On the Meaning of the Formula Prin Gennhqh`nai Oujk Hn, in the Nicene Anathema.
It was observed on p. 75, note 4(b), that there were two clauses in the Nicene Anathema which required explanation. One of them, ex etevau" upostasew" h ousia", has been discussed in the Excursus, pp. 77–82; the other, prin gennhqhnai ouk hn, 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 savouring of Arianism. The foregoing pages have made it abundantly 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’ implied a ‘beginning,’ or that our Lord was not Very God; the Catholics 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 considering Him, first as the logo" endiavqeto", or Reason, in the Father, or (as may be speciously represented) a mere attribute; next, as the logo" proforiko", or Word, terms which are explained, note on de Syn. 26 (5). This doctrine, when 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 creation, 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.
Thus S. Hippolytus says,—
Twn de ginomenwn archgon kai sumboulon kai ergathn egenna logon, on logon ecawn en eautw/ aorone te onta tw/ ktizomvenw`, kosmw, oraton poiei proteran fwnhn fqeggomeno", kai fw`" ek fwto" gennwn, prohken th ktivsei kuvrion). contr. Noet. 10.
And S, Theophilus:—
Ekwn oun o qeo" ton eautou logon endiaqeton en toi" idioi" splagcnoi", egevnnhsen auton meta th" eautou sofia" exereuxameno" pro twn olwn.… opovte de hqelhsen o qeo" poihsai osa ebouleusato, touton ton logon egennhse proforikon, prwtotokon pash" ktisew"). ad Autol. ii.10–22.
Bishop Bull, Defens. F. N. 3,5–8, meets this representation by maintaining that the gennhsi" 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 (Ac 13,33), nay, the Nativity; and that of these His going forth to create the worlds was one. And he maintains (Ac 3,9) 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 accordingly becomes indirectly a Catholic truth.
I am not aware whether any writer has preceded or followed this great authority in this view389 . The more obvious mode of understanding 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 contradiction 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 prin gennhqhnai ouk hn is intended for a denial of the contrary proposition, ‘He was before His generation,’ as Bishop Bull says; or whether it is what Aristotle calls an enthymematic sentence, assuming the falsity, as confessed on all hands, of that contrary proposition, 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 reasons 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) therefore once the Son was not, hn ote ouk hn; (3) therefore He has His subsistence from nothing, ex ouk ontwn ecei thn upostasin.’ H. E. 1,5. The first of these propositions exactly answers to the ouk hn prin gennhqhnai taken enthymematically; and it may be added that when so taken, the three propositions will just answer to the three first formulae anathematized at Nicae, two of of which are indisputably the same as two of them; viz). oti hn pote<pg 345Ÿdte ouk hn oti prin gennhqhnai ouk hn oti ex ouk ontwn egenevto. 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, onta proteron, gennhqenta ei" uion, which is explained). de Syn. 16. note 12.
2. Next, it should be observed that the other formulae 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 o wn ton mh onta ek tou onto" h ton onta; and en to agenhton h duo; and in like manner as regards the question of the trepton; ‘Has 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. That is, they wished the word trepto" 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, S. Athanasius observes that the formula of the agenhton was the later substitute for the original formulae 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 Unoriginate, that, by saying among the simple that the Son was originate, 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 the argument from the agenhton was a substitute for the ouk hn prin gennhqhnai, yet surely it is not unfair so to understand him. But it is plain that the agenhton was brought forward 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 therefore will be the sense of the ouk hn prin gennhqhnai. Nay, when the Arians asked, ‘Is the agenhton one or two,’ they actually did assume that it was granted by their opponents that the Father only wasagenhto"; which it was not, if the latter held, nay, if they had sanctioned at Nicaea, as Bull says, that our Lord hn prin gennhqh; and moreover which they knew and confessed was not granted, if their own formula ouk hn prin gennhqhnai was directed against this statement.
4. Again, it is plain that the ouk hn prin gennhqhnai is used by S. Athanasius as the same objection with o wn ton mh onta ek tou onto", &c. 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 nothing. &c., §25. Now the o wn ton mh onta, &c., is evidently an argument, and that, grounded on the absurdity of saying o wn ton onta. S. Alexander’s Encyclical Letter (vid. Socr. 1,6), compared with Arius’s original positions and the Nicene Anathemas as referred to above, is a strong confirmation. In these three documents the formulae 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, ouk hn prin gennhqhnai, but in S. Alexander’s circular, o wn qeo" ton mh onta ek tou mh onto" pepoihken. The absence of the ouk hn prin, &c., in S. Alexander is certainly remarkable. Moreover the two formulae 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. 2,§57 he says, ‘The creatures began to come to be (ginesqai); but the Word of God, not having beginning (archn) of being, surely did not begin to be, nor begin to come to be, but was always. And the works have a beginning (archn) 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 originate is measured by their becoming (en tw ginesqai), 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 origination (prin genesqai); but the Word hath His being in no other origin than the Father (vid. supr. §11, note 1), ‘whom they themselves allow to be unoriginate, so 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 generation,’ he substitutes ‘making,’ a word which Bull would not say that either the Nicene Council or S. Hippolytus would use; clearly shewing that the Arians were not quoting and denying a Catholic statement in the ouk hn prin, &c., but laying down one of their own. ‘Who is 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 ‘before He was made,’ prin poihqh.”’ Orat.i. §10. 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, ‘or creation, or destination (orisqh), Rm 1,4), or founding (vid. Pr 8,23), He was not; for He was not ingenerate.’ Theod., Hist. 1,4. Eusebius of Nicomedia also, in a passage which has already come before us, says distinctly, ‘“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.’ De Syn. §17.
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. "How is He not in the number of the creatures, 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.’ Orat. 2,§22. 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. §20, he does not thereby imply that the Son was before His generation, but he means, ‘if it be true that, &c.,’ ‘if the formula holds,’ ‘if it can be said of the Son, “He was not, &c.”’ Accordingly, 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 generation?”’ (§25), 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 is not before His generation, 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 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 speaking, 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 S. Gregory in the passage in which he speaks of ‘did He that is make Him that is not, &c.,’ 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 beginning,’ and that in contrast to the instance 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, mentioning 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, pro th" gennhsew".’ 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 or practicable. He states and argues on the formula expressly as an objection; Adjiciant haec arguta satis atque auditu placentia; Si, inquit, natus est, coepit; et cum coepit, non fuit; et cum non fuit, non patitur ut fuerit. Atque idcirco piae intelligentiae, sermonem esse contendant, Non fuit ante quam nasceretur, quia ut esset, qui non 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 vero ubi auctor aeternus est, ibi et nativitatis aeternitas est,’ n. 21. And he substitutes ‘being always born’ for ‘being before birth;’ ‘Numquid ante tempora aeterna 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 aeterna 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 Eunomius, ‘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; and says, since He has been generated, He was not before His generation, pro th" gennhsew",’ contr. Eunom. 2,14. And he solves the objection as the other Fathers, by saying that our Lord is from everlasting, speaking of S. John, in the first words of his Gospel, as th aidiothti tou patro" tou monogenou" sunaptwn thn gennhsin. §15.
These then being the explanations which the contemporary and next following Fathers give of the Arian formula which was anathematized at Nicaea, 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 also implied in that anathema; 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, arch odwn ei" ta erga 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,’ prwtotoko" pash" ktisew": and he says that He who was monogenh" from eternity, became by a sugkatabasi" at the creation of the world prwtotoko". This doctrine Bp. Bull considers declaratory of a going forth, proeleusi", 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 sugkatabasi" merely, but that according to Athanasius there was a gennhsi" or proceeding from the Father, and that the word prwtotoko" marks it. Bull’s words are, that ‘Catholici quidam Doctores, qui post exortam controversiam Arianam vixerunt, …illam tou logou.... ex Patre progressionem (quod et sugkatabasin, hoc est, condescensionem eorum nonnulli appellarunt), ad condendum haec universa agnovere; atque ejus etiam progressionis respectu ipsum ton logon a Deo Patre quasi natum fuisse et omnis creaturae primogenitum in Scripturis dici confessi sunt.’ D. F. N. 3,9. §1. Now I consider that S. Athanasius does not, as this sentence says, understand by primogenitus that our Lord was ‘progressionis respectu a 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 all things, and that in Him.
That Athanasius does not call the sugkatabasi" of the Word a birth, as denoted by the term prwtotoko", is plain from his own avowal in the passage to which Bull refers. ‘Nowhere in the Scriptures,’ he says, ‘is He called prwtotoko" tou Qeou, first-born of God, nor creatureof God, but Only-begotten, Word, Wisdom, have their relation to the Father, and are proper to Him.’ 2,62. Here surely he expressly denies Bull’s statement that ‘first-born’ means ‘a Deo natus,’ ‘born of God.’ Such additions as para tou patro", he says, are reserved for monogenh" and logo".
