Early Christian Lives

Chapter II. 12. Arian statements. (part 2)

[1340] logiste, auditor of accounts? vid. Demosth. de Corona, p. 290. ed. 1823. Arist. Polit. vi. 8.

[1341] Vid. Cod. Theod. vi. 30 [summer of 353 a.d. Prolegg. ch. ii. §7 fin.]

[1342] Apol. Ar. 70, note 5.

[1343] John xiv. 6.

[1344] Lost, or never introduced. __________________________________________________________________

20. History of his disobeying it.

Now I ask again, whence have my accusers obtained this letter also? I would learn of them who it was that put it into their hands? Do you cause them to answer. By this you may perceive that they have forged this, as they spread abroad also the former letter, which they published against me, with reference to the ill-named Magnentius. And being convicted in this instance also, on what pretence next will they bring me to make my defence? Their only concern is, to throw everything into disorder and confusion; and for this end I perceive they exercise their zeal. Perhaps they think that by frequent repetition of their charges, they will at last exasperate you against me. But you ought to turn away from such persons, and to hate them; for such as themselves are, such also they imagine those to be who listen to them; and they think that their calumnies will prevail even before you. The accusation of Doeg [1345] prevailed of old against the priests of God: but it was the unrighteous Saul, who hearkened unto him. And Jezebel was able to injure the most religious Naboth [1346] by her false accusations; but then it was the wicked and apostate Ahab who hearkened unto her. But the most holy David, whose example it becomes you to follow, as all pray that you may, favours not such men, but was wont to turn away from them and avoid them, as raging dogs. He says, Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I destroy [1347] .' For he kept the commandment which says, Thou shalt not receive a false report [1348] .' And false are the reports of these men in your sight. You, like Solomon, have required of the Lord (and you ought to believe yourself to have obtained your desire), that it would seem good unto Him to remove far from you vain and lying words [1349] . __________________________________________________________________

[1345] 1 Sam. xxii. 9.

[1346] 1 Kings xxi. 10.

[1347] Ps. ci. 5.

[1348] Ex. xxiii. 1.

[1349] Prov. xxx. 8. __________________________________________________________________

21. Forasmuch then as the letter owed its origin to a false story, and contained no order that I should come to you, I concluded that it was not the wish of your Piety that I should come. For in that you gave me no absolute command, but merely wrote as in answer to a letter from me, requesting that I might be permitted to set in order the things which seemed to be wanting, it was manifest to me (although no one told me this) that the letter which I had received did not express the sentiments of your Clemency. All knew, and I also stated in writing, as Montanus is aware, that I did not refuse to come, but only that I thought it unbecoming to take advantage of the supposition that I had written to you to request this favour, fearing also lest the false accusers should find in this a pretence for saying that I made myself troublesome to your Piety. Nevertheless, I made preparations, as Montanus also knows, in order that, should you condescend to write to me, I might immediately leave home, and readily answer your commands; for I was not so mad as to resist such an order from you. When then in fact your Piety did not write to me, how could I resist a command which I never received? or how can they say that I refused to obey, when no orders were given me? Is not this again the mere fabrication of enemies, pretending that which never took place? I fear that even now, while I am engaged in this defence of myself, they may allege against me that I am doing that which I have never obtained your permission to do. So easily is my conduct made matter of accusation by them, and so ready are they to vent their calumnies in despite of that Scripture, which says, Love not to slander another, lest thou be cut off [1350] .' __________________________________________________________________

[1350] Prov. xx. 13, LXX. __________________________________________________________________

