from Him*. And hence the Word, with a view 
of conveying to Abraham the idea of Only-begotten, says, 
Offer thy son thy well-beloved; and it is plain to any one 
that Isaac was the only son from Sara“. 

16. The Word then is Son, not lately brought to be, or 
named Son’, but always Son. For if not Son, neither is He 
Word; and if not Word, neither is He Son. For that which 
is from the father is a son; and what is from the Father, but 
that Word that went forth from the heart, and was born from 
the womb? for the Father is not Word,nor the Word Father ®; 
but the one is Father, and the other Son; and one begets, 
and the other is begotten. 


heart. 
poreal. 


quoted by Wetstein in Matth. iii. 17. 


€ ἀγαπητὸς is explained by μονογενὴς 
by Hesychius, Suidas, and Pollux; it 
is the version of the Sept. equally with 
μονογενὴς of the Hebrew 1m. Homer 
calls Astyanax Ἑκτορίδην ἀγαπητόν ; 
vid. also the instance of Telemachus, 
infr. p. 549; Plutarch notices this; 
“Ὅμηρος ἀγαπητὸν ὀνομάζει μοῦνον 
τηλύγετον, τουτέστι μὴ ἔχουσι ἕτερον 
γονεῦσι, μήτε ἕξουσι γεγεννημένον, as 


Vid. also Suicer in voc. 

d The subject of Old Testament 
evidence in favour of the title ‘‘ Son,” 
is continued in §§. 27, 28. 

€ This doctrine Nestorius considered 
as the characteristic of Photinus. supr. 
p. 506 init. Sabellius viordropa dicit, 
Photinus Aoyordropa. 


Subject VILL. 
(Being Subject 4. continued.) 


ὃ, 25. 
Heretical illustration from 1 Cor. 12, 4. refuted. 


1. Ir then Arius raves in saying that the Son is from ἃ. 26. 
nothing, and that once He was not, Sabellius raves‘ also in eee 
saying that the Father is Son, and again, the Son Father ’, in μανία, 
subsistence * One, in name Two; and he raves also* in using as aoe 
an example the grace of the Spirit. For he says, “ As there 76, 
are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit, so also the Father 12, 4. 
is the same, but is dilated into Son and Spirit.” Now this Greed 
is utterly extravagant; for if as with the Spirit, so it is with ὃ ὑποστά- 
God, the Father will be Word and Holy Spirit, to one becoming ἌΝ 
Father, to another Son, to another Spirit, accommodating »°te t 
himself to the need of each, and in name indeed Son and Spirit, 
but in reality Father only; having a beginning ἡ in that He “ ἀρχὴν, 
becomes a Son, and then ceasing to be called Father, and” ἯΠ 
made man in name, but in truth not even coming among us; 
and untrue® in saying I and the Father, but in reality being 5 ψευδό- 
Himself the Father, and the other extravagances which “‘’°* 
result in the instance of Sabellius. And the name of the 
Son and the Spirit will necessarily cease, when the need 
has been supplied; and what happens will altogether be 
but make-belief, because they have been displayed, not in 
truth, but in name. And the Name of Son ceasing, as they 


8 Neander, Church Hist. vol. 2. p. 
277. understands this μαίνεται δὲ καὶ 
χρώμενος of Sabellius. But the repe- 
tition of ualveraris somewhat against 
the supposition, and the ὅσα ἄλλα ἐπὶ 
Σαβελλίου which presently follows. So 
too isthe κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς which occurs lower 
down the section. And the προῆλθεν 
6 λόγος and the annihilation of creation 
at its close, which have above been 
ascribed to Marcellus. p. 507. (8.) And 


the πλατύνεται εἰς υἱὸν καὶ πνεῦμα Which 
follows at once, and is the very phrase 
of Marcellus. supr. p. 506. Athanasius 
then does but say that the illustration 
from the gifts of the Spirit is a running 
into Sabellianism. As to the want of a 
nominative to shew whom he is speaking 
of, it may be urged rather in proof of the 
abrupt and defective character of the 
composition of the Oration. 


044 If no Son, no baptismal grace, no creation. 


ee hold, then the grace of Baptism will cease too; for it was 
rp. ΤΣ given in theSon’. Nay, what will follow but the annihilation 
of the creation ? for if the Word came forth that we might 

? p. 316, be created *, and when He was come forth, we were, it is plain 
ἜΣ that when He retires into the Father, as they say, we shall be 
noteb. no longer. For He will be as He was; so also we shall not 
be, as then we were not; for when He is no more gone 

§. 26. forth, there will no more be a creation. Extravagant then is 


this. 


Subject IX. 
(Being Subject 7. continued.) 


That the Son is the Co-existing Word, argued from the New Testament. 
Texts from the Old Testament continued ; especially Ps. 110, 3. Besides, 
the Word in Old Testament may be Son in New, as Spirit in Old 
Testament is Paraclete in it. Objection from Acts 10, 36. urged by the 
Samosatenes; answered by parallels, such as 1 Cor 1, 5. Lev. 9, 7. &e. 
Necessity of the Word’s taking flesh, viz. to sanctify, yet without de- 
stroying the flesh. 


1. Bur that the Son has no beginning? of being, but before 
He was made man, was ever with the Father, John makes 
clear in his first Epistle, writing thus: That which was from John 1, 
the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with Wee 
our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have 
handled of the Word of Life; and the Life was manifested, 
and we have seen it; and we bear witness and declare unto 
you that Eternal Life, which was with the Father, and was 
manifested unto us. While he says here that the Life, not 
“became,” but was with the Father, in the end of his Epistle 
he says the Son is this Life, writing, And we are in Him that \ John 5, 
is True, even in His Son, Jesus Christ; this is the True God ?° 
and Eternal Life. But if the Son is the Life, and the Life 
was with the Father, and if the Son was with the Father, and 
the same Evangelist says, dnd the Word was with God, the John 1, 
Son must be the Word, which is ever with the Father. And!: 
as the Son is Word, so God must be the Futher. Moreover, 
the Son, according to John, is not merely “God” but Very 
God; for according to the same Evangelist, And the Word 
was God; and the Son said, I am the Life. Therefore the John 14, 
Son is the Word and Life which is with the Father. e 

2. And again, what is said in the same John, The Only- Jonn 1, 
begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, shews that 18: 

ἃ Here ἀρχὴ is usedinthesamesense too the mention of the Stoic doctrine in 
as inthe foregoing section, and seems ὃ. 15. connects it with §. 14. And the 
to connect if with the present, as the unusual word ὑπόστασις, which occurs 
foregoing was connected with the pas- twice towards the end of this conclud- 
sage before it by the mention of Bap- ing portion of the book, is found in the 
tism. This is one out of several in- foregoing section, init. though on a dif- 
stances which shew that the book, in- ferent subject. The connection of 8.12. 


complete and ill-digested as it is, isno and §. 13. by the words εἰς ἄπειρον, 
chance collection of fragments. Thus ἀπείρως has been noticed in loc. 


Disc. 
IV. 


1p. 323, 


note a. 
Ps. 74, 
12. Sept. 


vid. Is. 
66, 2. 
Deut. 7, 
8. 


Ps. 77, 
11. Sept. 
Ps. 45. 
title. 


§. 27. 


Ps. 110, 
3. Sept. 


546 Explanation of “ From the womb,” in Psalm 110, 3. 


the Son was ever. For whom John calls Son, Him David 
mentions in the Psalm as God’s Hand', saying, Why stretchest 
not forth Thy Right Hand out of Thy bosom? Therefore if 
the Hand is in the bosom, and the Son in the bosom, the 
Son will be the Hand, and the Hand will be the Son, through 
whom the Father made all things; for it is written, Thy 
Hand hath made all these things, and He led out His 
people with His Hand; therefore through the Son. And if 
this is the changing of the Right Hand of the Most Highest, 
and again, Unto the end, concerning the things that shall be 
changed, a song for My Well-beloved; the Well-beloved 
then is the Hand that has been changed; concerning whom 
the Divine Voice also says, This is My Beloved Son. “ This 
My Hand’ then is equivalent to This My Son. 

3. But since there are ill-instructed men who, while 
resisting the doctrine of a Son, think little of the words, From 
the womb before the morning star I begat Thee; as if this re- 
ferred to His relation to Mary, alleging that He was born of 
Mary before the morning star”, for that to say womb could not 
refer to His relation towards God, we must say a few words 
here. If then, because the womb is human, therefore it is 


2. foreign to God, plainly heart too has a human meaning’; 


for that which has heart has womb also. Since then both 
are human, we must deny both, or seek to explain both. 
Now as a word is from the heart, so is an offspring from 
the womb; and as when the heart of God is spoken of, 
we do not conceive of it as human, so if Scripture says from 
the womb, we must not take it in a corporeal sense. For it 
is usual with divine Scripture *, to speak and signify in 
the way of man what is above man. Thus speaking of the 
creation it says, Thy hands have made me and fashioned me, 
and, Thy hand hath made all these things, and, He com- 
manded and they were created. Suitable then is its language 
about every thing; attributing to the Son “ propriety ” and 
‘genuineness,’ and to the creation “the beginning of 
being.” For some things God makes and creates; but Him 

Ὁ The parties opposed by Athan. siders “the morning star” to be the 
understand the morning star literally, Star seen by the Magi, 6 φέρων τε kal ᾿ 
our Lord being born at midnight, νυκτός. pri ἡμέραν τοῖς Μάγοις. Euseb. p. 48, 


infr. 8. 28. and so Tertullian contr. 
Marc. ν. 9. However, Marcellus con- 


Explanation of “ Before the morning star.” 547 


He begets from Himself, as Word and Wisdom. Now womb a 
and heart plainly declare the proper and the genuine; for - 
we too draw this from the womb; but works we make by the 
hand. 

4. What means then, say they, Before the morning star? ἃ. 28. 
I would answer, that if Before the morning star shews that His 
birth from Mary was wonderful, many others besides have been 
born before the rising of the star. What then is said so 
wonderful in His instance, that He should record it as some 
choice prerogative’, when it is common to many? Next to’ tees 
beget differs from bringing forth ; for beginning involves the 3 308, oe 
primary foundation’, but to bring forth is nothing else than note a 
the production of what exists. If then the term belongs to the ere 
body, let it be observed that He did not then receive a be- λῆς 
ginning of generation * when He was evangelized to the shep- ἜΡΩΣ : 
herds by night, but when the Angel spoke to the Virgin. And 
that was not night, for this is not said; on the contrary, it 
was night when He issued from the womb. This difference 
’ Scripture makes, and says on the one hand that He was 
begotten before the morning star, and on the other speaks of 
His proceeding from the womb, as in the twenty-first Psalm, 
Thou hast drawn Me from the womb. Besides, He has not Ps. 22, 9. 
said “ before the rising of the morning star,” but simply be- 
fore the morning star. If then the phrase must be taken of 
the body, then either the body must be before Adam, for the 
stars were before Adam, or we have to investigate the sense 
of the letter. And this John enables us to do, who says in 
the Apocalypse, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the ea 
last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are they who make 
broad © their robes, that they may have right to the tree 
of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 
For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, 
and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever maketh and 
loveth a lie. I Jesus have sent My Angel, to testify these 
things in the Churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of 
David, the Bright and Morning Star. And the Spirit and 
the Bride say, Come; and let him that heareth say, Come; 


ς πλατύνοντες, which seems intended read ποιοῦντες τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ, with 
for πλύνοντες as ἔπλυναν, vii. 14.andas_ the present rec. text. vid. Wolf. Cur. 
in the Vulgate here. Most of the Greek Phil. in loc. 

Mss., some Versions, and some Fathers, 


Disc. 


548 As the Word called Son in N. T. so the Spirit called Paraclete. 


and let him that is athirst, Come; and whosoever will, let 
him take of the water of life freely. Τῇ then the Offspring of 
David be the Bright and Morning Star, it is plain that the 


1 7} κατὰ flesh? of the Saviour is called the Morning Star, which the 


σάρκα 


2 ἐπιφα- 

νείας, 

epiphany. 
ἃ, 29. 


3 p. 236, 
note c. 


John 1, 
ie 


Offspring from God preceded; so that the sense of the 
Psalm is this, “1 have begotten Thee from Myself before 
Thy appearance? in the flesh ; for before the Morning Star 
is equivalent to “before the Incarnation of the Word.” 

5. Thus in the Old Testament also, statements are plainly 
made concerning the Son; at the same time it is superfluous 
to argue the point; for if what is not stated in the Old, is 
of later date, let them who are thus disputatious, say where 
in the Old Testament is mention made of the Spirit the 
Paraclete ? for of the Holy Spirit there is mention, but no 
where of the Paraclete. Is then the Holy Spirit one, and 
the Paraclete another, and the Paraclete the later, as not 
mentioned in the Old‘? but perish the word that the Spirit 
is later, and the distinction of the Holy Ghost as one and the 
Paraclete as another; for the Spirit is one and the same, 
then and now hallowing and comforting them who are His 
recipients ; as one and the same Word and Son led even 
then to adoption of sons those who were worthy*. For 
sons under the Old Covenant were made such through no 
other than the Son. For unless even before Mary there 
were a Son who was of God, how is He before all, when 
they are sons before Him? and how also First-born, if He 
comes second after many? But neither is the Paraclete 
second, for He was before all, nor the Son later; for in the 
beginning was the Word. And as the Spirit and Paraclete 
are the same, so the Son and Word are the same; and as the 
Saviour says concerning the Spirit, But the Paraclete which 
is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My Name, 
speaking of One and Same, and not distinguishing, so John 
describes similarly when he says, And the Word became 
flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the 


ἃ A heresy of this kind is actually 


noticed by Origen, viz. of those qui 
Spiritum Sanctum alium quidem dicant 
esse qui fuit in Prophetis, alium autem 
qui fuit in Apostolis Domini nostri 
Jesu Christi. In Tit. t. 4. p. 695. Hence 
in the Creed ‘“‘who spake by the pro- 


phets ;” and hence the frequent epithet 
given by S. Justin to the Holy Spirit 
of προφητικόν ; e.g. when speaking of 
baptism. Apol. i. 61 fin. Also Ap.i. 6. 
13. Tryph. 49. On the other hand, he 
calls the Spirit of the Prophet “ the 
Holy Spirit,” 6. 5. Tryph. 54, 61. 


“ Well-beloved’’ the same as “ Only-begotten.”’ 549 
glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father. For here too Ore 


he does not distinguish but witnesses the identity. And ——— 
as’ the Paraclete is not one and the Holy Ghost another, ' οὐχ ὡς 
but one and the same, so Word is not one, and Son an- 
other, but the Word is Only-Begotten; for He says not 
the glory of the flesh itself, but of the Word. He then who 
dares distinguish between Word and Son, let him distinguish 
between Spirit and Paraclete; but if the Spirit cannot be 
distinguished, so neither can the Word, being also Son and 
Wisdom and Power. 

6. Moreover, the word “ Well-beloved” even the Greeks 
who are skilful in grammar know to be equivalent with 
“Only-begotten.”” For Homer speaks thus of Telemachus, 
who was the only-begotten of Ulysses, in the second book of 
the Odyssey : 


O’er the wide earth, dear youth, why seek to run, 


An only child, a well-beloved son ? ἢ 5 μοῦνος 
He whom you mourn, divine Ulysses, fell, ale eer 
TT OS. 


Far from his country, where the strangers dwell. 


Therefore he who is the only son of his father is called well- 
beloved. 

7. Some of the Samosatene school®,distinguishing the Word ὃ. 30. 
from the Son, pretend that the Son is Christ, and the Word 
another ; and they ground this upon Peter’s words in the 
Acts, which he spoke with a suitable sense, but they explain 
badly*. It is this: Zhe Word He sent to the children of* p. 283, 
Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ; this is Lord ian ee 10, 
all’. 36. 


e For Paul’s opinions vid. supr. pp. 
174, 175. Tothe passages there brought, 
distinguishing between him and Nesto- 
rius, may be added the express words 
of the latter, Serm. 12. t. 2. p. 87. 
Mar. Mer. Assemani takes the same 
view, Bibl. Orient. t. 4. p. 68, 9. 

f Toy λόγον, dv ἀπέστειλε... οὗτός ἐστι 
.. ὑμεῖς οἴδατε τὸ γενόμενον ῥῆμα. The 
Samosatenes interpreted this difficult 
construction as Hippolytus before them, 
as if τὸν λόγον were either governed by 
κατὰ or attracted by ὃν, οὗτος agreeing 
with 6 Adyos understood. Dr. Routh in 
loc. Hipp. who at one time so construed 
it, refers to 1 Pet. 2, 7. John 3, 34. as 
parallel, also Matt.21, 42. And soUrbem 
quam statuo, &c.vid. Raphel. in Luc, 21, 
6. vid. also τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅτι Kal λαλῶ ὑμῖν 


For they say that since the Word spoke through Christ, 


John 8, 25. with J. C. Wolf’s remarks, 
who would understand by ἀρχὴν omnino, 
which Lennep however in Phalar. Ep. 
says it can only mean with a negative. 
Our translation understands λόγος and 
ῥῆμα as synonymous, (which is harsh,) 
and the latter as used merely to connect 
the sentence; and οὗτος as if for és. 
Moreover, if λόγος be taken for ῥῆμα, 
τὸν λόγον ἀπέστειλε is a harsh phrase ; 
however, it occurs Acts 18, 26. If λόγος 
on the other hand have a theological 
sense, a prima facie countenance is 
given to the distinction between ‘‘ the 
Word’’ and “‘ Jesus Christ,” which the 
Samosatenes wished to deduce from the 
passage. However, Athan. answers 
this inference in the passage which 
follows. 


Disc. 
IV. 


g. 31. 
Lev. 9, 7. 


1 ἕνωσιν 
τὴν πρὸς 


550 Samosatenes wrest Acts 10, 36; true sense of it; 


as in the instance of the Prophets, Thus saith the Lord, the 
prophet was one and the Lord another’. But to this it is 
parallel to oppose the words in the first to the Corinthians, 
waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall 
also confirm you unto the end unblameable in the day of 
our Lord Jesus Christ. For as one Christ does not confirm 
the day of another Christ, but He Himself confirms in His 
own day those who wait for Him, so the Father sent the 
Word made flesh, that being made man He might preach by 
means of Himself. And therefore he straightway adds, 7his 
is Lord of all, but the Word is such. And Moses said unto 
Aaron, Go unto the altar and offer thy sin-offering, and thy 
burnt-offering, and make an atonement for thyself and for the 
people; and offer the offering of the people, and make an 
atonement for them, as the Lord commanded Moses. See now 
here, though Moses be one, Moses himself speaks as if about 
another Moses, as the Lord commanded Moses. In like 
manner then, if the blessed Peter speak of the Divine Word 
also, as sent to the children of Israel by Jesus Christ, it is 
not necessary to understand that the Word is one and Christ 
another, but that they were one and the same by reason of 
the uniting * which took place in His divine and loving con- 


_ descension and incarnation. 


8. Andifeven He be considered in two ways’, still it is with- 
out any division of the Word, as when the inspired John says, 
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us. What 
then is said in a suitable and orthodox way * by the blessed 
Peter, the Samosatenes, understanding badly and wrongly, 
stand not in thetruth. For Christ is understood in both ways 
in Divine Scripture, as when it says Christ God’s power 
and Giod’s wisdom. If then Peter says that the Word was 
sent through Jesus Christ unto the children of Israel, let him 
be understood to mean, that the Word incarnate has appeared 
to the children of Israel, so that it may correspond to And 
the Word became flesh. But if they understand it otherwise, 
and, while confessing the Word to be divine, as He is, 
separate from Him the Man that He has taken, with which — 


& Paul of Samosata had argued in is a remarkable one, as shewing the 
the same way against the divinity of historical connection between Samo- 
Christ. Routh Relliqu. t. 2. p.475.and satenes and Nestorians at Antioch. 
Eusebius imputes it to Marcellus pp. Diodorus and Theodore fill up the inter- 
55, a. 78, c. The passage that follows val between Athanasius and Nestorius. 


thought an incarnation must be an alteration of the Word. 551 


also we believe that He is made one, saying that He has been ae 
sent through Jesus Christ, they are, without knowing ‘it, con- mS 
tradicting themselves. For those who in this place separate vid. τ. 2. 
the divine Word? from the divine incarnation, have, it seems, εἶν 
a degraded notion of the doctrine of His having become flesh, μὲ σον 
and entertain Gentile thoughts, as they do, conceiving that vid. p. 
the divine incarnation is an alteration * of the Word. But it is pei on 
not so; perish the thought. For in the same way that John a pony’ 
here preaches that incomprehensible oneness, the mortal being 2 Cor. 5, 
swallowed up of life, nay, of Him who is Very Life, (as the 
Lord said to Martha, I am the Life,) so when the blessed 
Peter says that through Jesus Christ the Word was sent, 
he implies the divine oneness also. For as when a man heard 
The Word became flesh, he would not think that the Word 
ceased to be, which is extravagant, as has been said before, 
so also hearing of the Word which has been united to the 
flesh, let him understand the divine mystery one and simple. 
9. More clearly however and indisputably than all reason- 
ing, does what was said by the Archangel to the Mother of 
God * herself, shew the oneness of the Divine Word and Man. ‘¢coréxos 
For he says, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the Luke 1, 
Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also is 
that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called 
the Son of God. Irrationally then do the Samosatenes 
separate the Word who is clearly declared to be made one 
with the Man from Mary. He is not therefore sent through 
that Man; but He rather in Him sent, saying, Go ye, teach Matt. 
all nations. ae ΤῊ 
10. And this is usual with Scripture’, to express itself in §. 33. 
inartificial and simple phrases. For so also in Numbers we ee ice 
shall find, Moses said to Raguel the Midianite, the father-in- 
law of Moses; for there was not one Moses who spoke, and 
another whose father-in-law was Raguel, but Moses was 
one. And if in like manner the Word of God is called 
Wisdom and Power and Right-Hand and Arm and the 
like, and if in His love to man He has become one with us, 
putting on our first-fruits and blended" with it, therefore the 


h ἀνακραθείς. vid. note on Tertull. p. 857. immixtus Cassian. Incarn. i. 
O. Tr. vol. i. p. 48. and so 7 καινὴ 5. commixtio Vigil. contr. Eutych. 1, 
μίξις, θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος. Greg. Naz. p. 494. (B. P. 1624.) permixtus August. 
as quoted by Eulogius ap. Phot. Bibl. Ep. 137, 11. ut nature alteri altera 


Disc. 
IV. 


L p.togas 
note u. 


2 διαμο- 
νὴν, 

Ρ. 021, 

note a. 


3 > 
αποστα- 
λεῖσι 


4 ψιλός 


5 ὑπό- 
στασιν 
vid. Acts 
45 PALE 


§. 34. 
© νρῶμεν 
Ady. τὸν 
θεῖον, vid. 
p- 581, 

r. 2. 


Proy. 9, 
We 


Heb. 3, 
6. 


7 κτίζειν 


552 The Word was made Man; not, was separate from the Man. 


other titles also have, as was natural, become the Word’s 
portions. For that John has said, that in the beginning was 
the Word, and He with God and Himself God, and all 
things through Him, and without Him nothing made, shews 
clearly that even man is the formation of God the Word. 
If then after taking him, when corrupted’, into Himself‘, He 
renews here again through that sure renewal for our endless 
abidance*, and therefore is made one with him in order to 
raise him to a diviner lot, how can we possibly say that the 
Word was sent through the Man who was from Mary, and 
reckon Him, the Lord of Apostles, with other Apostles, I 
mean such as prophets who were sent* by Him! And how 
can Christ be called a mere * man? on the contrary, being 
made one with the Word, He is with reason called Christ 
and Son of God, the prophet having long since loudly and 
clearly ascribed the Father’s subsistence’ to Him, and said, 
And I will send My Son Christ; and in the Jordan, This is 
My Well-beloved Son. Yor when He had fulfilled His promise, 
He shewed, as was suitable, that He was He whom He said 
He had sent. 

11. Let us then consider ° Christ in both ways *, the divine 
Word made one in Mary with That which is from Mary. For 
in her womb the Word fashioned for Himself His House, as at 
the beginning He formed Adam from the earth; or rather more 
divinely, concerning whom Solomon too says openly, knowing 
that the Word was also called Wisdom, Wisdom hath builded 
Herself an house ; which the Apostle interprets when he says, 
Which house are we, and elsewhere calls us a temple, as far as 
it is fitting to God to inhabit a temple, of which the image, 
made of stones, He by Solomon commanded the ancient 
people to build’ ; whence, on the appearance of the Truth, 


ἕν, says Epiph. Ancor. 81 fin. and so 
Phot. Bibl. p. 831 fin. οὐ τῆς κράσεως 
σύγχυσιν αὐτῷ δηλούσης. Vid. alsoon 
the word μίξις, ἕο. Zacagn. Monum. p. 
xxi.—xxvi. Thomassin. de Incarn. iii. 


misceretur. Leon. Serm. 23, 1. There 
is this strong passage in Naz. Ep 101. 
p- 87, c. (ed. 1840.) κιρναμένων ὥσπερ 
τῶν φύσεων οὕτω δὴ Kal τῶν κλήσεων, 
καὶ περιχωρουσῶν εἰς ἀλλήλας τῷ λόγῳ 


τῆς συμφυΐας ; Bull says that in using 
περιχωρουσῶν, Greg. Naz. and others 
“minus proprié loqui.’’ Defens. F. N. 
iv. 4. §. 14. Petavius had allowed this, 
but proves the doctrine amply from the 
Fathers. de Incarn. iv. 14. Such one- 
ness is not ‘‘ confusion,”’ for ov σύγχυσιν 
ἀπεργασάμενος, ἀλλὰ τὰ δύο κεράσας εἰς 


5. iv. 15, 

1 εἰς ἑαυτὸν λαβόμενος. And so the 
Creed ascribed to Athan. speaks of 
‘the taking of the manhood into God.”’ 

Kk τὸ συναμφότερον νοῶμεν Χριστόν. 
This seems a reference to the εἰ δὲ καὶ 
νοοῖτο διχῶς 8. 31. at the commence- 
ment of n. 8. vid. end of sect. 


The Jewish Temple the Image, Christ’s Body the Truth. 553 


the Image ceased. For when the ruthless men wished to ghee 
prove the Image to be the Truth, and to destroy that true 
habitation which we surely believe His union with us to 
be, He threatened them not; but knowing that their crime 
was against themselves, He says to them, Destroy this Temple, Jobn 2, 
and in three days I will raise it up ; He, our Saviour, surely sis 
shewing thereby that the things about which men busy them- 
selves, carry their dissolution with them. For unless the Lord ΠΣ Ps. 
build the house and keep the city, in vain the builders toil, | 
and the keepers watch. And so the works of the Jews are 
undone, for they were a shadow; but the Church is firmly 
established ; it is fownded on the rock, and the gates of hell vid. 
shall not prevail against it. Theirs’ it was to say, Why dost 5 ae 7, 
Thou, being a man, make Thyself God* ? and {μον ὅ disciple is 16, 18. 
the Samosatene ; whence to his followers with reason does he John 1, 
teach his Tone But we have not so learned Christ, if so be ἢ oe τ 
that we have heard Him, and have learned from Him, putting ἢ 183, 
off the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful eae 
lusts, and taking up the new, which after God is created in Eph. 4, 
righteousness and true holiness. et Christ then in both τ γοείσθω, 
ways be religiously considered *. Lae se 
12. But if Scripture often calls even the body by the name g, 35. 
of Christ, as in the blessed Peter’s words to Cornelius, when 
he teaches him of Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with = ts 10, 
the Holy Ghost, and again to the Jews, Jesus of Nazareth, a = ὉΠ 
Man approved of God for you, and again the blessed Paul to 
the Athenians, By that Man whom He hath ordained, giving 17, 31. 
assurance to all men, in that He hath raised Him from the 
dead, (for we find the appointment and the mission” often sy- ὅ yee 
nonymous with theanointing ; from whichany one whowill may A kasi, 
learn, that there is no discordance in the words of the sacred Mi Ρ. if 
writers’, but that they but give various names to the union of Hit z 
God ite Word with the Man from Mary, sometimes as anoint- 7 198) +. 2. 
ing, sometimes as mission, sometimes as appointment,) it 7 Ρ- 341, 
follows that what the blessed Peter says is orthodox’, and he a 
proclaims in purity* the Godhead of the Only-begotten, without 7 pie ἢ 
separating the subsistence ° of God the Word from the Man 9 ὑπό- 
from Mary, (perish the thought! for how should he, who had μα 10, 
heard in so many ways, 1 and the Father are one, and He that a 
hath seen Me, hath seen the Father? In which Man”, after 10 δ οὗ 
2 0 


Disc. 


lees 
2 cae 
omit. 
3 f. τὴν 
abund. 
Luke 24, 
39. 


4 πληρο- 
φορῶν f. 


οὔντος 


Luke 24, 
42. 43. 
vid. 
Wetstein 
in loc. 


John 20, 
27. 


5. 05.24.7, 
note t. 
° παρέ- 
XovTos i 
παρέχων 
7 ἁγίοις, 
sacred 
writers, 
vid. 1 
he Is 


“ἃ. 36. 


8 καί 


554 The Man is one Person with the Word. 


the resurrection also’, when the doors were shut, we know? of 
τ His coming to each pair * of Apostles, and dispersing all that 
” was hard to believe in it by His words, Handle Me and see, for 
a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have. And He 
did not say, “This,” or “this Man which I have taken to 
Me,” but We. Wherefore Samosatene will gain no allowance, 
being refuted by so many arguments for the union of God the 
Word, nay by God the Word Himself, who now brings the 
news to all, and assures* them by eating, and permitting to 
them that handling of Him which then took place. For 
certainly he who gives food to others, and they who give him, 
touch hands. For they gave Him, Scripture says, a piece 
of a broiled fish and of an honey-comb, and when He had 
eaten before them, He took the remains and gave to them. 
See now, though not as Thomas was allowed, yet by another 
way, He afforded to them full assurance, in being touched 
by them; but if you would now see the scars, learn from 
Thomas. Reach hither thy hand and thrust into My side, 
and reach hither thy finger and behold My hands; so says 
God the Word, speaking of His own’ side and hands, and of 
Himself as whole man and God together, first affording ® to the 
Saints’ even perception of the Word through the body, as we 
may consider, by entering when the doors were shut ; and next 
standing near them in the body and affording full assurance. 

13. So much may be conveniently said for confirmation of 
the faithful, and correction of the unbelieving. And so let 
Paul of Samosata also* stand corrected on hearing the divine 
voice of Him who said Wy body, not “Christ besides Me 


91,6. τὸν who am the Word,” but “It°® with Me, and Me with It.” 