(He goes on to say what the term prwtotoko" does mean; viz. instead of having any reference to a proeleusi" from the Father, it refers solely to the creatures; our Lord is not called prwtotoko", because His proeleusi" ‘type of His eternal generation,’ but because by that proeleusi" 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 lennhsi" whatever at the era of creation, though figurative; prwtotoko" does but mean monolenh" prwteuwn en th ktisei, or arch th" ktisew", or mono" lennhto" en toi" lenhtoi"; 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; and does but wish in addition to find in Athanasius the doctrine of a gennhsi". Athenagoras says that the Son is ‘the first offspring, prwton gennhma, of the Father, not as come to be, genomenon (for God being Eternal Mind had from the beginning in Himself the Word, as having Reason eternally, logikoswn), but that while as regards matter heavy and light were mixed together’ (the passage is corrupt here), ‘He went forth, proelqwn, 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 prwtotoko". ‘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 S. 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 immortal 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 prwtotoko" 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 of a gennhsi" at all in his account of creation, but simply calls the Son prwton gennhma, i.e). prwtotupon gennhma.
Nor does Tatian approach nearer to the doctrine of a gennhsi". He says that at the creation the Word ergon prwtotoko" tou patro" ginetai. touton ismen tou kosmou thn archn). ad Graec. 5. Here the word ergon, which at first sight promises a difficulty, does in fact explain both himself and Athenagoras. He says that at creation the Word became, ginetai, not a Son (figuratively), as Bull would grant to the parties whom he is opposing, but a work.It was His great condescension, sulkarabasi", 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 arch 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, arch, of ways, unto the works, ei" ta erga.’
As to Novatian, 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).
1 epinohsasai. This is almost a technical 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 other writers. Thus Socrates, speaking of the decree of the Council of Alexandria, 362, against Apollinaris; ‘for not originating, epinohsante", any novel devotion, did they introduce it into the Church, but what from the beginning the Ecclesiastical Tradition declared.’ Hist. 3,7. The sense of the word epinoia 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). [But see Bigg). B. L. p. 168, sq.]
2 to gar exelqein …dhlon an eih, i.e). tw and so infr. §43). to de kai proskuneisqai …dhlon an eih.
3 de Syn. 5.
4 Vid. infr. §4 fin. That heresies before the Arian appealed to Scripture we learn from Tertullian, de Praescr. 42, who warns Catholics against indulging themselves in their own view of isolated texts against the voice of the Catholic Church. vid. also Vincentius, who specifies obiter Sabellius and Novation). Commonit. 2. Still Arianism was contrasted with other heresies on this point, as in these two respects; (1). they appealed to a secret tradition, unknown even to most of the Apostles, as the Gnostics, Iren). Haer. 3,1 or they professed a gift of prophecy introducing fresh revelations, as Montanists, de Syn. 4, and Manichees, Aug). contr. Faust. 32,6. (2). The Arians availed themselves of certain texts as objections, argued keenly and plausibly from them, and would not be driven from them). Orat. 2,§18. c. Epiph). Haer. 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 irreligiousness as if a rule, they misinterpret all the divine oracles by it.’ Orat. 1,§52. vid. also Epiph). Haer. 76. 5 fin. Hence we hear so much of their qrullhtai fwnai, lexei", eph, rhta, sayings in general circulation, which were commonly founded on some particular text. e.g. infr., §22, ‘amply providing themselves with words of craft, they used to go about,’ &c. Also anw kai katw periferonte", de Decr. §13). tw rhtw teqrullhkasi ta pantacou). Orat. 2. §18). to poluqrullhton sofisma, Basil). contr. Eunom. ii. 14). thn poluqrullhton dialektikhn, Nyssen). contr. Eun 3,p. 125). thn qrulloumenhn aporrohn, Cyril). Dial. 4,p. 505). thn poluqrullhton fwnhn, Socr. 2,43.
5 (Jb 41,13 (Jb 41,4. LXX).
6 These Orations and Discourses seem written to shew the vital importance of the point in controversy, and the unchristian character of the heresy, without reference to the word omoousion. He has [elsewhere] insisted 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 be called the liberal or indifferent feeling as swaying the person for whom he writes, also infr. §7 fin. §9. §10 init. §15 fin. §17. §21. §23. He mentions in Apollin. 1,6. one Rhetorius, who was an Egyptian, whose opinion, he says, it was ‘fearful to mention.’ S. Augustine tells us that this man taught that ‘all heresies were in the right path, and spoke truth,’ ‘which,’ he adds, ‘is so absurd as to seem to me incredible.’ Her 72. vid. also Philastr). Haer. 91.
7 de Decr. §§2, 24, 27).
8 de Syn. §1.
9 Vid. Hil). de Trin. 8,28; Rm 1,25.
10 (He seems to allude to Catholics being called Athanasians; vid. however next §. Two distinctions are drawn between such a title as applied to Carbolics, and again to heretics, when they are taken by Catholics as a note against them. S. Augustine says, ‘Arians call Catholics Athanasians or Homoüsians, 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 call us Homoüsians, as Donatists Macarians, as Manichees Pharisees, and as the other heretics use various titles.’ Op. imp. 1,75. It may be added that the heretical name adheres, the Catholic dies away. S. Chrysostom draws a second distinction, ‘Are we divided from the Church? have we heresiarchs? are we called from many is there any leader to us, as to one there is Marcion, to another Manichaeus, 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 superiors and governors of the Church. We have not “teachers upon earth,”’ &c. in Act). Ap. Hom. 33 fin.
11 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. Hegesippus speaks of ‘Menandrians, and Marcionites, and Carpocratians, and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians,’ who ‘each in his own way and that a different one brought in his own doctrine.’ Euseb). Hist. 4,22. ‘There are, and there have been, my friends, many who have taught atheistic and blasphemous words and deeds, coming in the name of Jesus; and they are called by us from the appellation of the men, whence each doctrine and opinion began. …Some are called Marcians, others Valentinians, others Basilidians, others Saturnilians,’ &c. Justin). Tryph. 35. Iren). Haer. 1,23. ‘When men are called Phrygians, or Novatians, or Valentinians, 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 human and foreign titles.’ Lact). Inst. 4,30. ‘A. How are you a Christian, to whom it is not even granted to bear the name of Christian? for you are not called Christian but Marcionite. M. And you are called of the Catholic Church; therefore 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). Dial. §1, p. 809. Epiph). Haer. 42. p. 366. ibid. 70. 15. vid. also Haer. 75. 6 fin. Cyril Cat. 18,26. ‘Christian is my name, Catholic my surname.’ Pacian). Ep. 1. ‘If you ever hear those who are called Christians, named, not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some one else, say Marcionites, Valentinians, Mountaineers, Campestrians, know that it is not Christ’s Church, but the synagogue of Antichrist.’ Jerom). adv. Lucif. fin.
12 Vid). de Syn. 12). [Prolegg. ch. 2,§2.]
13 de Syn. 13, note 4. Manes also was called mad; ‘Thou must hate all heretics, but especially him who even in name is a maniac.’ Cyril). Catech. vi. 20, vid. also ibid. 24 fin.—a play upon the name, vid). de Syn. 26, ‘Scotinus.’
14 Vid. Si 4,24.
15 It is very difficult to gain a clear idea of the character of Arius). [Prolegg. ch. 2,§2.] Epiphanius’s account of Arius is as follows:—‘From elation of mind the old man swerved from the mark. He was in stature very tall, downcast in visage, with manners like wily serpent, captivating to every guileless heart by that same crafty bearing. For ever habited in cloke and vest, he was pleasant of address, ever persuading 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.?’ Haer. 69. 3, cf. ib. §9 for a strange description of Arius attributed to Constantine, also printed in the collections of councils: Hard. i. 457.
16 (Jn 10,30,
17 §1, note 4.
18 And so godless or atheist Aetius, de Syn. 6, note 3, cf. note on de Decr. 1, for an explanation of the word. In like manner Athan. says, ad Serap. 3,2, 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 denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.’ ‘Such a one,’ he continues, ‘will in no long time say, as the fool, There is no God.’ In like manner he speaks of those who think the Son to be the Spirit as ‘without (exw) the Holy Trinity, and atheists’ (Serap. 4,6), because they really do not believe in the God that is, and there is none other but He. Cf. also Serap. i. 30. Eustathius speaks of the Arians as anqrwpou" aqeou", who were attempting krathsai tou qeiou. ap. Theod). Hist. 1,7. p. 760. Naz. speaks of the heathen poluqeo" aqeia). Orat. 25. 15. and he calls faith and regeneration ‘a denial of atheism, aqeia", and a confession of godhead, qeothto",’ Orat. 23. 12. He calls Lucius, the Alexandrian Anti-pope, on account of his cruelties, ‘this second Arius, the more copious river of the atheistic spring, th" aqeou phgh".’ Orat. 25. 11. Palladius, the Imperial officer, is aneou aqeo". ibid. 12.
