Athanasius 16221

Chapter XXII). Texts Explained; Sixthly, the Context of Pr 8,22 Vz. 22–30.

Pr 8,22-30
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 Pr 8,22, 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.

But since the heretics, reading the next verse, take a perverse view of that also, because it is written, ‘He founded me before the world501 ,’ namely, that this is said of the Godhead of the Word and not of His incarnate Presence502 , it is necessary, explaining this verse also, to shew their error.

73. It is written, ‘The Lord in Wisdom rounded the earth503 ;’ if then by Wisdom the earth is founded, how can He who founds be founded? nay, this too is said after the manner of proverbs504 , and we must in like manner investigate its sense; that we may know that, while by Wisdom the Father frames and founds the earth to be firm and steadfast505 , Wisdom Itself is founded for us, that It may become beginning 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 it were a beginning of His making. For this we must seek before all things, whether He is Son506 , ‘and on this point specially search the Scriptures507 ;’ for this it was, when the Apostles were questioned, that Peter answered, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God508 .’ This also the father509 of the Arian heresy asked as one of his first questions; ‘If Thou be the Son of God510 ;’ 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 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 day511 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 even Angels 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 nature512 . The Arians then ought, even in imitation of their own father the devil, to take some special pains513 on this point; and if He has 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.

74. 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 sake514 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 Jesus Christ; but let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon515 .’ And it must be that the foundation should be such as the things built on it, that they may admit of being well compacted together. Being then the Word, He has not, as Word516 , any such as Himself, who may be compacted with Him; for He is Only-begotten; but having become man, He has the like of Him, those namely the likeness of whose flesh He has put on. Therefore according to His manhood He is rounded, 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 Essence 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. 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 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 founded me.’ Now what is founded is founded for the sake of the stones which are raised upon it; it is not a random 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 is transported, and laid in the depth of the earth, then forthwith if the stone could speak, it would say, ‘He now founded me, who brought me hither from the mountain.’ Therefore the Lord also did not when rounded 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 me;’ as much as to say, ‘Me, being the Word, He hath enveloped in a body of earth.’ For so He is founded for our sakes, taking on Him what is ours517 , that we, as incorporated and compacted and bound together in Him through the likeness of the flesh, may attain unto a perfect man, and abide518 immortal and incorruptible.

75. 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 came to us from the Saviour appeared, as the Apostle says, just now, and has come when He sojourned 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 kindly 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 own Word, and knowing our destinies better than we, and foreseeing that, being made ‘good519 ,’ we should in the event be transgressors of the commandment, and be thrust out of paradise for disobedience,—being loving and kind, prepared beforehand in His own Word, by whom also. He created us520 , the Economy of our salvation; that though by the serpent’s deceit we fell from Him, we might not remain quite 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.’ This Paul the blessed Apostle teaches in his writings; for, as interpreting the words of the Proverbs ‘before the world’ and ‘before the earth was,’ he thus speaks to Timothy521 ; ‘Be partaker of the afflictions of the Gospel according to the power of God, who hath saved us and called us with a holy 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 life522 .’ 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 by Jesus Christ to Himself523 .’

76. How then has He chosen us, before we came into existence, but that, as he says himself, in Him we were represented524 beforehand? and how at all, before men were created, did He predestinate us 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 was founded ‘before the world,’ inasmuch as He had a purpose, for our sakes, to take on Him through the flesh all that inheritance 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 blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world525 .’ 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? 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 capable526 , men as we are, formed of earth, but that ‘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 for His works,’ is laid as a foundation according as the Father’s will527 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 may be able to live after them, having the spiritual life and 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 abide528 and live in Christ; since even before this our life had been founded and prepared in Christ Jesus.

77. 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 architect, proposing to build a house, consults also about repairing 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 we might even be new-created. And the will and the purpose were made ready ‘before the world,’ but have taken effect 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. This then suffices to prove that the Word of God is not a creature, but that the sense of the passage is right529 . But since that passage, when scrutinized, has a right sense in every point of view, it may be well 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 latent530 , such as we shall be able to find 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 saying531 ; but ‘a man of understanding,’ says he, ‘shall understand a proverb and the interpretation, the words of the wise and their dark sayings532 .’

78. Now the Only-begotten and very Wisdom533 of God is Creator and Framer of all things; for ‘in Wisdom hast Thou made them all534 ,’ he says, and ‘the earth is full of Thy creation.’ But that what came into being might not only be, but be good535 , it pleased God that His own Wisdom should condescend536 to the creatures, so as to introduce an impress and semblance of Its Image on all in common and on each, that what was made might be manifestly wise works and worthy of God537 . For as of the Son of God, considered as the Word, our word is an image, so of the same Son considered as Wisdom is the wisdom which is implanted in us an image; in which wisdom we, having the power of knowledge and thought, become recipients of the All-framing Wisdom; and 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 Me538 .’ 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 for 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 works539 , He says this as if of Himself. And as the Lord Himself has said, ‘He that receiveth you, receiveth Me540 ,’because His impress is in us, so, though He be not among the creatures, yet because His image and impress is created in the works, He says, as if in His own person, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His 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, ‘Because 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 understood by the things that are made541 .’ But if so, the Word is not a creature in essence542 ; but the wisdom which is in us and so called, is spoken of in this passage in the Proverbs.

79. But if this too fails to persuade them, let them tell us themselves, whether there is any wisdom in the creatures or not543 ? If not how is it that the Apostle complains, ‘For after that in the Wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God544 ?’ or how is it if there is no wisdom, that a ‘multitude of wise men545 ’ are found in Scripture? for ‘a wise man feareth and departeth from evil546 ;’ and ‘through wisdom is a house builded547 ;’ and the Preacher says, ‘A man’s wisdom maketh his face to shine;’ and he blames those who are headstrong thus, ‘Say not thou, what is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire in wisdom concerning this548 .’ But if, as the Son of Sirach says, ‘He poured her out upon all His works; she is with all flesh according to His gift, and He hath given her to them that love Him549 ,’ and this outpouring is a note, not of the Essence of the Very550 Wisdom and Only-begotten, but of that wisdom which is imaged in the world, how is it incredible that the All-framing and true Wisdom Itself, whose impress is the wisdom and knowledge poured out in the world, should say, as I have already explained, as if of Itself, ‘The Lord created me for His works?’ 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 handywork551 .’ This if men have within them552 , they will acknowledge the true Wisdom of God; and will know that they are made really553 after God’s Image. And, as some son of a king, when the father wished to build a city554 , might cause his own 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 everything, 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, I am imaged in each work, for my name was made in the works;’ but saying this, he does not signify that his own essence 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 created me for the works,’ for my impress is in them; and I have thus condescended for the framing of all things.

80. Moreover, that the Son should be speaking of the impress that is within us as if it were Himself, should not startle any one, considering (for we must not shrink from repetition555 ) 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 Me556 ?’ Therefore (as has been said), as, supposing the impress itself of Wisdom which is in the works had said, ‘The Lord 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 created me for the works,’ let no one, overlooking the wisdom created in the world and in the works, think that ‘He created’ is said of the Substance of the Very557 Wisdom, lest, diluting the wine with water558 , he be judged a defrauder of the truth. For It is Creative and Framer; but Its impress is created in the works, as the copy of the image. And He says, ‘Beginning of ways,’ since such wisdom becomes a sort of beginning. and, as it were, rudiments of the knowledge of God; for a man entering, as it were, upon this way first, and keeping it in the fear of God (as Solomon says559 , ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’), then advancing upwards in his thoughts and perceiving the Framing Wisdom which is in the creation, will perceive in It also Its Father560 , as the Lord Himself has said, ‘He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father,’ and as John writes, ‘He who acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father also561 .’ And He says, ‘Before the world He founded me562 ,’ since in Its impress the works remain settled and eternal. Then, lest any, hearing concerning the wisdom thus created in the works, should think the true Wisdom, God’s Son, to be by nature a creature, He has found it necessary to add, ‘Before the mountains, and before the earth, and before the waters, and before all hills He begets me,’ that in saying, ‘before every creature’ (for He includes all the creation under these heads), He may shew that He is not created together with the works according to Essence. For if He was created ‘for the works,’ yet is before them, it follows that He is in being before He was created. He is not then a creature by nature and essence, 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.

81. But since He proceeds to say, ‘When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him563 ,’ we ought to know that He says not this as if without Wisdom the Father prepared the 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 one564 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, in My Essence indeed I was with the Father, but by a condescension565 to things originate, I was disposing over the works My own impress, so that the whole world as being 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 contemplate the creatures, are able to say for themselves, ‘By Thy appointment all things continue566 ;’ but they who make light of this must be told, ‘Professing themselves to be wise, 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 perceived by the things that are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead, so that they are without 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. Amen567 .’ And they will surely be shamed at hearing, ‘For, after that in the wisdom of God (in the mode we have explained above), the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe568 .’ 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 afterwards, being Itself the Word, has ‘become flesh569 ,’ as John says, and after abolishing death and saving our race, still more revealed Himself and through Him His own Father, saying, ‘Grant unto them that they may know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent570 .’