Χριστόν 


10 p. 248, 


note b. 
1 1, 6. 6 
vy - 
ἄνθρωπος 


12 vid. 
paren- 
thesis 
John 8, 


3 σὺν»; ᾧ 


For I the Word am the chrism, and that which has the 
chrism from Me isthe Man" ; not then without Me could It” 
be called Christ, but being with Me and I in It. There- 
fore the mention of the mission of the Word shews the 
uniting which took place with Jesus of Mary, which is 
interpreted Saviour, not by reason of any thing else, but 
the Man’s being made one with God the Word. ‘This 
passage has the same meaning as the Father that sent 
Me, and I came not of Myself, but the Father sent Me. 
For he has given the name of mission’ to the uniting 
with the Man, with which’ the Invisible nature might ree 


Conclusion. 555 


known to men, through the visible. For God changes not Svs. 
place, like us who are hidden in places, when in the fashion - 
of our littleness He displayed Himself in His existence in 
the flesh; for how should He, who fills the heaven and the 
earth? but on account of the presence in the flesh the just 
have spoken of His mission. 

14. Therefore God the Word Himself is Christ* from Mary, ! οὖν 
God and Man; not some other Christ but one and the Same ; pe 
He before ages from the Father, He too in the last times from 
the Virgin ; invisible’ before even to the holy powers of heaven, ? p. 120, 
visible now because of His being one with the Man who is °° © 
visible; seen, I say, not in His invisible Godhead but in the 
operation’ of the Godhead through the human body and whole ὅἐνεργείᾳ, 
man, which He has renewed by appropriation to Himself. To x 544. 
Him be the adoration and the worship, who was before, and 
now is, and ever shall be, even to all ages. Amen. 


oh Che oe 


i. 


ii. 


xix. 
xxii. 
XXvi. 
XXVii. 
XXVIlii. 
ΧΧΧΙ. 
XXXii. 


xlviii. 


xlix. 


iii. 


iv. 


INDEX OF TEXTS. 


[The Numbers stand for the Pages.] 


GENESIS. 

Lie 21, 132 twice, 362 

I, 3, 9, 26. 324 

3, 6, 26. 442 
14—18. 319 
26. 114, 120, 364, 366 
91. 388 

Be 363 

5. 198 
17. 375 

9. 471 
19. 373, 377 

Ie 287 

9. 471 

3. 35 

2. 539 

1. 465 
4. ib. 
27. 529 

ile 476 

8. 324 
24, 120, 149, 299 

5. 262 

2. 542 
13. 473 
24. 476 
29, 37. 504 

3. Sept 419 
15, Sept 418 
14. 419 
il. ib. 
26, 30. 418 
31. Sept 154, 424 

5. Sept 287 
15, 16. 418 

3. Sept 348 

EXODUS. 

2—6. 42] 
13. 324 
14, 15. 38, 132, 407 

476 


iv. 18. 
xii. 4]. 
χχῖχ. Os 
XXxiii. 2U. 


LEVITICUS. 


xxv. 21. 


DEUTERONOMY. 


iv. 4: 
7. Sept. 
oe 
Viz 45 132, 149, 
vii. 8. 
xiii. 4. 
Kiva, Ls 
xviii. 15. 
XXxviill. 66, 
xxii. δὲ 47, 364, 365, 


20. Sept. 
39. Sept. 231, 294, 407, 


JOSHUA. 


JUDGES. 


xi. 34. 
xiii. 16. 


294 
409 


476 


153 
314 


58 INDEX OF TEXTS. 


1 SAMUEL. Xxxili. 4 383 

6. 325, 493, 542 

ii. 27. Sept. 540 9. 15, 324 
Xxxvi. 9 20, 198, 325, 486 

xliv. 7. 430 

xlv. title, Aen 541, 546 

2 SAMUEL. 1. Sept. 37, 362, 486, 495, 542 

ὃ. 252 

xv. 409 7. 299 
8. 252 

9 233, 249 

xlvi. 8. 34 

xlix. 20. 426 

1 KINGS. ἢ 149 

; 16. 137 

L. 409 ΠΣ 249 
᾿ς 26. ib. liv. 1. 238 
Vill. PT fe 258 lvii. 5. 395 
xvi. 14. 434 lx. 12. 430 
Ixxii. 5, 17. Sept. 238 

Ixxili. 22, 23. 492 

Ixxiy. 2. 363 

2 KINGS. ee Sept. 546 

Ixxvi. 265 

v. 8, 15. 402 _ I xxvii. ae Sept. 546 
xx. 18, 287 Ixxxii. 1. Sept. 236 
Ixxxill. 7. Sept. 149 

9. Sept. 401 

Ixxxiv. 10. 260 

IXKxVil ὃ. 262, 415 

Joke 16. 301 

uit é IXRX VI. 1. 255 

bee ἀρ μθην, 207 | Ixxxix. ἢ 262, 350, 415 
= 5. 193 lxxxix. a 18. Sept. 239 
ae ΧΟ: 199 
xli. 4. Sept. 178 ‘Ge 198 
ΧΌΠΠ" 1, 2: 542 

Cc. 2. 12, 351 

cii. 18. Sept. 346, 375 

PSALMS. . 25. 363, 382 

civ. 4. 132 

i 1h 2,195 24. Sept. 28, 207, 262, 288, 
6. Sept. 355 325 twice, 336, 345, 

ΤᾺ 21, 313, 362, 541 383, 391, 518 

v. Ὁ: 255 evii. 20. 325 
ix. title, Sept. 541 Cx 121, 299, 301, 302 
9. 269, 299 3. Sept. 21 37, 47,98, δά], 546 

ΣΙ. .8. 255 cxi. 2. Sept. 487 
xvi. 9. 267 CXVe as 320, 487 
11. 302, 482 exvi. 16. > 286 
VALE 419 exviii. 6. 477 
9, 13. 235 27 149 

29. 430 €xix, 1. 373 
sahe, 1. 309, 393 Tax 14, 362, 546 
4. 265 89. 331, 369 

ΧΧ de 238 91. 396 
xxii. 9. 547 101. 334 
32. 375 cxx. 1, 2. 419 
ΧΧΙν Ze 150, 239, 439 cxxvii. 1]. 553 
? 10. 186 exxxv. 6. Sept. 487, 493 
xxxi. 3. 269, 299 | cxxxviii. 8. 375 


xxxii. 10. 4266 cxliii. 5. 382 


INDEX OF TEXTS. 559 


exly. 13. 198, 299 ἘΣ ΣΧ: ἡ: 287 
14. Sept. 289 Χ] 16: 249 
exlvi. 8. 400 28. 12, 197, 316 
exlviii. 5, 546 ΧΙ 8: 150 
xliv. 6. 119, 407 

24. 14, 411 

xlv. 5. 149 

PROVERBS. 14, 314 

xlviii. 13. 28 

τ. δ, Ὁ. 391 xlix. 5. Sept. 14, 354 

7. Sept. 395 li. 16. 28 

28. 334 ih Ὁ. 75 

D1. 2. 207 hii. 4. 347, 444 
19. 28, 207, 350, 385, 493 6. 122 

Υἱ 22.» 9.» 134 7. 259, 302 
viii. 10, 11. 260 liv. 13. 266 
12. 140 lvi. 4, 5. 260 

14. 491 lviii. 9. 270 

22. 20, 22, 47, 115, 257, 281, ee 207 

282, 306, 342, 343 twice Iba tle 247, 253 

ὯΔ, 199, 385 Eh 2590 

24— 26. 395 Iai 5 13, 14, 382, 546 


25. Sept. 21, 47, 325, 361, 541 
27, 30. Sept. 355, 395, 461 
30. Sept.210,235,309,360,397 


ΘΙ. 397 JEREMIAH. 
roe 1 343, 346, 350, 552 
_ 18. 193 i, δὶ 14, 199 
xii. 5, 6. Sept. 485 iis ole 325 
_ 20. 35 12. Sept. 187 
xiv. 16. 393 13. 20, 207 
xviii. 1. 200 ie ΡῈ 398 
3. Sept. 398 ν. et 427 
xx. 23. 286 ix. 3. 294 
ΧΗ 1. 141 xiii, 23. 58 
ae 433 xv. 18. 294 
xxiv. 3. 393 xvii, 12. 207 
xxix. 7. Sept. 435 | xxiii. 23. Sept. 519 
6-8. 11. 92 29, 334 
xxxi. 22. 346 
ECCLESIASTES. 
ws EZEKIEL. 
vii. 10. 393 
viii. 1 ib 4 
= 3 < xvi. 20. 136 
ms ah 288) xxviii. 2. 433 
ISAIAH. DANIEL 
i, 2. Sept. 15, 234, 539 
: TW ss : ᾽ 320 iil. 25. 541 
22. Sept. 450 iv. 3. 150 
Ξ ob 541 vii. 14. ib. 
vii. 14. 259 
ix. 6. Sept. 418, 457, 491 
xi. 9: 265 
xiv. 12. 415 HOSEA. 
xxv. 8. 303 
xxvi. 13. Sept. 300 vii. 13. 188 


xxxviii. 19. Sept. 287 15, Sept. ib. 


ii. 


vii. 


ii. 


111. 


vi. 
1x. 
ΧΙ. 


i 
iv. 


lil. 


INDEX OF TEXTS. 


JOEL. BEL AND DRAGON. 

25. 34, 137, 186 δ 
28. 449 vers. 5. 442 

τ ST. MATTHEW. 

18. 377 

i. 537 
23. 259, 442 
iii. 17. 19,132, 194, 203, 313, 
ZECHARIAH. 369, 486, 542 
ive) 4), 386 
19. 324 ll. 149 
17. ib. 23. 3 
10. 258 v. 8, 373 
32. 16 
48. 415, 427 
vi. 9. 56 
25—30. 316 
MALACHI. vii. 25. 553 
2, 3 O55 ix. 5. 150, 457 
10. 365 x. 16. 427 
6 231, 204 29. 316 
; ; 40. 392 twice, 534 
ΧΙ DA 351 
27. 20, 197, 236, 312, 436, 
451, 463, 533, 540 
1 ESDRAS. in S76 
: 29. 429 
- 36. 309 xii. 28. 252 
32. ib. 
34. 213 
40. 431 
WISDOM. xiii. 55. 252 
xv. 13. 130 
26. 393 xvi. 13. 437, 454 
2. 345 16. 304, 369, 386, 474 
5. 326 18. 553 
23. 380, 480 
Xvil. 5. 325 
xviii. 6. 75 
ECCLESIASTICUS. xix. 4. 345, 362 
xx. 28. 378 
9, 10. 393 32. 454 
24, 182 xxii. 21. 256 
29. ib. 
xxiii. 19. 308 
KV (ὃ. 258 
BARUCH. 31. 149 
39. 408 
19. 20, 207, 339 42, 44 465, 470 
35. 350 xxv. 13. 465 
3.7: 258 84. 16, 389 
20, 22. 198 xxvi. 89. 437, 448, 476 
4]. 487 
40. 10. 
xxvil. 52, 53 479 
SUSANNAH. 54. 474, 479 
xxviii. 18. 436, 451, 520 
42. 197, 199 19. 60, 123, 265, 551 


vers. 


li 
vi 


xiii. 


xviii. 
XXiy. 


"- 


INDEX OF TEXTS. 


ST. MARK. 
+ It 150 
. 38. 437, 454 
. 45. 268 
. 23: 407 
25. 380 
28, 29. 409 
. 32. 437, 459 
. 84. 476 

ST. LUKE. 
2. 325 
35. 551 
i. 52. 242, 437, 472 
8. 457 
24 404 
36 427 
48. 457 
. 18, 19. ib. 
22. 456, 466 
2. 229 
15. 150 
4. 476 
40. 471 
16. 457 
32. 427 
19. 409 
i 249 
39. 554 
42, 43. ib. 

ST. JOHN. 


. 1, 2. 28, 149 twice, 196, 216, 
282, 325, 329, 356, 361, 
362, 369, 404, 486, 512, 


548 
1—3. 352, 441 
1, 14 238 


pa 
os 21, 149, 199, 208, 262, 
288, 315, 330, 335 
twice, 382, 397, 411], 


518 
8. 535 
te 149, 530 
10. 535 
12. 11, 241, 365, 428 
14. 24, 119,217, 243,266 


270,282,335,343,347, 
356,369,396,441,442, 
461,518,521, 548,550 


16. 136, 253 
17. - 967 
18. 21, 37, 370, 532, 536, 


540, 541, 546 


vi. 


xi. 


= 


xii. 


xiii. 


xiv. 


561 


4. 458 
19. 553 
25. 455 
16—19 267, 358, 534,535 


35, 36 436, 451, 494, 538 
16, 18 298 
17. 309, 320, 539 
19. 149 
20. 494 
22. 436 
22. 149, 228, 410 
26. 452 
30. 451 
36. 376 
37. 424 
39. 441 
6. 454 
30. 2 
37. 436 
38—40 357, 409 
42. 438 
45. 266 
46. 37, 312 
9095. 25. 248 
10, 42. 37, 554 
ΠΡ 149, 198, 356, 404 
35, 36 377, 384 
44, 426 
58. 199, 355, 438, 537 
39. 358 
ae 523 
14. 198 
18. 451, 477, 481 
28, 37- 445 
29. 122, 144 
30. 26, 37, 56, 148, 204, 
229,327,356,403,406, 
415,434,477,478,516, 

536, 541, 553 

30, 38. 298, 404, 478, 490 
32—38. 533 
aae 2, 150, 183, 553 
5. Ἧς 236 
36. 301 
14. 454 
15. 336 
34. 437, 484 
35. 470 
47. 9 
97, 98. 436, 437, 470, 481 
34, 301 
36, 46 535 
44, 47. ib. 
45. 534, 535, 536 
46—48 357, 534, twice 
ae 198, 314 
DALE 437 
By 375 
6. 20,140,198,207,209, 
232,309,411,428,545 

6, 9, 10 356, 368 
8, 9. 197 


562 


xiv. 


XV. 


xvi. 


XVil. 


Xviil. 


549.65 


xX. 


XVii. 


INDEX OF TEXTS. 


9,10. 20, 37, 56, 135, 144, 
148,210,229,268,3] 1, 
327,395,397,398,404, 
405, 406,415,434,478, 
495,496,516,524,526, 


540, 541, 553 
9—13 536 
ll. 455 
14. 860 
16. 121 
23. 339, 417 
26. 548 
28. 122, 199, 264, 409 
30. 380 
16. 149 
26. 249, 411 
13, 14. 248, 253 
15. 267,305, 314, 404, 451, 
463 
25. 343 
28. 98, 539 
A: 461 
5: 396, 411 
4. 265, 268, 376 
δ. 230, 437 
7—9. 521 twice 
10. 149, 255, 404, 451 
Te 425 
17. 428 
19. 247 
20—23 425 
21. 339 
22. 250 
5. 378, 477 
12. 4 
25. 357 
15. 339 
25. 190 
39. 249 
17. 122 
22. 253 
27. 554 
28. 314 
ACTS. 
7. 469 
. 22. 298, 553 
24, 243 
36. 257, 282 
. 20. 552 
. 29. 481 
39. 409 
20. 493 
34. 258 
4. 394 
26. 313 
36. 549 
38. 248, 553 
28. 34, 137, 399 
31, : 553 


i 


xi. 


xii. 
xv. 


ROMANS. 
1.9. 356 
if- 339 
19, 20. 592 
19—25. 396 
20. 101,196,197,308,332, 
349 
23. 214 
25. 179 
26. 149 
24: 75 
. 29. 122 
Stee 265, 447 
. 12, 14. 143 
3,4. 143,254 twice,266,358 
9. 254 
19, 21. 371 
225 345 
26. 300 
29. 367, 368, 371 
35. 34, 434 
Be 193, 196, 216, 512 
19. 316, 320 
20. 223 
24, ib. 
29. 434 
32. 282 
84. 400 
36. 98 


ie 487 
4, 419 
10. 430 
21. 303, 393, 396 
23, 24 131, 196, 226 


24. 24, 101, 325, 332, 339, 
369, 442, 491, 550 


30. 239 
8. 257, 456 
16. 137 
10, 11. 386 
16. 204, 247 
6. 429 
8. 550 
6. 13, 28, 32, 33, 132 twice, 
149, 208, 325, 404, 456 

9. 382 
13. 289 
2. 92 
5: 113 
rE 34, 321 
9. 32] 
12. 99 
4 543 
20 373 
21 358 
22 265 


xii. 


ili. 


vi. 


iii. 


ii. 


ili. 


INDEX OF TEXTS. 


2 CORINTHIANS. 


. 10: 419 
ro ia be 254 
17. 450 
iii. 16, 17. 196 
51}: 94 
4. 551 
15. 379 
17. 32, 374 
19. 406 
PANE - $47 
reed UIE 529 
12. ib. 
2. 467 
GALATIANS. 

9, 9. 8 
11: 143 
13. 347 twice 
28. 380 

4. 378, 443 

6. 57, 366, 539 

8. 300 

ma ae 227 
15. 380 
EPHESIANS. 

3—5. 388, 487 
is 389 
13. 248 
20. 520 

510: 360, 375 
14. 358 
18. 346 
15. 118, 215 

5. 157 
10. 243 
19. 480 
20—24 553 
22. 346 

ΠΕΡῚ 415 
14. 466 
27. 376 

PHILIPPIANS. 

5—11. 237 

6—8. 149, 234, 238, 252, 

356, 406, 441 

9, 10 233, 520, 521 

11: 103 


13, 470, 473 | 


1: 


ii. 


563 
COLOSSIANS. 


12—17. 28, 47, 124, 197, 236, 
323, 346, 349, 352, 

370, 371 twice, 382 

18. 367, 373, 374 
9. 136, 443 


] THESSALONIANS. 


ill. 
iv. 
y. 


11. 417 
13. 258 
18. 488, 493 
24. 290 


2 THESSALONIANS. 


ii. 


iii. 


1, &c. 258, 471 

1 TIMOTHY. 

7. 225, 401 
8. 143 
17. 150 
20. 258 
η. 137 
13. 295 

8. 8 

1, 2. 191 

4. 345 

16. 289 

6. 134 

10. 328 

2 TIMOTHY. 

8—10. 265, 388 
“17. 258 
made 419 

TITUS. 
2. 137 
14. 191 
8. 289 
1 468 
HEBREWS. 

1, 2. 28, 197, 259, 452 

3. 20,198,216,251,325,494 

4. 257, 282 

5, 7. 263 


564 INDEX OF TEXTS. 


i. 6. 149, 238, 267,314, 372 | 2 PETER. 
8, 10—12. 231, 263 twice | 
14, 420 i Pe 204 
ἢ, 7. 355 17 457 
14—18. 22, 293, 358 ii, 22. 424 
iii. 1. 257 
2. 281, 293, 295, 307 
5, 6. 295, 552 
: 282 
iv. 12, 13 329, 383 | τιν 
vi. 90. 239 : F 
vii. 19. 143, 265, 266 i. 1, 2. 545 twice 
22. 266 ii. 7. 8 
viii. 6. ib. 20. 248 
ae ib, wh 392, 395 
24. 239 lll. 2. 156 
x. 20. 374 5. _ 449 
xi. 3. 30 ΣΝ ἘΠΕ 
= ys ; 
ΧΙ, 8. 231, 250, 295 = a 369 
13. 433 
15. ib. 
ee v. 20. 411, 428, 545 
is 0s 7 
18. 488 
21. 300 REVELATION. 
ey. 196 
5. 368 
1 PETER. 8. 149, 404 
iii. 14. 289 
ii. 24. 347, 444 viii. 9. 345 
iii. 22. 457 six. 11. 289 
is: Ae 443, 448 xxii. 9. 313 
19. 294 13=17. 547 


INDEX. 


A. 


Aaron, paralleled with the Lord, 286. 

Acacians, compared with Eusebians, 7, 
11, 15, 20, 31. their flattery of Con- 
stantius, 77. like Montanists, 78. 
why they wished to convoke two 
Councils, 82. present a creed to 
Council, 83. reject the word ‘sub- 
stance,’ 84. unite with the old 
Arians, 88. publish an Homeean 
creed at Seleucia, 124. and at Nice, 
125. profess themselves Anomceans, 
127. their variations, 135. 

Acacius, was acquainted with Eu- 
sebius’ letter, 7. his connection with 
the two Councils, 74. deposed at 
Seleucia, 89. compared to Aetius, 
136. 

Accidents, none in God, 37. 

Adam, his state before the fall, 379. 

Advance, Wisdom could not in wisdom, 
320, 473. the manhood did, for shew- 
ing forth of Godhead, 475. 

Aetius, 81, 136. 

Affections, men freed from by the 
Lord’s assumption of, 444. no longer 
touch the body, 447. transferred to 
the Lord, 448. obliterated by, 449. 
bhumen, the Word annuls by receiv- 
ing, 520. 

Affections, the Word put on whole flesh 
with, 446. did not touch Him, ibid. 
He transferred to Himself, 448. He 
was not harmed by, 449. and carried, 
though without. ibid. v. Word. 

Ages, the Son the Creator of, 31, 127. 
‘‘Begotten before all’’ used in 3d 
Sirmian, 83. 

Agreement, one in, used in creed of 
Dedication, 107. 

Alexander, St. evasions of Ariansto, 307. 

All, the Son not one of, 208. par- 
take of Christ, 246. the Father’s, 
the Son is, 496. 

Alteraile, if the Son, not Image, 23!. 
“the Son, because rewarded for good 
choice ”’ according to Arians, 234. the 
Son according to heretics, 526. 


Alteration, none in Incarnation, 551. 

Angels, the Son contrasted with, 262. 
Law given by, 265. Angel invoked by 
Jacob, the Word, 418. appearances 
of in Scripture different from those of 
the Son, 421. 

Anointed, the Lord as man, 247. the 
Word because God, not to be God, 
251. 

Anointing, name given in Scripture to 
union of God and Man, 583. 

Anomean, name applied to Acacians, 
217. 

Apostle, Christ became ours, 290. 

Apostles, each pair of, 554. 

Appropriated, by the Word affections 
of flesh, 447. gifts for our sakes, 455. 
the body, 555. 

Arians, complain of the terms used at 
Niczea as unscriptural, 1. their vari- 
ations, 6. attempt to explain away 
Only-begotten, 15. their own phrases 
unscriptural, 30, 133. their faith 
modern, 78. early, expelled by St. 
Alexander, 94. and their letter to 
St. Alexander, 96. like atheists, 131, 
492. preferred caterpillar to Christ, 
100, 137. more deceitful than former 
heresies, 178. should not be called 
Christians, 179. depend on the state, 
193. inconsistent in calling the Son, 
God, 194, talk familiarly of divine 
things, 213. interpret Scripture ac- 
cording to their own canon, 257. 
like Valentinus, (v. Valentinus,) 
lack reason, 290. like Stoics, 297. 
like Paul of Samosata, (v. Paul.) 
urge Prov. 8, 22. 307. like Mani- 
chees, (v. Manichees.) called poly- 
theists, 422, 492. their servility to 
Constantius, 439. 

Arians, confuted from notion of Fa- 


ther, Sabellians contrariwise, 517. 
held Word to be notional, Son 
real, other heretics vice versa, 
522. compared with heretics who 


held development of the Son, 525. 
and Sabellians confuted by one text, 
534. compared with Sabellians, 543. 


566 INDEX. 


Arian opinions, that our Lord was 
creature, 10. not really Word and 
Wisdom, 25, 186. “from God and 
Image”’ used of the Son in same 
sense as of men, 26, 32, 34, 133, 179, 
182, 185. that Son and Word were 
but names, 131. the Son was not 
before generation, 185, 214. that 
there were two Wisdoms, 227. com- 
pare the Word to the sun, 319. that 
the Word is other than the Son, 332. 
their notions of God material, 399. 
that Son was one with Father only in 
will, 415. held Son to be one with 
Father by grace, 425. held our Lord 
to be ignorant, 437. that the Son 
came from the Father’s will, 485. 
hence conceive a habit in God, 493. 
imply that the Son might not have 
been, 495. held God to be first God 
then Father, 532. 

Arius, called Christ underworker, 13. his 
Thalia, 26, 94, 332. expressly denies 
One in Substance, 95. his blasphe- 
mies, ib. re-admitted at Jerusalem, 
104. held Christ to be One with the 
Father by agreement, 145. his notion 
of creation, 316. 

Ariminum, v. Council. 

Arm, name applied to the Word, 55]. 

Artemas, 102. 

Article, Arian argument from omission 
of, 10], 332. 

‘‘ As,” signifies not identity but ana- 
logy, 430. 

Asterius, called the Sacrificer, 13. the 
Sophist, 35, 100. employed by Eu- 
sebians, 101. his notion of Ingene- 
rate, 225. of creation, 316. held that 
Christ was taught by the Father, 320. 
quoted, 332. his inconsistency, 336. 
his explanation of ‘the Son in the 
Father,” 401. 

Athanasius, St. Christians did not take 
his name, 18]. 

Athanasius of Nazarbi, called Christ 
one of hundred sheep, 99. 

Attributes of Son proper to Father, 404. 

Augerus, 89. 

Auzentius, 82, 28. 


B. 


Baptism, not into Creator and creature, 
133. form of, implies Godhead of 
Son, 337. by Arians, 349. form of, in 
Son not in Word, 538. none, if no 
Son, 844. 

Basil, of Ancyra, not to be accounted 
Arian, 139. 

Basilicus, 89. 


Become, how used of the Lord, 259. not 
used of Substance of the Word, 268. 

Beget, what it means, 203. man begets 
in time, God from eternity, 329. not 
used of creatures, 362. contrasted 
with created, 366. 

Beginning of ways, if the Word, then 
one of ways, 348. implies the Word 
to be no creature, 349. if so, more 
than beginning, 350. the Father, 
of the Son, 363. of new creation 
could not be mere man, 374. Wisdom 
as having impressed Himself on 
creatures, 391. as beginning of 
wisdom to men, 398. 

Begotten, men first made, then, 365. 
not so the Son, 367. 

Being, of the Son proper to Substance of 
Father, 402. is Godhead of the Father, 
406. 

Better, not greater, used of our Lord 
Heb. 1, 4. 260. 

Blended, the Word with our first-fruits, 
551. 

Bodily presence of Word, 295. 

Body, of Son capable of death, 243. of 
the Word, 244, 248, 467. God in, 298. 
the Church one in, 430. used by Him 
as instrument, 443. works proper td 
Word done through, ibid. was God’s, 
444. not in appearance but in truth, 
445. affections of, how proper to the 
Word, 446,477. passible, 478. of Christ 
the Truth opposed to Jewish temple, 
553. v. Word. 

Body of man, made God, 380. 

Brother, Arian blasphemy concern- 
ing, 200. the Word our, as man, 
367. 


C. 


Caius, 82, 85. 

Canon of Scripture mentioned, 31. 

Capable of the Word, the flesh ren- 
dered, 266. of Godhead, 365. of im- 
mortality, men not naturally, 389. 

Carpocrates held Angels to be framers 
of world, 262. 

‘Carried our infirmities,” commented 
on, 444. δὲ 

Catechising, doctrines taught in, 328. 

Cause efficient, creatures cannot be, 
310, 420. 

Cause and effect, the same, if Sabellius 
right, 516. 

Chrism, which anointed Christ was the 
Word, 554. 

Christ, became such or anointed for 
our sakes, 251. we bear within us, 
464. the will of God in, 488. and 
the Word one in incarnation, 550. 
considered in two ways, 552. 


Vw νὰ δ ννΝανν 


INDEX. 


Christians call themselves only after the 
name of Christ, 180. 

Coexistence of the Son in the Father’s 
eternity, 439. 

Coexisting ._Wisdom, 334. Word, 48, 
412, 519. 

Comprehension, the Son deficient in, 
according to Arius, 187. of the Son is 
knowledge of the Father, 204. 

Complete, each Person of the Holy 
Trinity, 400. 

Condescension, 354, 368, 372, 391, 394, 
396, 550. 

Confession, third of Sirmium, 83. first 
of Antioch, 105. of the Dedication, 
106. of Theophronius, 108. fourth of 
Antioch, 110. Macrostich, 111. first 
of Sirmium, 118. second of Sirmium, 
122. of Seleucia, 123. of Nice, 125. cf 
Antioch, 126. 

Connatural, the Son with the Father, 
148. implies One in substance, 154. 
Constans, called most pious emperor, 
59. proposed insertion of One in sub- 
stance (in Eusebius’s letter), 61. of 

blessed memory, 110. 

Constantine, his speech at Nicea, 65. 

Constantius, his reason for calling a 
Council, 74. present at the Dedi- 
cation, 109. puts forth an edict 
against second Sirmian confession, 
123. banishes orthodox Bishops, 125. 
baptized at the point of death, 127. 
his letter to the Bishops at Ariminum, 
158. flattered by Arians, 193, 439. 

Consulate, date of, attached by Arians 
to their formula of faith, 76. 

Corruptible, body of the Lord, 478. 

Council, Ecumenical not to be reversed, 
7. ought to be convoked for new 
heresies, 81. 

Council, Nicene, more than three hun- 

- dred bishops there, 6. called Ecu- 
menical, 49, 79, 102, 188. and great 
council, 9. ancient, 102. taught no 
novelties, 80. why used the phrase 
‘‘ of the substance,’ 32. decision of, 
agrees with Scripture, 61. 

Council of Ariminum, Arian motive in 
convoking, 74. scandal caused by 
convocation of, 75. four hundred 
bishops at, 82. refuses to annul the 
acts of Nicea, 64. deposes the 
Arians, 85. writes to Constantius, 
ibid. decree of, 87. lapse of bishops at, 
125. their letter to Constantius, 158. 

Council of Antioch, in what sense con- 
demned One in Sabstance, 141. 

Council of Jerusalem, readmits Arius, 
103. 

Council of Milan, 66. 

Counoriginate, the Son denied to be in 
Macrostich, 112. 


567 


Counsel, living, of the Father, the 
Word, 492. 

Creation, divine act of, not to be di- 
vided, for essential, 12. compared 
with Divine Generation, 17, 153. 
implies Consubstantiality, 205. not a 
thing to be learnt, 320. the Word one 
with the Father in, 324. implies no 
change in God, but in creatures, 532. 

Creation, term applied to the Son as 
man, 22. the, makes known the Word, 
196. could not be eternal, 223. none 
without Son, 283. the Word would 
have existed though none, 323. used 
in Scripture for renewal, 346. not to 
be used of the Word, 347. supported 
by Son when brought into being, 372. 
in servitude, 496. close of at return of 
Word, if created to create, 527. no 
dilatation at, 530. annihilated if no 
Son, 544. 

Creature, but not as creature used by 
early Arians, 97, 307. means nothing 
for all creatures differ in kind, 308. 
the whole Word not to be called a, 
347. could not join us to Creator, 377. 

Creature, Arians worship two Gods, one 
Creator the other, 301, 423. 