19 de Syn. §15). [where the metre of the Thalia is discussed in a note.]
20 de Syn. §18; Jl 2,25.
21 (Ps 24,10,
22 de Syn. 26, note 7, de Decr. 6, note 8.
23 Vid). de Syn. 15, note 6). katalhyi" was originally a Stoic word, and even when considered perfect, was, properly speaking, attributable only to an imperfect being. For it is used in contrast to the Platonic doctrine of ideai, to express the hold of things obtained by the mind through the senses; it being a Stoical maxim, nihil esse in intellectu quod non fuerit 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 save the spirit of man which is in him,’ if katalhyi" 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 doctrine of the perixwrhsi", de Syn. 15, anepimiktoi, or to maintain that He was a distinct, and therefore a created, being. On the o her 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. v. 12. And thus Athan. speaking of Mc 13,32, ’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. 3,44.
24 de Decr. 25, note 2.
25 de Syn. 15.
26 Ep). Encycl. 6; Epiph). Haer. 73. 1.
27 (Jr 2,12).
28 (Os 7,13,
29 Os 7,15. lxx.
30 de Decr. 27, note 1.
31 Ib. 3, note 1, §1, note 3.
32 And so Vigilius of the heresies about the Incarnation, Etiamsi in erroris eorum destructionem nulli conderentur libri, hoc ipsum solum, quod haeretici sunt pronunciati, orthodoxorum securitati sufficeret). contr. Eutych. 1,p. 494.
33 de Syn. 33.
34 Faustus, in August). contr. Faust. ii. 1. admits the Gospels (vid. Beausobre Manich. t. 1,p. 291, &c)., but denies that they were written by the reputed authors. ibid. xxxii. 2. but nescio quibus Semi-judaeis. ibid. 33,3. Accordingly they thought themselves at liberty to reject or correct parts of them. They rejected many of the facts, e.g. our Lord’s nativity, circumcision, baptism, temptation, &c. ibid. 32,6.
35 de Decr. 1, note 6.
36 [A note on the intimate mutual connexion of all heresies is omitted here.]
37 Joh. 19,15.
38 de Decr. 7, note 2.
39 dwrodokoi, and so kerdo" th" filoxrhmatia", infr. §53. He mentions prostasia" filwn, §10. And so S. Hilary speaks of the exemptions from taxes which Constantius granted the Clergy as a bribe to Arianize; contr. Const. 10. And again, of resisting Constantius as hostem blandientem, qui non dorsa caedit, sed ventrem palpat, non proscribit ad vitam, sed ditat in mortem, non caput gladio desecat, sed animum auro occidit. ibid. 5. vid. Coustant). in loc. Liberius says the same, Theod H. E. 2,13. And S. Gregory Naz. speaks of filoxrusou" mallon h filoxristou"). Orat. 21. 21. On the other hand, Ep. Aeg. 22, Athan. contrasts the Arians with the Meletians, as not influenced by secular views). [Prolegg. ch. 2,§3 (2) c. (2).]
40 de Syn. §3 and 9.
41 Vid). de Decr. 1. note. This consideration, as might be expected, is insisted on by the Fathers. vid. Cyril. Dial. 4,p. 511, &c. 5,p. 566. Greg. Naz. 40, 42; Hil). Trin. viii. 28; Ambros). de fid. 1,n. 69 and 104.
42 Ib. 4, note 8.
43 (1Tm 4,1-2 Tt 1,14).
44 This passage is commonly taken by the Fathers to refer to the Oriental sects of the early centuries, who fulfilled one or other of those conditions which it specifies. It is quoted against the Marcionists by Clement). Strom. 3,6. Of the Carpocratians apparently, Iren). Haer. 1,25; Epiph). Haer. 27. 5. Of the Valentinians, Epiph). Haer. 31. 34. Of the Montanists and others, ibid. 48. 8. Of the Saturnilians (according to Huet). Origen in Mt 20,16. Of apostolic heresies, Cyril). Cat. 4,27. Of Marcionites, Valentinians, and Manichees, Chrysost). de Virg. 5. Of Gnostics and Manichees, Theod). Hoer. ii praef. Of Encratites, ibid. 5,fin. Of Eutyches, Ep. Anon. 190 (apud Garner). Diss. 5,Theod. p. 901. Pseudo-Justin seems to consider it fulfilled in the Catholics of the fifth century, as being Anti-Pelagians). Quoest. 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, cf). Depos. Ar. supr. p. 71, note 29.
45 [This is the only occurrence of the word omoousio" in these three Discourses.]
46 (Ps 82,6,
47 de Decr. §14 fin.; de Syn. §51.
48 (Jn 14,9,
49 de Decr. 15, note 6.
50 That is, ‘Let them tell us, is it right to predicate this or to predicate that of God (of one who is God), for such is the Word, viz. that He was from eternity or was created,’ &c., &c.
51 kat epinoian, vid). Orat. 2,§38.
52 (Rm 9,5,
53 (Pr 9,18,
54 de Decr. 6. note 5; de Syn. 32.
55 de Decr. 26, note 6).
56 (Jb 18,5,
57 Ep. Aeg. 18.
58 §8, note 5.
59 (Mt 3,17,
60 de Decr. 2, note 6.
61 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, de Decr. 18, note 5. Thus, if ‘when’ be a word of time, He it is who was ‘when’ He was not, which is absurd. Did they mean, however, 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. 4,§1. vid. also Orat. iii. §9; Nyssen). contr. Eunom. 3,p. 106; Cyril). Thesaur. 32. p. 312.
62 (Ps 2,1,
63 (Jn 1,1,
64 (Ap 1,4). tade legei). [On legei, &c., in citations, see Lightf. on Ga 3,16, Winer, Gram. §58, 9 y, Grimm-Thayer, s.v. II. 1. e.]
65 (Rm 9,5,
66 Rm 1,20.
67 (1Co 1,24, has so interpreted this text supr). de Decr. 15. It was either a received interpretation, or had been adduced at Nicaea, for Asterius had some years before these Discourses replied to it, vid). de Syn. 18, and Orat. ii. §37.
68 (2Co 3,16-17, Athanasius observes, Serap. 1,4–7, that the Holy Ghost is never in Scripture called simply ‘Spirit’ without the addition ‘of God’ or ‘of the Father’ or ‘from Me’ or of the article, 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. Is 70 Basil Sp. S. Is 32 Psendo-Athan). de comm. ess. 6. On the other hand, the word pneuma, ’Spirit, is used more or less distinctly for our Lord’s Divine Nature whether in itself or as incarnate, in Rm 1,4 1Co 15,45 1Tm 3,16 He 9,14 1P 3,18 Jn 6,63, &c). [But cf. also Milligan Resurr. 238 sq.] 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 “to partake in flesh from the womb,” why did He descend at all?’ de Carn. Chr. 19. vid. also ibid. 5 and 14). contr. Prax. 26, Just). Apol. i. 33. Iren). Hoer. 5,1. Cypr). Idol Van. 6. Lactant). Instit. iv. 12. vid. also Hilar). Trin. 2,27; Athan). logo" en tw pneumati eplatte to swma). Serap. 1,31 fin). en tw logw hn to pneuma ibid. 3,6. And more distinctly even as late as S. Maximus, auton anti spora" sullabousa ton logon, kekuhke, t. 2. p. 309. The earliest ecclesiastical authorities are S. Ignatius ad Smyrn. init. and S. Hermas (even though his date were a.d. 150), who also says plainly: Filius autem Spiritus Sanctus est). Sim. 5,5, 2, cf. ix. 1. The same use of ‘Spirit’ for the Word or Godhead of the Word, is also found in Tatian). adv. Groec. 7. Athenag). Leg. 10. Theoph). ad Autol. ii. 10. Iren). Hoer. 4,36. Tertull). Apol. 23. Lact). Inst. iv. 6, 8. Hilar). Trin. 9,3, and 14. Eustath). apud Theod). Eran. iii. p. 235. Athan). contr. Apoll. 1,8. Apollinar). ap. Theod). Eran. i. p. 71, and the Apollinarists passim. Greg. Naz). Ep. 101). ad Cledon. p. 85. Ambros). Incarn. 63. Severion). ap. Theod. Eran. ii. p. 167. Vid. Grot). ad Marc. 2,8; Bull, Def. F. N. 1,1, §5; Coustant). Proeef. in Hilar. 57, &c. Montfaucon in Athan). Serap. iv. 19). [see also Tertullian, de Orat. init.]
69 (Col 1,17,
70 Vid). contr. Gent. 45–47.
71 (Mt 11,27,
72 (Jn 14,8-9,
73 (Rm 1,20,
74 (He 1,2,
75 (Is 40,28,
76 Hist. Sus. 42.
77 (Ba 4,20 Ba 4,22.
78 (He 1,3,
79 (Ps 90,17 Ps 36,9,
80 de Decr. 12, 27.