82. Hence the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of Him; for the knowledge of Father through Son and of Son from Father is one and the same, and the Father delights in Him, and in the same joy the Son rejoices in the Father, saying, ‘I was by Him, daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him571 .’ And this again proves that the Son is not foreign, but proper to the Father’s Essence. 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 what is His own and like. When then was it, when the Father 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 own 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 Proverbs572 , yet this too has a consistent sense. For even thus He had delight, not because joy was added to Him, but again on 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 that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father,’ and ‘I am in the Father and the Father in Me573 .’ Vain then is your vaunt as is on all sides shewn, O Christ’s enemies, and vainly did ye parade574 and circulate everywhere your text, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways,’ perverting its sense, and publishing, not Solomon’s meaning, but your own comment575 . For behold your sense is proved to be but a fantasy; but the passage in the Proverbs, as well as all that is above said, proves that the Son is not a creature in nature and essence, but the proper Offspring of the Father, true Wisdom and Word, by whom ‘all things were made,’ and ‘without Him was made not one thing576 ’

1 kuliomenoi, Orat. 3,16.
2 (
Pr 8,22, Pr 1,53 and infr. 19–72.
3 (He 3,2,
4 Vid). infr. note on 35.
5 Cf. Rm 11,32.
6 twn nun AEIoudaiwn, means literally ‘the Jews of this day,’ as here and Orat. 1,8. 10. 38). Orat. 2,1. b. 3,28. c. But elsewhere this and similar phrases as distinctly mean the Arians, being Used in contrast to the Jews. Their likeness to the Jews is drawn out, Orat. iii. 27). de Decr. i.
7 erwtwnte" emanqanon; and so maqwn edidasken, Orat. iii. 9). de Decr. 7). supr. p. 13, note a.
8 (Jn 1,14,
9 (Ac 2,36,
10 (Pr 8,22,
11 (He 1,4,
12 (Ph 2,7,
13 (He 3,1-2 Sent. D. He 11
14 By laubanonte" parAE autwn to lhmma, ‘accepting the proposition they offers,’ he means that he is engaged in going through certain texts brought against the Catholic view, instead of bringing his own proofs, vid). Orat. 1,37. 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. 2,5. 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, toutw [tw skopw,the general drift of Scripture doctrine] wsper kanoni crhsamenoi prosecwmen th anagnwsei th" qeopneustou grafh", 3,28. fin. This illustrates what he means when he says that certain texts have a ‘good,’ ‘pious,’ ‘orthodox’ sense, i.e. they can be interpreted (in spite, if so be, of appearances) in harmony with the Regula Fidei. vid). infr. §43, note; also notes on 35. and 3,58.
15 §22, note.
16 i.e. in any true sense of the word ‘image;’ or, so that He may be accounted the aparallakto" eikwn of the Father, vid). de Syn 23, note 1. 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 Perfection 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 imaginem is synonymous with a generatio Filii. Cf. Thomassin, de Trin. 19. 1.
17 For karpogono" h ousia, de Decr. 15. n. 9). gennhtiko", Orat. 3,66. 4,4. fin). agono". 1,14. fin). Sent. Dion. 15. 19). h fusikh gonimoth", Damasc. F. O. 1,8 p. 133). akarpo", Cyr. Thes. p. 45. Epiph). Haer. 65 p. 609. b. Vid. the gennhsi" and the ktisi" contrasted together Orat 1,29). de Decr. 11. n. 6, de Syn. 51, n. 4. The doctrine in the text is shortly expressed, infr. Oral. 4,4 fin). ei agono" kai anenerghto".
18 Oral. iii. 59, &c.
19 Orat. iii. 63. c.
20 enousio", infr. 28.
21 §1. note 13).
22 (1R 1,19,
23 ver. 1R 1,26.
24 (Ps 116,16,
25 pollaki" apolwlenai oikaioi, vid). infr. §28.
26 (Pr 20,23
27 Apol. c. Ar. 36.
28 (Is 38,19, LXX.
29 (2R 20,18 Is 39,7,
30 (Gn 4,1, and infr. 44. note on Qanâ.
31 (Gn 48,5, LXX.
32 (Jb 1,2, LXX.
33 Cf. Dt 21,15; vid. Lv 25,21, LXX.
34 Serap. 2,6. b.
35 That is, while the style of Scripture justifies us in thus interpreting the word ‘made,’ doctrinal truth obliges us to do so. He considers the Regula Fidel the principle of interpretation, and accordingly he goes on at once to apply it. vid). supr. §1, note 13).
36 lexeidia, Orat. 3,59. a Sent. D. 4. c.
37 Orat. iii. 62 init). infr. §22, note.
38 (Ps 104,24 Jn 1,3,
39 (Qo 12,14,
40 Combines Greek of Dt 32,4 and Ex 34,6; cf. Ap 3,14.
41 (1Co 10,13,
42 (Ps 145,14,
43 1Tm 5,16.
44 (Tt 3,8, &c.
45 atrepto" kai uh alloioumeno"; vid). supr. de Decr. 14. 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 trepto", He was in fact alloioumeno". 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, tou logon trophn upomemenh-kota, vid). De Syn. 27. 12). This doctrine connected them with the Apollinarian and Eutychian Schools, to the former of which Athan. compares them, contr. Apoll. 1,12. while, as opposing the latter, Theodoret entities his first Dialogue [Atrepto").
46 (Ex 29,5,
47 anergastou gh" is an allusion to Adam’s formation from the ground; and so Irenaeus, Haer. 3,21. fin. and many later fathers.
48 This is one of those distinct and luminous protests by anticipation against Nestorianism, which in consequence may be abused to the purpose of the opposite heresy. Such expressions as teritiqemeno" thn esqhta, ekalupteto, endusameno" swma, were familiar with the Apollinarians, against whom S. Athanasius is, if possible, even more decided. Theodoret objects Haer. 5,11. p. 422. to the word prokalumma, as applied to our Lord’s manhood, as implying that He had no soul; vid. also Naz). Ep. 102. fin. (ed. 1840). In Naz). Ep. 101. p. 90). parapetasma is used to denote an Apolliharlan idea. Such expressions were taken to imply that Christ was not in nature man, only in some sense human; not a substance, but an appearance; yet pseudo-Athan). contr. Sabell. Greg. 4. has parapepetasmenhn and kalumma, ibid. init. S. Cyril. Hieros). katapetasma, Catech. xii. 26. 13,32. after Hebr. 10,20. and Athan). ad Adelph. 5. e. Theodor). parapetasma, Eran. 1,p. 22. and prokalumma, ibid. p. 23. and adv. Gent. vi. p. 877. and otolh, Eran. 1. c. S. Leo has caro Christi velamen). Ep. 59. p. 979. vid. also Serum. 22. p. 70). Serum. 25. p. 84.
49 h logo" esti. cf. 1,43). Orat. 2,74. e. iii. 38 init. 39. b. 41 init. 45 init. 52. b. 4,23. f.
50 The Arians considered that our Lord’s Priesthood preceded His Incarnation, 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). Haer. 69, 37. Eusebius too had distinctly declared, Qui videbatur, erat agnus Dei: qui occultabatur sacerdos Dei). advers. Sabell. 1,p. 2. b. vid. also Demonst. i. 10. p. 38. 4,16. p. 193. 5,3. p. 223). contr. Marc. pp. 8 and 9. 66. 74. 95. Even S. Cyril of Jerusalem makes a similar admission, Catech. x. 14. Nay S. Ambrose calls the Word, plenum justitiae sacerdotalis, de fug. saec. 3. 14. S. Clement Alex. before them speaks once or twice of the logo" arciereu", e.g). Strom. 2,9 fin. and Philo still earlier uses similar language, de Profug. p. 466. (whom S. Ambrose follows), de Somniis p. 597. vid. Thomassin). de Incarn. 10,9. Nestorius 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 he taken to countenance him, de Consens. and Evang. i. 6). ad Thrasim. 3,30. The Catholic doctrine is, that the Divine Word is Priest in and according to His manhood. vid. the parallel use of prwtotoko", infr. 62–64. ‘As He is called Prophet and even Apostle for His humanity,’ says S. Cyril Alex. ‘so also Priest.’ Glaph. 2,p. 58. and so Epiph). loc. cit. Thomassin loc. cit. makes a distinction between a divine Priesthood or Mediatorship, 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. 2,3. §4, 5. For the history of the controversy among Protestants as to the Nature to which His Mediatorship belongs, vid. Petav). Incarn. 12,3. 4). [Herzog-Plitt Art. Stancar.]
51 [One of the few passages in which Ath. glances at the Arian Christology. A long note is omitted here on the subject of Or. 1,8, note 3.]
52 (; He 3,2,
53 Or, answer, vid. infr. 3,27.
54 (1P 4,19,