Creatures, if the Lord one of differs but 

in degree, 313. many but the Word 

one, 318. each of, one in substance 
but inadequate, 319. each kind of, 

created together, 349. 

‘reated,”’ to be interpreted according 

to subject matter, 285. ‘‘ Created to 

create,’ how absurd, 316. if so He 
for us not we for Him, 321. not ne- 

cessarily applied to substance, 344. 

“‘ for the works’’ implies renovation 

of creatures by the Son, 354. if 

the Word not for us, then we not new 
created, 359. contrasted with begat, 

366. how Wisdom in the works, 593. 

Creator, Son not His own, 310. God 
alone can be, ibid. 


D. 


Day, Last, known to our Lord, be- 
cause its antecedents known, 460. 
Death of the Lord by His own will, 
482. 

Deified, we by the Son, 151, 240, 380, 
474. 

Demophilus, 82, 85. 

Descent of Word, 290, 369. 


Development of the Son, held by 
heretics, 525. 
Dilatation of Godhead, 528. at In- 


carnation, 530. at creation, ibid. of 
the Father into Son and Spirit, 543. 


568 


Dionysius of Alexandria quoted, 44, 
142. 

Dionysius, S. of Rome, quoted, 45. 
writes to reproye Bp. of Alexandria, 
142. 

Doctors, Catholic, agree with each 
other, 8. 

Doctrine, theological, not completed by 
additions, 206. 

Doctrine, master, 298. 

Doctrines, novel, are false, 191. 

Drift of Scripture, 290, 440. 

Duality of Substance, if Word not 
from, but joined to Father, 517. 

Dyarchy, 513. 


E. 


Easter, question of, settled at Nicza, 75. 

Ecclesiastical sense, 242. scope, 482. 

Economy, human, of the Son, 264, 294, 
296. opposed to Substance of Word, 
353. prepared before beginning of 
world, 388. 

Elisha, instance of, 468. 

Embodied presence of the Saviour, 258. 

Emperor convokes council, 73. called 
eternal by Arians, 77. 

Emperor, image of, 405. 

Equality of Son with Father is unity, 
148. to the Spirit in respect of God- 
head, 253. 

Eternals, two, Catholics reproached by 
Arians with holding, 439. 

Evagrius, 89. 

Eudoxius, 74, 89, 111, 134. 

Euphration, 99. 

Eusebians, dispute with Catholics, 1. 
signed at Nicea the terms to which 
they afterwards objected, 6. insisted 
on Prov. 8, 22. 29. remained quiet 
after their conviction at Nicea, 30. 
misinterpret the phrase ‘‘ From God,” 
32. and other phrases, 34. by their 
fraud compel Council to frame terms, 
57. their blasphemies, 99. intrude 
themselves on churches, 103. incon- 
sistent in being indignant with other 
heretics, 522. 

Eusebius of Nicomedia, 99, 234. 

Eusebius of Cesarea, recants in a letter 
to his Church, 6. his letter, 59. re- 
ceives “οὗ the substance,”’ 62. ‘‘ one 
in substance’’ for peace-sake, ibid. his 
blasphemy, 99. 

Eutychius, 89. 

Euzoius, 127. 

Exalted, the Son not, when He became 
man, 235. human nature of Son, 238. 
the Word for our sakes, 521. 

Exercises of Origen, 48. 


INDEX. 


Expression, the Son, 48. the Son of Fa- 
ther’s attributes, 150. of Father, 204. 
of His subsistence, 209, 327. 

External, the Word not to us, 359. 

Exucontians, name applied to Aca- 
cians, 127. 


F. 


Face of Godhead one, 144, 403, 422, 
424. of Father the Son, 406. 

Faith, Catholic, one from the beginning, 
78. 

Faithful, how applied to God, 289. 

Father, God the Father, called In- 
generate, 13. Impassible, 19. was 
Father from everlasting, ibid. im- 
plied in production of the Word,27. not 
other than substance, 38. everlasting 
implies everlasting Word, 192. called 
Fountain of Wisdom, 207. proper to 
the Son, 208 to be properly Father 
is not Son, 212. needed no instrament 
to create, 217. analogy of human 
fathers to, 219. not adventitious to 
God, 222. eternally Maker in posse, 
but Father in actu, 223. better so 
called than Ingenerate, 228. not all- 
sufficient, if the Son not One,337. God 
ours by grace not by nature, 366. 
where named, the Son also named, 
338. pervades all in the Son, acts in the 
Spirit, 422. does not lose by giving to 
Son, 452. His Subsistence by His plea- 
sure, 494. Substance of attacked, if the 
Son attacked, 495. generative by na- 
ture, ibid. accession of power to, if 
the Son begotten to create, 526. if 
God, then the Word is Son, 532. 

Father, if compounded, then His own 
Father, or else Word a mere name, 
514. not a mere name for God con- 
sidered as wise, ibid. is Father and 
the Son is Son, therefore two Persons, 
516. dilated into Father, Son, and 
Spirit, according to heretics, 528. be- 
came flesh, if dilatation at Incarna- 
tion, 530. becomes Son and Spirit 
according to Sabellius, 543. 

Fatherhood, earthly shadow of heavenly, 
215, 496. 

Fathers, what not from is apostasy, 
191. 

Fear could not be in the Word, 477. 

Fire, light from, 515. radiance and, 
524. 

First does not exclude the Son, 407, 
412. 

First-born the Word, as our brother, 
366. of new creation the Word, 367. 
opposed to Only-begotten, 368. be- 
cause in Him creation came to be, 


INDEX. 


370. of creation excludes creation, 
ibid. as supporting creation, in 
creating, 372. from the dead, 374. 
yet Only, 412. 

Flesh, enslaved to sin, put on by the 
Word, 241. God in, 296. of Christ 
real, 381. ministered to Godhead, 
444. infirmities of, borne by the Word, 
ibid. whole put on by the Word, 446. 
made the Word, 448. made God 
through Incarnation, 455, 475. pos- 
sessed by God in the Word, 458. very 
God in, and true flesh in the Word, 
ibid. 

Forgiveness might have been without 
Incarnation, though not renewal, 378. 

Form of Godhead, 406. 

Fountain applied to the Father, 20, 
24, 400. never barren, 202. begetteth 
from itself and implies eternity of the 
Son, 207. 

“ Founded’ used of human nature, of 
Word, 387. 

Free-choice, creatures attached to God 
by, 519. 

Free-will of the Son, Arian question 
concerning, 214, 231. the Son has 
not human, 255. 


G. 


Generate, things, the Word not of, 9, 

21, 55. 
used by S. Ignatius of the 

Lord’s human nature, 147. the Son, 
the true, 261. the Lord’s body, 292. 

Generation, Divine, not of human af- 
fection, 16. without partition, ef- 
fluence, or accession, 19. an internal 
act, 22. differs from creation, 132. 
eternal, 204. implies no substance 
alien to God any more than creation, 
153. without time, as creation with- 
out materials, 215. of the Word, 
superfluous, if not till creation, 526. 
is His progression according to 
heretics, 527. 

Generation, Son not before, according 
to Arians, 185. 

Generative nature of God, 283, 495, 
518. 

Gentilism, 524. 

Genuineness, of the Son, 267, 344, 402. 
mark of Son, 546. 

George, the contractor, 89, 134. 

of Laodicea, 99. 

Germinius, 74, 82, 85. 

Gift of God, the Spirit so called, 304. 

Gifts, given to the Word for our sakes, 
521. 


569 


Given, all things to the Son, does not 
impair His Godhead, 452. 

Glory of God in us, the Word, 415. 

God from God, 193, 512. 

God, never wordless and wisdomless, 
25, 516. simple and uncompounded, 
37. name of, means divine substance, 
38, 132. is His own substance, 131. 
unity of, for Son from Father, 154. 
in a body, 298. of compound nature 
if attribute wisdom really exist in, 
334. Christians fuil of, 432. the flesh 
made, 455, 475. 

Godhead, substantial, 151. the Father’s, 
Rom. I, 20. used of the Son, 197. of 
the Father and Son the same, 245, 
267, 304. identity of, 403. paternal of 
Son, 436. dwelt in flesh, 443. works 
of, through flesh, 446. prerogatives of, 
derived eternally from Father to Son, 
451. of the Son is the Father’s, 404, 
453. advance of manhood for shining 
forth of, 475. oneness of, 478. 

Gods, Arians near holding two, 423. 
we so called by grace, 236, 427, 433. 
we become through Incarnation, 348, 
381, 446, 447, 456. 

Grace, given by all Three Persons to- 
gether, 338. one and the same from 
Father and Son, 417. 

Greater, used of things one in nature, 
264, 

Greek notion of creation, 132. 


H. 


Hand, absolute, 12. untempered, 316. 

the Son called Hand of the 
Father, 12, 27, 323, 382, 546. 

Handywork of God, nature too feeble 
for according to Arians, 317. 

Harm, none to the Word from Passion, 
449. 

Heart of God, not to be taken cor- 
porally, 542, 546. 

Heresies, connected together, 190. 

Heresy, Arian, on the face of it ir- 
reverent, 192. 

Heretics, called after their leaders, 181. 

——-— anonymous called Sabellianizers, 
517. ascribe beginning of rule to the 
Son, 522. hold the Son to be notional, 
ibid. the Son to be developed at crea- 
tion, 525. closeof creation on return of 
the Son, 528. separate Word and Son, 
531. affirm that the Son is not men- 
tioned in Old Testament, 541. or if 
so, prophetically, ibid. of Samosatene 
school, 549. 


2p 


570 


Heretic, anonymous, held dilatation of 
Godhead, 528. and action of dilata- 
tion at creation or incarnation, 530. 
coutrasted with Sabellius, 543. 

Hermas, quoted, 7, 31. 

Hieracas, 97. 

High-Priest, when the Lord became, 
290. 

Himself, the Word bare our sins, 359. 

Homer, quoted, 549. 

Homoousion v. Substance. 

Humanity, some terms in Scripture re- 
ferrible to the Lord’s, 286. 

Humanly, the Lord said to advance, 
473. 


Tdea, Christ Son in, according to Arians, 
193. ideas of men successive, 321. 
Identity, of Son with Father, 40. 
of light, ibid. ought to be used of 
substances, 155. of Godhead, 403. of 
what the Son hath, 451. of nature, 

431. 

Jeremiah, hallowed from the womb, 
446. 

Jesus, said to have advanced, not the 
Word, 475. 

Jews, thought Christ said He was the 
Father, 533. 

Tgnatius, St., quoted, 146. 

Ignorance, our Lord’s according to 
Arians, 437. questions do not always 
imply, 454. proper to flesh, not to 
Godhead, ibid. ours carried by the 
Son for our sakes, 455. 

Ignorant, our Lord not of the Day of 
Judgment, 460. as man, because ig- 
norance natural to man, 461. not as 
Word, because Holy Spirit not, 462. 
not, because Image of Father, 463. 
the Lord said He was, to shew His 
manhood, 464. put ona flesh which 
was, 465. not, though He said He 
was, as St. Paul, 467. humanly for 
our profit, 469. 

Illustrations, Scripture adapted to our 
imperfection, 326. human, used by 
Arians, 491. 

Image, implies Offspring, 28. of One 
God must be One, 27,331. One in sub- 
stance, 35, 40. eternity of, in extract 
from Origen, 48 and 440. unvarying 
used in Creed of Dedication, 107. 
implies Substance, 136. to be true 
must be perfect, 210. implies eternity, 
ibid. and Son imply each other, 283. 
One only, 318. unvarying, 327, 405, 


INDEX. 


416. of Father’s Substance, 377. only 
natural, 415. of the Word in creation, 
391. God rejoiced in creation on ac- 
count of His, 397. everlasting, 517. 
v. Unvarying. 

Imaged, wisdom in the works, 393. 

Immortality derived from the Word, 
36, 447. 

Impassibility of the Word, 448. of man 
through Incarnation, 449. 

Impress, of Wisdom in the Works, 
394. 

Improvement, none in the Word, 26,434. 

“In the Father,” in what sense the 
Son, 400. 

Incarnate, presence of the Word, v. 
Word. 

Incarnation, in order to sanctify the 
flesh, 296. had not been but for man, 
356. necessary for renewal, 379, 446. 
man had not conquered Satan with- 
out, 380. and had remained mortal, 
381. and corruptible, 432. if not of 
the Word, through body, men had not 
been redeemed, 446. men immortal 
through, 447. passions abolished in 
the Impassible through, 449. took 
place to make grace irrevocable, 455. 
v. Word. 

Incarnation no dilatation at, 530. the 
Word, Son before, 539. the ancients 
called sons before, ibid. Christ and the 
Word one in, 550. no division of the 
Word by, ibid. no alteration of the 
Word in, 551. proved by what took 
place after resurrection, 545. the Word 
whole man and God together in, ibid. 

Inclination, two ways, implied in choice, 
490. and in God by Arians, 495. 

Incommeasurable, creatures with the 
Son, 264. 

Incorporate, we with the Body of the 
Word, 367. 

Indivisibility of the Son from the 
Father, 406, 419. guards unity, 524. 

Inferior, the Lord to the Spirit in re- 
spect of manhood, 252. . 

Ingenerate, as used by Arians, 13, 53. 
originally a heathen term, 51. not used 
in opposition to Son, 54. different 
senses of, 52, 146, 225. used of the 
Son, 147. Arian question whether one 
or two, 214, 225. is but one, but the 
Son not therefore generate, 226. in 
opposition to creatures, 228. Wis- 
dom, 334. 

Ingenerately, the Son coexists, 332, 336. 

Inseparable, the Son from the Father, 
406, 419, 429, 440. 

Instrument, the Son not, 40, 321, 382. 
body of the Word used by Him as, 
443, 450. 

Invisible seen through visible, 553, 559. 


INDEX. 


John Baptist, St., heard St. Mary’s 


voice in the womb, 446, 450. 


. 


K. 


Knowledge of the Father implies one- 
ness with Him, 312. of the Father 
through the Son and of the Son 
through the Father the same, 396. 


L. 


Lazarus, instance of, proves the Lord 
not really ignorant, 466. 

Legates of Roman see, 86. 

Leontius, 88, 136. 

Life, the Son so called, 20, 48, 400. if 
so He is the Word, 545. the Word 
Very, 551. 

Light expresses Immaterial generation 
of the Son, 20: identity of, 40. of the 
Father in the Son no other than the 
Son’s substance, 41. oneness of, 404, 
417. of the Father the Son, 474. from 
fire, 515. 

Light from Light, in fourth confession 
of Antioch, 110. in Macrostich, 112. 
in first of Sirmium, 118. 

Light, One, Father and Son, 404, 417. 

Like found inadequate, 35. expresses 
external similitude, 40. and ‘‘ Like 
in all things,” 84. in Macrostich, 
115. in all things but substance in- 
volves two Gods, 150. in all things, 
210, 237, 305. in all points, 311. the 
Father, 428. 

“Like according to Scripture” in 3d 
Sirmian, 83. in Creed of Seleucia, 
124. and of Constantinople, 125. v. 
Substance. 

Likeness, same in, 35. unvarying, 40, 
45]. oneness of, 145. applied to 
quality rather than substance, 135. 
in doctrine, no likeness at all, 416. in 
substance alone true, 135, 263. of the 
Father, 144, 327, 350, 463. natural 
of the Father, 452. 

Likeness in Substance, 136, 209, 210, 
219, 416, 421, 436. denied at Se- 
leucia, 124. rejected by S. Ath. as 
implying participation, 156. 

Logomachy, Arian, 157. 

Lord, how Christ made, 298. over the 
disobedient, 300. how -the Son calls 
the Father, 351. 

Lordship of the Father, the Son one 
with, 493. 


M. 


Macedonius, 111. 

Made, the Word, as Aaron made High 
Priest, 290. equivalent to manifested, 
298. in what sense the Word, ibid. 
not simply, 300. . 

Magnus, 89. 

Maker prior to Works, 407. 

Man, as, the Lord became High-Priest, 
290. Arians must see, if they deny 
that the Lord was, 292. the Lord 
not mere, 303. reason given why the 
Lord made, not why He is God, 356. 
the Word became, not came into, 442. 
if the Word not glorified as, men are 
lost, 457. assumed by the Word, if not 
the Word must be God, 537. must be 
Son through Word, 539. God made, 
in name only, 543. the Word not sent 
through but in the, 551. the, made 
One with God the Word, 554. whole 
operation of Godhead through, 558. 
v. Word. 

Manichees find fault with the Law, 
130. Arians compared to, 214, 336. 
their baptism, 340. held more than 
one Origin, 421. deny generation of 
the Word’s body, 450. held God to 
be ignorant, 471. reject Old Testa- 
ment, 541. 

Manifestation, further of Godhead 
meaning of advance, 474. 

Marcellus of Ancyra anathematized, 
169. 

Marcion, 46. held two Gods, 153. held 
more than one origin, 421. 

Maris, 99, 109. 

Mark sent into Gaul, 110. 

Martinian the notary, 123. 

Martyrius, 111. 

Martyry, Church of at Jerusalem, 103. 

Mary, St., Mother of the Lord’s body, 
290. Ever Virgin, 381. Mother of 
God, 420, 440. the Baptist. leaped at 
voice of, 447. mortal, therefore the 
Lord mortal, 478, 551. 

Material, notions of Arians, 399. about 
effluence, 19, 211, 212. and severance, 
63. 

Matter not eternal, 311. 

Masximilla, 78. 

Mediator, Avian sense of, 13. none be- 
tween Father and Son, 41. why must 
have been God, 151, 301, 307, 377. 
the Word not between the Father and 
creation, 317. must be God and Man, 
381, 446. and more than man, 537. 

Meletian, 89. 

Ministry, not needed by Creator, 315. 
opposed to creation, 318. of flesh in 
the Lord, 444. human of the Lord, 
462. 


572 


Minister, the Word doth to us, 520. 

Miracles, done by the Word through His 
flesh, 445. 

Mission, used of Incarnation, 553. of the 
Word, His presence in the flesh, 555. 

Monarchy, Divine, 45. because one 
origin of Godhead, 513. 

Montanus taught a new revelation, 78. 

Morai excellencies of man imitations of 
God, 427. 

‘Morning Star,’ heretical explanation 
of, 546. 


N. 


Name, the Son not Word, &c. only in, 
25, 210, 307, 333, 514, 527, 542. 

Names of heretics derived from their 
teachers, 180. 

Narcissus, 99, 109. 

Natural possession, applied to the Son, 
41. 

Nature of the Son towards the Father, 
155. of the Son is the Father’s, 
245. transcends will, 284, 489. of 
the Father and the Son one, 264, 
403. peculiarity of, 404. indivisible, 
429. the Son in the Father by, 432, 
434. human of the Word, 460. in- 
visible seen through visible, 555. of 
God double, if the Word not Off- 
spring, 517. human, the Manhood 
transcended by degrees, 475. 

Nature of the Son towards the Father, 
155. of the Word unalterable, 253. 
the Word in His, not a creature, 
345. 

Necessity, the Son not by, 489. 

Nicea, Council to have been held there, 
73. v. Council. 

Notionally Word, Christ according to 
Arians, 332. the same called Father 
and Son, heretical, 516. the Word 
according to Arians, Son according 
to other heretics, 522. the Word not, 
527. v. Name. 


O. 


‘‘ Offspring but not as one of offsprings,”’ 
307. 

Offspring, proper, 37, 54, 191. implies 
One in Substance, 40. and eternity, 
ibid. opposed to works, 133. eternal, 
201. of Substance, 204. prior to crea- 
tion, 284. of Substance, equivalent to 
Word, 312. opposed to creature, 362, 
395. proper therefore all that Father 
hath His, 404. Being of the Son is, 


INDEX. 


406. in whom others made sons, 413. 
of Substance, the Son because giver 
of grace, 417. from the Father pre- 
serves Unity of Godhead, 517. 

“ Once the Son was not,’ an Arian for- 
mula, 195. 

“ One Only God” excludes idols, 410. 

One, the Father and Son not as one 
thing twice named, 403. light, Father 
and Son, 404. not in will but Sub- 
stance, 416. not as we are one, 426. 
by nature, we by imitation, 429. 

One, divine and buman works done by, 
450. Christ and the Word in Incarna- 
tion, 550, 555. 

One, the Divine, 515. became a Three 
by dilatation according to heretics, 
528. becomes Father, Son, and 
Spirit, or else besides Father, ac- 
cording to the same, 529. with Fa- 
ther, that alone which is from Him, 
533. dilates into four, if the Word 
not Son, 538. 

Oneness, symbolical of, 144. of the 
Lord, not in agreement but in Sub- 
stance, 148. of nature, 151. of Christ 
with Father, 335. indivisible, 337, 
429. of Substance, 403. of giving, 
shews oneness of nature, 418. of 
Godhead, though Father and Son are 
two, 513. consists in that the Son is 
in the Father, and the Father in 
the Son, 534. 

Oneness, divine in incarnation, 551. 

Only-begotten, why the Son, 19. op- 
posed to first-born, 368. and Well- 
beloved the same, 541, 549. 

Only-begotten, Arian sense of, 15. God, 
the Son so called by Arius, 96. 

Only and One God does not exclude 
the Son, 407. does not interfere with 
First, 412. 

Organ of Wisdom, the Manhood, 475. 

Origen, called labour-loving, 48. 

Origin, not three because of the Trinity, 
46, 421. none of the Son’s existence, 
48. the Father of the Son, 201, 363, 
513. the Son of our salvation, 250. 
two if the Word subsist by Himself, 
516. 

Orthodox, the drift of Scripture, 290. 


Ῥ- 


Paraclete, not used in Old Testament, 
548. 

Participated, wholly to be, equivalent 
to beget, 203. 

Participation, the Son not by, 148, 151, 
156, 400, 404, 406, 421. 


. 


INDEX. 


Partitive subsistences in the Trinity 
denied, 45. 

Passion, the Lord received no loss by, 
302. of the Word, 445. 

Passions, abolished in the Impassible, 
449. / 

Patripassians, 115. 

Patrophilus, 74, 89, 99. 

Paul St., not ignorant, though pro- 
fessing it, 467. 

Paul of Samosata, Arians compared to, 
16, 41, 235, 299. anathematized, 
109, 113. condemned at Antioch, 141. 
held that Christ was not before Mary, 
145, 217. held our Lord to be mere 
man, 472. his school, 549. 

Paulinus, 99. 

Pancratius, 89. 

Perfect, from Perfect, in Creed of Theo- 
phronius, 108. used by 8. Ath. 329, 
473. the Father and the Son each, 400. 
if the Word not till creation, we the 
cause of His perfection, 526. 

Perfect God, Christ called in Macro- 
stich, 113. 

Permitted, the body of the Lord, to 
hunger, 477. 

Perplexity not heresy, 330. 

Person in Macrostich, 113. in second 
of Sirmium, 122. 

Phebus, 89. 

Photinus, council held against, 117. 

Phrygians, 78, 340. held that Prophets 
knew not what they announced, 467. 

Place, all things near God in, 431. 

Pleasure of Father, the Son not with- 
out, 494. of the Father the Son, and 
Son of the Father, 495. 

Pollux, 88. 

Polyarchy, 513. 

Pope, Bp. of Alexandria so called, 96. 

Power, implies that the Son is proper to 
Substance of Godhead, 28. another 
besides Christ, according to Arians, 
101. Christ the power of God, 196, 

, 491, 551. 

Precedent will, 486. 

Predestinated, we in the Son, 389. 

Prefects, letters from to convoke Coun- 
ol bay 

Progression of the Word, His genera- 
tion according to heretics, 527. 

Promoted, the Son not by Incarnation, 
239. : 

Promotion, none in the Word, 234, 242, 
250. not anointed for His own, 247. 
of the body by the Word, 457. 

Pronounced word, 113, 119, 329. 

Proper relation of the Son to the Father, 
40. to the Father, the Son, 55, 150, 
191, 209, 240, 264, 286, 311, 318. by 
nature to flesh of the Lord suffering, 
449. body to the Word, 476. 


573 


Properly, some terms not applied to 
the Word, 285. 

Properties of flesh ascribed to the Son, 
443. of God and Man in the Lord 
to be separated, 450. 

Propriety and peculiarity, 404, 425. of 
the Father’s Substance, the Son, 406. 
towards the Father, 452. mark of the 
Word, 547. 

Protoplast, Adam so called, 14. 

Proverbs not literal, 343. 

Ptolemy, 89. the Valentinian, 486. 


8. 


Qualities, none in God, 515. 


R. 


Radiance, implies eternity of the Son, 
20. from the Substance, 39, 41. One 
in Substance, 40, 41. indivisibility of 
the Son from the Father, 155, 326. 
eternal if Light eternal, 199. co-exist- 
ence, 220, 412. completeness of Son, 
402. oneness of grace, 420. eternity, 
440. radiance and fire, 524. 

Rational Word, God neyer without, 
208. 

Word from the, 514. 

Realities, Three in Holy Trinity as- 
serted in Macrostich, 113. 

Reason, of man, coeval with him, 326. 

Arians lack, 2, 4, 231, 290. God 
would have a nature compounded of, 
if heretics right, 514. 

Receives the Son, because not the Father, 
452. the Lord, in the flesh for our 
sakes, 455. 

Referred, the Son to the Father, 512. 

Rejoicing, of God in His works, 397. 
of the Father in the Son and the Son 
in the Father, ibid. 

Relation, term used by Arians, 98. 
proper and genuine of Father to Son, 
40. 

Repose of Holy Spirit in God, 46. 
Resurrection, what took place after 
proves union of God and Man, 554. 

Robed in flesh, the Lord, 290. 

Right hand of God, not in bodily sense, 
267. 

Rivalry none between the Father and 
the Son, 409. 

Rome, \egates of at Council of Milan, 
80. Bp. of, writes to reprove Bp. of 
Alexandria, 142. Council of, ibid. 


57 
5. 


Sabellianism, 524. 

Sabellianizers, confuted from notion of 
a Son, 517. 

_ Sabellius, anathematized, 109. why 
condemned, 403. safeguard against, 
in eternal generation, 451. God Very 
Wisdom according to, 515. held 
Father and Son to be the Same, 5i6, 
529. the Jews like, 533. and Arius 
confuted from same text, 534. com- 
pared with Arius, 543. 

Same, how the Son, yet other, 404. 
Word and Christ One and the Same, 
555. 

Scope, of prophecy, 302. of the faith, 
451). ecclesiastical, 482. 

Scotinus, Photinus so called, 114. 

Scripture, Holy, the sense of, 36. gives 
the best notion of the truth, 57. its 
sufficiency, 8]. contains apparent 
contradictions, 143. Arians borrowed 
terms from, 189. comfort in per- 
plexity, 331. uses physical illustra- 
tions, 426. contains double account 
of the Saviour, 440. gives various 
names to Incarnation, 553. 

Secundus, 88. 

Seleucia, Council called there, 74, 82. 
160 Bishops at, 88. deposes the Arians, 
89. puts forth Homcean creed, 125. 
forbids ‘‘ Substance,”’ 124. 

Semi-arians, not to be accounted 
Arians, 139. inconsistent, 141. called 
“much loved,” ibid. are in danger 
of introducing two substances, 150. 

Servant, used in Scripture of sons, 285. 
the Word not, 300, 351. 

Shew His manhood, Christ said He 
was ignorant in order to, 464. 

Siras, 89. 

“So,” in John 5, 26. argument from, 
452. 

Son, twofold sense of the word, 11. 
implies oneness of nature with Fa- 
ther, 28. implies “Οὐ the Sub- 
stance,’’ 39, 202. has not a human 
sense, 40. completes Word, 14]. 
guards against notion of two Gods, 
200. even in the case of men implies 
connaturality, 220. and Image imply 
each other, 283. implies likeness, 
304. not a name taken from creatures, 
333. implied in father, 407. how im- 
plies the Monarchy, 513. not a mere 
name for God when Wisdom, 514. 
notional according to some heretics, 
922. 

Son, our Lord not by advancement, 11. 
not created to create others, 12. not 
in a way that admits of degrees, 15. 
by nature, 16. His generation im- 


INDEX. 


material, 17. eternal because the 
Father eternal, 19, 202. not lowered 
by Incarnation, 23. the Word the 
genuine aud natural, 39, 40, 41, 
286. not a name but Substance, 131. 
if not of Substance accidental to 
the Father, ibid. not one with the 
Father by agreement, 148. not Son 
by participation, ibid. hath all that 
the Father bath but being Father, 
149. not from without, 154, partakes 
wholly of Divine Substance, 204. 
being properly Son, is not Father, 
212. not of will but of nature, 222. 
as man worshipped by Angels, 240. 
ministry of, better than Angels, 260. 
by nature, but creation by will, 284. 
is Giver of Spirit, 365. not medium 
of creation, 316. proper to Father 
because but One, 318. all grace 
given necessarily in, 338. true, ne- 
cessary to becoming adopted sons, 
365. in the Father, not as incomplete, 
400. implied with the Father, 407. 
eternal in that He is Son, 440. Son 
made in Son, if ‘‘ by will’ according 
to Arians, 494. in the Father and the 
Father in the Son, because of identity 
of will, 495. is Himself the Father 
according to Sabellius, 516, 529. in- 
divisibly from {6 Father, preserves 
unity of Godhead, 524. whatever exists 
from another is His, 532. if a work 
God began to be Father, ibid. 

Son and Word separated by heretics, 
531, 549. the man assumed by Christ 
held to be by some, 531. or the man 
and the Word united, ibid. or the Word 
became, when became Man, ibid. if 
everlasting must be the Word, 532. 
superior to Word, if not the same, 
534. and the Word if not the same, 
then there are two worlds, 536. if the 
man assumed by the Word and not 
the Word is, then man is God, 537. 
sight of the Father ascribed to not to 
the Word, 538. if the flesh and the 
Word together are what follows, 539. 
if the Word became, when made Man, 
then knew not the Father till then, 
540. mentioned in Old Testament, 
541. and the Word equivalent, 542. if 
Life, must be the Word, 545. if not ᾿ 
mentioned in Old Testament neither 
is Paraclete, 548. 

Sons, we truly made, 56. human not 
co-existent by accident of nature, 
219. not external to their fathers, ib. 
the Saints in Old Testament called, 
541, 548. 

Sotades, 94, 179. 

Spirit, Holy, all partake of Christ 
through Him, 42, 192, 203. *‘re- 


INDEX. 


poses in God’’ in extract from S. 
Dionysius, 49. the Son the Dispenser 
of, 247. speaketh not of Itself but 
given by the Word, 249. of the Son 
fitly given by Him, 253. blasphemy 
against, is-ascribing the work of the 
Word to the devil, 252. intercession 
of, 300. called God’s Gift, 305. of 
the Son necessary to becoming son, 
365. the Father acts in through the 
Word, 422. held to be from nothing 
by Arians, ibid. cause of our being in 
God, 433. hath whatever He hath 
from the Word, 434. grace of, how 
irrevocable, 435. not ignorant, much 
less the Son, 462. grace of, used for 
heretical illustration, 543. comforted 
the Saints in the Old Testament, 548. 