81 (Ps 145,13,
82 Vid). de Decr. 18, note 5. The subject is treated at length in Greg. Nyss). contr. Eunom. 1,t. 2. Append. p. 93–101. vid. also Ambros). de Fid. 1,8–11. As time measures the material creation, ‘ages’ were considered to measure the immaterial, as the duration of Angels. This had been a philosophical distinction, Timaeus says eikwn esti xrono" tw agennatw xronw, on aiwna potagoreuome". vid. also Philon). Quod Deus Immut. 6. Euseb). Laud. C. 1 prope fin., p. 501. Naz). Or. 38. 8.
83 (Jn 14,6 Jn 10,14 Jn 8,12 Jn 13,13,
84 (Gn 2,5,
85 (Dt 32,8).
86 (Jn 14,28-29,
87 (Pr 8,23,
88 (Jn 8,58,
89 (Jr 1,5,
90 (Ps 90,2,
91 Hist. Sus. 42.
92 de Decr. 23, note 4.
93 (Jn 1,3,
94 This was an objection urged by Eunomius, cf). de Syn. 51, note 8. It is implied also in the Apology of the former, §24, and in Basil). contr. Eunom. 2,28. Aetius was in Alexandria 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 the Anomoean arguments as he heard them reported, vid. de Syn. l.c. where he says, ‘they say, “as you have written,”’ §51). Anomoio" kat ousian is mentioned infr. §17. As the Arians here object that the First and Second Persons of the Holy Trinity are adelfoi, so did they say the same in the course of the controversy of the Second and Third. vid). Serap. 1,15. 4,2.
95 (Pr 18,1,
96 Vid). de Syn. §51.
97 In other words, by the Divine gennhsi" is not meant an act but an eternal and unchangeable fact, in the Divine Essence. Arius. not admitting this, objected at the outset of the controversy to the phrase ‘always Father, always Son,’ Theod). H. E. 1,4. p. 749, and Eunomius argues that, ‘if the Son is co-eternal with the Father, the Father was never such in act, energo", but was argo".’ Cyril). Thesaur. 5,p. 41. S. Cyril answers that ’works, erga, are made exwqen, ‘from without;’ but that our Lord, 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 dunamei te kai energeia pathr). Dial. 2. p. 458. (vid. supr. p. 65. note m). Victorinus in like manner, says, that God is potentia et actione Deus sed in aeterna, Adv. Ar. 1,p. 202; and he quotes S. Alexander, speaking apparently in answer to Arius, of a semper generans generatio. And Arius scoffs at aeigennh" and agennhtogenh". Theod. Hist. 1,4. p. 749. And Origen had said, o swthr aei gennatai. ap. Routh). Reliq. t. 4. p. 304 and S. Dionysius calls Him the Radiance, anarxon kai aeigene"). Sent. Dion 15. S. Augustine too says, Semper gignit Pater, et semper nascitur Filius). Ep. 238. n. 4. Petav). de Trin 2,5. 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 begotten. For it became Him, who is properly (kuriw") the Son, ever to be deriving His existence from the Father, and not as we who derive its commencement 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, telo", and is perfect). teleion.’ Opusc 26.
98 de Decr. 22, note 9).
99 Infr. §26 fin., and de Decr. 12, note 2.
100 Vid). supr. note 4. A similar passage is found in Cyril). Thesaur. 5,p. 42, Dial. 2,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. 10,p. 78. As to the Son’s perfection, Aetius objects ap. Epiph). Haer. 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 atelh proteron, eita teleion, wsper nomo" th" hmetera" genesew" Orat. 20. 9 fin. In like manner, S. Basil argues against Eunomius, that the Son is tegwo", because He is the Image, not as if copied, which is a gradual work, but as a carakthr, or impression of a seal, or as the knowledge communicated from master to scholar, which comes to the latter and exists in him perfect, without being lost to the former). contr. Eunom. 2,16 fin.
101 de Decr. 12, 15.
102 Ib. 22, note 1, infr. §19.
103 De Decr. §10, 11.
104 Infr. §23.
105 De Syn. §45, 51.
106 Nic. Def. 9, note 4.
107 (Mt 3,17,
108 Here is taught us the strict unity of the Divine Essence. When it is said that the First Person of the Holy Trinity communicates divinity to the Second, it is meant that that one Essence which is the Father, also is the Son. Hence the force of the word omoousion, which was in consequence accused of Sabellianism, but was distinguished from it by the particle omou, ‘together,’ which implied a difference as well as unity; whereas tautoousion or sunousion implied, with the Sabellians, an identity or a confusion. The Arians, on the other hand, as in the instance of Eusebius, &c., supr. p. 75, note 7; de Syn. 26, note 3; considered the Father and the Son two ousiai. The Catholic doctrine is that, though the Divine Essence is both the Father Ingenerate and also the Only-begotten Son, it is not itself agennhto" or gennhth; which was the objection urged against the Catholics by Aetius, Epiph). Haer. 76. 10. Cf). de Decr. §30, Orat. 3,§36 fin., Expos. Fid. 2. vid). de Syn. 45, note 1. ‘Vera et aeterna substantia in se tota permanens, totam se coaeternae veritati nativitatis indulsit.’ Fulgent). Resp. 7. And S. Hilary, ‘Filius in Patre est et in Filio Pater, non per transfusionem, refusionemque mutuam, sed per viventis naturae perfectam nativitatem.’ Trin. 7,31).
109 De Decr. §31.
110 2P 1,4.
111 (1Co 3,16 2Co 6,16,
112 ennoia, vid). de Syn. §48 fin.
113 de Decr. 17, 24.
114 (Jn 10,30,
115 de Decr. 1, note.
116 de Decr. 25, note 2.
117 Vid). Orat. 4,§13.
118 §8, note 8).
119 De Decr. §31.
120 (Jr 2,13,
121 Jr 17,12-13.
122 (Ba 3,12,
123 (Jn 14,6,
124 (Pr 8,12,
125 Supr. §15.
126 (Is 58,11,
127 (Ps 104,24,
128 (Pr 3,19,
129 (Jn 1,3, Westcott’s additional note on the passage.]
130 (1Co 8,6,
131 Vid. Petav). de Trin. 2,12, §4.
132 De Decr. §30.
133 De Decr. §17.
134 alogon. Vid. note on de Decr. §§1, 15, where other instances are given from Athan. and Dionysius of Rome; vid. also Orat. 4,2, 4). Sent. D. 23. Origen, supr. p. 48. Athenag). Leg. 10. Tat). contr. Graec. 5. Theoph). ad. Autol. 2,10. Hipp). contr. Noet. 10. Nyssen). contr. Eunom. 7,p. 215. 8,pp. 230, 240. Orat, Catech. 1. Naz). Orat. 29. 17 fin. Cyril). Thesaur. 14,p. 145 (vid. Petav). 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 Sabellianism. But, whereas their opponents said that He was but called Word and Wisdom after the attribute (vid). de Syn. 15, note), they said that such titles marked, not only a typical resemblance to the attribute, but so full a correspondence and (as it were) coincidence in nature with it, that whatever relation that attribute had to God, such in kind had the Son;—that the attribute was His symbol, and not His mere archetype; that our Lord was eternal and proper to God, because that attribute was, which was His title, vid). Ep. Aeg. 14, that our Lord was that Essential Reason and Wisdom,—not by which the Father is wise, but without 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 Wisdom, the Son is the necessary result of that Reason and Wisdom, so that, to say that there was no Word, would imply there was no Divine Reason; just as a radiance implies a light; or, as Petavius remarks, l.c. quoting the words which follow shortly after in the text, the eternity of the Original implies the eternity of the Image; th" upostasew" uparcoush", pantw" euqu" einai dei ton carkthra kai thn eikona tauth", §20. vid. also infr. §31, de Decr. §13, p. 21, §§29, 23, pp. 35, 40. Theod). H. E. 1,3. p. 737.
135 This was but the opposite aspect of the tenet of our Lord’s consubstantiality 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 unconditional and necessary, as God’s attributes might be, then as He had no beginning, so can He have no end; for He is in, and one with, the Father, who has neither beginning nor end. On the question of the ‘will of God’ as it affects the doctrine, vid). Orat. 3,§59, &c.
136 §29, note.
137 De Decr. 22, note 9.
138 (Jn 14,6
139 Athan. argues from the very name Image 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 10, infr. §26. Hence S. Basil, ‘He is an Image not made with the hand, or a work of art, but a living Image,’ &c. vid. also contr. Eunom. ii. 16, 17. Epiph Hoer. 76. 3. Hilar). Trin. 7,41 fin. Origen observes that man, on the contrary, is an example of an external or improper image of God). Periarch. 1,2. §6. It might have been more direct to have argued from the name of Image to our Lord’s consubstantiality rather than eternity, as, e.g. S. Gregory Naz. ‘He is Image as one in essence, omoousion, …for this is the nature of an image, to be a copy of the archetype.’ Orat. 30. 20. vid. also de Decr. §§20, 23, but for whatever reason Athan. avoids the word omoousion in these Discourses. S. Chrys. on Col 1,15.