55 Vid. Jr 9,3. and Jr 15,18 Dt 32,20, LXX.; ib. Dt 32,39 Ml 3,6.
56 (1Th 5,24,
57 (2Tm 2,13,
58 (He 13,8,
59 (He 3,5-6,
60 Here is a protest beforehand against the Monophysite doctrine, but such anticipations of various heresies are too frequent, as we proceed, to require or bear notice.
61 qeo" en sarki, vid). logo" en " 3,54. a). q en swmati, ii. 12. c. 15. a). l. en swm). Sent. D. 8 fin).
62 katAE eudokian Orat. 3,64. init.
63 Brucker de Zenon. §7. n. 14.
64 §1, note 13.
65 aplw".
66 meta parathrhsew". vid. infr. 44. e. 59. b. 71. e). Orat. iii. 52. b.
67 (Ac 2,22).
68 (Jn 5,16 Jn 5,18,
69 (Jn 10,38, to the letter.
70 (Gn 19,24,
71 (Ps 110,1,
72 (Ps 45,6,
73 (Ps 145,13,
74 §62, cf. Serm. Maj). de Fid. 1.
75 (Ps 71,3). stony rock, E. V. Ps 9,9). dejence.
76 (Ga 4,8,
77 (Jc 1,21,
78 (Rm 8,26,
79 (Is 26,13,
80 ouk edoulon ton logon: though, as he said said supr. §10, the Word became a servant, as far as He was man. He says the same thing Ep. Aeg 17. So say Naz). Orat. 32. 18. Nyssen). ad Simpl. (t. 2P 471). Cyril. Alex). adv. Theodor. p. 223. Hilar). de Trin. xi. Ambros. 1). Epp. 46, 3).
81 (Ps 110,1,
82 Vid. Rm 1,25. and so both text and application very frequently, e.g). Ep. Aeg. 4. e. 13. c. Vid. supr. 1. 8, note 8, infr. 3,16. note
83 (Jn 12,34, not to the letter.
84 (Jn 10,36,
85 (Dt 28,66, . [ Incar. Dt 35 text is frequently thus explained by the Fathers].
86 (Ps 110,1,
87 (Ps 16,10,
88 (Is 53,7,
89 (Is 25,8,
90 (1Co 1,21).
91 In the text the Mediatorial Lordship is made an office of God the Word; still, not as God, but as man. Cf. Augustine, Trin. 1,27. 28. In like manner the Priesthood is the office of God in the form of man, supr. 8, note 4. And so again none but the Eternal Son could be prwtotoko", yet He is so called when sent as Creator and as incarnate. infr. 64.
92 Infr. 3,32 fin.
93 oi pleistoi). [An exaggeration, cf. Rm 11,7, &c.]
94 §22, note.
95 (Gn 27,29 Gn 27,37,
96 Alluding to the temptation.
97 (Mt 16,16,
98 qeou dwron. And so more distinctly S. Basil, dwron tou qeou to pneuma). de Sp. S. 57, and more frequently the later Latins, as in the Hymn, ‘Altissimi Donum Dei;’ and the earlier, e.g. Hil). de Trin. 2,59. and August). Trin. xv. 29. 5,15, Petav). Trin. 7,13, §20.
99 Supr. ch. 12,8
100 omoio" kata panta. vid. infr. §22, note 4.
101 Vid. infr. note on Orat. iii. 1.
102 Vid. Jn 16,15.
103 (Pr 8,22). [This text, which had been immemorially applied to the Logo" (supr. p. 168, note 7), and which in the false rendering of the LXX. strongly favoured the Arian side], is presently explained at greater length than any other of the texts he handles, forming the chief subject of the Oration henceforth, alter an introduction which extends down to 44).
104 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 supr. Orat. 1,37, 53). infr. Orat. 3,26. He does not seem to be tracing the controversy historically.
105 Supr. ch. 7,
106 Ch. viii.
107 Ch. ix.
108 Ch. x.
109 Ch. xiii.
110 Ch. 14,and xv.
111 Ch. 14,He 3,2.
112 Vid. Arius’s letter). de Syn. 16. This was the sophism by means of which Valens succeeded with the Fathers of Arminium. vid. S. Jerome in Luciferian. 18. vid. also in Eusebius, supr. Ep. Eus. 6.
113 De Syn. 32.
114 uion crhmatizein. The question between Catholics and Arians was 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." onomata monon, supr. 1,26, note 1, and de Decr. 16, note 10. And so ‘the title of Image is not a token of a similar substance, but His name only,’ supr. 1. 21, and so infr. 38. where toi" onomasi is synonymous with katAE epinoian, as Sent. D. 22. f. a. Vid. also 39). Orat. 3,11. 18. ‘not named Son, but ever Son,’ 4,24. fin). Ep. Aeg. 16. ‘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 noqoi" wsper onomasi, Cyril). de Trin. 2,p. 418. Non haec 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. 4,2. (where in contrast, ‘The Father is Father, and the Son Son,’ vid. supr: p. 319, note 1). 12. 23. 25. the word ‘real’ was used as against them, and in opposition to anupostato" logo" 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, b. 161, c. by Asterius, infr. 37. by Palladius and Secundus in the Council of Aquileia ap. Ambros). Opp. t. 2. p. 791. (ed. Bened). by Maximinus ap. August). contr. Max. 1,6.
115 (Mt 23,19,
116 And so S. Ambrose, Quae enim creatura non sicut alia creatura non est? Homo non ut Angelus, terra non ut coeoelum). de Fid. 1,n. 130, and a similar passage in Nyss). contr. Eun. 3,p. 132, 3.
117 exaireton. vid). infr. Orat. 3,3. init. 4,28. init. Euseb). Eccl. Theol. pp. 47. b. 73. b. 89. b. 124. a. 129.. c. Theodor). H. E. p. 732. Nyss). contr. Eunom. 3,p. 133. a. Epiph. Haer. 76. p. 970. Cyril. Thes. p. 160.
118 Rm 1,20.
119 gennhqenta h poihqenta; as if they were synonymous; in opposition to which the Nicene Creed says, gennhqenta au poihqenta. In like manner Arius in his letter to Eusebius uses the words, prin gennhqh htoi ktisqh, h orisqh, h qemeliwqh, Theodor). H. E. p. 750. And to Alexander, acronw" gennhqei" kai pro aiwnwn ktisqei" kai qemeliwqei": de Syn. 16. And Eusebius to Paulinus, ktiston kai qemeliwton kai gennhon Theod. p. 752. The different words profess to be Scriptural, and to explain each other; ‘created’ being in Pr 8,22. ‘made’ in the passages considered in the last two chapters, ‘appointed’ or ‘declared’ in Rm 1,4. and ‘founded’ or ‘established’ in Pr 8,23. which is discussed infr. 22, &c. vid. also 52.
120 21, note 2.
121 (Ps 19,1,
122 1Ch 4,36.
123 (Jn 14,6,
124 (Pr 8,30, LXX.
125 (Jn 5,17,
126 Orat. 3,11. note.
127 poihtikon aition, also, infr. 27. and Orat. iii. 14. and contr. Gent. 9 init. No creature can create, vid. e.g. about Angels, August). de Civ. Dei 12,24). de Trin. 3,13–18. Damasc. F. O. 2,3. Cyril in Julian, 2,p. 62. ‘Our reason rejects the idea that the Creator should be a creature, for creation is by the Creator.’ Hil). Trin. 12,5). pw" dunatai to ktizomenon ktizein; h pw" o ktizwn ktizetai; Athan). ad Afros. 4 fin. Vid. also Serap. 1,24, 6. iii. 4, e. The Gnostics who attributed creation to Angels are alluded to infr. Orat. 3,12. Epiph). Haer. 52. 53, 163, &c. Theodor). Haer. i. 1 and 3.
128 De Decr. 11.
129 prostattomeno" kai upourgwn. It is not quite clear that Athan. accepts these words in his own person, as has been assumed de Decr. 9. note a, de Syn. 27 (3). Vid). de Decr. 7. and infr. 24. and 31, which, as far as they go, are against the use of the word. Also S. Basil objects to upourgo" contr. Eunom. 2,21. and S. Cyril in Joan. p. 48. though S. Basil speaks of ton prostattonta kurion. 1,46, note 3. and S. Cyril of the Son’s upotagh, Thesaur. p. 255. Vid. ‘ministering, uphretounta, to the Father of all.’ Just). Tryph. p. 72. ‘The Word become minister, uphreth", of the Creator,’ Origen Hom. in Joan. p. 61. also Constit. Ap. viii. 12. but Pseudo-Athan. objects to uphretwn, de Comm. Essent. 30. and Athan. apparently, infr. 28. Again, ‘Whom did tie order, praecepit?’ Iren). Haer. 3,8. n. 3. ‘The Father bids, entelletai (allusion to Ps 33,9, . infr. Ps 31), the Word accomplishes. …He who commands, keleuwn, is the Father, He who obeys, upakouwn, the Son. …The Father willed, hqelhsen, the Son did it.’ Hippol). contr. Noet. 14. on which Fabricius’s note. S. Hilary speaks of the Son as ‘subditus per obedientiae obsequelam.’ de Syn. 51. Vid. below, on §31. In note 8 there the principle is laid down for the use of these expressions). [Supr. p. 87, note 2.]
130 Cf). Ep. Aeg. 14. vid. also supr. p. 155. and Orat. 3,2. 64. Aug. in Joan. Tract. 1,11. Vid. a parallel argument with reference to the Holy Spirit). Serap. 1,25. b.
131 Vid. Jn 14,9-10.
132 thn kata panta omoiothta: vid. parallel instances, de Syn. 26 (5) note 1, which add, omoio" kata panta, Orat. 1,40). kata panta kai en pasi, Ep Aeg. 17, c). tou patro" omoio", Oral. 2,17). Orat. iii. 20, a. ‘not omoio", as the Church preaches, but w" autoi qelousi’ (vid. p. 289, note 4), also de Syn. 53, note 9.