22. Arrivals of Diogenes and of Syrianus.

After a period of six and twenty months, when Montanus had gone away, there came Diogenes the Notary [1351] ; but he brought me no letter, nor did we see each other, nor did he charge me with any commands as from you. Moreover when the General Syrianus entered Alexandria [1352] , seeing that certain reports were spread abroad by the Arians, who declared that matters would now be as they wished, I enquired whether he had brought any letters on the subject of these statements of theirs. I confess that I asked for letters containing your commands. And when he said that he had brought none, I requested that Syrianus himself, or Maximus the Prefect of Egypt, would write to me concerning this matter. Which request I made, because your Grace has written to me, desiring that I would not suffer myself to be alarmed by any one, nor attend to those who wished to frighten me, but that I would continue to reside in the Churches without fear. It was Palladius, the Master of the Palace, and Asterius, formerly Duke of Armenia, who brought me this letter. Permit me to read a copy of it. It is as follows: __________________________________________________________________

[1351] [August, 355 a.d. See Hist. Aceph. iii. Fest. Ind. xxv., xxvii.] Notaries were the immediate attendants on magistrates, whose judgments, &c., they recorded and promulgated. Their office was analogous in the Imperial Court. vid. Gothofred in Cod. Theod. VI. x. Ammian. Marcell. tom. 3. P. 464. ed. Erfurt, 1808. Pancirol. Notit. p. 143. Hofman in voc. Schari enumerates with references the civil officers, &c., to whom they were attached in Dissert. 1, de Notariis Ecclesiæ, p. 49.

[1352] [Jan. 5, 356.] __________________________________________________________________

23. A copy [1353] of the letter as follows:

Constantius Victor Augustus to Athanasius [1354] . It is not unknown to your Prudence, how constantly I prayed that success might attend my late brother Constans in all his undertakings, and your wisdom will easily judge how greatly I was afflicted, when I learnt that he had been cut off by the treachery of villains. Now forasmuch as certain persons are endeavouring at this time to alarm you, by setting before your eyes that lamentable tragedy, I have thought good to address to your Reverence this present letter, to exhort you, that, as becomes a Bishop, you would teach the people to conform to the established [1355] religion, and, according to your custom, give yourself up to prayer together with them. For this is agreeable to our wishes; and our desire is, that you should at every season be a Bishop in your own place.

And in another hand:--May divine Providence preserve you, beloved Father, many years. __________________________________________________________________

[1353] Vid. another translation of the Latin, Hist. Arian. §24.

[1354] Spring of 350.

[1355] kechreostemenen vid. kratouse pistei, infr. §31. __________________________________________________________________

24. Why Athanasius did not obey the Imperial Order.

On the subject of this letter, my opponents conferred with the magistrates. And was it not reasonable that I, having received it, should demand their letters, and refuse to give heed to mere pretences? And were they not acting in direct contradiction to the tenor of your instructions to me, while they failed to shew me the commands of your Piety? I therefore, seeing they produced no letters from you, considered it improbable that a mere verbal communication should be made to them, especially as the letter of your Grace had charged me not to give ear to such persons. I acted rightly then, most religious Augustus, that as I had returned to my country under the authority of your letters, so I should only leave it by your command; and might not render myself liable hereafter to a charge of having deserted the Church, but as receiving your order might have a reason for my retiring. This was demanded for me by all my people, who went to Syrianus together with the Presbyters, and the greatest part, to say the least, of the city with them. Maximus, the Prefect of Egypt, was also there: and their request was that either he would send me a declaration of your wishes in writing, or would forbear to disturb the Churches, while the people themselves were sending a deputation to you respecting the matter. When they persisted in their demand, Syrianus at last perceived the reasonableness of it, and consented, protesting by your safety (Hilary was present and witnessed this) that he would put an end to the disturbance, and refer the case to your Piety. The guards of the Duke, as well as those of the Prefect of Egypt, know that this is true; the Prytanis [1356] of the city also remembers the words; so that you will perceive that neither I, nor any one else, resisted your commands. __________________________________________________________________

[1356] The Mayor, Tillem. vol. viii. p. 152. __________________________________________________________________