140 (Pr 8,30
141 (Jn 14,9,
142 omoia" ousia". And so §20 init). omoion katAE ousian, and omoio" th" ousia", §26). omoio" katAE ousian, 3,26. and omoio" kata thn ousian tou patro"). Ep. Aeg. 17. Also Alex). Ep. Encycl. 2. Considering what he says in the de Syn. §38, &c., in controversy with the semi-Arians a year or two later, this use of their formula, in preference to the omoousion (vid. foregoing note), deserves our attention.
143 De Decr. §16.
144 De Syn. 27 (5) note 1, and infr. §40).
145 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 reusth, transitive and without stay, ever shifting and passing on into new forms and relations; but that God is perfect and ever 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 transmission, 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 Son alone true Son; the Father only a Father, the Son only a Son; being really in their Persons what human fathers are but by office, character, accident, and name; vid). De Decr. 11, note 6. And since the Father is unchangeable as Father, in nothing does the Son more fulfil the idea of a perfect Image than in being unchangeable too. Thus S. Cyril also, Thesaur. 10. p. 124. And this perhaps may illustrate a strong and almost startling implication of some of the Greek Fathers, that the First Person in the Holy Trinity, is not God [in virtue of His Fatherhood]. E.g). ei de qeo" o uio", ouk epei uio": omoiw" kai o pathr, ouk epei pathr, qeo": allAE epei ousia toiade, ei" esti pathr kai o uio" qeo"). Nyssen. t. 1,p. 915. vid. Petav). de Deo 1,9. §13. Should it be asked, ‘What is the Father if not God?’ it is enough to answer, ‘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 these extreme statements it must he ever horne in mind that we are contemplating divine things according to our notions. not in fact: i.e. speaking of the Almighty Father, as such; there being no real separation between His Person and His Substance. 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 they are both the same God). De Syn. 49. note 4, also next note
146 Ep. Eus. 7, de Decr. 11, note 8.
147 kuriw", de Decr. 11, note 6. Elsewhere 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 son, yet is he called father of another; so that in the case of men the names father and son do not properly, kuriw", hold.’ ad Serap. 1,16. also ibid. 4,4 fin. and 6. vid. also kuriw", Greg. Naz). Orat. 29. 5). alhqw", Orat. 25, 16). ontw", Basil). contr. Eunom. 1,5. p. 215.
148 This miserable procedure, of making 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 Anomoeans. Eusebius’s testimony to the profaneness which attended Arianism upon its rise will be given de Syn. 2, note 1. The Thalia is another instance of it. S. Alexander speaks of the interference, even judicial, in its behalf against himself, of disobedient women, diAE entucia" gunaikariwn ataktwn a hpathsan, and of the busy and indecent gadding about of the younger, ek tou peritrocazein pasan aguian asemnw". ap. Theod). H.E. 1,3. p. 730, also p. 747; also of the men’s buffoon conversation, 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 in a field.’ Orat. 35. 3, cf). de Syn. 13, n. 4. 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 Constantinople, is given by S. Gregory Nyssen, and often quoted, ‘Men of yesterday and the day before, mere mechanics, off-hand dogmatists in theology, servants too and slaves that have been flogged, runaways from servile work, are solemn with us and philosophical about things incomprehensible. …With such the whole city is full; its smaller gates, forums, squares, thoroughfares; the clothes-venders, 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, mad he defines that the Son is out of nothing.’ t. 2. p. 898.
149 (Mt 12,34,
150 This objection is found in Alex). Ep. Encycl. 2). o wn qeo" ton mh onta ek tou mh onto". Again, onta gegennhke h ouk onta. Greg). Orat. 29. 9. who answers it. Pseudo-Basil). contr. Eunom. 4,p. 281. 2. Basil calls the question poluqrullhton, contr. Eunom. 2,14. 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 beginning, 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 not.’ For the symbol, ouk hn prin gennhqh, vid). Excursus B. at the end of this Discourse.
151 (Rm 1,23, and §2.
152 De Decr. 7 11, esp. note 6.
153 De Decr. 31, note 5.
154 (Ep 3,15).
155 (Jn 1,1,
156 (He 1,3,
157 (Rm 9,5,
158 Vid. Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 17.
159 This cautious and reverent way of speaking is a characteristic of S. Athanasius, ad Serap. 1,1. vid. ii. init). ad Epict. 13 fin). ad Max. init). contr. Apoll. i. init. ‘I must ask another question, bolder, yet with a religious intention; be propitious, O Lord, &c.’ Orat. 3,63, cf). de Decr. 12, note 8, 15, note 6, de Syn. 51, note 4.
160 De Decr. 25, note 2.
161 (Jn 1,14,
162 organon, de Decr. 7, n. 6, de Syn. 27, note 11. This was alleged by Arius, Socr 1,6. and by Eusebius, (Qo Theol. i. 8. supr). Ep. Eus., and by the Anomoeans, supr). de Decr. 7, note 1).
163 Supr). de Decr. 6. The question was, What was that sense of Son which would apply to the Divine Nature? The Catholics said that its essential meaning could apply, viz. consubstantiality, whereas the point of posteriority to the Father depended on a condition, time, which could not exist in the instance of God. ib. 10. The Arians on the other hand said, that to suppose a true Son, was to think of God irreverently, as implying division, change, &c. The Catholics replied that the notion 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.
164 It is from expressions such as this that the Greek Fathers have been accused of tritheism. The truth is, every illustration, as being incomplete on one or other side of it, taken by itself, tends to heresy. The title Son by itself suggests a second God, as the title Word a mere attribute, and the title Instrument a creature. All heresies are partial views of the truth, and are wrong, not so much in what they say, as in what they deny. The truth, on the other hand, is a positive and comprehensive doctrine, and in consequence necessarily mysterious and open to misconception. vid). de Syn. 41, note 1. 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. Cf). Orat. 3,§5; Ps.-Ath). Dial 1,(Migne 28,1144 C).. S. Cyril even seems to deny that each individual man may be considered a separate substance except as the Three Persons are such (Dial. 1,p. 409); and S. 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. Petav). de Trin. 4,9.
165 [But see Or. 3,65, note 2.]
166 S. Athanasius’s doctrine is, that, God containing in Himself all perfection, 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 transcendently, to the All-perfect God).
167 This is a view familiar to the Fathers, viz. that in this consists our Lord’s Sonship, that He is the Word, or as S Augustine says, Christum ideo Filium quia Verbum. Aug). Ep. 120. 11. Cf). de Decr. §17. ‘If I speak of Wisdom, I speak of His offspring;’ Theoph). ad Autolyc. 1,3. ‘The Word, the genuine Son of Mind;’ Clem). Protrept. p. 58. Petavius discusses this subject accurately with reference to the distinction between Divine Generation and Divine Procession). de Trin. vii. 14.
168 Orat. 3,67.
169 Heretics have frequently assigned reverence as the cause of their opposition to the Church; and if even Arius affected it, the plea may be expected in any other. ‘O stultos et impios metus,’ says S. Hilary, ‘et irreligiosam de Deo sollicitudinem.’ de Trin. iv. 6. It was still more commonly professed in regard to the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation. Cf). Acta Archelai [Routh). Rell. 5,169]. August). contr. Secund. 9, contr. Faust. 11,3. As the Manichees denied our Lord a body, so the Apollinarians denied Him a rational soul, still under pretence of reverence because, as they said, the soul was necessarily sinful. Leontius makes this their main argument, o nou" amarthtiko" esti). de Sect. 4,p. 507. vid. also Greg. Naz). Ep. 101). ad Cledon. p. 89; Athan). in Apoll. 1,2. 14. Epiph). Ancor. 79. 80. Athan., &c., call the Apollinarian doctrine Manichaan in consequence. vid. in Apoll. 2,8. 9. &c. Again, the Eranistes in Theodoret, who advocates a similar doctrine, will not call our Lord man. Eranist. ii. p. 83. Eutyches, on the other hand, would call our Lord man, but refused to admit His human nature, and still with the same profession. 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, fusiologein, of my God.’ Concil. t. 2. p. 157 [Act). prima conc. Chalc. t. 4,1001 ed. Col.] A modern argument for Universal Restitution takes a like form; ‘Do not we shrink from the notion of another’s being sentenced to eternal punishment; and are we more merciful than God?’ vid. Mt 16,22-23.
170 Vid). Orat. 3,§59, &c.
171 (Rm 11,34 Rm 9,20
172 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,’ ex ouk ontwn; 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: where he takes, ‘They shall perish,’ in the Psalm, not as a fact but as the definition of the nature of a creature. Also 2,§1, where he says, ‘It is proper to creatures and works to have said of them, ex ouk ontwn and ouk hn prin gennhqh.’ vid. Cyril). Thesaur. 9. p. 67. Dial. 2,p. 460. on the question of being a Creator in posse, vid. supra, Ep. Eus. 11 note 3).