133 As Sonship is implied in ‘Image’ (supr. §2, note 2), so it is implied in ‘Word’ and ‘Wisdom.’ Orat. 4,15). Orat. iii. 29 init). de Decr. 17. And still more pointedly, Orat. 4,24 fin. vid. also supr. 1,28, note 5. And so ‘Image is implied in Sonship: ‘being Son of God He must be like Him,’ supr. 17. And so ‘Image’ is implied in Word;’ en th idia eikoni, hti" edtin o logo" autou, 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. 27, de Decr. 17, 24, notes.
134 Vid. Ex 33,20.
135 (Mt 11,27,
136 (Jn 6,46, not to the letter.
137 Vid). supr. 1. and Exc. B.
138 Greek text dislocated.
139 (Ps 2,7 Mt 3,17,
140 De Decr. 10.
141 Vid). Orat. 3,12.
142 (Ac 10,26
143 (Ap 22,9,
144 [A note, to the effect that ‘worship’ i an ambiguous term, is omitted here).
145 Vid. Jg 13,16.
146 (He 1,6,
147 (Is 45,14,
148 (Jn 13,13 Jn 20,28,
149 diarrhgnuwsin eautou": also ad Adelph. 8. and vid). supr. note on de Decr. 17. vid. also diarrhgnuwntai, de Syn. 54, kai diarragoien, Marcell. ap. Euseb). (Qo Theol. p. 116. also p. 40 trizwsi tou" odontw", de Fug. 26. init). trizetwsan, ad Adelph. 8). Hist. Ar. 68. fin. and literally 72. a). koptousin eautou"). In illud Omnia 5.
150 (Jn 16,15,
151 These sections 24–26 are very similar to de Decr. 7, 8, yet not in wording or order, as is the case with other passages.
152 (Jn 1,3,
153 De Decr. 7.
154 mono" monon, also infr. 30. this phrase is synonymous with ‘not as one of the creatures,’ vid). mono" upo monou, supr. p. 12. also p. 75. note 6. vid). monw" de Syn. 26, fin. note 2, though that term is somewhat otherwise explained by S. Greg. Naz). monw" ouc w" ta swmata, Orat. 25, 16. Eunomius understood by monogenh", not mono" gennhqei" but pata monou. It should be observed, however, that this is a sense in which some of the Greek Fathers understand the term, thus contrasting generation with procession. vid. Petav). Trin. 7,11. §3.
155 §§29, 31.
156 (Rm 9,19
157 Vid). de Decr. §8). supr. p. 2. also Cyril). Thesaur. pp. 150, 241). de Trin. p. 523. Basil contr. Eunom. 2,21. vid. also infr. 29). Orat. 4,11, 12.
158 De Decr. 8).
159 (Is 40,28,
160 (Mt 10,29.
161 diairousin, as supr). de Decr. 7.
162 Vid. ib. 8. vid. also a similar argument in Epiphanius Haer. 76. p. 951. but the arguments of Ath. in these Orations are so generally adopted by the succeeding Fathers, that it is impossible and needless to enumerate the instances of agreement.
163 And so de Decr. 8.
164 1. 62. and Ambros). de Fid. iii. 106).
165 §36, note 4.
166 Vid. Euseb). Demon. 4,5 fin.
167 (.
168 §48.
169 §4, note 2.
170 Cyril). in Joan. p. 47, c.
171 §22, note 1.
172 ouslwdh" sofia. vid). Orat. 4,1.
173 i. 27.
174 (Is 1,11,
175 vid. p. 315, note 6). Serap. ii. 2. fin.
176 (Jn 5,17).
177 (Ps 115,3,
178 (Rm 9,19,
179 §24, note 5.
180 Notes on §58, and de Decr. 1.
181 Vid). Orat. iv. 11.
182 (1Co 11,7 1Co 11,9,
183 Cf). infr. ch. 20.
184 organon, supr. 1,26, n. 5.
185 prwto" hmwn, §63, note
186 emetoi kai nautiai; vautiai sea-sickness; Epictetus, in a somewhat similar sense, ‘There is great danger of pouring forth straightway, what one has not digested.’ Enchirid. 46.
187 §35, note 2.
188 (Col 1,16,
189 De Syn. 42, note 1).
190 w" dia ceiro". vid). supr. p. 155, note 6 And so in Orat. 4,26, a). de Incarn. contr. Arian. 12. a). krataia ceir tou patro". Method). de Creat. ap. Phot. cod. 235. p. 937. Iren). Haer. iv. 20. n. 1. 5,1 fin. and. 5. n. 2. and 6. n. 1. Clement). Protrept. p. 93. (ed. Potter). Tertull). contr. Hermog. 45. Cypr). Testim. ii. 4. Euseb). in Psalm 108,27. Clement). Recogn. 8,43. Clement. Hom. 16,12. Cyril. Alex. frequently, e.g). in Joan. pp. 876, 7). Thesaur. P. 154. Pseudo-Basil). ceir dhmiourgikh, contr. Eunom. 5,p. 297. Jb ap. Phot. 222. p. 582. and August). in Joann. 48, 7. though he prefers another use of the word.
191 (Gn 1,3 Gn 1,9 Gn 1,26,
192 (.
193 Vid). de Decr. 9). contr. Gent. 46. Iren). Haer. 3,8. 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. 4,16. vid). supr. §22, note. Didym). de Sp. S. 36. August). de Trin. 1,26. On this mystery vid. Petav). Trin. vi. 4.
194 boulh. And so boulhsi" presently; and zwsa boulh, supr. 2. and Orat. 3,63. fin. and so Cyril Thes. p. 54, who uses it expressly (as it is always used by implication), in contrast to the kata boulhsin of the Arians, though Athan. uses kata to boulhma, e.g). Orat. 3,31. where vid. note; auto" tou patro" qelhma. Nyss). contr. Eunom. 12,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 fulfilment, assent, &c., as one act. vid. notes on Orat. 3,11 and 15). infr. [Cf. p. 87. note 2.]
195 (Gn 15,8,
196 (Ex 4,13,
197 Ex 3,13.
198 (Za 1,3 Za 1,12,
199 §16, note 7.
200 (Ps 104,24 Ps 33,6 1Co 8,6
201 Vid. Mt 17,5.
202 (Pr 8,25, LXX.
203 tou" mnqeuomenou" giganta", vid). supr. de Decr. fin. Also w" tou" giganta" Orat. 3,42. In Hist. Arian. 74. he calls Constantins a giga" The same idea is implied in the word qeomaco" so frequently applied to Arianism, as in this sentence.
204 (Ps 57,4,
205 (He 1,3 1Co 1,24,
206 (Ps 36,9 Ps 104,24,
207 (Jr 2,1,
208 (Jn 1,1 Lc 1,2,
209 (Ps 107,20,
210 Vid. 5,150, n. 6, also Gent. 40 fin. where what is here, as commonly, applied to the Arians, is, before the rise of Arianism, applied to unbelievers.
211 Vid). de Decr. 12, 16, notes i 26, n. 2, 2,36, n. 1). de Syn. 41, n. 1. In illud Omnia 2 fin. vid. also 6. Aug). Confess. 13,11. And again, Trin. 15,39. And S. Basil contr. Eunom. 2,17.
212 (Sg 13,5,
213 The Second Person in the Holy Trinity is not a quality of attribute or relation, but the One Eternal Substance; not a part of the First Person, but whole or entire God; nor does the generation impair the Father’s Substance, which is, antecedently to it, whole and entire God. Thus there are two Persons, in Each Other ineffably, Each being wholly one and the same Divine Substance, yet not being merely separate aspects of the Same, Each being God as absolutely as if there were no other Divine Person but Himself. Such a statement indeed is not only a contradiction in the terms used, but in our ideas, yet not therefore a contradiction in fact; unless indeed any one will say that human words can express in one formula, or human thought embrace in one idea, the unknown and infinite God. Basil). contr. Eun. 1,10. vid). infr. §38, n. 3.
214 (Jn 14,10,
215 (Jn 10,30,
216 dielein, vid. §25, note 3.
217 Hist. Ar. 55, n. 4.
218 In illud. Omn. 6. init.
219 Cf. p. 69, notes 7 and 8.
220 De Decr. 7, n. 2; De Syn. 3, n. 2; Or. 1,8.
221 (He here makes the test of the truth of explicit doctrinal statements to lie in their not shocking, or their answering to the religious sense of the Christian.
222 Vid). supr. de Decr. 2. n. 6. Tertullian de Carn. Christ. 17. S, Leo, as Athan. makes ‘seed’ in the parable apply peculiarly to faith in distinction to obedience. Serm. 69. 5 init).
223 periergazontai. This can scarcely be, as Newman suggests, an error of the press for periepcontai. The Latin translates ’circumire coeperunt.
224 Orat. 4,1.
225 pepautai, Oral. 4,2.
226 Vid. 1Tm 6,10.
227 o th" alhqeia" logo" elegxei. This and the like are usual forms of speech with Athan. and others. In some instances the words alhqeia, logo", &c., are almost synonymous with the Regula Fidei; vid). parathn alhqeian, infr. 36. and Origen de Princ. Praef. 1. and 2.
228 Orat. 1,21.
229 For this contrast between the Divine Word and the human which is Its shadow, vid. also Orat. 4,1. circ. fin. Iren). Haer. 2,13. n. 8. Origen). in Joan. 1,p. 25. e. Euseb Demonstr 5,5. P. 230. Cyril, Cat. 11,10. Basil, Hom. xvi. 3. Nyssen contr. Eunom. xii p. 350. Orat). Cat. 1,p. 478. Damasc). F. O. 1,6. August). in Psalm 44,5.
230 Vid). Serap. 1,28, a
231 §31, n. 7.
232 De Syn. 24, n. 9; infr. 26. note
233 (Jn 1,1,
234 (He 4,12-13,
235 (Jn 1,3,
236 Eusebius has some forcible remarks on this subject. As, he says, we do not know how God can create out of nothing, so we are utterly ignorant of the Divine Generation. It is written, He who believes, not he who knows, has eternal life. The sun’s radiance itself is but an earthly image, and gives us no true idea of that which is above all images). Eccl. Theol. 1,12. So has S. Greg. Naz). Orat. 29. 8. vid. also Hippol). in Noet. 16. Cyril, Cat. 11,11. and 19. and Origen, according to Mosheim, Ante Const. p 619. And instances in Petav. de Trin. 5,6 §2. and 3.