State, Arians depended on the, 293. 

Slephen, 89. ; 

Stoics, heretics borrowed from, 297, 528, 
631. 

Subordinate, Son to the Father in 
Macrostich, 113 and Ist of Sirmium, 
121. 2d of Sirmium, 122. 

Subservient, Son to the Father in lst 
Sirmium creed, 118. 

Subsistence, in extract from Origen, 48. 
forbidden at Constantinople, 124. 
“three in’’ used in creed of Dedica- 
tion, 107. implies Its own Expression, 
209, 327. invisible, 399. joined to Sub- 
stance, 494, 514. One in, 543. of 
Father ascribed to Son, 552. One ac- 
cording to Sabellius, 543. of the Word 
not to be separated from the Man 
from Mary, 553. 

Subsistences, three opposed by St. Dio- 
nysius, 45. asserted by Arians, 
98. 

Substance, of God, is Himself, 38. of 
the Word, the same as light which 
isin Him, 41. of the Son, if alien in- 
volves alien God, 150. of the Father, 
the Son proper to, 191, 209, 264, 312. 
participated wholly, 203. of the Fa- 
ther, Son one in nature to, 264. of the 
Word, not exalted, 238. no defect in, 
244. divine not barren, 284. nor 
made, 290. faithful not used accord- 
ing to, 294. of the Word, is proper 
to the Father, 311. ingenerate and 
unmitigated, 316. how created things 
are one in, 319. Wisdom in, 320. One- 
ness-in, 403, 416. propriety of, 425. 
Son, Radiance of, 494. one, because 
one origin, 513. 

Substance, of the, why used at Nicea, 
32. implies One in Substance, 40. 
equivalent to “of God,” 131. 

One in, explains Image, 35. 
not to be understood materially, 40. 
used by S. Ath. 41, 55, 150, 191, 523, 


575 


524, 527. used before Nicene Coun- 
cil, 43. complained of at Seleucia, 
89, 124. forbidden by 2d Sirmian 
Confession, 122. and at Constanti- 
nople, 126. not to be rejected because 
some offended, 131. expresses genu- 
ineness of Son, 133. not to be re- 
jected because not in Scripture, 137. 
not obscure, 138. guarded by Word, 
140. implied in Radiance, Offspring, 
and.Son, 140, 148. not to be taken 
materially any more than Offspring. 
141. involves no prior substance, 151. 
does not imply a whole and parts, 
152. implied in connatural, 154. 
guards against two Gods, ibid. does 
not imply parts and divisions, 202. 

Like in, not so extensive as 
One in Substance, 139. together 
with ‘Of the Substance”’ is ‘ One 
in Substance,” ibid. used, 416. 

Like according to, not equi- 
valent to “ Like in Substance,” 139. 
involves participation, 156. 

Unlike in, what follows if 
Creating Word, 205. 

Substantive Wisdom, the Son so called, 
141, 320. substantial Godhead, 15]. 
energy, 284. Word, 514. 

Sun and painting, comparison of, 410. 


ate 


Temple of God, Christ’s body, 474. 

Temple, Jewish, is Image, Christ’s 
body, the Truth, 553. 

Terms, human, change when used of 
God, 285. 

Terror, not lawful to say that the Lord 
was in, 479. of the Saviour removed 
our terror, 481. 

Testament, Old, the Son named in, 
541, 548. 

Texts commented on, 


Gen. 32, 31. 154, 424 
Deut. 32, 6. 364 
39. 410 

Ps. 16, 9 267 
Pu al 239 

36, 9 198 

45, 1 37, 542 

90, 17 198 

104, 24 207, 391 

110, 3 37, 546 
Prove ὦ. 10. 207, 350 
8, 22. 20, 22, 30, 306, 384 
isd. 541 
53, 4. 444 

Jer. 2, 13. 207 
Bara, 12. 24, 207 


576 INDEX. 
Matt. 5, 32. 252 asserted in confession of Dedication, 
26, 39. 480 106. implied in Image, 231. 
28, 18. 45), 520 Underworker, the Son not, 12, 315, 
Mark 13, 32. 459 320, 324. 
Luke 2, 52. 459, 472 Uniting, the, in Incarnation, 530. 
John 3, 35. 451 Unity, ours but imitation of that of 
5, 26. 452 the Father and the Son, 439. 
10, 18. 451 “Unlike,” in confession of Antioch, 
30. 403, 414 126. substances in Holy Trinity ac- 
i BRO 481 cording to Arius, 187. the Son is not, 
14, 9. 405 150, 186, 205, 341, 403, 421. 
10. 398 Unmitigated Substance, 316. 
17, 3. 409 Unoriginate, the Father so called in 
19, 11. 425 Macrostich, 112. Wisdom of God 
Acts 2, 36. 297 allowed to be by Arians, 226. the 
Rom. 1, 20. 196 Son in the Father, 363. 
8, 35. 437 Unsubsistent, the Word not, 141. 
19... 4. 543 Untempered, hand of the Father, 316. 
2 Cor: 12422: 467 nature of the Son, 372. 
Eph. 1, 20. 520 Unvarying image, 106, 135, 327, 405, 
Phil. 2, 6. 406 416: likeness, 34, 40, 451. 
9, 10. 233, 520 Uranius, 89. 
Col. 1..115: 371 Ursacius, his connection with the two 
2,>9 443 Councils, 74, 85. 
Heb. 1, 4 257 
6. 392 
Bye ee 281 
2 Pete) 22. 424 Wis 
Rev Ἱ, Ὁ. 908 


Theodoret, 89. 

Theodorus, 107. 

Theodosius, 89. 

Theodotus, 88, 99. 

Theodulus, 88. 

Theognostus, quoted, 43. 

Theophronius, his creed, 108. 

Three, a, One Godhead in, 206. the, 
is Creator, 206. 

Time, words expressive of, not ap- 
plicable to God, 195. 

Two, how the Father and the Son, 403. 
are One, in how many senses used, 
523. the Father and the Son in name, 
according to Sabellians, 543. 

Trinity, term used by St. Dionysius, 
46. and by Arius, 95. doctrine of, 
implies eternity of the Son, 205. 
whole from everlasting, ibid. not one 
in Substance, if the Son not Consub- 
stantial, 206. things generate are 
below, 264. not three Origins, 421. 
one Godhead in, 422. 

Tritheism, 46. 

Truth, the Son so called, 209. 


Wie 


Unalterable, the, God, 231. takes alter- 
able flesh, 254. in fleshly presence, 
289. 

Unalterableness of Son, 35,39, 232, 253. 


Valens, 74, 82, 88. 

Valentinus, held two gods, 153. made 
angels one in kind with Christ, 262. 
held Christ’s body to be unreal, 382. 
held precedent will, 486. made an- 
other Christ, 492. allusion to his 
notions of thought and will, 493. 

Very Wisdom, 393, 394. Very God in 
flesh, 458. Life, 551. 

Very Wisdom, how denied of God, 514. 

Vintner, Jewish, Arians compared to, 
450. 

Virgin earth, 290. 

Visitation of the Word in flesh, 264. 


Ww. 


Weeping of the Lord proves reality of 
body, 478. 

Well-beloved equivalent to Only-Be- 
gotten, 541. 

Well of life applied to the Father, 20. 
Whole and full God, the Son, 407. man 
and God together, the Word, 554. 
Will, the Son generated by, in Macros- 
tich, 115, and first of Sirmium,121.the 
Son not of, 141, 223, 284. living of the 
Father the Son so called, 284, 324. 
of the Lord combined by Him with 
human weakness, 480. the Lord died 
by His own, 482. of God, the Son be- 
gotten by, has an orthodox sense, 465, 


INDEX. 577 


no precedent, 486. the Son not to be 
measured by, 490. if the Son by, so 
also God exists and is good, ibid. of 
the Father, the Son is, 491. and Un- 
derstanding the same in God, 493. the 
Father’s subsistence not from, there- 
fore not the Son, 494. the Son not 
without though not from, ibid. by the 
same as the Father’s, the Son wills 
the Father, ibid. ‘‘ He came to be of” 
implies that the Father could have 
not willed the Son, 495. 

Wisdom, Christ is properly not in name, 
25. implies oneness in substance, 40, 
312. considered as an attribute by 
Arius, 186. implies eternity of the 
Son, 207. immateriality of divine 
generation, 221. Arians held two 
wisdoms, 227. of God needed no 
teaching, 320. in substance, ibid. One 
because God One, 331. coexisting 
with God not Himself, 334. how 
created in the works, 390. of God 
archetype of ours, 391. the Very, 
ibid. 393. Itself, not its impress in 
Incarnation, 396. could make no 
advance in wisdom, 472. substantial, 
513. no quality in God, 515. 

Wise, Wisdom from the, 514, the 
Father, the Son Wisdom, 524. 

Womb, from the, explained, 542, 546. 

Word, human, paralleled with Divine, 
140. composed of syliables, 329. 
image of divine, 391. 

Word, Christ is properly, not in name, 
25..of God is One, 26. implies Son, 
27. alone really from the Father, 
33. implies One in substance, 40. 
God never without, 47, 202, 208, 215, 
516, 530. not pronounced, 113, 119, 
329. not a name but substance, 131. 
impassibility of divine generation, 
140, 221. considered as an attribute 
by Arius, 186. another besides Son 
according to Arius, ibid. implies 
eternity of the Son, 207. not anointed, 
as Word, but as having assumed 
Flesh, 248. implied in act of creation, 
284. not made qua Word, 291. not 
made servant, 300. if not Creator 
there must be another, 310. implies 
“* of the Substance,’ 312. One because 
God One, 331. not so called because 
of things rational, 335. if creature, 
could not have redeemed, 380. Words, 
two, if Arians right, 488. and a series 
of, 492. everlasting because from 
God, 517. 

Word, not a sound but substantial, 513. 
not as man’s, 514. if not substantial, 
then the Father compounded, ibid. 
Very, if the Father is, then His own 
Father and Son, ibid. a creature, if 


made externally, 516. if another be- 
sides Christ, Christ only called Word, 
518. separated from Son by heretics, 
531. became Son when became Man 
according te heretics, ibid. if from God, 
then Son, 532. the Son, if everlasting, 
must be, ibid. not Father therefore 
Son, ibid. is Father, if the Man not 
Word, 537. if the flesh is the Son, 
because of, then the Word is the Son, 
539. nothing but a name, if not Son 
till He became Man, 540. coming 
forth from the heart is the Son, 542. 
and Life the Same, 545. and Son 
paralleled with Spirit and Paraclete, 
548. differs from the Son and Christ 
according to heretics, 549. no altera- 
tion of in incarnation, 551. 


Word, not made servant, 350, 351. 


whole not to be called creature, 347. 
no hurt to from passion, 444. human 
affections did not touch, 446. not 
harmed by affections, 449. carried af- 
fections, though without them, ibid. 
properties of to be separated from 
those of Man, 450. did not advance, 
but Jesus, 475. affections not proper 
to, fear could not be in, 479. hungers 
not hungering, 521. God aud Man, 
555. 


Word, put on the flesh enslaved to sin, 


241. body of, capable of death, 243. 
flesh of 244, 248. incarnate presence 
of, 190, 252, 357, 385, 450, 555. visita- 
tion of, in flesh, 264. suffered in body, 
267. bodily presence of, 258, 295, 
375. fleshly presence of, 289. was 
God in flesh, 296. body of, 368. im- 
perfect body round perfect, 375. pro- 
perties of flesh said to belong to, 443. 
infirmities of flesh borne by, 444. 
passion of, 445. flesh not external 
to, ibid. put on whole flesh, 446. 
body was His not another’s, ibid. af- 
fections of flesh appropriated by, 447. 
suffering by nature proper to flesh of, 
449. the flesh possessed by, 455. ig- 
norant as man, 461. put on flesh 
that was ignorant, 465. professed 
ignorance humanly, 469. was God 
bearing flesh, 472. humanly said to 
advance, 473. for manifestation of 
Godhead, 475. body of, corruptible, 
478. made flesh, 550. no division of, 
in incarnation, ibid. sent through 
Christ means Word incarnate, ibid. 
one with the Man from Mary, 551, 
553. perception of through body, 
554. Himself is Christ Son of Mary, 
555. 


Word used His body as instrument, 


443, 450. works proper to, done 
through His body, ibid. miracles 


done by through the flesh, 445. per- 
mitted His body to hunger, 477. 
death of, by His own will, 482. 
blended with our first-fruits in in- 
carnation, 551. not sent through the 
Man from Mary, but He in Him 
sent Apostles, ibid. seen in opera- 
tion of Godhead through body, 555. 
Word men filled with righteousness 
of, 444. men knit into, 447. the 
flesh made, ibid. men made proper 


078 INDEX. 


to, 448. if received gifts as Word, 
men not benefited, 457. 
Wordless, 25, 516. v. Word. 
Works, for the, implies economy, 353. 
Work incompatible with Son, 283. as 
being judge, 288. God without if 
without Son, 518. 
Working of Son is Father’s, 416. _ 
Worship paid by creatures to God, 313. 
paid to Emperor’s image, 406. 
Worship the creature, Arians, 301, 423. 


INDEX 


TO FOOT NOTES AND MARGINAL REFERENCES. 


gas" The Letter or Figure, which follows the number of the Page, stands for 
the Note or Reference respectively. 


A. 


Acacians, not well known to Athan., 
7, p. followed the Arians. 17,1. 20, u. 
strength of, A.D. 359. 84, a. identi- 
cal with Eusebian or Court party, 88, 
1. Scripturists, 88, 1. 112, u. 185, 3. 

Acacius, leader of the Arians, A.D: 
350. 1. b. pupil of Eusebius, 7, p. a 
Scripturist, 7, p. his changes, 89, n. 
126, c. 128, g. his sense of only, 
125, a. ‘ tongue’ of the heresy, 
134, f. 

Accidents, none in God, 37, y. 493, s. 
515, 5. 

Adam, gifted with habitual grace, 379, 
g. yet not so powerful a grace as the 
evangelical, ibid. mortal but not to die, 
389, b. could not keep grace, 455, 4. 

Adoptionists, 300, b. 462, b. 466, g. 

Advancement of Christ, 16, i. 25, f. 

fons, 30, n. 198, 6. Valentinian, 97, h. 
486, h. 531, a. 

Aetius, first spoke plainly what Arius 
held secretly, 10, u. his history, 136, 
h. called atheist, 81, 3. 184, k. 

Ages, 30,n. 108, 1. 195, a. 198, 6. 199, 3. 

Agnoeta, 295, ο. 462, ἃ. 

Analogy, principle of, 431, y. 432, z. 

Angels, sins of, 251, 6. worshipped, &c. 
by Gnostics, 262, f. 417, g. considered 
creators by Gnostics, 310, h. not to 
be addressed in stead and in dis- 
paragement of our Lord, 417, g. the 
medium through which the Son 
was wont to shew Himself, 120, g. 
418, h. 

Anomeans, did but profess pure Arian- 
ism, 84, b. 10, u. 12, x. 25, f. 114, b. 
only partially known to Athanasius, 
51, a. 128, h. differ from Arius as to 
κατάληψις, 96, f. said God could be 
perfectly known by us, 96, f. directly 
opposed, not Catholics, but Semi- 
arians, 126, c. said that Catholics 
ought tohold our Lordas not Sonof the 


Father, but as brother, 151, z. 200, a. 
and the Spirit the brother of the Son, 
200, a. their public irreverence, 213, 
a. said that the Divine Substance 
was unbegotten, 224, a. 

Anonymous author, 147, t. 

Anthropomorphites, 267, m. 

Antichrist, 79, q. 178. 1. 188, 3. or the 
devil, is he who assails a Council’s 
decisions, 5, m. 

Antiquity, a note of true faith, 76, 1. 
to suppose mistaken, an absurdity, 
78, 0. appeal to, fatal to Arians, 82, u. 

Aphthartodoceta, 375, u. 

Apollinarians, 189, b. 221, f. 241, h. 
267, 1. 289. h, 291, k. 292, n. 443, g. 
447, x. 

Apostle, the, title of 5. Paul, 131, ἃ. 

Archetype, the Son is of our sonship, 15, 
f. 56, k. 140, n. God is of creatures, 
18, o. the Word and Wisdom, 29, k. 
140, n. 333, t. 373, 8s. Father and 
Son of those relations, 151, z. 153, 2. 
211, f. 215, 1. 416, e. God is of all 
perfection, 220, a. 

Arianism, a state religion, 2,c. 4, h. 77, 
m. 190, c. 193, 5. 34], 1. anticipation 
of in 3d cent., 47, 1. caused disorders, 
75, h. stationary period of, 110, q.fore- 
runner of Antichrist, 178, 1. 188, 3. 
doctrinal connection with Apollina- 
rianism aud Eutychianism, 289, h. 
292, n. opposed to Apollinarianism 
historically and ethically, 292, n. 

Arians, chameleons, 2, c. atheists, 3, f. 
25, 1. 184, k. 492, 2. diabolical, 9, s. 
49, 1. 410, a. mad, 2, e. 25, 2. 91, q. 
177, 1. 189, 2. 202, 4. 216, 6. 231, 2. 
&c. foes of Christ, 6, ἢ. passim. not 
Christians, 27, h. 85, 1. 179, 4. 183, 4. 
194, 2. 439, 3. profaneness of, 75, h. 
213, a. 234, 2. few in number, 80, 5. 
hypocrites, 127, g. the giants, 459, 2. 
modern Jews, 282, a. like heathen 
polytheists, 301, c. 423, n. 492, 3. 
serpents, dogs, wolves, &c. 341, ἢ. 

Arians, attack the Nicene definition, 


580 


A.D. 350. 1, b. appeal to Scripture, 
], b. 57, 2.84, b. 108, i. 112, τὸ 116, g. 
123, u. 178, c. 183, 1. 385, a. varia- 
tions of, 2, c. 81, t. 90, 1. 93, 1. 103, t. 
128, 3. 136, 1. 227, 1. convicted them- 
selves, 2, c. 6, ὁ. 128, 1. 220 init. 
286, 2. 496, 6. use force, 4, h. un- 
willing to speak plainly, 10, u. 193, 2. 
introduce, yet complain of unscrip- 
tural terms, 31, p. 52, 1. 112, u. 116, 
g. 133, 3. 134, 2. 138, 2. 4. 225, 1. in 
what agree with Sabellians, 37, y. 
41, c. 114, b. 189, b. 33], r. 336, b. 
514, 1. 515, r. with Samosatenes, 
41, e. 113, y. 114, b. their evasions, 
OA γ: 108: ΠῚ: 15.11.8} 119 τὸς 
195, a. enforce certain interpretations 
of Scripture by anathema, 120, p. 
in what respect zealous for Scripture 
above other heretics, 178, c. do but 
bring objections, 235, b. argue ab- 
stractedly, 256, 0. argue that if the 
Son not at, He was against the 
Father’s will, 121, 3. 486, g. ἢ. 489, k. 
teach that our Lord is not the true 
Son of God, yet not a son like us, 
10, u. that He is in one sense true 
Son, 108, 1. 307, d, misinterpret the 
term Son, 24, b. misinterpret the 
term Word, 26, g. attempt to con- 
sider our Lord neither God nor 
creature, 10, u. 224, a. 423, m. hold 
two Gods, 63, g. 118, m. 180, y. 
423, m. or worship whom they call a 
creature, 191, d. 206, 1.301, c. 411, b. 
423, m. and n. maintain in fact a su- 
preme and a secondary God, 118, m. 
hold two substances, 203, d. hold 
Wisdom to be a quality in God, 515, r. 
yet impute this to Catholics and Sa- 
bellians, 95, c. 336, b. explain away 
the Atonement, 267, 1. tend to deny 
the manhood, 292, n. falsely sup- 
posed by La Croze to have invented 
θεοτόκος, ibid. 

Arian opinions, that our Lord has 
no περιχώρησις with the Father, 
(vid. Cirewmincession.) is one with the 
Father only in teaching, &c. 107, f. 
145, 2. 148, 5. 155, g. 414, b. that He 
is not Son by nature, 16, k. not eternal 
because the Son, 24, b. 98, n. 112, x. 
407, q. 412, c. had a beginning be- 
cause a Son, 112,x. 214, Ὁ. in onesense 
real Son, 307, ἃ, 332, s. not really 
Word and Wisdom, 25, f. the Word 
notionally, 332, s. not Word, but 
so called, 25, f. 307, d. not a true 
Son but so called, 41, 3. 218, m. 307, 
d. 333, u. one of many words, 26, g. 
331, q. 336, b. one of many powers, 
134, 1. as the locust, 137, 1. 186, 
]. created by true Word and Wis- 


INDEX TO FOOT NOTES AND MARGINAL REFERENCES. 


dom, 41, e. 114, b. 311, k. 331, r. 
336, b. is Wisdom, as having acquired 
it, 95, c. alterable, 289, ἢ. is a 
creature not as one of the crea- 
tures, 10, ἃ. 307, c. Son only by only, 
62, f. that He is begotten, that is, 
made, 309, g. that He isOnly-begotten 
because created that other creatures 
might be created by means of Him, 
12, x. created for our sakes, 321, 2. 3. 
medium of creation, 316, c. 525, b. d. 
that He is God’s instrument, 12, z. 
acted at the Father’s will, 118, n. 
121, 1. had not a human sonl, 115, f. 
119, 0. 289, ἢ. suffered in His divine 
nature, 115, f. 119, ο. 123, u. was 
visible in His divine nature, 114, 2. 
120, q. 123, u. Mediator in His di- 
vine nature, 107, e. 115, f. Priest 
in His divine nature, 115, f. 267, 1. 
292, m. ἢ. 

Ariminum, Letter of the Council of, 
85, d. excuse of the Fathers there, 
153, i. : 

Ariomaniacs, 91, q. whence the title, 
2; οὶ O15 "qs 163, 1 191 ve: 

Arius, his letter to Eusebius, 1, a. he 
copied from Asterius. 13, 2. vid. also 
35, 1. (where Tillemont reads παῤ 
αὐτοῦ for πρός Note 21. on Arians.) 
his Thalia, 94, a. acknowledged at 
the Council of Jerusalem, 103, u. his 
character and person, 183, i. main- 
tained that the Son could alter, 
230, a. 

Artemas, 102, 5. 

As, sense of 430, t. if implies re- 
semblance in a certain respect, 359, f. 
431, x. 

Asterius, one of the chief elder Arians, 
13, b. taught that the Son alone 
could bear God’s creative Hand, 13, 
c. condemns the προβολὴ, 97, h. uses 
Semiarian terms, 100, q. writes like 
Eusebius, ibid. taught that the Son 
was created by and called after the 
attribute Wisdom, 336, b. that He 
created in imitation of God, as His 
minister, 319, 5. called a many-headed 
hydra, and why, 100, q. 492, p. 

Athanasius, S. his attention to the sense 
rather than the wording of doctrine, 
17, m. 32, 1. 36, 3. 50, 1. 157, i. 228, 
1. insight into doctrine, 128, ἢ. scarce- 
ly mentions the Homoiision in his 
Orations, 17, m. 157,i. 210, d, e. 262, 
f. 264, g. acknowledges the Semiarians 
as brethren, 17, m. 157, i. seems not 
to know the Acasians well, 7, p. nor 
the Anomceans, 51, a. 128, ἢ. how far 
learned, 52, ἃ. 146, 1. 225, 2. whether 
at Council of Seleucia, 73, b. his 
change of tone towards Constantius, 


INDEX TO FOOT NOTES AND MARGINAL REFERENCES. 581 


90, p. does not know the Semiarians 
as well as S. Hilary, 103, t. dis- 
approves the Homeeiision, 137, g. 
treats the Semiarians like S. Hilary 
when they part from Arians, 139, m. 
description of his person, 183, i. 
replies to Anomceans, as their doc- 
trine is reported to him, 200, a. 
his reverent way of speaking, 216, 
c. 490, 1. repeats and improves 
himself, 54, h. 225, b. 227, d. 
265, k. 394, g. eloquent writer, 265, 
k. answers objections from texts in the 
first instance by the Regula Fidei 
or Scope of Scripture, 283, c. metho- 
dical manner in his Orations, 306, b. 
his arguments adopted by subsequent 
fathers, 317, d. 342, b. 369, i. 415, d. 
seems to use ‘‘ substance’’ for ‘ sub- 
sistence’’ or person, 244, k. seems 
to disown heretical baptism, 339, e. 
seems to consider our Lord acreature 
according to the flesh, 344, f. seems 
to say we must not call Him a crea- 
ture according to the flesh, 347, i. 
may be wrested to sanction Apolli- 
narianism and Eutychianism, 291, k. 
345, g. does not use the post-Hutychi- 
an Catholic phraseology, 345, g. 480, 
ἃ. northe post- Nestorian, 345, g.really 
refutes both Nestorian and Eutychian 
heresies, 244, 1. vagueness of his 
parallelisms in doctrine, 359, f. seems 
in one place to impute, not ascribe, 
infirmities to our Lord, ibid. argues 
about ‘‘ First-born” contrariwise to 
Marcellus, 368. e. seems to say that 
Adam before his fall had no habitual 
grace, 379, g. seems to say that God 
is not in substance in every thing, 
i.e. materially, 18, n. 431, u. objects 
to “ God suffered in the flesh,” 444, i. 
does not admit our Lord’s ignorance 
except for argument’s sake, 454, b. 
seems to assert our Lord’s ignorance 
in His manhood, 461, b. yet really is 
speaking of the nature of His manhood 
in itself, (i.e. what would have been 
in another, or what was economically 
ignorance,) 464, f. 466, g. 468, k. con- 
siders our Lord’s advance in wisdom 
to be only its manifestation, 474, q. 


Atheism, as predicated of Arius and the 


Arians, 3, f. 25, 1. of Aetius, ἄς. 81, 3. 
184,k. of Asterius, 340,¢. of Sabellius, 
Marcellus, &c. 340, g. of Valenti- 
nus, ibid. of heathenism, 3, f. 184. k. 
340, g. of philosophers, 840, g. of 
Christians, ibid. 


Atonement, 254, k. 267, 1. 357,e.375,x. 


377, d. 378, e. 446, p. 456 ,5. 520, 2. 
explained away by Arians, 267, 1. by 
Apollinarians, 267, 1. 443, g. by Nes- 


torians, 267, 1. 443, g. by Eutychians, 
26751: 
Ausentius, 82, x. 86, f. 


B. 


Baptism the work of the Three Persons, 
338, 5. by heretics whether invalid, 
339, e. whether it cleanses, 340, f. 
not in Name of Ingenerate or Framer, 
but of Father, 56,i. Arian into Creator 
and creature, 839, 3. 

Basil of Ancyra, 74, c. 89, 0. 117, k. 
139, k. 157, i. 

Beginning, new, Christ, 250, d. 360, g. 

Beginning of ways, name of Office, 
390, 1. belongs to the Son as man 
because God, ibid. 

Beryllus, 541, b. 

Bull, Bp. his interpretation of ‘“ He 
was before His generation,” 353, a. 
363, a. of ‘‘First-born of crea- 
tion,” 367, d. 368, g. considers our 
Lord’s ‘‘ condescension”’ at the crea- 
tion equivalent to ‘‘ generation,’’ 
97, m. 368, g. 396, i. 


C. 


Calvin, 46, k. 

Catholics, how far ever called after 
human masters, 179, e. accused by 
heretics of inconsistency for holding 
a mystery, 140, n. the very name a 
test of the true Church, 180, f. 

Cause efficient, 284, 2. 309, 2. 310, h. 
Ἄ90.1. 

Chancel, place for Clergy, 101, τ. 

Curist, the title introduced seldom in 
Athan.’s first three Discourses, 512, 
b. used by S. Hilary for our Lord’s 
Divine Nature, 512, b. not mere man , 
lest we should be man-worshippers , 
203, 9. 

CHRIST, was anointed as man with 
His Godhead, 248, b. His manhood 
a garment, 249, c. 291, k. 354, 2. is an 
immediate principle of life to each 
Christian, 250, d. type and model of 
our moral perfection, 254, i. He came 
that we might fulfil the Law, 254, k. 
wholly God and wholly man, 295, o. 
not a servant as man, but took on 
Him a servile nature, 309, b. said to 
be such by many fathers, ibid. Priest 
and Mediator as man because God 
107, e. 115, f anointed as man be 
cause God, 251, f. Mediator, Lord, 
and Judge as man because God, 303, 6. 
First-born both as Creator and as 
man, because God, ibid. beginning of 
ways as man, because God, 350, 1. 


582 


nota creature though He took on Him 
a created nature, 344, f. why, ibid. 
347, i. not an adopted Son, 344, f. 
His Person eternal and _ infinite, 
359, f. His manhood an adjunct, 
ibid. a new beginning,. 250, d. 
360, g. 

. Curist, has two whole natures, 450, 
b. united by a circumincession, 551, 
h. united in One Person, 450, b. yet 
distinct, in His Own Person, 443, ]. 
479, b. attributes of each of His two 
natures attributed to the other in His 
one Person, (the ἀντίδοσις ἰδιωμάτων.) 
244, 1, 443, h. 448, z. 450, b. Christ, 
the Word and God, suffered, was 
put to death, buried, &c. 444, i. yet 
not affected in His Godhead by 
the incarnation, 295, o. 444, k. 
combines the energies of each nature 
in single acts, (the θεανδρικὴ ἐνέργεια) 
445, m. 448, z. 

Curist, took our fallen flesh, 241, ἢ. 
had sinless infirmities of ‘the flesh, 
448, z. His flesh our renovation, 
250, d. 860, g. 374, t. 447, u. 449, a. 
permitted and suspended at will the 
operations of His manhood, 477, a. 
took a body naturally subject to death, 
243, i. submitted to death, as man, 
at His will, 481, e. His soul had not 
God’s infinite knowledge, 461, b. 
His soul was troubled, &c. 477, a. 
had a human will and a divine, 489, c. 
d. yet not two discordant wills, 489, c. 

Curtst, had both a divine and human 
knowledge, 461, b. had a soul in 
nature ignorant, ibid. but not igno- 
rant in fact, ibid. was not ignorant 
in, though ex humana natura, ibid. 
said by some fathers to be ignorant 
as man, ibid. 462, c. and to grow in 
knowledge, 462, c. this doctrine 
afterwards heretical, 462, d. His 
ignorance said by the fathers to be 
but economical, 464, f. 468, k. held 
to be truly ignorant by Adoptionists, 
466, g. ignorant for our sakes, 468, k. 
assumes ignorance as the Almighty 
in the O. T. 471, n. 0. perfect in 
knowledge, as man, from the first, 
473, p. as man, knew all things that 
are in fact, not in posse, ibid. said by 
some Fathers to grow in wisdom, 
474, gq. His wisdom did not grow, 
but was manifested, ibid. 