173 The word aggen[n]hton was in the philosophical schools synonymous with ‘God;’ hence by asking whether there were two Unoriginates, the Arians implied that there were two Gods, if Christ was God in the sense in which the Father was. Hence Athan. retorts, faskonte", ou legomen duo agenhta, legousi duo qeou"). Orat. 3,16, also ii. 38. Plato used agennhton of the Supreme God [not so; he used agenhton, see note 2 on de Decr. 28]; the Valentinians, Tertull). contr. Val. 7; and Basilides, Epiph). Hoer. 31. 10. S. Clement uses it, see de Syn. 47, note 7. [The earlier Arians apparently argued mainly, like Asterius, from agenhto" (cr. Epiph. 64. 8), the later (kainoi, Epiph). Hoer. 73. 19) Anomoeans rather from agennhto"]; viz. that h agennhsia is the very ousia of God, not an attribute. So Aetius in Epiph). Hoer. 76. S. Athanasius does not go into this question, but rather confines himself to the more popular form of it, viz. the Son is by His very name not agenhto", but genhto", but all genhta are creatures; which he answers, as de Decr. §28, by saying that Christianity had brought in a new idea into theology, viz. the sacred doctrine of a true Son, ek th" ousia". This was what the Arians had originally denied en to agennhton en de to upAE autou alhqw", kai ouk ek th" ousia" autou gegono". Euseb. Nic. ap. Theod). H.E. 1,6. When they were urged what according 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, gennhma, allAE ouk w" en twn gennhuatwn). [See pp. 149, 169, and the reference there to Lightfoot.]
174 De Decr. 18.
175 (1Tm 1,7,
176 De Decr. 28, note 4.
177 The two first senses here given answer to the two first mentioned, de Decr. §28. and, as he there says, are plainly irrelevant. The third in the de Decr. which, as he there observes, is ambiguous and used for a sophistical purpose, is here divided into third and fourth, answering to the two senses which alone are assigned in the de Syn. §46 [where see note 5], and on them the question turns. This is an instance, of which many occur, how Athan. used his former writings and worked over again his former ground, and simplified or cleared what he had said. In the de Decr. after 350, we have three senses of agenhton, two irrelevant and the third ambiguous; here in Orat. 1,(358), he divides the third into two; in the de Syn. (359), he rejects and omits the two first, leaving the two last, which are the critical senses).
178 These two senses of agennhton unbegotten and unmade were afterwards [but see notes on de Decr. 28] expressed by the distinction of nn and n, agennhton and agenhton. vid). Damasc. F. O. 1,8. p. 135. and Le Quien’s note.
179 §20, note 5.
180 De Syn. §18, infr. 2,37.
181 (1Co 1,24,
182 (Ga 5,15,
183 De Syn. 9, note 2.
184 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 stroh alterations as an author commonly makes in transcribing. This, which is not unfrequent with Athan., shews us the care with which he made his doctrinal statements, though they seem at first sight written off. It also accounts for 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.
185 De Syn. §47).
186 (Jn 5,23,
187 Here he begins a close transcript of the de Decr. §30, the last sentence, however, of the paragraph being an addition.
188 For analogous arguments against the word agennhton, see Basil, contr. Eunom. 1,5. p. 215. Greg. Naz). Orat. 31. 23. Epiph). Hoer. 76. p. 941. Greg. Nyss). contr. Eunom. 6,p. 192, &c. Cyril). Dial. 2,Pseudo-Basil). contr. Eunom. 4,p. 283.
189 (Jn 14,11 Jn 14,9 Jn 10,30 three texts are found together frequently in Athan. particularly in Orat. iii. where he considers the doctrines of the ‘Image’ and the pericwrhsi". vid. Index of Texts, also Epiph). Hoer. 64. 9. Basil). Hexaem. ix. fin. Cyr). Thes. 12,p. 111). [add in S. Joan, 168, 847] Potam). Ep. ap. Dacher. t. 3. p. 299. Hil). Trin. 7,41. et supr.
190 (Lc 11,2,
191 De Syn. 28, note 5.
192 Here ends the extract from the de Decretis. The sentence following is added as a close.
193 trepto", not ‘changeable’ but of a moral nature capable of improvement. Arius maintained this in the strongest terms at starting. ‘On being asked whether the Word of God is capable of altering as the devil altered, they scrupled not to say, “Yea, He is capable.”’ Alex). ap. Socr. 1,6. p. 11.
194 Supr. §22. init.
195 (He 13,8,
197 (Dt 32,39 Ml 3,6,
198 (He 1,12,
199 §29, note.
200 Nic. Def. 21. note 9.
201 (Jn 14,6,
202 De Syn. §16 fin.
203 Vid). de Syn. 4, note 6. and cf. Tertull). de Proescr. 19. Rufinus H. E. 2,9. Vincent). Comm. 2. Hippolytus has a passage very much to the same purpose, contr. Noet. 9 fin).
204 (Ph 2,9-10,
205 (Ps 45,7,
206 Of Nicomedia. vid. Theod). H. E. i. 5.
207 §39 end.
208 (Is 1,2,
209 (Ph 2,8,
210 The Arians perhaps more than other heretics were remarkable for bringing objections against the received view, rather than forming a consistent theory of their own Indeed the very vigour and success of their assault upon the truth lay in its being a mere assault, not a positive and substantive 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 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 creatures from the first, and their Creator; how then could He be exalted above all? They surely, as much as Catholics, were obliged to explain it of our Lord’s manhood. They could not then use it as a weapon against the Church, until they took the ground of Paul of Samosata.
211 (Pr 8,30,
212 De Syn. 27 (15).
213 (Jn 17,5,
214 (Ps 18,9, Ps 18,13
215 [De Incar. 54, and note.]
216 (Ps 82,1 LXX.
217 (Col 1,15, infr. 2,§62.
218 In this passage Athan. considers that the participation ofthe Word is deification, as communion with the Son is adoption: also that the old Saints, inasmuch as they are called ‘gods’ 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. On the other hand, infr. 47, he says expressly that Christ received the Spirit in Baptism ‘that He might give it to man.’ There is no real contradiction in such statements; what was given in one way under the Law, was given in another and fuller under the Gospel.
219 (Mt 11,27,
220 (Jn 10,35,
221 p. 157, note 6.
222 tai" ennoiai" crwmenoi, pro" ta" epinoia" aphnthsamen. cf). omci epinoia, paranoia dAE mallon, &c. Basil). contr. Eunom. 1,6. init.
223 Phil 2,5–11.
224 omio" kata panta, de Syn. 21, note 10.
225 p. 162, note 3.
226 (Ps 54,1,
227 Ps 20,7).
228 (He 1,6,
229 (Ps 72,17 Ps 72,5, LXX.
230 Scripture is full of misteries, but they are mysteries of fact, not of words. Its dark sayings or aenigmata are such, because in the nature of things they cannot be expressed clearly. Hence contrariwise). Orat 2,§77 fin. he calls Pr 8,22. an enigma, with an allusion to Pr 1,6. Sept. In like manner S. Ambrose. says, Mare est scriptura divina, habens in se sensus profundos, et altitudinem propheticorum oenigmatum, &c). Ep. 2,3. What is commonly called ‘explaining away’ Scripture, is this transference of the obscurity from the subject to the words used.
231 (Jn 1,1 Jn 1,14,
232 Ph 2,6.
233 (He 6,20 He 9,24,
234 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 belong to God; it is unmeaning, and therefore is not applied to Him in the text in question. Thus, e.g. S. Ambrose: ‘Ubi humilatus, ibi obediens. Ex eo enim nascitur obedientia, ex quo humilitas et in eo desinit,’ &c). Ap. Dav. alt. n. 39.
235 (Ps 24,7,
236 (Ps 89,17-18, LXX.
237 (1Co 1,30).
238 Infr. §43.
239 [De Incar. §46, 51, &c.]
240 ontw" en umin o qeo". 1Co 14,25. Athan. interprets en in not among; as also in 1 John iii. 24, just afterwards. Vid). en emoi. Ga 1,24). ento" umwn, Luke xvii. 21, eskhnwsen en hmin, Jn 1,14, on which text Hooker says, ‘It pleased not the Wordor Wisdom of God to take to itself some one person among men,for then should that one have been advanced which was assumed and no more, but Wisdom, to the end she might save many, built her house of that Nature which is common unto all; she made not this or that man her habitation, but dwelt in us.’ (Qo Pol.v. 52. §3. S. Basil in his proof of the divinity of the Holy Spirit has a somewhat similar passage to the text, de Sp. S. c. 24.