237 2 Ct. August). Ep. 43. init. vid. also de Bapt. contr. Don. 4,23).
238 Vid. Ps 119,89.
239 Vid). supr. 35). Orat. iv. 1. also presently, ‘He is likeness and image of the sole and true God, being Himself also,’ 49). mono" en monw, Orat. 3,21). olo" olou eikwn). Serap. i. 16, a. ‘The Offspring of the Ingenerate,’ says S. 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. 2,8). teleio" teleion gegennhken, pneuma pneuma. Epiph). Haer. 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.
240 polloi logoi, vid). de Decr. 16, n. 4). infr. 39 init. and oud ek pollwn ei", Sent. D. 25. a. also Ep. Aeg. 14. c. Origen in Joan. tom. 2,3. Euseb). Demonstr. 5,5. p. 229 fin). contr. Marc. p. 4 fin). contr. Sabell. init. August). in Joan. Tract. 1,8. also vid. Philo’s use of logoi for Angels as commented on by Burton, Bampt. Lect. p. 556. The heathens called Mercury by the name of logo". vid. Benedictine note f. in Justin, Ap. 1,21.
241 This was the point in which Arians and [Marcellus] agreed, vid infr. Orat. 4,init. also §§22, 40, and de Decr. 24, n. 9, also Sent D. 25). Ep. Aeg. 14 fin. Epiph). Haer. 72. p. 835. b.
242 That is, they allowed Him to be ‘really Son,’ and argued that He was but ’notionally Word. vid. §19, n. 3.
243 agennhtw", vid. Euseb. Qo Theol. p. 106. d.
244 (1Co 1,24,
245 (Rm 1,20,
246 Or. i. 11, n. 7.
247 logika, vid). Ep. Aeg. 13 fin.
248 Of course this line of thought consistently 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 and in Him. Vid). supr. de Decr. 17, n. 5.
249 katAE epinoian, in idea or notion. This is a phrase of very frequent occurrence, both in Athan. and other writers. We have found it already just above, and de Syn. 15). Or. 1,9, also Orat. 4,2, 3. de Sent. D. 2, Ep. Aeg 12, 13, 14. It denotes 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 katAE epinoian 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.
250 §19).
251 The Anomoean in Max). Dial. i. a. urges against the Catholic that, if the Son exists in the Father, God is compound. Athan. here retorts that Asterius speaks of Wisdom as a really existing thing in the Divine Mind. Vid. next note.
252 On this subject rid). Orat. iv. n. 2. Nothing is more remarkable than the confident tone in which Athan. accuses Arians as here, and [Marcellus] in Orat. 4,2. 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 enunciate the most profound and ineffable mystery. Vid). supr. §33, n. 1. The Father is the One Simple Entire Divine Being, and so is the Son; They do in no sense share divinity between Them; Each is is olo" Qeo". This is not ditheism or tritheism, for they are the same God; nor is it Sabellianism, for They are eternally distinct and substantive 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. 3,27 and 36. Thus, ‘being uncompounded in nature,’ says Athan. ‘He is Father of One Only Son.’ de Decr. 11. In truth the distinction into Persons, as Petavius remarks, ‘avails especially towards the unity and simplicity of God.’ vid). de Deo, ii. 4, 8.
253 (Jr 23,29,
254 (Pr 1,23,
255 (Ps 119,101,
256 Jn 6,63.
257 (Jn 1,14 Jn 1,3,
258 Cf). Orat. 1,19, note 5.
259 katacrwntai, vid). supr. p. 154, note 3.
260 Ib. note 2.
261 (Ps 104,24,
262 Vid. Jn 11,50.
263 Asterius held, 1. that there was an Attribute called Wisdom; 2. that the Son was created by and called after that Attribute; or 1. that Wisdom was ingenerate and eternal, 2. that there were created wisdoms, words, powers many, of which the Son was one.
264 skotodiniwsi, Orat. 3,42. init.
265 (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). supr. §31, note 7.
266 §16, note 7.
267 Supr. p. 162, note 3.
268 Vid. notes on Orat. iii. 1–15. e.g. and 11 and 15.
269 Orat. 3,15. note.
270 Vid). supr. 33, note 1. and notes on 3,3–6. ‘When the Father is mentioned, His Word is with Him, and the Spirit who is in the Son. And if the Son be named, in the Son is the Father, and the Spirit is not external to the Word.’ ad Serap. 1,14. and vid. Hil). Trin. 7,31. Passages like these are distinct from such as the one quoted from Athan). supr. p. 76, note 3, where it is said that in ‘Father’ is implied ‘Son,’ i.e. argumentatively as a correlative. vid). Sent. D. 17). de Decr. 19, n. 6. The latter accordingly Eusebius does not scruple to admit in Sabell. 1,ap. Sirm t. 1,p. 8, a. ‘Pater statim, ut dictus fuit pater, requirit ista vox filium, &c.;’ for here no pericwrhsi" 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 peric. 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).
271 Vid. Jn 14,23, and Jn 17,21 Rm 1,7, &c.
272 (Ba 3,12,
273 (1Co 1,24,
274 (Jn 19,15,
275 De Decr. 31; Or. 1,34.
276 The prima facie sense of this passage is certainly unfavourable to the validity of heretical baptism; rid. Coust). Pont. Rm Ep. p. 227. Voss). de Bapt. Disp. 19 and 20. Forbes Instruct. Theol. 10,2, 3, and 12. Hooker’s (Qo Pol. v. 62. §5–11. On Arian Baptism in particular vid. Jablonski’s Diss. Opusc. t. 4,p. 113). [And, in violent contrast to Athan., Siricius (bishop of Rome) letter to Himerius, a.d. 385. (Coust. 623).]
277 thn p. ugiainousan). Dep. Ar. 5, note 6.
278 rantizomenon, Bingh). Antiqu. 11,11. §5.
279 Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 76 fin. (ed. Ben). and Ep. 71 cir. init. Optatus ad Parmen. 1,12.
280 aqeothto". vid). supr. de Decr. 1, note 1, Or. 1,4, note 1. ‘Atheist’ or rather ‘godless’ was the title given by pagans to those who denied, and by the Fathers to those who protessed, polytheism. Thus Julian says that Christians preferred ‘atheism to godliness.’ vid. Suicer Thes. in voc.
281 Montanists.
282 periferousi, §34. n. 5.
283 Instead of provisions.
284 Cf). Ep. Aeg. 19). Hist. Ar. 66. and so Arians are dogs (with allusion to 2P 2,22)., 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. 3,58 fin. eels, Ep. Aeg. 7 fin. cuttlefish, Orat. iii. 59. gnats, de Decr. 14 init Orat. 3,59. init. beetles, Orat. iii. fin. leeches, Hist. Ar. 65 init). de Fug. 4). [swine, Or. ii. 1.] In many of these instances the allusion is to Scripture. On names given to heretics in general, vid. the Alphabetum bestialitatis hereticae ex Patrum Symbolis, in the Calvinismus bestiarum religio attributed to Raynaudus and printed in the Apopompaeus of his works. Vid. on the principle of such applications infr. Orat. 3,18.
285 Orat. 1,9.
286 Orat. 3,4. note).
287 kalw" anaginwskein. …orqhn econ thn dianoian, i.e. the text admits of an interpretation consistent with the analogy of faith, and so metAE eusebeia" just below. vid. §1. n. 13. Such phrases are frequent in Athan.
288 (Pr 8,22, follows the Sept. rendering of the Hebrew Qanâ. by ektise. The Hebrew sense is appealed to by Eusebius, (Qo Theol. iii. 2, 3. S. Epiphanius, Hoer. 69. 25. and S. Jerome in Isai. 26. 13. Cf. Bas. c). Eun. ii. Is 20, and Greg. Nyss). c. Eun. 1. p. 34.
289 This passage of Athan. has been used by many later fathers.
290 (Jn 16,25,
291 Here, as in so many other places, he is explaining what is obscure or latent in Scripture by means of the Regula Fidei. Cf. Vincentius, Commonit. 2. Vid. especially the first sentence of the following paragraph, ti dei noein k.t.l. vid). supr. note 1.
292 (Pr 9,1,
293 Ut intra intemerata viscera aedificante sibi Sapientia domum, Verbum caro fieret. Leon). Ep. 31, 2. Didym). de Trin. 3,3. p. 337. (ed. 1769). August). Civ. D. xvii 20. Cyril in Joann. p. 384, 5. Max). Dial. 3,p. 1029. (ap. Theodor. ed. Schutz). vid). supr. Or. 1,11, note 8. Hence S. Clement. Alex). o logo" eauton genna). Strom. 5,3.
294 (Jn 1,14,
295 §12, n. 4.
296 The passage is in like manner interpreted of our Lord’s human nature by Epiph). Hoer. 69, 20–25. Basil. Ep. 8,8. Naz). Orat. 30, z. Nyss). contr. Eunom. 1,p. 34. et al. Cyril). Thesaur. p. 154. Hilar). de Trin. 12,36–49. Ambros). de Fid. 1,August). de Fid. et Symb. 6.