Christians do not take titles from men, 
179, e. 180, f, 1. 181, 1. 

Chrysologus, 16, i. 

Chrysostom, 16, i. 

Church, of the Holy Sepulchre, 103, x. 
the Dominicum Aureum, 105, z. 

Circumincession, (περιχώρησις,) 116, 2. 


INDEX TO FOOT NOTES AND MARGINAL REFERENCES. 


400, d. 473, 3. test of orthodoxy 
against Arianism, 46, i. 95, d. 46, 1. 
116, b.°187, 1,°2. 338, assay a. 
423, 2. not material, 399, Ὁ. 403, i. 
405, m. 

Coalition, of Meletians with Arians, 
89, m. Semi-arians with Donatists, 
ibid. 

Comparisons, imply similarity, 16, g. 
in sacred matters vague and general, 
359, f. 431, x. y. hence wrested by 
heretics, 359, f. explained away by 
them, 431, y. 

Conceptions,vid. Name, Title, Archetype. 
Notion. human of God, not adequate, 
326, g. 333, u. approximations, 333, u. 
to be used as such, ibid. heresy of 
rejecting them, ibid. 431, y. partial, 
439, c. 

Condescension, of our Lord at creation, 
is not generation, 368, g. 396, i. con- 
sists in His imparting Himself while 
He creates, 32, q. 372, q. 391, 5. in 
making Himself an archetypal Son 
to creation, 32, q. 246, a. 373, s. 

Confession, of the Dedication, 89, o. 
106, b. of the Macrostich, 111, t. first 
of Sirmium, 117, 1. 289, ἢ. Sardican, 
84, c. 123, u. with a date, 83, y. 
124, y. of Ancyra, 139, m. 

Constans, 110, p. 

Constantine, treats the Arian question 
as a logomachy, 65, 1. highly ho- 
noured in memory, 59, b. 

Constantius, 74, 2. 90, p. 109, 1. 117, i. 
127, e. 158, 2. 190, c. 

Consubstantial, vid. One in Substance. 
applied to the doctrine of the Lncar- 
nation, 551, h. 

Convulsions, &c. proper to heretical - 
prophets, 467, i. 

Councils, (vid. Nicene,) Ecumenical, 
49, ο. 79, 1. 93, 2. 103, 1. 188, 1. 
their decisions cannot be re-discussed, 
5, m. 84, c. function of, to fix and 
authenticate traditions, 49, p. their 
condemnation sufficient without con- 
troversy, 188, b. 

Council of Antioch against Samosatene, 
141, 0. of Tyre, 108, u. of Seleucia, 
73, c. of Jerusalem, 103, u. of the 
Dedication at Antioch, 105, z. of 
Sirmium, 117, 1. of Ancyra, 159, 
(2nd) m. of Ariminum, 88, k. of 
Lateran under Pope Martin, 416, f. of 
Fourth Lateran, 145, r. of Basil, 
461, 6. of Trent, 389, h. 

Creation, &c. eternal because gene- 
ration, according to Origen, 65, m. 
has no similitude on earth, 18, o. 
153, c. in posse, 65, m. not eternal, 
because creatures perishable, 223, g. 
532, 3. 


INDEX TO FOOT NOTES AND MARGINAL REFERENCES. 


Creatures, created by one command, 
367, 2. cannot create, 310, h. ser- 
vants, but the Word Lord, 296, 2. 
313, 2. 350, 1. 493, 1. creature can- 
not help creature, 338, 1. aid each 
other for one end, 319, 3. no one 
like another, 308, e. 319, 2. perish- 
able, 209, 2. 223, 9. 232, 1. 263, 4. 
349, 1. all weak without divine grace 
and: power, 32, q. 251, e. 338, 2. 
372, ᾳ. 393, 6. made sons by the Son, 
32, q. 236, c. 246, ἃ. if not creature, 
then God, 423, m. 

Creed, the record of traditions, 49, p. 
80, 1. 

Cross, exaltation of, 104, x. 

Cyril, S. of Jerusalem, 292, m. 


D. 


Definition (vid. Nicene) of a Council 
not to be re-discussed, 5, m. such as 
Nicene, 34, c. 

Deification, 380, h. 

Demophilus, 82, x. 86, f. 

Development of theology, early, 47, 1. 

Devil, his ignorance, 354, b. father, 
leader, &c. of Arians, 9, 8. 49, 1. 
due. 4. 980.) 1.41058. 425.6; 

Dilatation or expansion, in God, 528, 
b. doctrine cf Marcellus, c. in what 
sense admitted by fathers, ibid. 

Dionysius of Alexandria, 44, e. 46, i. 
224, a. 

Dionysius of Rome, 45, h. 

Discourses, Athan.’s, their object and 
character, 178, d. 

Disputations, 44, e. 

Doctrine, test of, the religious sense, 
326, ἢ. 


E. 


Ecclesiastical sense, 283, c. vid. Regula 
Fidei. 7 

Ecclesiasticus, book of, not in the Canon, 
$l, o. 

Ecumenical Councils, 49, o. 

Equality of Son to Father, what it 
means, 149, x. 157, i. 211, f. im- 
plied in “ One in Substance,”’ 40, ο. 

Esther, book of, not in the Canon, 31, o. 

Eudoxius, 1, a. 74, f. 126, c. 

Eunomius, 96, f. 114, c. 151, z. 200, a. 
255, m. 315, b. 

Eusebians did not avow their heresy 
under Constantine, 30, m. but attack 
Athan. 30, m. 84, b. aim at restoring 
Arius, 30, m. then hold Councils to 
explain the faith, 30, m. 84, b. 110, 


583 


q. 128, 2. attack the Nicene Council, 
102, 2. 103, 2. attack Nicene terms 
as unscriptural, 1, b. 84, b. 130, 2. 
138, 4. did not dare profess Arianism, 
84, Ὁ. evaded a condemnation of 
Arianism, 82, 1. 108, g. 138, 3. 
the same as Acacians, &8, 1. con- 
tained in them two parties, 103, t. 
110, ο. q. separation of the two parties 
when, 122, t. theirdistinction between 
Homoiision and Homosiision, 144, q. 
their love of gain and preferment, 
190, c. 258, 2. 

Eusehius of Nicomedia, 20, ἃ. his 
letter at Nicea, 35, t. his doctrine 
of our Lord’s moral advancement, 
234, 1. 

Eusebius of Cesarea, his Letter to his 
Church, 1, b. 58, a. evades the ἐξ 
οὐσίας, 62, 6. 64, i. uses instead the 
ἐκ μετουσίας, 400, c. condemns the 
ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων evasively, 62, e. vid. 112, 
u. holds that our Lord is alone from 
God, because immediately created, 
62, c. calls our Lord a creature, 62, f. 
created to create others, 62, f. 525, b. 
because they could not bear God’s 
hand, 100, q. says that He is consti- 
tuted to be the Only Son, 62, f. 100, q. 
considers Him a second substance, a 
second God, 63, g. 118, m. 203, d. 399, 
a. confesses Him to be the Image, but 
as aresemblance, 64, i. heterodox sen- 
tence in the Letter, which Bull thinks 
spurious, 63, 1. letter to Euphration, 
91, n. he says that the Son is not Very 
God, 99, p. that He is Priest, as 
God, 107, e.292,m. that Heis ‘‘about’’ 
the Father, 131, e. calls Marcellus 
a Judaizer, 282, a. prejudices the 
doctrine of our Lord’s perfect man- 
hood, 292, n. confesses our Lord to 
be a real Son, 307, d. did not admit 
the περιχώρησις, 338, d. 399, a. con- 
trast in doctrine with Athan. 373, s. 
considers the Son, not as the Father’s 
Idea and Will, but as a minister to 
It, ibid. conceives a medium between 
Father and Son, ibid. 

Eustathius, 157, i. 

Eutyches, 222, f. 243, i. 267, 1. 

Eutychianism, 245,1. 477, a. connection 
with Arianism, 289, h. its grounds in 
antiquity, 345, g. 480, d. admits yet 
detected by θεοτόκος, 447, x. 

Euzoius; 127, f. 

Eve compared to 8. Mary, 328, i. 

Exacionite, 127, d. 

Ewxactness, doctrinal, primitive want 
of, 345, g. 464, f. 474, q. 480, d. 

Expansion, or dilatation, in God, 528, 
Ὁ; δ. 

Exucontians, 127, ἃ. 


584 
F. 


Faith, implicit, 76, i. once altered, ever 
altering, 80, r. office of, 153, d fin. 
FaTtHer, the Fount of Godhead, 25, 6. 
283, d. 284, e. ever, though not 
Creator ever, 65, m. 201, b. implies 
Son, 65, m. 98, n. 223, g. 407, q. im- 
plies production from within, in op- 
position to without, 25, 6. 202,2. 207,2. 
ever perfect, 201, c. not,as Father God, 
how, 211, f. 524, f. only true Father, 
18, 0. 151, z. 211, f. 212, g. 416, 6. 
516, y. bids the Son, how, 324, b. 
337, c. though Father, not before 
Son, 412, c. ever Father, ever 
Son, 532, 4. His bidding one act 
with the Son’s assent, 324, c. 337, c. 
whole God, though He has given 
to the Son to be whole God, 326, g. 
334, y. God as absolutely as if the 
Son were not God, 326, g. Only God, 
not in contrast with the Son, but with 
works, 33, r. and so Ingenerate, 53, g. 
acts immediately on the creation, 15, 
a. 337, c. 372, q. acts through the 
Son, 15, 6. 337, c. 338, 4. 416, ἢ. 4. 
422, 1. if not Father, not Creator, 25, e. 
in the Son and the Son in, 33, r. 

338, d. 

Fecundity, 25, 6. 202, 2. an attribute of 
perfection, 283, d. 

Fire from fire, illustration of the Son, 
39, b. tended perhaps to Arianism, 
ibid. 

First-born, Christ of men, 367, d. 368, f. 
of all creation, 369, k. 370, n. denotes 
an office, 369, h. 373, s. means “ first- 
born to creation,’ 370, τὰ. whether 
it mean ‘“ heir,’’? 371, 0. means not 
‘their’ but ‘ representative,” 372, r. 
means archetypal Son, 373, s. 396, i. 

Flesh, Christ’s, our renovation, 240, d. 
359, 1. 360, g. 374, t. 447, u. 449, a. 

Force, adoption of in religion, 4, h. 53, f. 
286, f. 

Foreknowledge, the Son by, 11, 1. 114, 
e. 119, 2. 186, 2. vid. p. 510. (11.) 

Forerunners of Antichrist, 80, q. 

Forgiveness possible without atonement, 
254, k. 360, g. 378, e. sudden pos- 
sible, 378, f. 

Freedom from sin and _ corruption, 
through Incarnation, 254, k. 360, g. 


G. 


Generation Divine, eternal, 19,s. 201, b. 
and never ceasing, 201, b. an end, 
not a way to an end, 201, b. 527, k. 
necessary for external Divine opera- 
tions, 25, e. 284, e. 518, 7. beyond 


INDEX TO FOOT NOTES AND MARGINAL REFERENCES. 


human thought, 330, n. not to be 
likened to human, 19, s. 330, n. as 
not creation, 18, 0. 153, c. 214, 2. 
does not imply passion, 17, 1. 140,1 2. 
153, 1. or separation, 221, 1. does not 
depend on time, 329, 1. held in posse 
by Constantine and Eusebius, 65, 1. by 
Theognis, 65, m. by Asterius, 102, 1. 

Generation of all things, through the 
Son, 32, q. 246, a. 261, e. 372, q. 
373, 5. 

Gentleness, test of the Divine Spirit, 
467, ae 

George of Cappadocia, 88, k. 134, f. 

George of Laodicea, 89, o. 

Germinius, 74, e. 

Giants, 58, m. 325, d. 459, 2. 

Gibbon, unfairness of, 46, k. 90, p. 91, q. 
95, b. 

Gnostics attributed creation to angels, 
310, h. appealed to Scripture, 386, a. 

Gop in substance separate from, yet 
present with all things, 18, n. 214, 3. 
431, u. vid. also 399, Ὁ. the Archetype 
of created things, 18, 0. 220, d. has 
nothing additional to His substance, 
38, z. 51, b. 131, e. 493, q. called One 
and Only, not to exclude the Son and 
Spirit, but creatures, 33, r. 407, 2. 
called ingenerate in same sense, 53, g. 
if Father, Father ever, because God, 
but if Creator, not Creator ever, 
because of creatures, 223, g. not 
subject to laws, 255, m. no accidents 
in, 37, y. 493, 5. simplicity of His 
Nature, 334, x. y. 493, r. 515, r. 
which was infringed by Catholics ac- 
cording to Anomeeans, 334, x. really 
guarded by the Catholic doctrine, 
334, y. infringed by Arians, ibid. by 
Sabellians, &c. 514, q. 515, r. His 
power exceeds His actual operations, 
3.78, ἢ: 

Gop suffered, was buried, &c. God’s 
body, &c. 296, 1. 444, i. 

Gop’s Mother, 420, i. 440, 6. 447, 5 
and x. 

Gods, men are in the Word, 236, ec. 
380, h. 

Goryias, 401, e. z 

Gorpieus, the month, 88, i. 

Grace contrasted with teaching, 359, 1. 
360, g. 393, e. 

Greek Fathers, accused of tritheism, 
219, b. 


H. 


Heresies, in what they agreed and dif- 
fered, 41, e. 114, b. run into each 
other, 189, "Ὁ. 292, n. 295, o. are 
partial views of the truth, 219, b. 
450, c. 


INDEX TO FOOT NOTES AND MARGINAL REFERENCES. 58d 


Heresies, concerning Christ, agree 
(most of them) in denying our Lord’s 
titles to belong to one and the same 
Person, 41, e. 312, m. tended to deny 
the Atonement, 267, 1. 

Heresy, the principle of interminable 
schism, 80, r. 

Heretical baptism, whether valid, 339, 
e. whether it cleanses, 340, f. 

Heretics, zealous for Scripture 178, c. 
vid. Scripture. called after their 
masters, 179, e. 180, f. set up against 
their masters, 80, r. 92, 1. irreverent, 
213, a. affect reverence, 221, f. 

not the sincere and ignorant, 
330, 0. 

Hermas, 7, q. 31, ο. 

Hermits of S. Austin, general of, his 
error at Council of Basil, 461, b. 

Hieracas, 97, |. 523, Ὁ. 

Hilary, S. never heard the Nicene 
Creed till he was in exile, 76, i. 
excuses the Semi-Arians, 103, t. 
calls the Council of the Dedication 
an assembly of Saints, 105, z treats 
the creed of Sirmium as Catholic, 
Wie ue 

Hosius, 122, t. 

Hluman nature has no stay, 18, p. 
211, f. 251, e. assumed by our Lord, 
as it is, 241, ἢ. sin not of the sub- 
stance of, 241, ἢ. 

Hypocrisy, Arian, 127, g. 187, 3. 193, 4. 

Hypostases divided, 46, i. 


if 


Ignorance, our Lord’s (vid. Curis7) 
consequence of sin, 473, p. man’s of 
the last day, why, 470, m. 

illustrations of heavenly things, 141, 3. 

' 153, d. not explanations, but safe- 
guards, 43, d. individually imperfect 
and tend to heresy, 25, c. 219, b. 304, 
2. 359, f. 136, g. 405, 0. 430, c. cor- 
rect each other, 140, n. intended not 
to prove, but to convey an idea, 220, 
c. far below things illustrated, 326, 
5491. 5: refutatory rather than posi- 
tive, ibid. retorted, 496, 7. explained 
away by heretics, because imperfect, 
431, y. 

Image, the Son the Father’s, 106, ἃ, 
how evaded by Eusebians and Semi- 
arians, 35, u. living, 463, e. 491, n. 
whole from whole, perfect from 
perfect, &c. 331, p. unvarying, how a 
contradiction, 136, g. scriptural, and 
used by Athan. ibid. the Son, in all 
things except in being the Father, 
149, x. 211, f. not of the Father’s 
Person but of Efis substance, 211, f. 


one God, one Image, 318, 4. implies 
perfection, 201, c. implies eternity, 
209, d._implies consubstantiality, 
ibid. impl'es unalterableness, 231, 1. 
255, 1. implies unchangeable son- 
ship, 211, f. 226, 1. 283, d. is implied 
in Sonship, 312, m. in being Word, 
ibid. illustrated by image of Emperor, 
how far, 405, 0. vid. also 64, 1. we 
new made in the Son’s, for made in, 
251, 1. 

Imitation not renewal, 359, 1. 360, g. 
393, e. a means of renewal, 254, i. 
428, r. 

In, sense of, 430, s. 

Incarnation of the Creator for our new 
creation, 251, f. 355, 3. 388, 2. 
caused by man’s sin, 356, d. for 
atonement and renewal, 357, e. these 
two ends made one by the Fathers, 
ibid. 456, 5. not necessary for for- 
giveness, 294, k. necessary for re- 
newal, 254, k. 360, g. 378, e. for 
renewal in original Image of God, 
251, 1. for stedfastness, 254, |. 372, 
1. 380, 1. 390, 2. 395, 2. 434, 3. 
475, 4. 552, 2. 

Incense burnt before imperial statues, 
313, n. 

Indiction, 109, n. 

Indifferentism, 178, d. 

Ingenerate, symbol of the Anomceans, 
50, a. four senses of, 52, e. 146, 1. 
Arians used it against the Son, 53, g. 
113, 2. not introduced into the bap- 
tismal form, 56, i. used against the 
Holy Spirit by Macedonians, 121, s. 
arguments brought against by fathers, 
298, ἔ. 

Frreverence a sure mark of heresy, 
213, a. 

Irvingites, 467, i. 


J. 


Jansenius, 120, q. 

Jews, how they evaded prophecy, 259, Ὁ. 
numbers converted at first, 203, f. 
contrasted with Manichees, 130, 1. 
189, 1. 258, a. 450, b. 541, 1. 

Judith Book of, not in the Canon, 31, o. 


1. 


Leo, S. repeats himself, 265, k. 

Light, a title of the Son corrective of 
materialism, 20, t. 

Like, implies distinction, 35, u. 64, i. 
116, h. 139, 1. 144, q. belongs to 
qualities, rather than to substance, 
39, u. 155, g. no creature, to crea- 
ture, 308, e. cannot constitute a 
test of orthodoxy, 40, c. Arian senses 


2 τῷ 


586 INDEX TO FOOT NOTES AND MARGINAL REFERENCES. 


of, 155, g. yet rightly musf mean 
oneness in nature, 76, i. 106, d. 
136, g. 139, 1. 157, i. 211, f. wrong, 
when used of the Son, only when it 
is the extreme point confessed, 106, d. 
Like in Substance does not imply of 
the Substance, 139, 3. not material, 
as ‘‘ One in Substance,’”’ according to 
Eusebians, 1 44, q. 
Like in all things, 84, a. 115, e. 
Living Image, &c. the Son of the 
Father, 254, i. 463, e. 491, n. 
Lucian, 13, Ὁ. 104, y. 106, Ὁ. c. 
Luther, 46, k. 295, o. 


M. 


Macedonians, 121, 8. 385, a. 

Manhood of Christ, may be compared 
to an attribute of His Person, 359, f. 

Manichees, (vid. Jews) 7, n. 97, i. and 
1. 130, 1. 189, a. 221, f. 472, 1. con- 
trasted with Jews, 258, a. 450, b. 

Manifestation of God in Christ, an 
Apollinarian tenet, 267, 1. 291, k. 
443, g. and a Nestorian, 443, g. in one 
sense admitted by S. Athan. ibid. 

Marcellus, 97, m. 99,0. 109, m. 110, q. 
his doctrine, 110, τ. 114, z. c. 1. 120, 
p- 336, b. 368, 6. 381, i. 385, a. 514, 
n. q. 

Marcionites, 45, h. 153, 3. 

Mark of Arethusa, 83, y. 89, 0. 117, 1. 
DA Ts a 

Martyrium, or Church of Holy Se- 
pulchre, 104, x. 

Mary, S. compared by Fathers to the 
virgin earth from which Adam, 290, 
i. compared to Eve, 328, i. Mother 
of God, or θεοτόκος, 292, n. 420, i. 
440, 6. 447, s and x. Ever-Virgin, 
364, b. 381, i. not said by Fathers to 
be sanctified from the womb, 446, r. 

Master, to be named from a, note 
against heretics, 179, 6. 

Materialism, guarded against, 19, r. 
20, t. imputed to Catholics, 63, h. 
141, 4. 

- Meaning more important than words, 
17: τὰ} 9.9. 1. 90; 5: 50, 1. 190; 2- 
138, 4. 157, i. 228, 1. 285, 2, 287, 4. 
485, e. 

Mediatorship of Christ, whether before 
the Incarnation, 107, e. 115, f. 267, 1. 
292, m. of the Word, 324, 2. 

Meletians, 89, m. 181, g. 

Meletius, 5. 127, f. 128, g. 

Monarchy, doctrine of, 45, h. 512, a. 6. 
524, 1. used as a tessera by all parties, 
513, 6. vid. 116, 3. preserves the 
unity, 402, g. 512, a. 517, ¢. 


Monophysites, 243, i. 292, n. 295, o. 
359, f. 385, a. 

Montanists, 78, 1. 467, i. 

Mother of God or θεοτόκος, title of. 5. 
Mary allowed by Arians, 447, x. 
ascribed by some to the Arians, 292, 
n. held by Monophysites, ibid. really 
condemned the Monophysites, 447, 
x. antiquity of, 420, i. meaning of, 
440, e. used by Greek Fathers, 447, s. 
by Latin, 447, x. test against Nesto- 
rians, ibid. 

Mystery the distinct mark of the Ca- 
tholic doctrine of the Trinity, 439, c. 
mysteries in Scripture are of facts not 
words, 238, e. 


N. 


Natural laws, God not subject to, 
255, m. : 

Nature, laws of, the Son incarnate 
under, 243, i. 295, o. which the 
Eutychians denied, 243, i. 477, a. 
suspended them at His will, 477, a. 
481], 6. 

above will, 489, i. 

divine in Christ, circumscribed 

by Hutychians, 295, o. 

buman in Christ, denied by 
Eutyches, why, 345, g. not uniformly 
acknowledged in terms by S. Athan. 
ibid. 480, d. 

Natures, two in Christ, distinct from 
each other, 445, 1. interchange their 
attributes, (ἀντίδοσις ἰδιωμάτων,) 443, 

'_h. unite their energies in single acts, 
(θεανδρικὴ ἐνέργεια,) 445, τη. 

Nestorianism, 41, 6. 244,1. 267, 1. 291, 
k. 292, n. 345, g. 443, g. 447, x. 
550, g. 

Nicene Council, both condemned Arian- 
ism and substituted orthodox sym- 
bols, 5, i. Ecumenical, 49, ο. its 
proceedings against the Méeletians, 
181, g. 

Nicene Definition, a critical test, 146, 
s. when assailed by Arians, 1, Ὁ. 
assailed as unscriptural, ibid. 84, b. 
129, b. as disowned at Antioch, 12, 
b. as material, 63, h. 129, b. as Sa- 

ς bellian, 129, Ὁ. as implying a dis- 
tinction between God and His Sub- 
stance, ibid. (vid. One in Substance.) 

Nicomedia, earthquake at, 74, c. 

Noetus, 115, f. 

Notion human, of the Divine Being, 
contrasted with the reality, 38, z. 
96; 6;:15 4. endo; Ὁ 7 7. aes f. 
219, b. 244, k. 307, d. 326, g. 333, u. 
399, b. 439, c. 


INDEX TO FOOT NOTES AND 


Novelty, a refutation of alleged doc- 
trines, 12, y. 76, 1. 78, o. involves 
change, 76, k. 80, s. 

Number, the Divine Nature not subject 
to, 334, y. 412, d. 452, a. 


O. 


One in Substance, (vid. Substance,) 35, 
t. implies Same in likeness, 35, u. 
involves equality, 40, c. secures our 
privilege as well as Christ’s prero- 
gative, 57, k. excludes a second 
Substance, 63, g. accused of mate- 
rialism, 63 ἢ. 141, 4. of Sabellianism, 
203, d. sense put on it by the Eusebi- 
ans, 144, q. specific test of heresy, 
146, 5. a word of long standing in the 
Church, 64, k. history of, 35, t. de- 
nied by Arians before the Nicene 
Council, 95, b.- why rejected at An- 
tioch, 143, p. not insisted on un- 
seasonably by Athanasius, 157, i. 
178, d. nor by others, 157, i. 

One by Agreement, 107, f. 155, g. 
414, b. 

Orations, ὃ. Athan.’s methodical, 306, 
b. repetitions in, 225, b. 265, k. 

Origen, 44, e. 48, 1. 252, h. 


P. 


Pantheism, 333, t. 

Paraclete, denied by heretics to be the 
Spirit in O. T. 548, d. 

Participation, whole, the same as gene- 
ration, 15, f. of God through the Son, 
15, e. 41, 2. 202, 8. 246, a. charac- 
teristic of Sonship, 15, f: a gift to all 
creation, 32, q. of the Word, dei- 

᾿ fication, 151, 2—5. 192, 1. 236, c. 
380, h. 434, 5. 6. of the Son, adoption, 
236, ¢. 

Patripassian doctrine, 114, b. 115, f. 
529, d. 

Patronage Court, possessed by Arians, 
4, τ. 190, c. 

Patrophiius, 74, g. 

Paul, S. called “‘ the Apostle,” 131, d. 

Paul of Samosata. (vid. Samosatene.) 

Perfection in sense of personality, 108, 
1.116, h. 

PERSON, in reference to God, not equi- 
valent with Individuum, 145, f. hardly 
denotes an abstract idea, but is a 
term, 412, d, more correct to say the 
than a, ibid. whether possible to speak 
of God as One Person, ibid. 

Persons, of the Holy Trinity imply 
Each Other, 33, r. eternally distinct 
from Each Other, 211, f. 412, d. the 


MARGINAL REFERENCES. 587 


same one Substance yet not mere 
aspects of the same, 326, g. 515, r. 
worshipped with one worship, 407, r. 
Operate with one operation, 309, 3. 
337, c. 338, 4. 416, f. 422. 1. one in 
will, 324, c. if one in will and operation, 
one in Substance, 416, f. Each God 
wholly, 334, y. 406, p. 407, s. 412,d. 
515, r.x. Each as absolutely God as if 
the Others were not, 326, g. 515, r. 
contain Hach Other, 326, g. 338, d. 
399, a. contain Each Other because 
the same Substance, 399, a. b. 402, 
g. vid. also 203, d. Each Other’s life, 
400, d. numerically one, 399, a. 402, g. 
yet really beyond number, 334, y. 
412, d. 452, a. Hach, when contem- 
plated by our feeble reason, excludes 
the Others, 412, d. when viewed tc- 
gether, abstracted not into Three, 
but into One Substance, ibid. Each 
first, 412, d. the Father works through 
the Son in the Spirit, 422, 1. 

Person, the First in the Holy Trinity 
loses nothing by giving all to the 
Son, 326, g. 407, s. because He 
gives eternally, 201, c. imparts di- 
vinity, that is, is one with, 203, d. 

Person, the Second in the Holy Trinity 
not a quality, attribute, or relation, 
326, g. 515, τ. ἃ. not a part of God, 
326, g. revealed solely in His relation 
to the First, 452, b. whole God, 326, 
g. has the Godhead, propriety, &c. 
of the First, 145, r. 400, d. is the 
being, fulness, life, the all of the 
First, 400, d. 403, i. 1. 407,5. 424, o. 
475, 2. one with the First because from 
the First, 402, g. whole God because 
Son of whole God, 407, 5. 412, d. 

Personality, our Lord’s in the manhood, 
taught by Marcellus, Photinus, &c. 
512, b. not in the Godhead, by Arius, 
&c. 41, 6. not in the manhood, 234, 4. 
237, 1. 244, 1. 446, o. 

Philo, 107, 6. 120, q. 292, τη. 

Philoponus, 16, i. 

Philosophers, Greek, discordant, 8, r. 
how far pursued by Christian fathers, 
52, d. 224, a. 

Photinus, 110, q. 114, b. 117, 1. 

Platonic doctrine, 45, h. 51, b. 131, 6. 
187, a. 224, a. 

Play, upon names, 114, b. 182, h. upon 
words, 237, d. 285, n. 

Pope, his primitive power, 44, f. title 
of, given to others, 96, g. 99, 1. pro- 
test of Arian Hast against, 105, z. 
109, m. 

Potamius, 122, t. 

Potentially, God Creator ever, but not 
Father, 65, m. 

Praxeas, 45, h. 


2Qe2 


588 INDEX TO FOOT NOTES AND MARGINAL REFERENCES. 


Prefects, Pretorian, 73, a. 

Priesthood of Christ, 107, e. 267, 1. 
292, m. 

Private Judgment, 78, nu. 233, a. 256, 
ο. 257,'5. 411; 2. 414, a. 477, 5. 
482, f. 485, 7. 

Procession, why not generation, 532, c. 

Prophets, Spirit of, the Holy Spirit or 
Paraclete, 548, d. 

Prophets, French, 467, i. 

Ptolemy the Valentinian, 486, ἢ. 

Punishment for opinion, 53, f. 286, f. 


Q. 


Quakers, 467,i 
Quarto-decimans, 79, ἢ. 


R. 


Radiance, illustration of the Son, 39, 
b. might have seemed quasi-Sabellian 
in early times, ibid. implies both 
contemporaneousness and homoge- 
neity, 41, d. 199, 2. what the object 
of such illustrations, 220, c. 

Reason, the Son the Father’s, 25, c. in 
what sense, 208, b. 

Regula Fidei, 78, n. 233, a. 283, c. 
328, 1. 341, i. 343, c. 385, 5. 390, 3. 
426, 6. 439, ἃ. 440, 3. 4. 450, 7. 8. 
472, 4. 482, f. 549, 3. 550, 3. 553, 7. 
vid. also 21, x. 

Revelation, new, of the Montanists, 
467, i. 

Reverence, in sacred subjects charac- 
teristic of S. Athanasius, 216, c. 
490, 1. 

Rhetorius, 178, d. 

Righteousness of the Word, fills us, 
239 fin. 444, 4. 


S. 


Sabellianism, 24, Ὁ. 26, g. 98, πη. 114, 
ΖΜ ἜΘ: ΕΣ 7: 129203; 305 6: 
doctrine of, 451, 2. 529, d. 

imputed to Catholics, 63, h. 
connected with Nestorianism, 292, n. 
537, r. in what agreed with Arian- 
ism, 4], e. 114, b. 515, r. in what 
differed, 114, b. 522, b. 

Sacrifice essence of divine worship, 
313; 0: 

Saints, elder, how far gifted with the 


Word and Son, 236, c. 249, 3. 539, 
3. 548, 3. 