241 (Jn 1,12,
242 (1Jn 3,24,
243 1 Ph 3,21.
244 It 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 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. &c. 2,p. 996. Accordingly, Athan. says elsewhere, ‘Had not sinlessness appeared [cf. Rm 8,3, pemya"] “in the nature which had sinned,” how was sin condemned in the flesh?’ in Apoll. ii. 6. ‘It was necessary for our salvation,’ 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. 1,p. 138. And S. Leo, ‘Non alterius naturae erat ejus caro quam nostra, nec alio illi quam caeteris hominibus anima est inspirata principio, quae excelleret, non diversitate generis, sed sublimitate virtutis.’ Ep. 35 fin. vid. also Ep. 28. 3). Ep. 31. 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 [i.e. that Christ was conceived sinless]; but that miracle was wrought in order that our Lord might not be born in original sin, and does not affect, or rather includes, His taking flesh of the substance 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 have taken our nature without partaking our sinfulness; but if sin be, as it is, a fault of the will, then the Divine Power of the Word could sanctfy the human will, and keep it from swerving in the direction of evil. Hence ‘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;’ Aug). Op. Imperf. 4,48. On the other hand, S. Athanasius expressly calls it Manichean doctrine to consider thn fusin of the flesh amartian, kai ou thn praxin). contr. Apoll. 1,12 fin. or fusikhn einai thn amartian. ibid. 1,14 fin. His argument 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 evil cannot be maker (dhmiourgo") as is the impiety of the Manichees, but he wrought a bias of nature by transgression, and ‘so death reigned over 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 devil 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 devil’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 §19. Ibid. 2,6. he speaks of the devil having ‘introduced the law of sin.’ vid. also §9.
245 (Jn 1,9,
246 prkoph" ‘internal advance,’ Lc 2,52.
248 ekklhsiastiko", vid). Serap. 4,15. contr). Gent. 6. 7. 33).
249 Orat. 2,§8.
250 (Ep 4,10, but anasta" for anaba".
251 (Jn 1,14,
252 In Apoll. 1,2.
253 It was a point in controversy with the extreme Monophysites, that is, the Eutychians, whether our Lord’s body was naturally subject to death, the Catholics maintaining the affirmative, as Athanasius here. Eutyches asserted that our Lord had not a human nature, by which he meant among other things that His manhood was not subject to the laws of a body, but so far as He submitted to them, He did so by an act of will in each particular case; and this, lest it should seem that He was moved by the paqh against His will akousiw"; and consequently that His manhood was not subject to death. But the Catholics maintained that He had voluntarily placed Himself under those laws, and died naturally, vid. Athan). contr. Apol. 1,17, and that after the resurrection His body became incorruptible, not according to nature, but by grace. vid. Leont). de Sect. 10,p. 530. Anast). Hodeg. c. 23. To express their doctrine of the uperfue" of our Lord’s manhood the Eutychians made use of the Catholic expression ‘ut voluit.’ vid. Athan. l.c. Eutyches ap. Leon. Ep. 21. ‘quomodo voluit et scit,’ twice. vid. also Eranist. i. p. 11. 2,p. 105. Leont). contr. Nest 1,p. 967. Pseudo-Athan. Serm). adv. Div. Hoer. §8. (t. 2P 570).
254 (Ac 2,24,
255 elattwma, ad Adelph. 4.
256 At first sight it would seem as if S. Athanasius here used ousia essence for subsistence, or person; but this is not true except with an explanation. Its direct meaning is here, as usual, essence, though indirectly it comes to imply subsistence. He is speaking 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 Essence of the Father is spoken of in a sort of contrast to that of the Son, as in the phrase ousia ex ousia", harsh as such expressions are, it is not accurate to say that ousia is used for subsistence or person, or that two ousiai are spoken of (vid). de Syn. 52, note 8), except, that is, by Arians, as Eusebius, supr). Ep. Eus. §6 [or by Origen, Prolegg. 2,§3 (2) a.] Just below we find fusi" tou logou, §51 init.
257 This was the question which came into discussion in the Nestorian controversy, 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 predicated 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 qeotoko", which was the expression on which the controversy mainly turned. Cf). Orat. iii. 31, a passage as precise as if it had been written after the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies, though without the technical words then adopted).
258 ton anqrwpon.
259 thn patrikhn eautou qeothta, cf). de Syn. 45, note 1.
260 (Ps 45,7-8,
261 p. 156, note 4.
262 It is here said that all things ‘originate’ partake the Son and are ‘sanctified’ by the Spirit. How a gennhsi" or adoption through the Son is necessary for every creature in order to its consistence, life, or preservation, has been explained, p. 162, note 3. Sometimes the Son was considered as the special Principle of reason, as by Origen, ap. Athan). Serap. 4,9. vid. himself). de Incarn. 11. These offices of the Son and the Spirit are contrasted by S. Basil, in his de Sp. S. ton prostattonta kurion, ton dhmiourgounta logon, to stereoun pneuma, &c. c. 16. n. 38.
263 (Jn 17,18-19, vid. Cyril, Thesaur. 20.
264 (1Co 3,16,
265 Pusey on Baptism, 2nd Ed. pp. 275–293).
266 Isai. 61,1.
267 (Ac 10,38,
268 (Jn 16,14 Jn 16,7 Jn 20,22
269 (1Jn 2,20 Ep 1,13,
270 Elsewhere Athan. says that our Lord’s Godhead was the immediate anointing or chrism of the manhood He assumed, in Apollin. 2,3, Orat. 4,§36. vid. Origen). Periarch. ii. 6. n. 4. And S. Greg. Naz. still more expressly, and from the same text as Athan). Orat. 10,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, alou tou crionto"; whence it came to pass that what anointed was called man and what was anointed was made God.’ Orat. xxx. 20. Damasc). F. O. 3,3. Dei Filius, sicut pluvia in vellus, toto divinitatis unguento nostram se fudit in carnem. Chrysolog). Serm. 60. it is more common, however, to consider that the anointing was the descent of the Spirit, as Athan. says at the beginning of this section, according to Lc 4,18 Ac 10,38.
271 (Ps 45,8, Lord’s manhood is spoken of as garment; more distinctly afterwards, ‘As Aaron was himself, and did not change on putting round him the high priest’s garment, but remaining the same, was but clothed,’ &c, Orat. Is 2,8 Is 2, the Apollinarian abuse of the idea, vid. note in loc.
272 (Jn 19,39 Lc 24,1,
273 p. 159, note 8.
274 Isai. 40,8). logo" but rhma. LXX.
275 §39, note 4.
276 (Ps 51,11,
277 (Jn 15,26,
278 (He 13,8,
279 The word origin, arch, implies the doctrine, more fully brought out in other passages of the Fathers, that our Lord has deigned to become an instrumental cause, as it may be called, of the life of each individual Christian For at first sight it may be objected to the whole course of Athan.’s argument thus;—What connection is there between the sanctification of Christ’s manhood and ours? how does it prove that human nature is sanctified because a particular specimen of it was sanctified in Him? S. Chrysostom explains, Hom. in Mt 82,5. And just before, ‘It sufficed not for Him to be made man, to be scourged, to be sacrificed; but He assimilates us to Him (anafurei eauton hmin), nor merely by faith, but really, has He made us His body.’ Again, ‘That we are commingled (anakerasqwmen) 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. And so S. 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, not in 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, Orat. Catech. 37. Decoctâ quasi per ollam carnis nostrae cruditate, sanctificavit in aeternum nobis cibum carnem suam. Paulin). Ep. 23. Of course in such statements nothing material is implied; Hooker says, ‘The mixture of His bodily substance with ours is a thing which the ancient Fathers disclaim. 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.’ (Qo Pol. 5, 56. §10. But without some explanation of this nature, language such as S. Athanasius’s in the text seems a mere matter of words. vid. infr. §50 fin.
280 (Jn 17,22,
281 Cyril, Thesaur. 20. p. 197.
282 §51, note 1.
283 aggelwn men parabantwn, anqrwpwn de parakousantwn. vid. infr. §51. init. Cf). ad Afr. 7. vid). de Decr. 19, note 3. infr). Orat. ii. 3,Cyril. in Joann. lib. v 2. On the subject of the sins of Angels, vid. Huet). Origen. 2,5. §16. Petav). Dogm. t. 3. p. 87. Dissert. Bened. in Cyril. Hier. 3,5. Natal. Alex). Hist. Aet. 1,Diss. 7.
284 De Decr. 10, note 4.
285 (He 1,3,
286 The word wherefore is here declared to denote the fitness why the Son of God should become the Son of man. His Throne, as God, is for ever; 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 50,c. in the foregoing note. Cf. Leon Ep. 64. 2. vid). de Incarn. 7 fin. 10). In illud Omn. 2. Cyril). in Gen. i. p. 13.