297 (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, something short of His substance or nature, was created. However, it question in controversy whether even His Manhood can be called a creature, though many of the Fathers (including Athan. in several places) seem so to call it. 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 is a 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 (cf. Thom. A). Sum. Th. 3,xvi. 8, ‘non dicimus, quod Aethiops 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. Cf). infr. Letter 60. ad Adelph. 3. Epiph. has imitated this passage, Ancor. 51. introducing the illustration of a king and his robe, &c).
298 to legomenon ktizesqai th fusei kai th ousia ktisma. also infr. 60. Without 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?’ Athan.’s use of the phrase ousia tou logou has already been noticed, supr. 1,45, and passages from this Oration are given in another connexion, supr. p. 70, note 15. The term is synonymous with the Divine Nature as existing in the Person of the Word). [Cf. Prolegg. ch. 2,§3 (2) b.] In the passage in the text the ousia of the Word is contrasted to the ousia of creatures; and it is observable that it is implied that our Lord has not taken on Him a created ousia. ’He said not, Athan. remarks, ‘I became a creature, for the creatures have a created essence;’ he adds that ‘He created’ signifies, not essence, but something taking place in Him peri ekeinon, i.e. some adjunct or accident (e.g. notes on de Decr. 22), or as he says supr. §8, envelopment or dress. And infr. §51, he contrasts the ousia and the anqrwpinon of the Word; as in Orat. 1,41). ousia and h anqrwpoth"; and fusi" and sarx, 3,34. init. and logo" and sarx, 38. init. And He speaks of the Son ‘taking on Him the economy,infr. 76, and of the upostasi".tou logou being one with o anqrwpo", 4,25, c. It is observed, §8, note, how this line of teaching might be wrested to the purposes of the Apollinarian 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. 3,there is ho hazard in this admission. His ordinary use of anqrwpo" for the manhood might quite as plausibly be perverted on the other hand into a defence of Nestorianism. Vid. also the Ed. Ben. on S. Hilary, praef. p. 43,who uses natura absolutely for our Lord’s Divinity, as contrasted to the dispensatio, and divides His titles into naturalia and assumpta.
299 (Ps 104,24, ; Rm 8,22,
300 (Ap 8,9 1Tm 4,4,
301 (Sg 9,2,
302 (Mt 19,4
303 (Dt 4,32,
304 (.
305 (Ps 102,18,
306 (Ps 51,12,
307 (Ep 2,15,
308 (Ep 4,22 vid. Cyr). Thes. p. 156.
309 (Jr 31,22, also supr. p. Jr 85, where he notices that this is the version of the Septuagint, Aquila’s being ‘The Lord created new thing in woman.’ Athan. has preserved Aquila’s version in three other places, in Psalm Is 30,12 Is 30, Is 59,5 Is 59, Is 65,18 Is 65,
310 (Pr 9,1).
311 (Jn 1,14,
312 §10. n. 6.
313 (Ga 3,13 2Co 5,21,
314 (Ga 3,13 Is 53,4 1P 2,24
315 Here he says that, though our Lord’s flesh is created or He is created as to the flesh, it is not right to call Him a creature. This is very much what S. Thomas says, as referred to in §45, note 1, in the words of the Schools, that Aethiops, albus secundum dentes, non est albns. But why may not our Lord be so called upon the principle of the communicatio Idiomatum (infr. note on 3,31). 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 S. Thomas adds, though we may not absolutely say Aethiops est albus, we may say ‘crispus est,’ or in like manner, ‘calvus est.’ Since crispus, or calvus, 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 Petav). de Incarn. 7,6 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 manhood, an adopted Son.
316 pompeuete, infr. 82.
317 archn odwn: 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). Hoer. iv. 20. n. 3. Origen). in Joan. tom. 1. 39. Tertull). adv. Prax. 6. and Ambros). de Fid. 3,7.
318 arch teknwn, Gn 49,3.
319 Cf. p. 157, note 7).
320 (Rm 1,20,
321 Vid. Col 1,16.
322 i. 61; 2,27.
323 (He says that, though none could be ‘a beginning’ of creation, who was a creature, yet still that such a title belongs not to His essence. It is 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 the number of the creatures.’ Though He becomes the ‘beginning,’ He is not ‘a beginning as to His essence,’ vid). supr. 1,49, and infr. §60. where he says, ‘He who is before all, cannot be a beginning of all, but is other than all,’ which implies that the beginning of all is not other than all. vid. §8, note 4, on the Priesthood, and §16, n. 7.
324 (Ps 89,6.
325 (Ba 3,35,
326 Vid. Pr 3,19 Pr 9,1.
327 (Mt 11,25,
328 to ktiston, i.e). swma, §47.
329 (Ps 86,16).
330 (Ps 100,3
331 (Jn 1,1 Jn 1,3 Col 1,16,
332 (He says in effect, ‘Before the generation of the works, they were not; but Christ on the contrary’ (not, ‘was before His generation,’ as Bull’s hypothesis, supr. Exc. B. wonld require, but) ‘is from everlasting,’ vid. §57, note.
333 Is 49,5. LXX.
334 §7
335 Vid. the well-known passage in S. Ignatius, ad Eph. 19 [and Lightfoot’s note].
336 Supr. 20.
337 (He 2,7).
338 (Ps 2,6,
339 epelamye, vid. of the Holy Spirit, Serap. 1,20, c.
340 (Jn 8,58,
341 (Pr 8,27 Pr 8,30, LXX.
342 p. 335, note 1.
343 eqo" esti th qeia grafh: and so Orat. 3,18, b. And th" grafh" eqo" ecoush", ibid. 30, d.
344 Vid. Naz). Orat. 30. 2.
345 (Jn 1,1,
346 Naz. ibid.
347 (Jn 1,14,
348 (.
349 Infr. 62.
350 (Jn 14,6 Jn 14,9-10 Jn 10,30 Jn 8,12,
351 (Rm 1,1-2,
352 It is the general teaching of the Fathers that our Lord would not have been incarnate had not man sinned). [But see Prolegg. ch. 4,§3, c.] Cf). de Incarn. 4. vid. Thomassin. at great length de Incarn. 2,5–11. also Petav). de Incarn. 2,17, 7–12. Vasquez). in 3 Thom. Disp. 10,4 and 5.
353 (.
354 Jn 12,46.
355 Jn 18,37.
356 (1Jn 3,8).
357 Two ends of our Lord’s Incarnation are here mentioned; that He might die for us, and that He might renew us, answering nearly to those specified in Rm 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. esp. §§4–20. and in the two books against Apollinaris. Vid). supr. §8. §9. Also infr. Orat. 4,6. And Theodoret, Eran. 3,p. 196, 7. Vigil. Thaps). contr. Eutych. 1,p. 496. (B. P. ed. 1624). and S. Leo speaks of the whole course of redemption, i.e. incarnation, 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 intercommunion of Christ’s and our persons). Serm. 63. 14. He speaks of His fortifying us against our passions and infirmities, both sacramento susceptionis and exemplo). Serm. 65, 2. and of a duplex remedium cujus aliud in sacramento, aliud in exemplo). Serm. 67, 5. also 69, 5. The tone of his teaching is throughout characteristic of the Fathers, and very like that of S. Athanasius.
358 (He 2,14-15,
359 (1Co 15,21,
360 (Rm 8,3-4,
361 (Jn 3,17,
362 Jn 9,39.
363 (Ep 2,14-15,
364 The word auto", ‘Himself,’ is all along used, where a later writer would have said ‘His Person;’ vid). supr. §45, n. 2; 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. 3,31–35). But nothing is more common in theology than comparisons which axe 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.
365 Note on 3,19.
366 (Ep 2,10,
367 (Pr 8,30,
368 (Jn 14,10,
369 eleuqeron to fronhma. vid. also beginning of the paragraph, where sanctification is contrasted to teaching. vid. also note on 79, infr. Contr. Apoll. 1,20. fin. ibid. 2,6. also Orat. 3,33, where vid. note, and 34. vid. for arch, Orat. 1,48, note 7. Also vid). infr. Orat. 3,56, a. 4,33, a. Naz). Epp. ad Cled. 1. and 2. (101, 102. Ed. Ben). Nyssen). ad Theoph. in Apoll. p. 696. Leo, Serm. 26, 2). Serm. 72, 2. vid. Serm. 22, 2. ut corpus regenerati fiat caro Crucifixi). Serm. 63, 6. Haec est nativitas nova dum homo nascitur in Deo; in quo homine Deus natus est, carne antiqui seminis suscepta, sine semine antiquo, ut illam novo semine, id est, spiritualiter, reformaret, exclusis antiquitatis sordibus expiatam. Tertull). de Carn. Christ. 17. vid). supr. 1,51, note 5. and note on 64 infr. 65 and 70. and on 3,34.
370 (Pr 8,25,
371 (Jn 1,1,
372 (Gn 1,1,
373 (Ps 119,73,
374 (Ps 2,7,
375 (Ps 45,1,
376 (Jn 1,1,
377 (Mt 19,4,
378 (Ps 102,25,
379 (Ps 74,2,
380 (Gn 2,3,
381 Supr. 1,29, n. 10.
382 arch, vid). Orat. 4,1.
383 In this passage ‘was from the beginning’ is made equivalent with ‘was not before generation,’ and both are contrasted with ‘without beginning’ or ‘eternal;’ vid. the bearing of this on Bishop Bull’s explanation of the Nicene Anathema, supr. Exc. B, where this passage is quoted).