Samosatene, 41, e. 44, f. his principal 
tenet that our Lord became the Son 
by advance, 16, i. 113, y. 3.114, b. 115, 
1. that He was the Internal Word, 27, 
g. 114, b. the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, 114, z. 
that He was Son by foreknowledge, 
114, c. 541, b. his doctrine distinct 
from Nestorianism, 549, e. histori- 
cally connected with it, 550, g. 

Scripture, sufficiency of, 57, 1. the faith 
contained in, 60, c. 81, 4. 385, a. not 
to be interpreted by a private rule, 78, 
n. 233, a. 364, b. its mysteries, 238, e. 
what is meant by explaining away, 
ibid. contains and justifies, without ~ 
forcing on us the Catholic sense, 287, 
g. 431, y. 482, f. doctrinal words need 
not be in, 136, i. 

zeal for, of heretics, and why, 
1, b. 7, p. 84, b. 88, 1. 108, i. 116, g. 
123, u. 129, b. 178, c. 385, a. sense 
imposed by them with an anathema, 
120, p. evaded by the Jews, 259, b. 

account of Angel manifesta- 
tions, applied to the Son by Fathers 
till Augustine, 120, q. yet Athan. 
does not differ from Augustine, 418, 
h, 

Seed sown by the devil, 5, k. 74, 1. 177, 
22 1941257, 4: δια 

Seers contrasted with heretical prophets, 
467, i. 

Semi-Arians, 26, g. amoug the Euse- 
bians, 103, t. favoured by S. Hilary, 
ibid. yet with an explanation, 157, i. 
also by Athanasius, ibid. later less 
heterodox than earlier, 100, q. eva- 
sions of the earlier, 106, c. d. e. ap- 
proximations of the later, 111, t. 
113, y. 115, 6. 116; h: 129, a: cha- 
racteristic of the earlier, 116, h. 
opposed the Homoiision as Sabellian, 
G3, b. strong in A.D. 351, 117, k. 
opposed a real evil, 117, 1. allowed 
‘‘unvarying image,’ 35, ἃ. held in- 
fact two Gods, 118, m. 159, y. two 
substances, 116, h. 203, d. attempted 
to consider our Lord neither God nor 
a creature, 423, m. perhaps excused 
by Athan. for holding that the Son is 
“by will,’ 485, e. 

Shepherd of Hermas, 7, q. not in the 
Canon, but profitable, 31, o. ’ 

Sin, not of the substance of human 
nature, 241, h. 

Sirmium, 117, i. 

Son implies relationship according to 
nature, 16, k. 56, k. 153, ἃ. 218, a. 
continuity of nature not a beginning 
of existence, 112, x. primary and 
secondary sense of, 56, k. a title 


INDEX TO FOOT NOTES AND MARGINAL REFERENCES. 089 


corrective of that of Word, 140, n. 
does not imply posteriority, 412, c. 
implies eternity, 98, n. fin. higher 
title than eternal, 439, d. whether the 
Son not before the creation, 98, m. 
Son or Gon, the Hand of God, 12, z. 
323, a. 382, 8. 546, 1. Minister of 
God, 15, d. 311, i. Bidding of the 
Father, 324, b. not His command, 
329, 7. Will of the Father, 324, c. 
443, f. 490, 1. or rather Will of Will. 
491, m. living Will, 284, 3. 491, n. 
Son oF Gop, (vid. Will,) begotten at the 
Father’s will, according to some early 
fathers, 485, d. according to heretics, 
485, f. and some later fathers, 486, g. 
if so, the will from eternity, ibid. 
whether or not by will, yet by nature, 
486, h. 489,i. not by will as others, 
else another Word, 492, o. 


Son oF Gop a Son because the Word, 


221, 6. 312, τη. a Son because the 
Image, 283, d. implies Image, 312, m. 
vid. also 27, i.implies Word, 204, 3. dis- 
tinguished from Word by Valentinians, 
531, a. by Marcellus, &c. 537, r. vid. 
also 41, c. real and proper Son, 25, f. 
Son by nature, 16, k. not external to 
the Father, 43, Ὁ. 63, ¢. 118, n. 154, 1. 
201, b. 217, d. but from within and 
by a birth, 202, 2. 207, 2. 216, 5. 
219, 1. not an instrument of foreign 
nature, 12, Ζ. 40, 4. whoso speculates 
about, will about the Father, 208, 1. 
216, 1. nothing between Father and, 
ANS 2. 1160.1- 5021 8. 324.b) 373, 8. 
486, h. perfect from perfect, 108, 1. 
329, 8. 331, p. 473, 6. has no end 
because no beginning, 209, ὁ. se- 
parate from time and matter, 218, a. 
in what sense minister and instru- 
ment, 118, n. 337, c. 443, g. 311, i. 
- in what sense bidden, 324, b. 448, f. 
not of a visible substance, 120, q. 
555, 2. the Father’s Image not as 
Father but as God, 149, x. Image of 
the Father’s substance, not Person, 
211, f. not brother to the Father or 
the Spirit, 200, a. not His own Fa- 
ther, 514, o. eternal because God, 
198, 1. eternal because Son, 98, n. 
112, x. eternal because the Father 
perfect, 201, c. ever perfect though 
a Son, 201, c. is God, else God once 
wisdom-less, ἕο. 25, c. 208, Ὁ. 517, 5. 
is God because He communicates 
to us not Himself, but the Father, 
15, e. is God because no creature 
can unite creatures to God, 23, 1. 
377, d. 379, 1. the One God, because 
from the One God, 402, g. does not 
live by life but is Life, 400, d. has 
and is the Father’s All, 15, f. 403, 1. 


all that the Father has, except being 
Father, 149. x. 404, 7. whether called 
Son only prophetically, 541, b. in 
what sense exalted, 239, f. said to 
have received, when He received for 
us, 521, 2. 


Son or Gop, the Archetype of our Son- 


ship, 15, f. 32, q. 56, k. 140, n. is 
Son not as we are, 16, g. beginning 
of ways, because God, 350, 1. first- 
born, 367, d. 368, f. 369, k. 371, 
p. first-born to creation, as arche- 
typal, 370, m. 373, 5. 396, i. not a 
creature because first-born of crea- 
tures, 370, n. First-born, not as heir, 
but as representative of others, 372, r. 
no Son, no work, 26, e. 284, e. 518, 7. 
imparts His Presence and Grace 
while He creates, 32, q. 246, a. 372, q. 
the stay of all creation, 18, p. 32, q. 
263, 5. all things partake of, 15, e. 32, 
4. 41, 2. 151, 3—5. 236, c. 246, a. 


263,°5. revealed Himself of old 
through Angels, 120, g. 235, ὃ. 
418,h. 


Son or Gop, took on Him our fallen 


nature, 241, h. made His whatever 
belongs to the flesh, 244, 1. is God 
bearing flesh, 472, 7. remained what 
He was before, 23, a. 249, 2. 254, I. 
289, h. 455, 2. not perfected by be- 
coming man, 108, 1, 472, 9. 526, 1. 
His body naturaily subject to cor- 
ruption and death, 24], h. 243, i. 
375, u. 478, 1. but not corruptin Him, 
243, i. Priest and Mediator because 
God and as man, 292, m. and but 
improperly as Word, 107, e. 292, m. 
Mediator, Lord, Judge, Priest, First- 
born, because God and as man, 303, 
e. not a creature even in His man- 
hood, and how, 344, f. 347, i. dif- 
ference of opinion on the point 
among fathers and divines, 344, f. 
not adopted Son even in manhood, 
ibid. first-born from the dead, 367, d. 
created because man created in Him, 
372, r. said to be created, with a 
purpose, 386, 6. first-born for man 
adopted in Him, ibid. in all His 
saints, 241, g. 366, c. 372, τ. in Him 
alone adoption, 377, c. 412, 3. by 
taking flesh destroys its passions, 
446, 5. 447, u. 479, 1. 2. 520, 2. 
449, 2. is sanctified, for we sancti- 
fied in Him, 250, 1. imparts holiness 
by His soul, immortality by His 
body, 449, a. a living law and pat- 
tern, 254, i. 


Son of God, Avian sense of, 10, u. 24, b. 


218, a. 224, a. 


Sons of God, men aretrulyandproperly, 


56, k, by adoption through the Spirit 


590 INDEX TO FOOT NOTES AND MARGINAL REFERENCES. 


of the Son, 32, q. 236, c. 246, a. 
261, e. before the Incarnation, 539, 3. 
548, 3. 

Sophists profess all knowledge, 401, e. 

Sotadean verse, 94, a. 179, 2. 

Srrrit, when it denotes the Holy 
Ghost, 196, d. taken by the Fathers 
to mean the Son, ibid. 

Spirit oF Gop, the Hand of God, 12, z. 
whether ingenerate, 121, s. the Gift 
of God, 305, g. receives from the 
Son, 433, a. why not called a Son, 
532, c. denied by heretics to be the 
Spirit of the Prophets, 548, d. 

Spirit, given from the womb, 446, τ. 
given for sanctification, 203, 2. given 
before the Incarnation, 236, c. 249, 3. 
539, 3. 548, 3. His coming gentle, 
467, i. 

Statements, Theological, (vid. [/lustra- 
tions,) not intended to explain but to 
express, 452, b. take their character 
from the speaker, 485, e. 

Statues, imperial, incense burnt before, 
313, n. 405, o. their honours, 405, ἢ. 
resisted by the Fathers, 405, n, o. 
led to images of saints, 405, o. 

Stedfastness of the flesh in virtue, only 
through the Incarnation, 253, 1. 
254, 1; 9: 

Stoics, 187, a. 528, b. 531, b. 

Stoning heretics, 53, f. 193, 3. 286, f. 
319, 4. 

Substance of God not distinct from God, 
34, s. 38, a. 132, 1. expresses God posi- 
tively, 34, 5. has no accidents, 37, y. 
nor accompaniments, and yet may be 
said to have them, 38, z.51, b. 131, e. 
(vid. Notion) objected to by Arians as 
unscriptural, 1, b. 84, b. 123, u. 129, 
b. as material, 63, h. 129, b. 143, p. 
is neither begotten nor unbegotten, 
203, d. 224, a. the Father’s is the 
Son’s, 14d, r. 155, f. 244, k. stands 
for subsistence, how, 244, k. 

Superlative, Greek, sense of, 370, n. 


ae 


Terms, Theological, not in Scripture, 
1, b. 7, p. 37, x. which belong to 
Holy Trinity, but are more appro- 
priate to This or That Person, 424, o. 

Texts, Three, in common use against 
the Arians, viz. John 10, 30, 14, 9. 
and John 10, 38. or 14, 10. 229, g. 
405, m. 

Texts concerning Angel-manifestations 

" in the O. T. 120, q. 


Texts explained, viz. 


Gen. 1, 26. 120, p. 
18. .1: 120, q. 

32, 30. 31. 424, 0. 
Exod. 33, 23. 406, p. 
Deut. 28, 66. 302, ἃ, 
ΒΕ ΟΣ te 381, i. 
INOS 33. 546, b. 
Proviey8 225 τ 9] χ 500, ΞΙΟΣ δ: 
343, 6. 348, h. 392, d. 

0“ 241, g. 343, d. 

Is. 53, 7 259, b. 
Jer. 31, 22 346, h. 
Matt. 1, 25. They VES ei: 
12, 32. 252, h. 

13, 25. 3, h. 328, i. 

Mark 13, 32. 459, a. 471, o. 
John 1, 1. 195, a. 513, f. 
1: ὃ: 208, ἃ. 398, 6. 

2.074: 458, c. 

10, 30. 414, b. 

Acts 1, 7. 470, 1. 
5, 39. 434, Ὁ. 

10, 36. 549, Zz. 

19, 19 426, q. 

Rom. 1, 20. 196, c. 
1 Cor. 14, 25. 241, g. 
DiCorsl 25a: 667, h. 
Dimi Ae es? 191, 6. 
Rev. 22, 14. 547, c. 


Thalia of Arius, 94, a. 

Theodore of Mopsuestia, 466, g. 550, g. 

Theodore of Heraclea, 110, o. 

Theodotus, 102, 5. 

Theognostus, 43, a. 252, h. 

Theophronius, 108, k. 

Time, none before the Son, 30, n. 195, a. 
198, e. does not alter nature, 426, 4. 

Titles, our Lord’s, imply each other, 
27, i. 140, n. perverted by heretics 
to stand for distinct beings or sub- 
jects, 41, 6. 312, m. correct eachother, 
43, d. 140, n. 219, b. 221, 2. charged 
by heretics with inconsistency, 140, n. 
how to be used, 153, d. not mere 
names but realities, 210, 1. 307, d. 2. 
514, 5. 527, 2. 540, 1. 542, 1. used as 
proofs of the scope of Christian doc- 
trine, 439, d. denote something of 
His Nature, not every thing, 333, 
t, u. belong to creatures in measure, 
333, t. - 

Tobit, Book of, not in the Canon, 31, o. 

Tradition, 12, y. 13, a. 30, 1. 60, c. 
76, 1. 80, 1. 82, u. 104, y. 105, a. 
190, 2. 191, 1. 2. 193, 7. 328, 1. 336, 
1. 426, 6. 

TRINITY in a numerical Unity, 46, k. 
145, r. vid. Unity, not subject to 
number, 334, y. 452, a. Platonic, 
51, b. of dilatation and expansion, 
(Sabellian,) 528, b, c. 

Tainity, Holy, truth about, inexpres- 


INDEX TO FOOT NOTES AND MARGINAL REFERENCES. 591 


sible in one formula, 326, g. not to 
be embraced in one idea, 326, g. 
like Itself, 529, e. proof of, different 
ancient and modern, 439, d. 
Trinity, Holy, doctrine of, contradic- 


Will, Divine, sufficient for the creation 
of all things, 316, 1. 320, 7. existed 
for the creation, 390, 1. in the gene- 
ration of the Son, asserted by some 


tion in words used, 326, g. contradic- 
tion in ideas, 326, g. 439, c. 515, x. 
how far, 439, c. subserves the doc- 
trine of Unity, 334, y. 412, d. pro- 
fesses a mystery, 439, c. not tri- 
theism, 421, k. 

Tritheism, of heretics, &c. 421, k. im- 
puted wrongly to the Greek Fathers, 
219, b. 


U. 


Ulphilas, 125, z. 

Unity, numerical in the Holy Trinity, 
46, k. 145, r. 152, a. 154, e. 155, f. 
203, d. 219, b. 244, k. 399, a. 404, 6. 
523, e. subserved by the doctrine of 
the perfection of Each Person in the 
Trinity, 334, y. 412, d. preserved 
by the doctrine of the Monarchia, or 
of the relation of the Son to the 
Father, 402, g. 512, a. 517, c. 523, e. 
of will, 107, f. 155, g. 414, b. of will 
and operation implies unity of sub- 
stance, 416, f. 

Unscriptural terms, 1, Ὁ. 7, p. 37, x. 

Until, force of, 381, i. 

Ursacius, vid. Valens. 


Υ, 


Valens and Ursacius pupils of Arius, 
young, 74, ἃ. their history, ibid. 86, 1. 
Valentinus, 97, ἢ. 153, 4. 523, Ὁ. 529, d. 
' 831, a. compared to Sabellius, 526, c. 
to Arius, ibid. 
Vapour, illustration of the Son, 43, c. 
Visions of Catholics and heretics, 467, i. 


W. 


Wesleyans, 467, i. 

Wessel, opposes Bp. Bull in his expla- 
nation of our Lord’s ‘‘ condescen- 
sion,”’ 368, g. of ‘“ First-born”’ 269, 
h. interprets “ First-born’’ by “‘heir,”’ 
371, 0. his sense of “ First-born ”’ in- 
adequate, 372, r. 


early Fathers, 485,d.innocently, 485, 
e. by heretics, 485, f. by some later 
Fathers, 486, g. meaning that the 
Divine Will was eternal, as the Di- 
vine Nature, 486, h. Nature higher 
than Will, 222, 2. 284, 1. 494, 2. 
489, i. two senses of Will, 489, k. 

Wispom, a title of the Son corrective 
of materialism, 20, t. implies son- 
ship, 22], e. 312, m. not a habit, 
else God not simple, 334, y. 493, r. 
514, m. q. 515, r. 

Wisdom, created, 391, c. image and 
type of Creator, 29. k. 392, d. of Un- 
create Wisdom, 396, i. an inward 
seed through the Word, 393, e. a 
natural seed, ibid. 

Wisdom, Book of, not in the Canon, 
30, ο. 

Worp, a title of the Son corrective of 
materialism, 19, r. 20, t. 140, n. as- 
cribed to Him, not as one outof many 
words, 26, g. 318, 4. 331, q. in what 
sense used of the Son, 140,n. 208, b. 
analogy between the Word and Di- 
vine Reason, 25, c. in and from God, 
323, 2. Word Divine, compared with 
human, 26, g. 329, m. did not change 
into flesh, 347, 2. the Word, the Me- 
diator, 324, 2. itimplies Sonship, 312, 
m. implies Image, ibid. implies co- 
eternity, 25, c, 192, 2. implied in Son, 
204, 3. He is not the formal cause by 
which God is the Rational and Wise, 
208, b. this asserted by Marcellus, &c. 
514, n and q. not a quality, habit, &c. 
34, d- 202, 2.026; 7. O15, 1. if not 
eternal, there was a Word to create 
the Word, 288; 3.311, k 3825 7. 
401, 4. 492, 0. 494, 1. 495, 3. distin- 
guished from the Son by the Valen- 
tinians, 551, a. by Marcellus, &c. 
539, τ. y. denied by Stoics, 531, b. 
whether. not the Word, but the Man, 
is the Son, 537, r. whether He be- 
came Son at the creation, 98, m. life 
and principle of permanence to crea- 
tion, 393, f. makes us gods, 151, 2—5. 
19». 7. 9596) 6: 360) hy 434.) bon 
Him we see the Father, 197, 1. 393, 
6. 395, ἢ. suffered, &c. 368, 1. 441, i. 
475, 5. 476, 6. 

Worship, a very wide term, 313, n. its 
characteristic as divine, ibid. 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS, 


IN FOOT NOTES AND MARGIN. 


- AX 


ἀγαπητὸς, 542, c. 549, 2. 

ayévntoy, 31, p. 33, r. 51, a. Ὁ. 52, e. 
224, a. 225, b. 226, c. 

ἀγέννητον, 226, c. 

ἀγεννήτως, 332, 2. 

ayo, 325, 1. 338, 6. 375, 2. 553, 6: 
5894, 7. 

ἄγονος, 202, 1. 207, 3. 518, 7. 


ἀδιαίρετον, 39, 1. 406, 6. 419, 1. 429, 4. 


ἀθέλητος, 494, 3. 

ἄθεος, ἀθεότης, 3, f. 

αἴνιγμα, 39), 2. 

αἰὼν, 30, n. 

αἰώνιος, 198, 2. 3. 

ἀκολουθία, 293, 2. 298, 1. 338, 3. 

ἀκραιφνέστατος, 317, 3. 

ἀκράτου, 13, 1. 316, 2. 372, 6. 

ἄλλος---οὐκ ἄλλου, οὐχ ἑτέρου, 446, ο. 
vid. 234, 4. 235, 1. 

ἀλλοτριούσιος, 150, 1. 209, 1. 

ἀλογία, 2, 6. 202, 4. 215, 2. 290, 2. 320, 
1. 325, e. 490, 6. 496, 2. 

ἄλογος ὃ θεὺς, 25, c. 208, b. 215, 2. 

ἅμιλλα; 409, Ι. 

ἀμυδρὰ, 304, 2. 326, 1. 

ἀνεπίμιπτοι, 95, d. 

ὁ ἄνθρωπος, 238, 2. 245, 1. 345, g. 520, 
12. 521, 5. 530, 3. 554, 11. 

ἄνθρωπος ὅλος, 477, 4. 

ἀνομοιογενεῖ, 150, 3. 

ἀνόμοιον, 124, 2. 205, 2. 341, 2. 403, k. 
421, 2. 

ἀντίδοσις ἰδιωμάτων, 443, h. 

ἀνύπαρκτον, 208, 4. 

ἀνυπόστατον, 14], 1. 

ΠΕ ς 449, 3. 

ἀπαράλλακτος, 34, 1. 35, u. 106, d. 
136, g. 404, 1. 416, 1. 451, 1. 

ἀπαύγασμα, 39, Ὁ. 

εἰς ἄπειρον, 527, 6. 

ἀπείρως παύεσθαι, 528, 1. 

ἁπλῶς, 284,1. 

ἀπολελυμένως, 261, d. 370,1. 

ἀποῤῥέουσι, 18, 1. 

ἀποῤῥοὴ, 19, q. 39, b. 211, 3. 212, 1. 


ἀποστολὴν, 553, 4. 

ἀρχὴ, 250, d. 412, ο. 513, f. 545, a. 

&pxh 6dav, 348, k. 

ἀρχὴ γενέσεως, 304, 3. 354, 3. 547, 3. 

ἀσέβεια, 1, a. 364, b. 

acvatatos, 490, 4. 

ἀτελὴς, 201, 1. 

ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον, 39, 2. vid. 
τρεπτός. 

αὐτεξούσιος, 230. 

αὐτοαληθὴς, 144,1. 

αὐτοπροσωπῶς, 114, d. 

αὐτὸς, 309, f. 521, 3. 

αὐτοσοφία, &c. 144, 1. 391, 3. 393, 2. 
394, 4. 514, p. 518, 2. 


αὐτουργεῖν, 317, 2. 


B. 


βελτίωσις, &c. 26, 1. 234, 3. 235, 1. 
242, 1. 247, 3. 434, b. 457, 3. 

βλαπτόμενος, 449, 1. 

βουλὴ, βούλημα, 242, 1. 321, 7. 324, ce. 
443, f. 488, 4. 489, 3. 490, 3. 491, 4. 


γέγονε, 12, 1. 47, 1. 2. 57, 1. 216, 2. 3. 
and passim. 

γένεσις, 346, 1. 447, 3. 450, 5. 472, 10. 

γεννηθεὶς, 309, κα. 

γέννημα, 37, x. 516, ἃ. 

γέννησις, 98, m. 201, 6, 

γεννητικὴ δύναμις, &e. 100, ᾳ. 283, |. 
495, 2. 518, 6. 

γενητὰ, 33, q. 261, 6. 6, 1. 21. 

γνήσιον, 40, 5. 267, 1. 344, 1. 402, 2. 
Δι ὩΣ 


O94 


A. 


δεκτικὸν, 243, 2. 266, 3. 

δεσπότης, 420, 2. 468, 1. 479, 5. 

διαβολικὸς, 410, a. 

διάθεσις, 4, 1. 

διακονεῖν, 521, a. 

διαλελυμένος, 513, 3. 

διαμονὴ, &c. 372, 1. 380, 1. 385, 4: 
387, 6. 447, 1. 457, 3. 482, 3. 521, a. 
552, 2. 

διάνοια, 437, 6. 476, 2, and passim. 

διαῤῥαγῶσιν, 29m" 314, 0. 

δι’ ἑαυτοῦ, 199, 1. 

διεφθαρμένη, 484, 1. 

διφυῆ τινὰ, 517, 1 

δυάδα, 517, 3 

δύναμις, 493, 2. 

δύο ζυγοὺς, 486, 3. 


E. 


ἔθους τῇ γραφῇ, 355, c. 546, 3. 

εἶδος, 154, 6, 403, h. 406, p. 422, 6. 
424, o. 

clouds, 460, 1. 

ex, 434, 2. 

ἔκχαμψιν, 473, 9 

ἐλάττωμα, 244, 1.452, 1. 460, 3. 475, 1. 

ἔμετοι, 322, e. vid. 232, 3. 

ἔμμονον, 349, 1. 

ἐμφιλοχωρεῖν, 46, 1. 

ἔμφυτον, 332, 3. 

ἐν, 430, 5: 

ἕνα τῶν πάντων, 54, 2. 208, 

487, 4. 488, 7. 

ἐνέργεια, 329, 1. 530, 1. 555, 8. 

ἑνοειδὴς, 144, 2 1248. fe 

ἑνοειδῇ ἘΣ: 418, LL 

ἐνούσιον, 141, 2. 284, 4. 514, 2. 

ἔνσαρκος παρουσία, 252, g. 

ἐνσώματος, 258, 3. 

ἐν τῷ θεᾷ for πρὸς τὸν θεὸν, 514, n. 

ἐξαίρετος, 308, f. 

ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, 30, 2. 

ἐπάγγελμα, 405, e. 

ἐπακούουσι, 438, Ὁ. vid. 294, 1. 

ἐπέλαμψε, 355, 1. vid. 475, 9. 

ἐπιγέγονε, 216, 4. 222, 1. 406, 7. 487, 2. 
7. 491, 2. 

ἐπικαλούμεθα, 446, 3. 

ἐπιδημίαν, 264, 2. 442, 3. 

ἐπινοήσαντες, 177, a. 281, 3. 

ἐπίνοια, &c. 96, 6. 193, 1. 307, d. 316, 1. 
331, 4. 332, 1.333, u. 522, 2. 527, 2 

ἐπιπλήττειν, 458, c. 

ἐπισπείρας, 5, k. 


ἐπισυμβεβηκὸὺς, 37, y. 201, 2. 209, 3. 


2. 422, 5. 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS. 


ἐπιτιμᾶν, 458, c. 480, 1. 
ἐπιφανείας, 548, 2. 

ἐπιχείρημα, 2 d. 142, 2. 423, ?. 
ἑτεροειδὲς, 422, 4. 

ἑτερούσιος, 260, 3. 263, 2. 
εὐαγὲς, 376, 1. 

εὐγενοῦς πατρὺς, 242, 3. 
εὐσέβεια, 1, a. 364, b. 


(woyovetra, 400, 5. 


H. 


§ λόγος ἐστὶ, 291, 1. 387, 2. 457, 1, 
462, 1. 464, 3. 473, 5. 540, 2 
% σοφία, 475, 6 


Θ. 


θεανδρικὴ ἐ ἐνέργεια, 445, m. 

θελήσει, 116, g. 

θέλησις προηγουμένη, 480, ἢ. 

θέλησις σύνδρομος, ibid. 

θεογονία, 149, χ. R 

θεοχογούμενος, 363, 5. 583, k. vid. also 
190. §. 10 init. 

Oeduaxos, 6, n. 325, ἃ. 484, Ὁ. 

θεοποίησις, &c. 151, 5. 240, 2. 380, ἢ. 
427, 1. 455, 3. 469, 2. 521, a. 

θεὸς ἐν σαρκὶ, 296, 1. ᾿ 

θεοστυγεῖς, 424, 2. 457, 4 

θεοτόκος, 241, i. 292, ἢ. 420, i. 440, 6. 
447, 5 and x. 55], 4. 

θεοφορούμενοι, 432, 5. 458, 2. 


~ 


ἰδιοποιούμενος ἴδιος, 249, 8. 440,4. 447, ¢. 
554, 5. 

ἰδιότητα, &e. 40, 6. 41, 1. 55, 2. 240, 
1. 286) 1. 301, ΕΞ: S835 476-e1- 

ἰδίως, 78, n. 233, a. 256, o. 414, a. 477, 
5. 465, 7. 

ἱερατικοὶ, 101, r. 

᾿Ιουδαῖοι οἱ νῦν, 282, ἃ. 410, 3. 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS. 


κάθοδον, 290, 3. 

κανόνι, 440, 4. 

καρπόγονος, 25, 6. 284, 6. 

κατάληψις, 96, f. 187, a. 

καταχρηστικῶς, 10, 5. 335, a. 

κεφάλαιον, 56. 121, 3. 229, 2. 

κινήσει, 148, 6. 

κοινὸς, 446, q. 472, 6. 

κρείττων, 260, 2. 

τὸ κτιστὸν, 551], 1. 

κυλιόμενοι, 281, 2. 424, 1. vid. also 15, 
§. 9 fin. and 214 cire. fin. 

κυρίως, 18, ο. 56, k. 153, d. 212, g. 
285, 3. 


A. 


λέγει 7 γραφὴ, 196, Ὁ. 

λειτουργίας, 462, 3. 

λεξείδιον, 288, 2. 296, 3. 340, 5. 

λῆμμα, 283, c 496, 4. 

λογομαχία, 157, h. 

λογοπάτωρ, 542, 6. 

λύγος,.249, 2. 326, 3. 684,1. 

λόγος ἐνδιάθετος; προφορικὸς, 113, z. 
119, 4. 329, 6. 

λόγος ἀληθείας, 328, 1. 

λογωθείσης τῆς σαρκὸς, 448, y. 


Μ. 


μαθὼν ἐδίδασκεν, 13, a. 282, Ὁ. 

μάλιστα, 53, c. 539, t. 

μεμερισμέναι, 46, 1. 

μανία, 91, q. 

μέσος ὧν 6 ἄνθρωπος, 380, 2. 

μετουσίας, 148, 3. 15], 1. 156, 1. 8. 

μίξις, 551, h. 

μονὰς, 204, 4. 513, 1. 515, 2. 517, 2. 
528, b. c. 

μονὰς θεότητος ἀδιαίρετος, 513, d. 

μονογενὴς, 991, ἃ. 542, ο. 

μόνος ἐκ μόνου, μόνως, &c. 116, g. 126, 8, 
315, Ὁ. 331, p. 

μορφὴ, 406, 1. 


- N. 


νεανιεύεσθαι, 472, 2. 
νεῦμα, 443, f. 


595 


oO. 


of δόλιοι, of θαυμαστοὶ, &c. 425, p. 

οἰκειότητα, 247, 1. 404, 3. 425, 1. 

οἰκείωται, 447, t. 554, 4. 

τῶν ὕλων eds, 388, 1. 

ὁμογενὴς, 260, 1. 262, f. 429, 1. 

ὀκνητέον, 394, g. 

ὅμοιος, 83, 1. 124, 3. 155, g. 311, 1. 

ὅμοιος κατὰ πάντα, 84, a. 89. n. 115, 6. 
210, 2. 237, 3. 805, 2. 311,1. 

ὕμοιος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν, 136, g. 4. 416, 2. 
4530, 2. 

ὁμοιούσιον, 136, g. 144, 4.210, 6. 496, u. 

ὁμοούσιον, 2, 1. 35, t. 96, 0.144,4.191,4. 
203, d. 262, f. 264, g. 523, 1. 524, 
h, 527, 4. 

ὁμοουσίου μέρος, 120, q. 

ὁμοφυὴς, 148, 2. 264, g. 

ὀνόματι, 527, 2. 542, 1. 

ὀπίσθια, 406, p. 

ὄργανον, 40, 4. 217, d. 321, 4. 382, 5. 
443, ¢. 450, 1. 475, 8. 

ὀρθὴ, 290, 1. 298, 2. 342, 1. 