287 ensarko" parousia. This phrase which has occurred above, §8. is very frequent with Athan. vid. also Cyril). Catech. 3,11. 12,15. xiv. 27, 30, Epiph). Hoer. 77. 17. The Eutychians avail themselves of it at the Council of Constantinople, vid. Hard). Conc. t. 2. pp. 164. 236.
288 (Ps 45,6,
289 Ps 45,7.
290 (Mt 12,28).
291 (Mt 12,32 Mt 13,55,
292 [Cf. Prolegg. ch. 3,§1 (22).].
293 (Jn 20,22 Jn 16,13-14
294 (Is 61,1,
295 §48, note 7.
296 (Jn 1,16,
297 Vid). de Incarn. 13. 14. vid. also Gent. 41 fin. and Nic. Def. 17, note 5. Cum justitia nulla esset in terra doctorem misit, quasi vivam legem. Lactant). Instit. iv. 25. ‘The Only-begotten was made man like us, …as if lending us His own stedfastness.’ Cyril). in Joann. lib. 5,2. p. 473; vid. also Thesaur. 20. p. 198. August). de Corr. et Grat. 10–12. Damasc). F. O. 4,4. But the words of Athan. embrace too many subjects to illustrate distinctly in a note.
298 (2Co 2,11,
299 §48, note 1.
300 (Rm 8,3-4
301 Cf). de Incarn. 7, Orat. ii. 68.
302 (Rm 8,9,
303 aplw", ouk aplw" wrisqh, allAE akribw" exhtasqh). Socr. i. 9. p. 31.
304 (Jn 17,10, §35, note 2.
305 Eunomius said that our Lord was utterly separate from the Father, ‘by natural law,’ nomw fusew"; S. Basil observes, ‘as if the God of all had not power over Himself, eautou kurio", but were in bondage under the decrees of necessity.’ contr. Eunom. ii. 30).
306 (Ps 11,7 Ps 5,5,
307 Ps 87,2.
308 (Ml 1,2-3,
309 (Is 61,8
310 ennoiwn mallon de paranoiwn, vid. §40, note 1.
311 Instead of professing to examine Scripture or to acquiesce in what they had been taught the Arians were remarkable for insisting on certain abstract positions or inferences on which they make the whole controversy turn. Vid. Socrates’ account of Arius’s commencement, ‘If God has a Son, he must have a beginning of existences’ &c. &c., and so the word agenhton.
312 (Mt 22,29,
313 Mt 22,21.
314 (Pr 8,22, . Orat. ii. §§19–72.
315 (He 1,4 He 3,1,
316 Vid). Orat. 2,§§2–11.
317 (Ac 2,36, . Orat. ii. §§11–18.
318 (1Co 2,8,
319 (Za 2,10 vid. 1R 8,27 Ba 3,37,
320 Vid. the same contrast). de Syn. §33; supr, §8; Orat. 4,§23.
321 §8, note 6).
322 De Decr. 14, note 2.
323 (Ac 8,34,
324 (Mt 24,3,
325 Vid. 1Th 4,13 2Th 2,1, &c.
326 (2Tm 2,17-18 1Tm 1,20,
327 (Is 7,14 Mt 1,23,
328 (Dt 18,15,
329 (Is 53,7,
330 The more common evasion on the part of the Jews was to interpret the prophecy of their own sufferings in captivity. It was an idea of Grotius that the prophecy received a first fulfilment in Jeremiah. vid. Justin Tryph. 72 et al., Iren). Hoer. 4,33. Tertull. in Jud. 9, Cyprian). Testim. in Jud. 2,13, Euseb). Dem. iii. 2, &c). [cf. Driver and Neubauer Jewish commentaries on Is. 52,and Is. 53,and Introduction to English Translation of these pp. 37,sq.]
331 (He 1,1-2,
332 He 1,3-4.
333 (Ps 84,10,
334 (Pr 8,10-11).
335 (Is 56,4-5,
336 There is apparently much confusion in the arrangement of the paragraphs that follow; though the appearance may perhaps arise from Athan.’s incorporating some passage from a former work into his text, cf. note on §32. It is easy to suggest alterations, but not anything satisfactory. The same ideas are scattered about. Thus sugkritikw" occurs in (3) and (5). The Son’s seat on the right, and Angels in ministry, (3) fin. (10) (11). ‘Become’ interpreted as ‘is originated and is,’ (4) and (11). The explanation of ‘become,’ (4) (9) (11) (14). The Word’s epidhmia is introduced in (7) and (8) paroudia being the more common word; epidhmia occurs Orat. 2,§67 init). Serap. i. 9. Vid. however, ¥61, notes. If a change must be suggested, it would be to transfer (4) after (8) and (10) after (3).
337 apolelumenw". vid. also Orat. 2,54. 62. 3,22. Basil). contr. Eunom. 1,p. 244. Cyril). Thesaur. 25, p. 236). dialelumenw"). Orat. iv. 1.
338 [The note, referred to above, p. 169, in which Newman defends; the treatment of genhton and gennhton as synonymous, while yet admitting teat they are expressly distinguished by Ath. in the text, is omitted for lack of space.]
339 (Jn 1,3,
340 (Ps 104,24,
341 (Jb 1,2,
342 (Gn 21,5,
343 Cf. Dt 21,15.
344 These tenets and similar ones were common to many branches of the Gnostics, who paid worship to the Angels, or ascribed to them the creation; the doctrine of their consubstantiality with our Lord arose from their belief in emanation. S. Athanasius here uses the word omogenh", not omoousio" which was usual with them (vid Bull). D. F. N. 2,1, §2) as witth the Manichees after them, Beausobre, Manich. 3,8.
345 (Ps 89,7.
346 Ps 86,8.
347 Orat. 2,§20).
348 (He 1,10,
349 De Syn. 45, note 9.
350 (He 1,7,
351 §29, note 10.
352 De Decr. 19, note 3.
353 Here again is a remarkable avoidance of the word omoousion. He says that the Son is eterogenh" kai eteroousio" twn genhtwn, kai th" tou patro" ousia" idio" kai omofuh". vid. §§20, 21, notes.
354 (Jn 14,28,
355 Athan. otherwise explains this text, Incarn. contr. Arian. 4. if it be his. This text is thus taken by Basil). contr. Eun. 4,p. 289. Naz). Orat. 30. 7, &c. &c.
356 §§60. 62. 64. 2,§18.
357 (He also applies this text to our Lord’s economy and ministry de Sent. D. 11). in Apoll. 2,15.
359 Part of this chapter, as for instance (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 passage looks very much like an insertion. Some words of it are found in Sent. D. 11. written few years sooner [cf). supr. 33, note 2.]
360 (He 7,19
361 (Rm 5,14,
362 (2Tm 1,10,
363 (1Co 15,22,
364 (Is 11,9 vid. Ps 76,1, and Ps 19,4,
365 (Mt 28,19,
366 (Jn 6,45 Is 54,13,
367 (He 7,22 He 8,6 He 7,19 He 9,23,
368 (Jn 1,14,
369 §45, note.
370 (Rm 8,3,
371 (Jn 3,17,
372 Vid). Incarn. passim. Theod). Eranist. iii. pp. 196–198, &c. &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 incarnation and crucifixion were not of its essence. The Apollinarians resolved the Incarnation into a manifestation, Theod). Eran. 1,The Nestorians denied the Atonement, Procl. ad Armen. p. 615. And the Eutychians, Leont). Ep. 28, 5.
373 (Jn 1,17,
374 De Syn. 45, note 1.
375 Cf. August). de Fid. et Symb. 14. Does this passage of Athan.’s shew that the Anthropomorphites were stirring in Egypt already?
377 (Jn 16,15,
378 (Ps 16,8).
379 (He 1,6,
380 Vid. Jn 17,3 Mc 10,45.
381 (Jn 14,10 Jn 14,9,
382 Of His divine nature: (4) (8).
383 Of His human nature, and (10).
384 (Ps 30,3
385 Ps 9,9.
386 (Mt 11,28).
387 (Is 58,9,
388 (Jn 1,14).
389 Waterland expresses the view here taken, and not Bishop Bull’s; vol. 1,p. 114. Bull’s language, on the other hand, is very strong: ’Saepe olim, ut verum ingenue fateai, animum meum subiit admiratio, quid effato isto, Filius priusqnam nasceretur, non erat, sibi voluerint Ariani. De nativitate Christi ex beatissima Virgine dictum non esse exponendum constat: …Itaque de nativitate Filii loquuntur, quae hujus universi creationem antecessit). Quis vero, inquam, sensus dicti hujus “Filius non erat, sive non existebat, priusquam nasceretur ex Patre ante conditum mundum?” Ego sane nullus dubito, quin hoc pronunciatum Arianorum oppositum fuerit Catholicorum istorum sententiae, qui docerent, Filium quidem paulo ante conditum mundum inexplicabili quodam modo ex Patre progressum fuisse ad constituendum universa, &c). D. F. N. 3,9. §2).