384 qeologwn, vid. §71, note.
385 The technical sense of eusebeia, asebeia, pietas, impietas, for ‘orthodoxy, heterodoxy,’ has been noticed supr. p. 150, and derived from 1Tm 3,16. The word is contrasted ch. 4,8. with the (perhaps Gnostic) ‘profane and old-wives fables,’ and with ‘bodily exercise.’
386 (Dt 32,6,
387 Dt 32,18.
388 (Gn 1,26,
389 (Dt 32,6,
390 Dt 32,17.
391 (Jn 1,12-13,
392 parathrhsew", §12, note.
393 De Decr. 31 fin.
394 (Ml 2,10,
395 ton en hmin uion. vid. also supr. 10. circ. fin. 56. init. and ton en autoi" oikounta logon. 61. init. Also Orat. 1,50 fin. iii. 23–25. and de Decr. 31 fin). Or. 1,48, note 7, §56, n. 5). infr. notes on 79.
396 (Ga 4,6).
397 (Gn 1,26,
398 §45, note 2.
399 Ch. 20.
400 pp. 367, 374.
401 §48.
402 §6, note 49.
403 (Col 1,18,
404 (Rm 8,29, Bull’s hypothesis about the sense of prwtotoko" th" ktisew" has been commented on supr. p. Rm 347 far as Athan.’s discussion proceeds in this section, it only relates to prwtotoko" of men (i.e. from the dead), and is equivalent to the ‘beginning of ways.’
405 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 lite before Him, therefore He is called ‘first-born of creation,’ not in point of time, but of dignity. vid. Montacut). Not. p. 11. Yet Athan. argues contrariwise). Orat. 4,29.
406 §10. n. 7; Orat. 3,31. note.
407 (Jn 14,6 Jn 10,9,
408 (Ap 1,5).
409 Here again, though speaking of the ‘first-born of creation,’ Athan. simply views 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.’
410 Bp. Bull considers sugkatabasi" as equivalent to a figurative gennhsi", an idea which (vid). supr. p. 346 sq.) seems quite foreign from Athan.’s meaning. 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, Or. 1,28). Sugkatabhnai occurs supr. 51 fin. of the Incarnation. What is meant by it will be found infr. 78–81. viz. that our Lord came ‘to implant in the creatures 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 sugkatabasi", and begins and ends with an introduction of that word. Vid. also c. Gent. 47.
411 Vid. Rm 8,29.
412 This passage has been urged against Bull supr. Exc. B. All the words (says Athan). which are proper to the Son, and describe Him fitly, are expressive of what is ‘internal’ to the Divine Nature, as Begotten, Word, Wisdom, Glory, Hand, &c., but (as he adds presently) the ‘first-born,’ like ‘beginning of ways,’ is relative to creation; and therefore cannot denote our Lord’s essence or Divine subsistence, but something temporal, an office, character, or the like.
413 (Jn 1,14,
414 (1Jn 4,9,
415 (Ps 119,89,
416 (1Co 1,24,
417 (Mt 3,17 Mt 16,16,
418 This passage is imitated by Theodoret). in Coloss. 1,15, but the passages from the Fathers referable to these Orations are too many to enumerate.
419 This passage is imitated by Theodoret). in Coloss. 1,15, but the passages from the Fathers referable to these Orations are too many to enumerate.
420 We now come to a third and wider sense of prwtotoko", as found (not in Rm 8,29, and Col 1,18, but) in Col 1,15, where by ‘creation’ Athan. understands ‘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.’
421 i. 52.
422 apolelumenw"; supr. 1,56, note 6, and §§53, 56, and so apolutw" Theophylact to express the same distinction in loc. Coloss.
423 (Jn 1,18,
424 (Col 1,16,
425 It would be perhaps better to translate ‘first-born to the creature,’ to give Athan.’s idea; th" ktisew" not being a partitive genitive, or prwtotoko" a superlative (though he presently so considers it), but a simple appellative and th" kt. a common genitive of relation, as ‘the king of a country,’ ‘the owner of a house.’ ‘First-born of creation’ is like ‘author, type, life of creation.’ Hence S. 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, ‘because in Him the creation came to be.’ On the distinction of dia and en, referring respectively to the first and second creations, vid). In illud Omn. 2. (Supr. p. 88).
426 To understand this passage, the Greek idiom must be kept in view. Cf. Milton’s imitation ‘the fairest of her daughters Eve.’ Vid. as regards the very word prwto", Jn 1,15; and supr. §30, note 3, also pleisthn h emprosqen 3 Maccab. 7, 21. Accordingly as in the comparative to obviate this exclusion, we put in the word ‘other.’ (ante ’alios immanior omnes), so too in the Greek superlative, ‘Socrates is wisest of “other” heathen.’ Athanasius 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 brethren,’ lest He should he excluded from men, but first-born “among” brethren,’ where ‘among’ is equivalent to ‘other.’
427 (Gn 49,3, LXX. Vid. also contr. Gent. 41 sq. where the text Col 1,15 is quoted).
428 (Rm 8,29
429 (Col 1,15,
430 Col 1,17.
431 (Rm 8,19, Rm 8,21, there are two senses in which our Lord is ‘first-born to the creation;’ viz. in its first origin, and in its restoration after man’s fall; as he says more clearly in the next section.
432 De Decr. 19, n. 3.
433 i. 48, n. 7.
434 §20.
435 (He does not here say with Asterius that God could not create man immediately, for the Word is God, but that He did not create him without at the same time infusing a grace or presence from Himself into his created nature to enable it to endure His external plastic hand; in other words, that he was created in Him, not as something external to Him (in spite of the dia supr. 63, n. 1. vid). supr. de Decr. 19. 3. and Gent. 47. where the sugkatabasi" is spoken of.
436 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. Leo Serm. 63. 3.
437 (He 1,6,
438 Thus he considers that ‘first-born’ is mainly a title, connected with the Incarnation. and also connected with our Lord’s office at the creation (vid. parallel of Priesthood, §8, n. 4). 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). Orat. i. 51. 3,20). infr. 76. init. He came thn tou arcetupou plasin anasthsasqai eautw contr. Apoll. ii. 5. And so again, h idea oper logon eirhkasi. Clem). Strom. 5,3). idean idewn kai archn lekteon ton prwtotokon pash" ktisew" Origen). contr. Cels. 6,64. 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 calls the Son, ‘ars quaedam omnipotentis atque sapientis Dei, plena omnium rationum viventium incommutabilium.’ de Trin. 6,11. And so Athan). infr. 3,9. fin. Eusebius, in commenting on the very passage which Athan. is discussing (Pr 8,22), presents a remarkable contrast to these passages, as making the Son, not the ???, but the external minister of the Father’s idea). de Qo Theol. pp. 164, 5. vid). supr. §31, n. 7.
439 (1Co 15,20,
440 (Col 1,18,
441 (Ps 119,1 Mt 5,8).
442 (Gn 3,19,
443 §31, n. 8.
444 Vid). Or. 1,§48, 7, 1,51, 5, supr. 56, 5. Irenaeus, Hoer. 3,19, n. 1. Cyril. in Joan. lib. ix. cir. fin. This is the doctrine of S. Athanasius and S. Cyril, one may say, passim.
445 (He 10,20,
446 (2Co 5,17,
447 §45, n. 2.
448 Athanasius here says that our Lord’s body was subject to death; and so Incarn. 20, e. also 8, b. 18. init). Orat. 3,56. And so ton anqrwpon saqrwqenta). Orat. 4,33. And so S. Leo in his Tome lays down that in the Incarnation, suscepta est ab aeternitate mortalitas). Ep. 28. 3. And S. Austin, Utique vulnerabile atque mortale corpus habuit [Christus] contr. Faust. 14,2. A Eutychian sect denied this doctrine (the Aphthartodocetae), 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. 1,pp. 563 4, 8). vid. supr. 1,43 and 44, notes; also infr. 76, note. And further, note on 3,57.
449 (Ps 102,18,
450 Ps 22,31.
451 (Gn 2,17,
452 (Jn 14,3 Ep 2,10,
453 (Ps 138,8.
454 Cf). Orat. 4,11.
455 anqAE hmwn thn ofeilhn apodidou", and so the Lord’s death lutron pantwn). Incarn. V.D. 25). lutron kaqarsion. Naz). Orat. 30, 20. fin. also supr. 9, 13, 14, 47, 55, 67). In Illud. Omn. 2 fin.
456 (Jn 17,4,
457 Jn 5,36).
458 (Ep 5,27,
459 Vid). de Decr. 10, 2. 4; Or. i. 49, §16, n. 7. Iren). Hoer. 3,20.
460 Cf). infr. Orat. 4,6. vid. also 3,33 init. August. Trin. 13,18. Id). in Psalm 129, n. 12. Leon). Serm. 28, n. 3. Basil). in Psalm 48, n. 4. Cyril). de rect. fid. p. 132. vid. also Procl). Orat. 1,p. 63. (ed. 1630). Vigil). contr. Eutych. 5,p. 529, e. Greg). Moral xxiv. init. Jb ap. Phot. 222. p. 583.
461 (Mi 7,18,