οὐδὲν πλέον, 513, k. 

κατὰ τὴν ἐμὴν οὐθένειαν, 301, 1. 

οὐσία, 152, a. 494, t. 

ἐξ οὐσίας, 62, 6. 63, g. 224, a. 

οὐσία τοῦ λόγου, 244, k. 264, 1. 345, q. 

οὐσιωδὴς σοφία, 320, 2. 


Il. 


πάλιν, 203, ἃ. 320, 6. 443, 1. 452, a. 

παρὰ, 434, |. 

παράνομος, 401, f. 467, 1. 

μετὰ παρατηρήσεως, 298, a. 

πατέρες, ddl, 3. 

τὰ τοῦ πατρὸς, 404, 9. 

παῦλα, 527, 5. 

περιβολὴ, 38, z. vid. 51, Ὁ. 131, e. 

περιβομβοῦσι, 22, y. 485, c. 

περιεργάζονται, 328, k. 426, q. 

περὶ τὸν θεὸν, (vid. περιβολὴ) 38, 1. 131, 
6. 2. 202, 3. 493, q. 

περὶ [τὸν λόγον], 345, 1. 

περιφέρουσι, 328, k. 

περιχώρησις,95,4.110, h. 338, 4. 399,.0. 
400, d. 402, g. 405, m. 551], ἢ. 

πηγὴ θεότητος, &c. 25, 6. 400, 4. 

TY) ξηρὰ, 28, 6; 

πλατυσμὺς, 528, Cc. 

ποιητικὸν αἴτιον, 284, 2. 310, ἢ. 420, 1. 

πολυειδοῦς, 422, 7. 

πολυκέφαλος, 492, p. 

πομπεία, 348, 2. 379, k. 


- 


596 INDEX OF GREEK WORDS. 


πράγματα, 113, 1.115, 2. " τύπος, 373, s. 389, 1. 591, 6. 294, 2. 
προαίρεσις, 230, 2. 299, 1.426, 8.519,1. 428, 3. 429, 5 

προβάλλειν, 487, 1. 

’ προβολὴ, 45, g. 97, h. 125, a. 525, c 

πρόδρομος, 79, 4. 


προηγουμένη θέλησις, 480, h. vs 
προκοπὴ, 16, i. 25, f. 113, 3. 242, 2. 
249, 1. 320, 3. 472, 8. ἐπ G7 etote 
προπίνοντες, J, 1. 90, 2. 92, 2. ἐν υἱῷ, 401, a fh 
πρόσωπον, 22, z. 115, ἃ. 258, 4. 293,1. τὸς ὃν ἡμῖν, 57, 1. 366, c. 430, 2. 434, 
πρῶτος ἡμῶν, 32), ὅ. 6. 448,1. 


ὕπαρξις, 497, 1. 

ὑπερφυὴς, 243, i. 

ὑπηρετὴς, 311, i. 319, 6. 

ὑπόκρισις, 127, g. 281, 1. 307, 5. 398,1. 


P. 423, 4 
ὑπογραμμὺς, 429, 3. ᾿ 
ὑπόστασις, 399, 3. 494. t. 513, g. 543, ὃ. 
ῥαντιζόμενος, 340, 1. 545, a. 52, 5. 58, ὃ. 
ῥοπὴ, 490, 1. 495, 1. ὑποτεταγμένον, 122, 2. 


ὑπουργὸς, 12, 1. 511, i. 315, 2. 320, 5. 
324, 1. 444, 1. ; 


=. 
Φ, 

Σαβελλίου τὸ ἐπιτήδευμα, &c. 523, a. ἐ : » 
σκοτοδινιῶσι, 336, 2. 459, 1. PEP SPOUEEMOSs 442, 4. 474, 2. 
συγκατάβασις, 98, m. 354, 1. 368, ς. φαντασίᾳ, 45, n. 

369, 1. 372, 5. 394, ὃ. onal Ma ea b. 

, ὧν, 472, 7. φιλόπονος, 48, τὴ. 
ual ἘΝ 7. φύσις, 155, f. 244, k. 434, 4. 460, 4. 
συμβεβηκὸς, 37, y. 
συμφωνία, 148, 5. 414, Ὁ. 432, 1. 
ouvepyds, 320, 5. 
σύνδρομος θέλησις, 486, h. xs 
σύνθετος, 514, 4. 515, r,s. 
συνεφόρησαν, 193, Ὁ. 213, 1. χαρίσματα, 520, 4. 621, 1. ᾿. | 


συνούσιον, 203, ἃ. 
συνὼν, 412, 1. 
σωματικὴν παρουσίαν, 395,1. 


χριστόμαχος, ὃ, n. 
χριστοφόροι, 464, 2. 


y. 
T. ψεύδονται, 416, 3. 473, 2. 518, 1. 533, 
1. 543, 5. 
“τὰ πρός τι, 98, n. ψιλὸς, 301, 3. 363, 1. 374, 2. 476, 5. 
ταὐτοούσιον, 203, d. 502, 4. 


ταὐτότητα, 40, 1. 403, 1. 430, 1. 
τέλειος, 108, 1. 116, h. 473, 6. 
τμηθὲν, 387, 4 
τονθορύζετε, 472, 3. a. 
τριὰς, 46, k. 205, 3. 4. 528, 4. 
Tpentds, ἄτρεπτος, 231, a. 289, ἃ. 292, dy ἐστιν, 17, 2. 329, 3. 
n. 526, h. ὥρα, 130, c. 415, c. 524, 5. 536, l. 
τροπὴν, 551, 3. ὡς ἐθέλησεν, 92, r. 


A dist of Books 


RECENTLY PUBLISHED BY 


JAMES PARKER AND ΟΟ,, 


OXFORD, ano 377, STRAND, LONDON, 


NEW THEOLOGICAL WORKS. 


REV. DR. MOBERLY, 


THE BAMPTON LECTURES FOR 1868. THE ADMINISTRATION 
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE BODY OF CHRIST. By the Rev. 
Grorce Moterty, D.C.L., Fellow of Winchester College, Rector of Brighstone, 
Isle of Wight, and Canon of Chester. 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d, 


THE LATE REV. JOHN KEBLE. 


ON EUCHARISTICAL ADORATION. By the late Rev. Jonn 
Kesxe, M.A., Vicar of Hursley.—With CONSIDERATIONS SUGGESTED 
BY A LATE PASTORAL LETTER (1858) ON THE DOCTRINE OF 
THE MOST HOLY EUCHARIST. Third Edition. 8vo., cloth, 6s.—A Cheap 
Edition, 24mo., sewed, 2s. 


ON THE MYSTICISM ATTRIBUTED TO THE EARLY 
FATHERS OF THE CHURCH. By the Rev. Joun Kester, M.A,, late Vicar 
of Hursley. Being No. LXXXIX. of “ Tracts for the Times.” 8vo., sewed, 3s. 6d. 

SERMONS, OCCASIONAL AND PAROCHIAL. By the Rev. Jonn 
Keste, M.A., late Vicar of Hursley. S8vo., cloth, 12s. 

The profits (if any) to be added to the ““ Keble Memorial”? Fund. 
VILLAGE SERMONS ON THE BAPTISMAL SERVICE. By 


the late Rev. Jonn Kesee. 8vo., cloth, 5s. [ Just ready. 


THE FIRST EDITION OF THE CHRISTIAN YEAR, Printed 
in Facsimile. In 2 vols,, Feap., paper boards, as first issued, 7s. 6d. [ Ready. 
To this reprint is appended a list containing ‘‘ all the variations of any importance from the 

original text which the author made in later editions.” 


THE LORD BISHOP OF BRECHIN. 


AN EXPLANATION OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 
With an Epistle Dedicatory to the Rev. E. B. Pussy, D.D. By A. P, 
Forses, D.C.L., Bishop of Brechin. Post 8vo., 2 vols., cloth, 19s. 6d, Sepae 
rately, Vol. I. 7s. 6d.; Vol. II. 12s. 


A SHORT EXPLANATION OF THE NICENE CREED, for the 
Use of Persons beginning the Study of Theology. By ALEXANDER PENROSE 
Forees, D.C.L., Bishop of Brechin, Second Edition. Crown 8vo., cloth, 6s. 


STR JOHN T. COLERIDGE. 
MEMOIR OF THE REY. J,.KEBLE, M.A, By §ir J. T. Core- 
RIDGE. Post 8yo, Nearly ready. 
1268(3)40 ἦ 


2 NEW THEOLOGICAL WORKS, (continued), 


REV. Ἐ. B. PUSEY, D.D. 

ELEVEN ADDRESSES DURING A RETREAT OF THE COM- 
PANIONS OF THE LOVE OF JESUS, engaged in Perpetual Intercession 
for the Conversion of Sinners. By the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D., ἅς. 8vo., cloth, 
85. 6d. 


TWO LETTERS TO THE VERY REV. DR. NEWMAN. i. In 
Explanation, and chiefly on the Immaculate Conception. ii. On the Possibility 
of Corporate Re-union, and of Explanation on the part of Rome. With an 
Appendix in Answer to the Rev. T. Harrer’s Strictures. By the Rev. E. B. 
Pusey, D.D., ἅς. 8vo. [In the Press. 


DANIEL THE PROPHET. Nine Lectures delivered in the Divinity 
School of the University of Oxford. With a new Preface. By E. B. Pusey, D.D., 
&c. Third Edition. Fifth Thousand. 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d. 


THE MINOR PROPHETS; with a Commentary Explanatory and 
Practical, and Introductions to the Several Books. By E.B. Pusey, D.D., &c. 
4to., sewed. 5s. each part. 


Part I. contains HosEa—Jort, InrropucTion. | Part III. Amos vi. 6 to Micawi. 12. 
Part II. Joni, Inrropuction—AmoOs Vi. 6, Part IV. (In the Press. 


THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND A PORTION OF CHRIST’S ONE 
HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH, AND A MEANS OF RESTORING 
VISIBLE UNITY. AN EIRENICON, in a Letter to the Author of ‘The 
Christian Year.” By EK. B. Pusty, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, and 
Canon of Christ Church. Sixth Thousand. 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d. 


REV. CANON JENKINS. 
THE WORK OF THE MARTYRS. By the Rev. Canon 


JENKINS, B.D., Fetlow of Jesus College, Oxford, (In the Press. 


REV, R. E. TYRWHITT. 

ESTHER AND AHASUERUS: an Identification of the Persons 
so Named; followed by a Histcry of the Thirty-five Years that ended at their 
Marriage, with Notes and an Index to the Two Parts: also an Appendix. By 
Ricuarp EpmMunp Tyrwuitt, M.A., Retired Indian Chaplain. Two Vols., 
8vo. (970 pp.), cloth, 24s. 


OXFORD LENTEN SERMONS. 

THE VICTOR IN THE CONFLICT. Sermons preached during 
the SEASON OF LENT, 1867, in Oxford, by the Lorp Bisnop oF Oxrorp, 
Rey. H. P. Lippon, the Dean or Cork, Rev. Canon Wooprorp, Rey. Dr. 
Pusey, the Lorp Btisnop or Meatu, the Rev. F. M. Santer, T. T. Carrer, 


G. Bunstrope, R. RANDALL, and Arcupb. BICKERSTETH, with a Preface by the 
Bisnop oF Oxrorp. $vo., cloth, 7s. 6d. [ Ready. 


ARCHDEACON CHURTON. 

SUPPLEMENT TO WATERLAND’S WORKS: FOURTEEN 
LETTERS FROM DANIEL WATERLAND TO ZACHARY PEARCE. 
Edited, with an Historical and Critical Preface, by Epwarp Cuurton, M.A.,, 
Archdeacon of Cleveland. 8vo., sewed, 2s. 6d. 

A MEMOIR OF THE LATE JOSHUA WATSON, Ese. By the 
Venerable Archdeacon Cuurton. A new and cheaper Edition, with Portrait. 
Crown 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d. 

THE IRISH CHURCH. 


ESSAYS ON THE IRISH CHURCH: HER PRESENT STATE 
AND POSITION. By CrLercymMen oF THE EsTABLISHED CHURCH oF 
IRELAND. Cheap Edition. 8vo., cloth, 6s. 


THEOLOGICAL WORKS, (continued). 3 


ee ae 


EARL NELSON. 


FAMILY PRAYERS. By Eant Nerson. With the Psalter and 
a Calendar of Lessons, for the use of the Master. Limp cloth, ls. Third Edit. 
The Family Prayers, with Responses and Variations for the Different Seasons, 

for General Use, may be had separately, in paper covers, at 3d. each; or with the 

Psalter, limp cloth, 9d. 

Also, the Calendar of Lessons; a Course of Reading for the Christian Year, 
for Private or Family Use. Limp cloth, 6d. 


REV. W. H. LYTTELTON. 
FORM OF PRAISE AND PRAYER IN THE MANNER OF 
OFFICES, Edited by the Hon. and Rev. W. H. Lytrenron, M.A. Cr. 8vo., 3s. 6d. 


REV. C. WARD. 

PRAYERS FOR MARRIED PERSONS, from Various Sources, 
chiefly from the Ancient Liturgies. Selected and Edited by Cuartes Warp, 
M.A., Rector of Maulden. 2nd Edit., revised and enlarged. 16mo., cloth, gilt 
edges, 4s. 6d. 

REV. H. W. BELLAIRS. 

THE CHURCH AND THE SCHOOL; or, Hints on Clerical Life. 
By Henry Watrorp Betuairs, M.A., one of Her Majesty’s Inspectors of 
Schools, Crown 8vo., cloth, 5s. [ Ready. 


THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD. 

ADDRESSES TO THE CANDIDATES FOR ORDINATION ON 
THE QUESTIONS IN THE ORDINATION SERVICE. By Samuet, 
Lorp Bisnor or Oxrorp, Chancellor of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, 
and Lord High Almoner to Her Majesty the Queen. Fifth Thousand. Crown 
8vo., cloth, 6s. 

REV. J. R. WGODFORD. 

TRACTS FOR THE CHRISTIAN SEASONS. Third Series. 
Edited by the Rev. J. ἢ. Wooprorp, M.A., Vicar of Leeds, Examining 
Chaplain to the Bishop of Oxford. 4 vols. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 14s. 


DIOCESAN CONFERENCE ADDRESSES. 
THE SERMONS AND ADDRESSES delivered at a Conference of 
Clergy of the Diocese of Oxford, held in Oxford, on the 4th, 5th, and 6th of July, 
1867. With a Preface by the Lorp Bishop or Oxrorp. Crown 8vo., 2s. 6d. 


REV. T. 5. ACKLAND. 

A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCES FOR THE BIBLE. 
By the Rev. T. S. Ackianv, M.A., late Fellow of Clare Hall, Cambridge, In- 
cumbent of Pollington-cum-Balne, Yorkshire. 24mo., cloth, 3s. 

REV. C. A. HEURTLEY, D.D. 

THE FORM OF SOUND WORDS: HELPS TOWARDS HOLDING 
IT FAST: Seven Sermons preached before the University of Oxford, on some 
Important Points of Faith and Practice. By Cuartes A. Heurtvey, D.D., 
Margaret Professor of Divinity, and Canon of Christ Church. 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d. 

DE FIDE ET SYMBOLO: Documenta quiedam nee non Aliquorum 
SS. Patrum Tractatus. Edited by the Rev. C. A. Heurtitey, D.D.  Feap. 
8yvo., cloth. [Just ready. 

REV. T. T. CARTER. 

REPENTANCE: A Manual of Prayer and Instruction. Edited by 

the Rev. T. T. Carter, M.A. 18mo., limp cloth, 1s. 6d. 


CANONS OF THE CHURCH. 

THE DEFINITIONS OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH AND CANONS 
OF DISCIPLINE OF THE FIRST FOUR GENERAL COUNCILS 
OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. In Greek and English. Feap. 8vo., 
cloth, 2s, 6d. 


4 THEOLOGICAL WORKS, (continued). 


pane 


eee 


REV. R. PAYNE SMITH, D.D. 

THE AUTHENTICITY AND MESSIANIC INTERPRETATION 
OF THE PROPHECIES OF ISAIAH vindicated in a Course of Sermons 
preached before the University of Oxford, by the Rev. R. Payne Smiru, D.D., 
Canon of Christ Church, Regius Professor of Divinity. 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d. 


THE CATECHIST’S MANUAL. ἢ 
THE CATECHIST’S MANUAL; with an Introduction by Samvet, 
LorpD BisHor oF OxrorD. Fourth Thousand. Crown 8vo., cloth, 5s. 


ARCHDEACON FREEMAN. 

THE PRINCIPLES OF DIVINE SERVICE; or, An Inquiry con- 
cerning the True Manner of Understanding and Using the Order for Morning and 
Evening Prayer, and for the Administration of the Holy Communion in the Eng- 
lish Church. By the Ven. ARcHDEACON Freeman, M.A., Vicar of Thorverton, 
Prebendary of Exeter, and Examining Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Exeter. 
2 vols., 8vo., cloth, 17. 4s. 6d. 

The Volumes may be had separately, thus—Vol. I., 10s. 6d.; Vol. IL, 
Part I, 6s.; Vol. If., Part IT, 8s. 


REV. J. W. BURGON. 


A PLAIN COMMENTARY ON THE FOUR HOLY GOSPELS, 
intended chiefly for Devotional Reading. 5 vols., Feap. 8vo., cloth, £1 15. 


INSPIRATION AND INTERPRETATION. Seven Sermons 
preached before the University of Oxford; with an Introduction, being an 
answer to a Volume entitled “Essays and Reviews.” By the Rev. Joun W. 
Bureon, M.A., Fellow of Oriel College, and Select Preacher. 8vo., cloth, 14s. 


SHORT SERMONS (NINETY-ONE) FOR FAMILY READING: 
following the Course of the Christian Seasons. Second Series. By the Rev. 
Joun W. Bureon, M.A., Fellow of Oriel, and Vicar of St. Mary-the-Virgin’s. 
Now complete in Two Volumes. Feap., cloth, 8s. 

The First Series (Ninety) may also be had in Two Volumes, cloth, 8s. 


THOMAS A KEMPIS. 
OF THE IMITATION OF CHRIST. Fovr Boors. By Tomas 
A Kempis. A New Edition revised. On thick toned paper, with red border- 
lines, medizval titles, ornamental initials, &c. Small 4to., ornamental cloth, 12s. 


OF THE IMITATION OF CHRIST. Four Books. By Tuomas 
A Kempis. A new Edition, revised, Printed in red and black with red lines, 
on toned paper. Feap., cloth antique, 4s; antique calf, red edges, ils. 


REV. WILLIAM BRIGHT. 

A HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, from the EDICT of MILAN, 
A.D. 313, to the COUNCIL of CHALCEDON, a.p. 451. By Witiiam Bricut, 
_M.A., Fellow of University College, Oxford; late Professor of Ecclesiastical His- 
tory in the Scottish Church. Second Edition. Post 8vo., price 10s, 6d. 


ANCIENT COLLECTS and OTHER PRAYERS, Selected for De- 
votional Use from various Rituals, with an Appendix on the Collects in the 
Prayer-book. By Wituiam Bricut, M.A. Third Edition. Antique cloth, 5s, ; 
morocco, 8s. ; antique calf, 12s, 


REV. W. H. KARSLAKE. 

AN EXPOSITION OF THE LORD’S PRAYER, Devotional, Doc- 
trinal, and Practical; with Four Preliminary Dissertations, and an Appendix of 
Extracts from Writers on the Prayer for Daily Use. By the Rev. W. H. Kans- 
LAKE, Fellow and sometime Tutor of Merton College, Oxford, 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d, 


THEOLOGICAL WORKS, (continued). 3 


SI RIPPIN 


THE CATENA AUREA, 

THE CATENA AUREA. A Commentary on the Four Gospels, col- 
lected out of the Works of the Fathers by S. Tuomas Aquinas. Uniform with 
the Library of the Fathers. Complete in 7 vols., cloth, £2 2s. 

The First Volume having been reprinted, a few complete Sets may now be had. 


REV. W. H. RIDLEY, 


THE EVERY-DAY COMPANION. By the Rev. W. H. Rrvtey, 
M.A., Rector of Hambleden, Bucks, Pr. 1, Feap. 8vo., cloth, 2s. Pr. II. 1s. θά, 


REV. DR. HESSEY. 
CATECHETICAL LESSONS, designed to aid the Clergy in Public 

Catechising. Two Vols., Feap., cloth, 10s. 

ConTeEnTs or Vor. I.—On the Apostles’ Creed, The Lord’s Prayer, The Ten 
Commandments, The Two Sacraments, The Thirty -nine Articles, and on the 
Order for Morning and Evening Prayer and the Litany. 

CONTENTS OF Vor. Ii.—On the Parables and Miracles of our Lord, on the 
Saints’ Days, and on Miscellaneous Subjects for the use of Bible Classes. 


Also, in continuation, 


CATECHETICAL LESSONS ON THE BOOK OF COMMON 
PRAYER. By the Rev. Dr. Francis Hessry. Vol. I., to the end of the 
Collects, Epistles, and Gospels. Cloth, 6s. (Just ready. 


REV. E. CHEERE. 
THE CHURCH CATECHISM EXPLAINED. By the Rev. 
Epwarp Cueere, M.A., Vicar of Little Drayton. Fcap., cloth, 2s. 6d. 


REV. T. LATHBURY. 


A HISTORY OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, AND 
OTHER AUTHORIZED BOOKS, from the Reformation; and an Attempt to 
ascertain how the Rubrics, Canons, and Customs of the Church have been under- 
stood and observed from the same time: with an Account ofthe State of Reli- 
gion in England from 1640 to 1660. By the Rev. Tuomas Latusury, M.A., 
Author of “ A History of the Convocation,’’ &c. Second Edition. 8vo., 10s. θά. 


THE LATE REV. H. NEWLAND. 

A NEW CATENA ON ST. PAUL’S EPISTLES.—A Practtcat 
AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES OF St. Path ΤῸ THE EPHE- 
SIANS, AND THE PHILIPPIANS: in which are exhibited the Results of the most 
learned Theological Criticisms, from the Age of the Early Fathers down to the 
Present Time. Edited by the late Rev. HENRY ΝΈΑΝ, M.A., Vicar of 
St. Mary Church, Devon, and Chaplain to the Bishop of Exeter. 8vo.,cl., 12s. 


REV. H. DOWNING. 

SHORT NOTES ON ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL, intended for the Use 
of Teachers in Parish Schools, and other Readers of the English Version. By 
Henry Downing, M.A., Incumbent of St. Mary’s, Kingswinford. Feap. 8vo., 
cloth, 2s. 6d. 

ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. Cloth, 2s. 


DR. ELVEY. f 
THE PSALTER, or Canticles and Psalms of David, Pointed for 
Chanting, upon a New Principle; with Explanations and Directions. By the 


Jate SrerHeNn Etvey, Mus, Doc., Organist and Choragus to the University of 
Oxford. Fifth Edition, 8vo., cloth, price 5s. 


6 SERMONS, δε. 


SERMONS, &c. 


PAROCHIAL SERMONS. By E. B. Pusey, D.D. From Advent 
to Whitsuntide. Vol. I. Fifth Edition. 8vo., cloth, 6-, Vol. II. Fourth 
Edition. 8vo., cloth, 6s. 


NINE SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY 
OF OXFORD. By E. B. Pusry, D.D., and printed between 1843—1855. 
Now collected in one volume. 8yo., cloth, 7s. 6d. 


PAROCHIAL SERMONS PREACHED AND PRINTED ON 
VARIOUS OCCASIONS. By E. B. PUSEY, D.D. Now collected in one 
volume. 8vo., cloth, 7s. θά. 


ILLUSTRATIONS OF FAITH. EIGHT PLAIN SERMONS, 
by a Writer in the ‘‘ Tracts for the Christian Seasons’’ [the late Rev. Epwarp 
Monro ]:—Abel; Enoch; Noah; Abraham; Isaac, Jacob,and Joseph; Moses; 
The Walls of Jericho; Conclusions. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 2s. 6d. 


Uniform, and by the same Author, 


Pratn SERMONS ON THE Book oF Com- RECTION OF OUR LorpD. 2 vols., Feap. 
MON PRAYER. F cap. 8vo., cloth, 5s. 8vo., cloth, 10s. 


HIstToricaL AND PracticaL SERMONS | SERMONS ON NEW TESTAMENT CHARAC- 
ON THE SUFFERINGS AND RESUR- TERS. Fcap. 8vo., 4s. 


CHRISTIAN SEASONS.—Short and Plain Sermons for every Sunday 
and Holyday throughout the Year. Edited by the late Bishop of Grahamstown. 
4 vols., ἔαρ. 8vo., cloth, 16s. 


Je ee es A Second Series of Sermons for the Christian 
Seasons. Uniform with the above. 4 vols., Feap. 8vo., cloth, 165. 


ARMSTRONG’S PAROCHIAL SERMONS. Parochial Sermons, by 


Joun Armstrong, D.D., late Lord Bishop of Grahamstown. Fcap. 8vo., cl., ds. 


ARMSTRONG’S SERMONS FOR FASTS AND FESTIVALS. A 


new Edition. Feap. 8vo., ds. 


SERMONS FOR THE HOLY SEASONS OF THE CHURCH. 
Advent to Trinity. By Grorce Hunrtincton, M.A., Rector of Tenby, and 
Lomestic Chaplain to the Right Hon. the Earl of Crawford and Balearres. 
Second Edition. Crown 8vo., cloth, ds. 


PAROCHIAL SERMONS, by the Rey. H. W. Burrows, B.D., Per- 


petual Curate of Christ Church, St. Pancras: cond Series, Feap. ds. 


SERMONS ADDRESSED TO THE CONGREGATION OF ST. 
MARY-LE-TOWER, IPSWICH. By the Rev. J. R. Turnock, M.A., In- 
cumbent. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 5s. 


SERMONS preached before the University of Oxford, and in Win- 
chester Cathedral, by the late Davip Wittiams, D.C.L., Warden of New College, 
Oxford, and Canon of Winchester ; formerly Head Master of Winchester College. 
With a Brier M moir ofr THE AUTHOR. 8νόο.; cloth, 10s. 6d. 


SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OX- 
FORD, and in other places. By the late Rev. C. Marriott, Fellow of Oriel 
College, Oxford. 12mo., cloth, 6s. Vol. 11. 12mo., cloth, 7s. 6d. 


—— 


ENGLISH DIVINES. 7 


GHorks of the Standard Gnglish Divines, 


PUBLISHED IN THE LIBRARY OF ANGLO-CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, 


AT THE FOLLOWING PRICES IN CLOTH. 


ANDREWES’ (BP.) COMPLETE WORKS. 11 vols., 8vo., £3 7s. 
Tue Sermons. (Separate.) 5 vols., £1 15s. 
BEVERIDGE’S (BP.) COMPLETE WORKS. 12 vols., 8vo., £4 4s. 
THE EncuisH Turotocica, Works. 10 vols., £3 10s. 


BRAMHALL’S (ABP.) WORKS, WITH LIFE AND LETTERS, &c. 
5 vols., 8vo., £1 15s. (Vol. 2 cannot be sold separately.) 


BULL’S (BP.) HARMONY ON JUSTIFICATION. 2 vols., 8vo., 10s. 
DEFENCE OF THE NICENE CREED. 2 vols., 10s. 
JUDGMENT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. is. 
COSIN’S (BP.) WORKS COMPLETE. 5 vols., 8vo., £1 10s. (Vol. 1 


cannot be sold separately.) 


CRAKANTHORP’S DEFENSIO ECCLESL# ANGLICAN. 


8vo., 7s. 
FRANK’S SERMONS. 2 vols., 8vo., 10s. 
FORBES’ CONSIDERATIONES MODEST Zi. 2 vols., 8vo., 12s. 
GUNNING’S PASCHAL, OR LENT FAST. 8vo., 6s. 
HAMMOND’S PRACTICAL CATECHISM. 8νο., ds. 
ΞΘ’ MISCELLANEOUS THEOLOGICAL WORKS. 5s. 
THIRTY-ONE SERMONS. 2 Parts. 10s. 


HICKES’S TWO TREATISES ON THE CHRISTIAN PRIEST- 
HOOD. 3 vols., 8vo., lds. 


JOHNSON’S (JOHN) THEOLOGICAL WORKS. 2 vols., 8vo., 10s. 

ENGLISH CANONS. 2 vols., 12s. 

LAUD’S (ABP.) COMPLETE WORKS. 7 vols., (9 Parts,) 8vo. 
£2 17s. 

L7ESTRANGE’S ALLIANCE OF DIVINE OFFICES. 8vo., 6s. 

MARSHALL'S PENITENTIAL DISCIPLINE. (This volume 


cannot be sold separate from the comp'ete set.) 
NICHOLSON’S (BP.) EXPOSITION OF THE CATECHISM. (This 
volume cannot be sold separate from the complete set.) 
OVERALLS (BP.) CONVOCATION-BOOK OF 1606.  8vo., ds. 
PEARSON’S (BP.) VINDICIL4 EPISTOLARUM S8. IGNATII. 


2 vols. Svo., 10s. 


TILORNDIKE’S (HERBERT) THEOLOGICAL WORKS COM- 
PLETE. 6 vols., (10 Parts,) 8vo., £2 105, 


WILSON’S (BP.) WORKS COMPLETE. With LIFE, by Rey. 
J. ΚΕΡΙΕ. 7 yols., (8 Parts,) 8vo., £3 3s. 


A complete set, £25. 


8 NEW DEVOTIONAL WORKS. 


~ 


THE DAILY SERVICES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 


With an Introductory Preface by the Lorp Bisnor or Oxrorp. Complete in 


One Vol., Crown ὅνο. 
edges, 16s.; best morocco, 18s, 


The Fifth Thousand. 


Roan, 12s.; antique calf, red 
[ Ready. 


DAILY STEPS TOWARDS HEAVEN; or, Practical Thoughts on 
the Gospel History, and especially on the Life and Teaching of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, for every day in the year, according to the Christian Seasons. With 
Titles and Characters of Christ, and a Harmony of the Four Gospels. Fourteenth 


Edition. 


Moutrtrie, M.A. 


32mo., roan, 2s. 6d.; morocco, 4s. 6d. 


— LARGE-TYPE EDITION, sq. cr. 8vo., cloth, ds. 
THE DEVOUT COMMUNICANT, 


Edited by the Rev. G. 
[In the Press. 


A MANUAL OF PASTORAL VISITATION, intended for the use 
of the Clergy in their Visitation of the Sick and Afflicted. By a Parisu Priest. 
Dedicated, by permission, to his Grace the Archbishop of Dublin. Crown 8vo., 


limp cloth, 3s. 6d.; roan, red edges, 4s. 


[ Ready. 


THE PASTOR IN HIS CLOSET; or, A Help to the Devotions 
of the Clergy. By Joun Armstrong, D.D., late Lord Bishop of Grahamstown. 