462 (Gn 3,19,
463 Vid. Jn 8,36.
464 Vid. also Incarn. 44. In this statement Athan. is supportedby Naz). Orat. 19, 13. Theodor). adv. Gent. 6,p. 876, 7. August). de Trin. 13,13. It is denied in a later age by S. Anselm, but S. Thomas and the schoolmen side with the Fathers. vid. Petav). Incarn. 2,13. However, it will be observed from what follows that Athan. thought the Incarnation still absolutely essential for the renewal of human nature in holiness. Cf). de Incarn. 7. That is, we might have been pardoned, we could not have been new-made, without the Incarnation; and so supr. 67.
465 (Ga 4,4,
466 (Jn 18,5,
467 ‘Was it not in His power, bad 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 Gn Hom. 24, 7. He proceeds to apply this principle to the pardon of sin. On the subject of God’s power as contrasted with His acts, Petevius brings together the statements of the Fathers, de Deo, 5,6.
468 Vid. Mt 20,28.
469 Athan. here seems to say that Adam in a state of innocence had but an external 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 Joan. v. 2. August). de Corr. et Grat. 31. vid also infr. §76, note
470 ei" apeiron, de Decr. 8.
471 De Decr. 10.
472 (2Co 5,14,
473 diameinwsin, §63, n. 8; §73, Gent. 41, Serm. Maj. de Fid. 5.
474 (Jn 14,30). ecei t. rec). euriskei Ath et al.
475 (1Jn 3,8,
476 (Mt 16,23,
477 (Mc 12,25,
478 (Ga 6,15 Ga 3,28,
479 en eautw qeopoihsn). supr. p. 65, note 5. vid. also ad Adelph. 4. a). Serap. 1,24, e. and §56, note 5. and 3,33). De Decr. 14. Orat. 1,42. vid. also Orat. 3,23. fin. 33. init. 34. fin. 38, b. 39, d. 48. fin. 53. For our becoming qeoi vid). Orat. iii. 25). qeoi kata carin. Cyr). in Joan. p. 74). qeoumeqa). Orat. 3,23, c. 41, a. 45 init). cristoforoi. ibid). qeoumeqa. 3,48 fin. 53. Theodor). H.E. 1,p. 846. init.
480 §45, n. 2.
481 Vid. also Athan). in Luc. (Migne 27,1393 c). This title, which is commonly applied to S. Mary by later writers, is found Epiph). Hoer. 78, 5. Didym). Trin. 1,27. p. 84. Rufin). Fid. 1,43. Lepor). ap Cassian Incarn. 1,5. Leon). Ep. 28, 2. Caesarius has aeipai"). 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. 669–652). Also Pearson On the Creed, Art. 3). [§§9, 10, p. 267 in Bohn’s ed.] He replies to the argument from ‘until’ in Mt 1,25, by referring to Gn 28,15 Dt 34,6 1S 15,35 2S 6,23 Mt 28,20. He might also have referred to Ps 110,1 1Co 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). (Qo Theol. 3,13, 14. Vid. also Cyr). Cat. 15, 29; where the true meaning of ‘until’ (which may be transferred to Mt 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?
482 De Syn. 13, n. 4.
483 i. 48, n. 7.
484 §45, note 2.
485 organon, note on 3,31.
486 §12, note.
487 §22, n. 2.
488 (Is 66,2,
489 (Ps 102,25,
490 Ps 143,5.
491 (Jn 1,3
492 (1Co 8,9,
493 (Col 1,17,
494 §31, n. 4.
495 qeologoumeno". vid). de Decr. 31, n. 5. also Incarn. c. Ar. 3. 19, Serap. i. 28. 29. 31). contr. Sab. Greg. and passim ap. Euseb. contr. Marcell. e.g. p. 42, d. 86, a. 99, d. 122, c. 124, b. &c). kuriologein, In Illud. Omn. 6, contr. Sab. Greg. §4, f.
496 (Ps 33,4,
497 Ps 104,24.
498 (He 4,12-13).
499 §1, n. 6.
500 (Jn 8,35-36,
501 (Pr 8,23,
502 Or. i. 49, n. e.
503 (Pr 3,19,
504 Cf. 44, n. 3.
505 §69. 3.
506 Serap. 2,7, 8.
507 Vid). supr. pp. 74, 172, and notes. vid. also Serap. 1,32 init. 4,fin). contr. Apoll. 1,6, 8, 9, 11, 22; 2,8, 9, 13, 14, 17–19. ‘The doctrine of the Church should be proved, not announced (apodeiktikw" ouk apofantikw"); therefore shew that Scripture thus teaches.’ Theod). Eran. p. 199. Ambros). de Incarn. 14. Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de tuo infers. Tertull). Carn. Christ. 7. vid. also 6. Max). dial. 5,29. Heretics in particular professed to be guided by Scripture. Tertull). Proescr. 8. For Gnostics vid. Tertullian’s grave sarcasm: ‘Utantur haeretici omnes scripturis ejus, cujus utuntur etiam mundo.’ Carn. Christ. 6. For Arians, vid). supr. Or. 1,1, n. 4. 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). peri wn . . para twn). Euseb). (Qo Theol. p. 177, d. And Macedonians, vid. Leont). de Sect. iv. init. And Monophysites, ‘I have not learned this from Scripture; and I have a great fear of saying what it is silent about.’ Theod). Eran. p. 215; also Hilar). ad Const. 2,9. Hieron). c. Lucif. 27. August). Ep. 120, 13.
508 (Mt 16,16,
509 Ep. Aeg. 4). Sent. D. 3. c). infr. 59 init. 67. fin. note infr. on 3,8.
510 (Mt 4,3,
511 §1, n. 6.
512 patrikhn, vid). de Syn. 45, n. 1.
513 periergazesqai, vid. 3,18.
514 §60, n. 2.
515 (1Co 3,10-11 Didym). Trin. 3,3. p. 341.
516 §8, note 3a).
517 Letter 59. 6. Leon). Ep. 28. 3.
518 diameinwmen, 69, n. 3.
519 (Gn 1,31,
520 i. 49, n. 10.
521 Didym). Trin. 3,3. p. 342.
522 (.
523 (.
524 Cf. 64, notes 3, 5.
525 (Mt 25,34).
526 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 immortality should have been given him. vid). Incarn. 4. Cf. Augustine, de pecc. mer. 1,3). ( lit. 6,20. Pope Pius V. condemned the assertion of Baius, Immortalitas primi hominis non erat gratiae beneficium sed naturalis conditio. His decision of course is here referred to only historically.
527 Cf. 31. n. 8.
528 74, n. 5.
529 §44, n. 1.
530 Cf. 73, n. 2. and reff.
531 ainigma, supr. 1,41, n. 9.
532 (Pr 1,5-6,
533 autosofia vid). infr. note on 4,2.
534 (Ps 104,24,
535 supr. de Decr. 19, n. 3.
536 Cf. 64, notes 2 and 5.
537 Didymus argues in favour of interpreting the passage of created wisdom at length, Trin. 3,3. He says that the context makes this interpretation necessary.
538 (1Jn 2,23 Mt 10,40).
539 Athan. here considers wisdom as the image of the Creator in the Universe. He explains it of the Church, de Incarn. contr. Ar. 6. if it be his [but see Prolegg. ch. 3,§1 (36)]; (and so Didym). Trin. 3,3 fin). Cf. Jerome, in Ep 4,23, Ep 4,24. Naz). Orat. 30, 2. Epiphanius says, ‘Scripture has nowhere confirmed this passage (Pr 8,22), nor has any Apostle referred it to Christ.’ (vid. also Basil). contr. Eunom. 2,20)). Hoer. 69. pp. 743–45. He proceeds to shew how it may apply to Him.
540 (Mt 10,40,
541 (Rm 1,19-20,
542 Cf. 45, n. 2.
543 Vid. Epiph). Hoer. 69.
544 (1Co 1,21,
545 Vid. Sg 6,24.
546 (Pr 14,16,
547 Pr 14,24.
548 (Qo 8,1 Qo 7,10,
549 (Si 1,9-10,
550 Cf. 78, n. 1.
551 (Ps 19,1,
552 Cf). contr. Gent. 2, 30, 40, &c. vid. also Basil). de Sp. S. n. 19. Cyril). in Joan. p. 75.
553 De Decr. 31, n. 5.
554 This is drawn out somewhat differently, and very strikingly in contr. Gent. 43. The Word indeed is regarded more as the Governor than the Life of the world, but shortly before he spoke of the Word as the Principle of permanence. 41 fin.
555 to auto gar legein ouk oknhteon: where Petavius, de Trin. ii. 1. §8. ingeniously but without any authority reads ouk oknei qeon. It is quite a peculiarity of Athan. to repeat anti to apologize for doing so. The very same words occur supr. 22, c). Orat. 3,54, a). Serap. i. 19, b. 27, e. Vid. also 2, c. 41, d. 67, a. 69, b. 3,39 init. vid. especially supr. p. 47, note 6.
556 (Ac 9,4).
557 Cf. above, 79, n. 8.
558 (Is 1,22). Infr. 3,35). Ep. Aeg. §17. Ambros). de Fid. 3,65. p. 157. note 4.
559 (Pr 1,7, LXX.
560 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. Cf). c. Gent. 34, and Incarn. 11, 41, 42, &c. Vid. also Basil). contr. Eunom. 2,16.
561 (Jn 14,9 1Jn 2,23 so Cyril in Joan. p. 864 Wetstein in loc.
562 Vid. .
563 Pr 8,27.
564 (Jn 1,3,
565 Here again the sugkatabasi" has no reference whatever to a figurative gennhsi", as Bishop Bull contends, but to His impressing the image of Wisdom on the works, or what He above calls the Son’s image, on which account He is prwtotoko".
566 Vid. Ps 119,91.
567 (.
568 (1Co 1,21,
569 (Jn 1,14,
570 Vid. Jn 17,3.
571 (Pr 8,30).
572 (Pr 8,31,
573 (Jn 14,9-10,
574 enepompeusate. ‘The ancients said pompeuein “to use bad language,” and the coarse language of the procession, pompeia. This arose from the custom of persons in the Bacchanalian cars using bad language towards by-standers, and their retorting it.’ Erasm). Adag. p. 1158. He quotes Menander,
epi twn amaxwn eisi pompeiai tine"
sfodra loidopoi.
575 dianoian, epinoian, supr. Or. 1,52, n. 7.
576 (Jn 1,3,

Athanasius 16221