Third Edition. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 25, 


THOUGHTS DURING SICKNESS. By the Author of “The Doe- 


trine of the Cross,’’ and “" Devotions for the Sick Room.” 


drd Edit. 2s. θα. 


BREVIATES FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE, arranged for use by the 


Bed of Sickness. 


By the Rev. G. Arpen, M.A., Rector of Winterborne-Came; 


Domestic Chaplain to the Right Hon. the Earl of Devon. 2nd Ed. Feap. 8vo., 2s. 


THE CURE OF SOULS. By the Same. 


Feap. 8vo., 2s. 6d. 


OXFORD SERIES OF DEVOTIONAL WORKS. Feap. 8vo. 


The Imitation of Christ. 


FOUR BOOKS. By Thomas a Kem- 
Pts. Cl., 4s. 


Taylor’s Holy Living. 
THE RULE AND EXERCISES 


OF HOLY LIVING. By Bisnor Jerrmy 
Taybtor. Antique cl., 4s. 


Taylor’s Holy Dying. 
THE RULE AND EXERCISES 


OF HOLY DYING. By Bisnorp Jeremy 
Taytor. Antique cl., 4s. 


Taylor’s Golden Grove. 
THE GOLDEN GROVE; a Choice 


Manual, containing what is to be Believed, 
Practised, and Desired, or Prayed for. By 
BisHor JErrMy Taytor. Printed uniform 
with *‘ Holy Living and Holy Dying.” An- 
tique cl, 3s. 6d. 


The 3 Volumes in antique cf. binding, £1 6s. 6d. 


Sutton’s Meditations. 


GODLY MEDITATIONS UPON 
THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE 
LORD’S SUPPER. By CuristopHER Sur- 
ton, D.D., late Prebend of Westminster, 
A new Edition, Antique cloth, ds. 


Laud’s Devotions. 
THE PRIVATE DEVOTIONS of 
Dr. Witiiam Lavup, Archbishop of Canter- 
bury, and Martyr. Antique cl., ds. 


Wilson’s Sacra Privata. 

THE PRIVATE MEDITATIONS, 
DEVOTIONS, and PRAYERS of the Right 
Rev. T. Winson, D.D., Lord Bishop of Sodor 
and Man. Now first printed entire. Cl., 4s. 


Andrewes’ Devotions, 
DEVOTIONS. By the Right Rey. 
Father in God, LAunceLort ANDREWES. 
Translated from the Greek and Latin, and 
arranged anew. Cloth, 5s. 


Spinckes’ Devotions. 

TRUE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 
MAN’S COMPANION IN THE CLOSET; 
or, a complete Manual of Private Devotions, 
collected from the Writings of eminent Di- 
vines of the Church of England. Floriated 
borders, antique c]., 4s. 


Ancient Collects. 
ANCIENT COLLECTS anp OTHER 
PRAYERS. By Wm. Bricut, M.A. See p.3. 


EIKQN BASIAIKH. 

THE PORTRAITURE OF HIS 
SACRED MAJESTY KING CHARLES I. 
in his Solitudes and Sufferings. 

[In the Press, 


POETRY, δε. 9 


ae LLL 


CORNISH BALLADS. 

THE CORNISH BALLADS AND OTHER FOEMS of the Rev. 
R. S. Hawker. Feap. 8vo., cloth, ds. 

THE ENGLISH CAVALIERS, 

LAYS OF THE ENGLISH CAVALIERS. By Joun J. Daytett, 
Perpetual Curate of Langley Fitzurse, Wilts. Small 4to., printed on toned paper, 
with Frontispiece and Vignette, ornamental cloth extra, gilt edges, 6s. 

‘““THE CHRISTIAN YEAR.” 

THE CHRISTIAN YEAR. Thoughts in Verse for the Sundays and 
Holydays throughout the Year. Foolscap Octavo Edition,—Cloth, 7s. 6d.; mo- 
rocco, 10s. 6d.; best morocco, 15s.; antique calf, lis. 32mo. Edition,—Cloth, 
8s. 6d.; morocco, plain, 5s.; best morocco, 3s. 6d. Cheap Edition, — Cloth, 
15. 6d. ; bound, 2s. 


THE ‘‘LYRA INNOCENTIUM.” 

LYRA INNOCENTIUM. Thoughts in Verse on Christian Children. 
Foolscap Octavo Edition,—Cloth, 7s. 6d.; morocco, plain, 10s. 64. ; best mo- 
rocco, 15s.; antique calf, 14s. Cheap Edition,—Cloth, 15. 6d.; bound, 2s. 

“THE CHILD'S CHRISTIAN YEAR.” 

THE CHILD'S CHRISTIAN YEAR. Hymns for every Sunday 

and Holyday throughout the Year. Cheap Edition, 18mo., cloth, 15. 
“THE CATHEDRAL.” 

THE CATHEDRAL. Foolscap 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.; 32mo., with 
Engravings, 4s. 6d. 

WORKS BY THE AUTHOR OF ‘‘'THE CATHEDRAL,” 

THOUGHTS IN PAST YEARS. The Sixth Edition, with several 


new Poems, 32mo., cloth, 4s. 6d. 

THE BAPTISTERY, OR THE WAY OF ETERNAL LIFE. By 
the Author of ‘*The Cathedra].”’ With Thirty-four Plates from Boetius 
A Botswert. A new Edition, revised by the Author. 2vols., Large Feap. 
Svo., cloth, 14s. 


THE BAPTISTERY ; or, The Way of Eternal Life. 52mo., cl., 3s. 6d. 


THE CHRISTIAN SCHOLAR. Foolscap 8vo., 10s. 6d. ; 32mo., 
cloth, 4s. 6d. 
THE SEVEN DAYS; or, The Old and New Creation. Second 
Edition, Foolscap 8vo., 7s. 6d. 
THE LITANY. 
HYMNS ON THE LITANY. By A. C. Feap. 8yo., on toncd 


paper, cloth extra, 3s. 
THE APOSTLES’ CREED. 

LYRA FIDELIUM: Twelve Hymns on the Twelve Articles of the 
Apostles’ Creed, with Prose Analysis and full Scriptural Authorities. By 
S. J. Stone, B.A., Curate of Windsor. Feap. 8vo., on toned paper, cloth, 25. Gd. 

THE SECOND LESSONS. 

MORNING THOUGHTS. By a Crurreyman. Suggested by the 
Second Lessons for the Daily Morning Service throughout the year. 2 vols. 
Foolscap 8vo,, cloth, 5s. each. 


FLORUM SACRA. By the Rev. G. Hunt Smyrran. 16mo., 15. 
COXE’S CHRISTIAN BALLADS. Foolscap 8vo., cloth, 38. Also 


selected Poems in a packet, sewed, Is. 


10 ' MISCELLANEOUS. 


ν- 


PROFESSOR GOLDWIN SMITH. 
THE REORGANIZATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD. 


By Goupwin Situ. Post 8vo., limp cloth, 2s. 


LECTURES ON THE STUDY OF HISTORY, DELIVERED IN 
OXFORD, 1859—61. Second Edition. Crown 8vo., limp cloth, 3s. 6d. 


IRISH HISTORY AND IRISH CHARACTER. By Gorpwin 


Smita. Second Edition. Post 8vo., 5s. 


Cheap Edition, Feap, 8vo., sewed, Is. 6d. 


THE EMPIRE. A SERIES OF LETTERS PUBLISHED IN 
“THE DAILY NEWS,” 1862, 1863. By Gotpwin Smitu. Post 8vo., cloth, 
price 6s. 


PROFESSOR DAUBENY. 


MISCELLANIES: BEING A COLLECTION OF MEMOIRS and 
ESSAYS ON SCIENTIFIC AND LITERARY SUBJECTS, published at 
Various Times, by the late C.iantes Dauseny, M.D., F.R.S., Professor of 


Botany and of Rural Economy in the University of Oxford, &c. 2 vols., 8vo., 
cloth, 21s. 


CLIMATE: An Inquiry into the Causes of its Differences, and into 


its Influence on Vegetable Life. 8vo., cloth, price 4s. 


LECTURES ON ROMAN HUSBANDRY: An Account of the 


System of Agriculture, the Treatment of Domestic Animals, the Horticulture, 
&c., pursued in Ancient Times. S8vo., cloth, 6s. 


ESSAY ON THE TREES AND SHRUBS OF THE ANCIENTS: 


Intended to be supplementary to Lectures on Roman Husbandry, already pub- 
lished. By C. Dauseny, M.D., F.R.S., Professor of Botany and Rural Economy 
in the University of Oxford, &e., ἄς. 8νο. limp cloth, lettered, 5s. 


FUGITIVE POEMS, relating to Subjects connected with Natural 
Hstory and Physical Science, Archeology, Wc. Selected by the late CHARLES 
Davseny, Professor of Botany in the University of Oxford. [Jn the Press. 


PROFESSOR BURROWS, 


THE RELATIONS OF CHURCH AND STATE HISTORICALLY 
CONSIDERED. ‘Two Public Lectures delivered at Oxford, on November 16 
and 17, 1865. By Montacu Burrows, Chichele Professor of Modern History. 
Post 8vo., limp cloth, 3s. 


CHARLES ELTON. 


THE TENURES OF KENT; or, A View of the Kentish Lands 
which are not Gavelkind. Chiefly from Unpublished Records and MSS., with 
many New Cases. By Cuartes Exton, late Fellow of Queen’s College, 
Oxford; and of Linco!n’s Inn, Barrister-at- Law. Royal 8vo., cloth, 1, Gs. 


NORWAY: THE ROAD AND THE FELL. By Cuartes Exron, 
late Fellow of Queen's College, Oxford. Post 8vo., cloth, price 7s. 6d. 


NEW ARCHZOLOGICAL WORKS. ll 


THE PRAYER-BOOK CALENDAR. 

THE CALENDAR OF THE PRAYER-BOOK ILLUSTRATED. 
(Comprising the first portion of the ‘‘ Calendar of the Anglican Church,” with 
additional Illustrations, &c.) With Two Hundred Engravings from M:dieval 
Works of Art. Third Thousand. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 6s. 


THE LATE CHARLES WINSTON. 
AN INQUIRY INTO THE DIFFERENCE OF STYLE OBSERV- 
; ABLE IN ANCIENT GLASS PAINTINGS, especially in England, with 
Hints on Glass Painting, by the late Cuartes Winston. With Corrections and 
Additions by the Author. 2 vols., Medium 8vo., clo:h, £1 11s. 6d. 


REV. JOHN PUCKLE. 
THE CHURCH AND FORTRESS OF DOVER CASTLE. By 
the Rev. JOHN PUCKLE, M.A., Vicar of St. Mary’s, Dover; Rural Dein. 
With Illustrations from the Author’s Drawings. Medium 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d. 


G. G. SCOTT, F.S.A. 

GLEANINGS FROM WESTMINSTER ABBEY. By Grorcr 
Givpert Scott, R.A., F.S.A. With Appendices supplying Further Particu- 
lars, and completing the History of the Abbey Buildings, by Several Writers. 
Second Edition, enlarged, containing many new Illustrations by O. Jewitt and 
others. Medium 8vo., lds. 


REV. SAMUEL LYSONS, F.S.A. 

OUR BRITISH ANCESTORS: WHO AND WHAT WERE 
THEY? An Inquiry serving to elucidate the Traditional History of the Early 
Britons by means of recent Excavations, Etymology, Remnants of Religious 
Worship, Inscriptions, Craniology, and Fragmentary Collateral History. By the 
Rev.Samuet Lysons, M.A., F.S.A., Rector of Rodmarton, and Perpetual Curate 
of St. Luke’s, Gloucester. Post 8vo., cloth, 12s. 


M. VIOLLET-LE-DUC. 
THE MILITARY ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES, 


Translated from the French of M. Viottet-Le-Duc. By M. Macpermorr, 
Esq., Architect. With the 151 original French Engravings. Medium 8vo., 
cloth, £1 1s. 

JOHN HEWITT. 


ANCIENT ARMOUR AND WEAPONS IN EUROPE. By Joun 
Hewirt, Member of the Archeological Institute of Great Britain. Vols. 11. and 
IIJ., comprising the Period from the Fourteenth to the Seventeenth Century, 
completing the work, 12. 12s. Also Vol. I., from the Iron Period of the Northern 
Nations to the end of the Thirteenth Century, 18s, The work complete, 3 vols., 
8vo., 22. 10s. 

REV. PROFESSOR STUBBS. 

THE TRACT “DE INVENTIONE SANCT.4i CRUCIS NOSTRA 
IN MONTE ACUTO ET DE DUCTIONE EJUSDEM APUD WALT- 
HAM,” now first printed from the Manuscript in the British Museum, with In- 
troduction and Notes by Wiitram Stusrs, M.A., Vicar of Navestock, late Fellow 
of Trinity College, Oxford. Royal 8vo, uniform with the Works issued by the 
Master of the Rolls, (only 100 copies printed,) price ds.; Demy 8vo., 3s. 6d. 


HENRY GODWIN, F.5.A. 

THE ARCH AOLOGIST’S HANDBOOK. By Henry Gopwiy, F.S.A. 
This work contains a summary of the materials which are available for the investi- 
gation of the Monuments of this country, arronged chiefly under their several 
successive periods, from the earliest times to the fifteenth century,—together with 
Tables of Dates, Kings, &c., Lists of Coins, Cathedrals, Castles, Monasteries, &c. 
Crown 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d. 


12 : -- vo alia 
JOHN HENRY PARKER, FSA, HON, M.A, OXON. ; 
THE EARLY CHRISTIAN AND MEDIAVAL ANTIQUITIES 
OF ROME. By Jonn Henry Parker, F.S.A., Hon. M.A. Oxon. Medium 
Svo. Illustrated by Woodcuts. [In the Press. 


AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF GOTHIC ARCHI- 
TECTURE. By Jonn Henry Parker, I.S.A., Hon. M.A. Oxon. Third 
Edition, Revised and Enlarged, with 180 Iilustrations, and a Glossarial Index. 
Feap. 8vo., cloth lettered, 5s. ι 


A CONCISE GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN GRECIAN, 
ROMAN, ITALIAN, AND GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE, By Joun 
Henny Parker, F.S.A., Hon. M.A. Oxon. A New Edition, revised. Feap. 
8vo., with 470 Illustrations, in ornamental cloth, 7s. 6d. 


The ‘‘Abridgment of the Glossary of Architecture” met with a rapid sale some years ago, 
since which time it has remained out of print. It is now reprinted with very numerous addi- 
tions and alterations. 


THE ARCHITECTURAL ANTIQUITIES OF THE CITY OF 
WELLS. By Joun Henry Parker, F.S.A., Hon. M.A. Oxon., Honorary 
Member of the Somerset Archeological Society, &c. Illustrated by Plans and 
Views. Medium 8vo., cloth, 5s. 


ILLusTRATIONS oF ARCHITECTURAL ANTIQUITIES, 
We ts: 82 Photographs, Folio size, in portfolio, price 32. 3s.; or separately, 
2s. 6d. each. 
Also 16 Photographs, in 8vo., reduced from the above, in a case, price 1ds.; 
or separately, 15. each. 
Griastonsury ABBEY: 9 Photographs, Folio size, in portfolio, price 11. ; or sepa- 
rately, 2s. 6d. each. 
DorsEtTsuirE;: 23 Photographs, Folio size, in portfolio, price 4/.4s.; or separately, 
2s. 6d. each. 


AN ATTEMPT TO DISCRIMINATE THE STYLES OF AR- 
CHITECTURE IN ENGLAND, FROM THE CONQUEST TO THE 
REFORMATION: WITH A SKETCH OF THE GRECIAN AND 
ROMAN ORDERS. By the late Tuomas Rickman, F.S.A. Sixth Edition, 
with considerable Additions, chiefly Historical, by Joun Henry Parker, F.S.A., 
Hon. M.A. Oxon., and numerous [llustrations by O. Jewitt. 8vo., cloth, 12. 1s. 

SOME ACCOUNT OF DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE IN ENG- 
LAND, from Richard II. to Henry VIII. (or the Perpendicular Style). With 
Numerous Illustrations of Existing Remains from Original Drawings. By the 
Epiror or ‘THe GLossary or ARCHITECTURE.” In 2 vols., 8vo., 12. 10s. 


Also, 

FROM EDWARD T. TO RICHARD II. (the Edwardian Period, or the 
Decorated Style). 8vo., 21s. 

THE MEDLZVAL ARCHITECTURE OF CHESTER. By Joun 
Slenry Parker, F.S.A., Hon. M.A. Oxon. With an Historical Introduction 
by the Rev. Francis Grosvenor. Illustrated by Engravings by J. H. Le 
Keux, O. Jewitt, &c. 8vo., cloth, 5s. 


REV. L. M. HUMBERT, M.A, 

MEMORIALS OF THE HOSPITAL OF SY. CROSS AND ALMS- 
HOUSE OF NOBLE POVERTY. By the Rev. L. M. Humeent, M.A., 
Master of St. Cross, Illustrated with Thirteen Photographs, by W. Savace, 
and numerous Woodcuts. 4to., cloth extra, gilt edges, 15s.; morocco elegant, 80s. 


J. T. BLIGHT, F.S.A. 

THE CROMLECHS OF CORNWALL: with some Account of other 
Prehistoric Sepulchral Monuments, and Articles found in connection wlth them, 
in the same County. By J. Τὶ Buicut, F.S.A. Medium 8yo., with numerous 
Illustrations, [Jn the Press. 


NEW AND STANDARD EDUCATIONAL WORKS, 18 


ERASMI COLLOQUIA SELECTA: Arranged for Translation and 
Re-translation ; adapted for the Use of Boys who have begun the Latin Syntax. 
By Epwarp C. Lowe, D.D., Head Master of 8. John’s Middle School, Hurst- 
pierpoint. Fcap. 8vo., strong binding, 3s, 


PORTA LATINA: A Selection from Latin Authors, for Translation 


and Re-Translation ; arranged in a Progressive Course, as an Introduction to 
the Latin Tongue. By Epwarp C, Lowe, D.D., Head Master of Hurstpierpoint 
School; Editor of Erasmus’ ‘‘ Colloquies,” &c. Feap. 8vo., strongly bound, 3s, 


TRILINEAR CO-ORDINATES. With Examples. Intended chiefly 
for the Use of Junior Students. By C. J.C. Price, M.A., Fellow and Mathe- 
matical Lecturer of Exeter College, Oxford. Post 8vo., cloth, Ss. 

NOTES ON THE GEOMETRY OF THE PLANE TRIANGLE. 
By Joun Grirritus, M.A,, Mathematical Lecturer of Jesus College, Oxford, 
Crown 8vo., cloth, 4s. 

H KAINH AIAGHKH. The Greck Testament with English Notes. 
By the Rev. Epwarp Burton, D.D., sometime Regius Professor of Divinity 
in the University of Oxford. Sixth Edition, with Index. 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d. 


ANNALS OF ENGLAND. An Epitome of English History. From 
Cotemporary Writers, the Rolls of Parliament, and other Public Records. 3 vols. 
Feap. 8vo., with Illustrations, cloth, 15s. Recommended by the Examiners in the 
School of Modern History at Oxford. 

Vol. I. From the Roman Era to the Death of Richard II. Cloth, 5s. 
Vol. II. From the Accession of the Ilouse of Lancaster to CharlesI. Cloth, 5s. 
Vol, III. From the Commonwealth to the Death of Queen Anne. Cloth, 5s. 


Each Volume is sold separately. 


A NEW SCHOOL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. By the Author 
of “The Annals of England.” Crown ὅνο. [In the Press. 


JELF’S GREEK GRAMMAR.—A Grammar of the Greek Language, 
chiefly from the text of Raphael Kiihner, By Wma. Epw. Jer, B.D., late 
Student and Censor of Ch. Ch. Fourth Edition, with Additions and Corrections. 
2 vols. 8vo., 17. 10s. 

This Grammar is in general use at Oxford, Cambridge, Dublin, and Durham; at 

Eton, King’s College, London, and most other public schools. 


MADVIG’S LATIN GRAMMAR. A Latin Grammar for the Use 


of Schools. By Professor Mapvia, with additions bythe Author. Translated by 
the Rev. G. Woops, M.A. Uniform with Jexr’s ‘‘Greek Grammar.” Fifth 
Edition. 8vo., cloth, 12s. 


_ Competent authorities pronounce this work to be the very best Latin Grammar yet published 
inEngland. This new Edition contains an Index to the Authors quoted. 


LAWS OF THE GREEK ACCENTS. By Jonn Grirrirus, M.A, 
16mo, Thirteenth Edition. Price Sixpence, 


THUCYDIDES, with Notes, chiefly Historical and Geographical. By 
the late T. ARNoLD, D.D. With Indices by the Rev. R. P. G. TrppemMAN. Sixth 
Edition. 3 vols., 8vo., cloth lettered, £1 16s. 

THE HISTORY OF THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR, by Tavcy- 


pipes, in Eight Books.—Book I. Done into English by Ricnarp CRAWLEY, of 
University College, Oxford. 8vo., cloth, 5s. 


THE ETHICS OF ARISTOTLE. With Notes by the Rey. W. E, 
JeLF, B.D., Author of ‘A Greek Grammar,” &c. 8vo., cloth, 12s. 
The Text separately, 5s, | The Notes separately, 7s. θά. 


14 OXFORD POCKET CLASSICS. 


A SERIES OF GREEK AND LATIN CLASSICS 
FOR THE USE OF SCHOOLS, 


GREEK POETS. 


Cloth. | Cloth. 

8. d. | Ὁ 
#Eschylus ‘ 3 0 | Sophocles : ἱ Ra yell | 
Aristophanes. 2 vols. 6 0 Homeri Ilias Ξ . ΕΞ ἢ 
Euripides. 3 vols. 6 6; Odyssca 3.0 
———— Tragedix Sex 3 6| 


GREEK PROSE WRITERS, 


Aristotelis Ethica : . 2 ΠΟ Thucydides. 2vols, . <i 
Demosthenes de Corona, et ) 2 0 Xenophontis Memorabilia. 
Eschines in Ctesiphontem § Anabasis  . = Ὁ 
Herodotus. 2 vols. . PlGF | 


— 
CRO 


LATIN POETS. 


Horatius ἢ . 2 0| Lucretius. Ξ eR 
Juvenalis et Persius : . 1 6 | Phedrus ‘ 4 3 eal ἀξ 
Lucanus ‘ ; ‘ . 2 61 Virgilius : ‘ : ἐν Ὁ 
LATIN PROSE WRITERS. 
Cesaris Commentarii, cum Sup- Ciceronis Orationes Selecte, iz 
plementisAuli Hirtiiet aliorum2 6 | the Press. 
— Commentarii de Bello Cornelius Nepos ila 74 
Gallico ; 1 6 Livius. 4 vols. : PG 26 
Cicero De Officiis, de Senectute, Sallustius . Ξ 2 ΕΣ ΟὟ Be 
et de Amicitia Tacitus. 2 vols. 5 0 
Ciceronis Tuse. Disp, Lib. V. 3 0 


TEXTS WITH SHORT NOTES. 
UNIFORM WITH THE SERIES OF “OXFORD POCKET CLASSICS.” 


GREEK WRITERS. TEXTS AND NOTES. 


SOPHOCLES, 
me ἃ. 2 S. ide 
Agsax (Text and ἜΡΡΕΙ - « 1 0 | Antigone (Text and Notes) a ραν 
ELECTRA ee A ἜΣ ὦν | PHILOCTETES ,, Ξ Ξ τον ae 
CEpipus Rex ,, ; = - | O | TRACHINIZE + 5 Β ἢ ΡΜ. 
Qp1pus COLONEUS ,, Ξ Seo Ὁ 
The Notes only, in one vel., cloth, 3s. 

ZESCHYLUS. 
Persz (Text and Notes) . . 1 0| CHoePHor2” (Teat and Notes) . 1 0 
PROMETHEUS VINCTUS sp 2 20) BuMENIDES Ἐξ Ξ J 0 
Serrem Contra THEBAS ,, . 1 0 SUFPLICES 5 ὃ ον ἈΝ 
AGAMEMNON Fee στὴ 


The Notes only, in one vol., cloth, 3s. 6d, 


NEW SERIES OF ENGLISH NOTES. 15 


TT EEE 


EURIPIDES. Cloth. 
San Ge oh hr 
Hecusa (Text and Bex - 1.0] Puantss# (Text and Notes) . 1 0 
MEDEA - 1 0) AtceEstIs 1 0 
ORESTES Ay Ε . 1. 0 The above Notes only, i in one vol. cloth, 8s. 
HIrPo.tytus ,, - 1 Ὁ Baccnz 3 ἢ 
ARISTOPHANES. 
Tue Knicuts (Text and Notes) 1 5 Tue Brros (Texts and Notes) . 1 6 
ACHARNIANS 33 1 Tue FRoGs, in preparation. 
HOMERUS ..... . . Iuras, Lin. 1.—vi. (Text and Notes) 2 0 
DEMOSTHENES, 
Dr Corona (Teat and Noles) . 2 0 j Otyntutac Orations ᾿ 8.1} Ὁ 
PHILIPPIC ORATIONS, in the Press. 

JESCHINES .. .. . . IN CTESIPHONTEM (Teat and Notes) 3 τὸν 0 
LATIN WRITERS. TEXTS AND NOTES. 
VIRGILIUS. 

Bucorica (Text and Notes) . 1 JEneEIpos, Lis, 1.—111. (Texts 
GEORGICA ᾿ ἘΣ, 0 and Notes) : : ΠΕ ἢ 
HORATIUS. 

Carmina, ὅσ, (Text and Notes) 2 EpistoL& eT Ars Poetica (Te.ts 
SATIRE Ἔ ἘΣ Ὁ and Notes) 3 : τς lO 
The Notes only, in one vol., cloth, 2s. 

PHEDRUS . . . Εαβυι (Text and Notes) . ὃ . ah 
LIVIUS.. . . Lis. xx!.—xxiv. (Text and Notes) sewed, 4s.; cloth, 4 6 
SALLUSTIUS. 


Jucurtua (Tert and Notes) .- 1 6]| Carixina (Teats and Notes) Sot ee 
M. T. CICERO. 
Pro MILone (Teat and Notes). 1 0. IN Q. CzciLtium — Divinatio 


In CaTILINAM εὐ . 10] (Text and Notes) δ le nO 

Pro Lece Maniuia, and Pro In VerremM AcTIO Prima ἢ 
ARCHIA 5 1 0 EptstoL# SELEcCTE ~ biG 

De SENECTUTE and De Awrcr- ORATIONES PHILIPPICE , TG 
TIA - = - δὰ hes ἢ 

ΘΑ 2.056 bee. 1.—111. (Teat and Notes) : 4 aid 10 

CORNELIUS NEPOS. Lives (Text and Notes) . é ἃ 6 


Other portions of several of the above-named Authors are in preparation, 


POETARUM SCENICORUM GRZCORUM, Aéschyli, Sophoclis, 


Euripidis, et Aristophanis, Fabule, Superstites, et Perditaram Fragmenta. Ex 

recognitione GUIL. DIND ORI. Editio quinta. One Vol., Royal 8vo., 

cloth, 215. (Just published. 
Uniform with the Oxford Pocket Classics. 


THE LIVES OF THE MOST EMINENT ENGLISH POETS; 
WITH CRITICAL OBSERVATIONS ON THEIR WORKS. By Sa- 
MUEL JOHNSON. 38 vols., 24mo., cloth, 3s. 6d. each. 


CHOICE EXTRACTS FROM MODERN FRENCH AUTHORS, 
for the use of Schools, {In the Press. 


16 BOOKS RELATING TO OXFORD. 


oo 


Price 4s. 


ΠῊΞ OXFORD UNIVERSITY CALENDAR 1868. Corrected to 
the end of Michaelmas Term, 1867. 


12mo., cloth, price 5s.; black roan, 5s. 6d. 


THE OXFORD TEN-YEAR BOOK: A Volume Supplementary to 
the ‘‘ Oxford University Calendar.”” This Volume has an Index which shews at 
once all the academical honours and offices of every person comprised in the 
lists, which date from thie earliest times in the history of the University to the 
present. The first of these decennial volumes is made up to the end of the year 
1860; the second will be issued after the end of 1870. The CaLenpar itself 
will be published annually as before, and will contain all the Class Lists, and all 
the names of Officers, Professors, and others, accruing since the date of the 


preceding Ten-Year Boor. 


HE OXFORD UNIVERSITY EXAMINATION PAPERS during 
the Hilary, Easter, and Trinity Terms, 1864. Including those for the several 
Scholarships as well as those for the Public Examinations. In one volume, 8vo., 


cloth, price 10s. 
For the Academical Year enling 1865, in one vol., 8vo., cloth, price 12s. 
For the Academical Year ending 1866, in one vol., 8vo., cloth, price 12s, 


— For the Academical Year ending 1807, in one vol., 5vo., cloth, price 12s, 


FOR THE ACADEMICAL YEAR ENDING JULY, 1868, 
Copies of each may be had separately, as follows :— 


Michaelmas, 1867. Hilary, 1868, 
No ὃ. d. | No. 8. ἃς 
| - 
78, Responsions ἵ , . 0 6 | 88. Responsions piper ᾿ « 0 6 
80. 1st Public, Lit. Greece. ct Lat. < 10 Trinity, 1868. 
h. 1 84. Responsions . 0 6 
81, 1st Public, Disc. Math. - 1 0 88. ist Public, Lit. Grave. et Lit. 1 0 
77. 2nd Public, Law and Hist. ΘΝ 59: Ist Public, Disc. Math. . Ν 10 
78. 2nd Public, Lit. Hum. mba nied bi) on gud Pubic! pa acietee - 10 
79. 2nd Public, Math. et Phys. γ D/-Giged PUOLe Lit eee re 
82, 2nd Public, Nat, Science + + 9 6 | 90, 2nd Public, Math. et Phys, 1 Q 


These are printed directly from the official copies used by the 
Examiners in the Schools, ξ 


PASS AND CLASS; An Oxford Guide-Book through the Courses of 
Litere Humaniores, Mathematics, Natural Science, and Law and Modern His- 
tory. By Monracu Burrows, Chichele Professor of Modern History. Third 
Edition. Mevised and Enlarged; with Appendices on the Indian Civil Ser- 
vice, the Diplomatic Service, and the Local Examinations, Feap. 8yo., cloth, 


. price ds, 


ad 


A tol 
4 


“ὦ eS ae ae 


" 
= 


ce 
Ἢ 


τοῦ 


, 


P| 

: BT Athanasius 
1350 Select treatises of 5, Athana: 
A83 sius 


1877 


PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE 
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET 


UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY 


" 
i 


Ea 


ἘΞ 


τ 


᾿ ἡ 
ΠΝ λον ει 
SNe 
SNS tt ᾿ 
ἡ