25. The irruption of Syrianus.

All demanded that the letters of your Piety should be exhibited. For although the bare word of a King is of equal weight and authority with his written command, especially if he who reports it, boldly affirms in writing that it has been given him; yet when they neither openly declared that they had received any command, nor, as they were requested to do, gave me assurance of it in writing, but acted altogether as by their own authority; I confess, I say it boldly, I was suspicious of them. For there were many Arians about them, who were their companions at table, and their counsellors; and while they attempted nothing openly, they were preparing to assail me by stratagem and treachery. Nor did they act at all as under the authority of a royal command, but, as their conduct betrayed, at the solicitation of enemies. This made me demand more urgently that they should produce letters from you, seeing that all their undertakings and designs were of a suspicious nature; and because it was unseemly that after I had entered the Church, under the authority of so many letters from you, I should retire from it without such a sanction. When however Syrianus gave his promise, all the people assembled together in the Churches with feelings of joyfulness and security. But three and twenty days after [1357] , he burst into the Church with his soldiers, while we were engaged in our usual services, as those who entered in there witnessed; for it was a vigil, preparatory to a communion on the morrow. And such things were done that night as the Arians desired and had beforehand denounced against us. For the General brought them with him; and they were the instigators and advisers of the attack. This is no incredible story of mine, most religious Augustus; for it was not done in secret, but was noised abroad everywhere. When therefore I saw the assault begun, I first exhorted the people to retire, and then withdrew myself after them, God hiding and guiding me, as those who were with me at the time witness. Since then, I have remained by myself, though I have all confidence to answer for my conduct, in the first place before God, and also before your Piety, for that I did not flee and desert my people, but can point to the attack of the General upon us, as a proof of persecution. His proceedings have caused the greatest astonishment among all men; for either he ought not to have made a promise, or not to have broken it after he had made it. __________________________________________________________________

[1357] [Feb. 8, 356: cf. Apol. Fug. 24.] __________________________________________________________________

26. How Athanasius acted when this took place.

Now why did they form this plot against me, and treacherously lay an ambush to take me, when it was in their power to enforce the order by a written declaration? The command of an Emperor is wont to give great boldness to those entrusted with it; but their desire to act secretly made the suspicion stronger that they had received no command. And did I require anything so very absurd? Let your Majesty's candour decide. Will not every one say, that such a demand was reasonable for a Bishop to make? You know, for you have read the Scriptures, how great an offence it is for a Bishop to desert his Church, and to neglect the flocks of God. For the absence of the Shepherd gives the wolves an opportunity to attack the sheep. And this was what the Arians and all the other heretics desired, that during my absence they might find an opportunity to entrap the people into impiety. If then I had fled, what defence could I have made before the true Bishops? or rather before Him Who has committed to me His flock? He it is Who judges the whole earth, the true King of all, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Would not every one have rightly charged me with neglect of my people? Would not your Piety have blamed me, and have justly asked, After you had returned under the authority of our letters, why did you withdraw without such authority, and desert your people?' Would not the people themselves at the day of judgment have reasonably imputed to me this neglect of them, and have said, He that had the oversight of us fled, and we were neglected, there being no one to put us in mind of our duty?' When they said this, what could I have answered? Such a complaint was made by Ezekiel against the Pastors of old [1358] ; and the blessed Apostle Paul, knowing this, has charged every one of us through his disciple, saying, Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery [1359] .' Fearing this, I wished not to flee, but to receive your commands, if indeed such was the will of your Piety. But I never obtained what I so reasonably requested, and now I am falsely accused before you; for I resisted no commands of your Piety; nor will I now attempt to return to Alexandria, until your Grace shall desire it. This I say beforehand, lest the slanderers should again make this a pretence for accusing me. __________________________________________________________________

[1358] Ez. xxxiv. 2, &c.

[1359] 1 Tim. iv. 14. __________________________________________________________________

27. Athanasius leaves Alexandria to go to Constantius, but is stopped by the news of the banishment of the Bishops.

Observing these things, I did not give sentence against myself, but hastened to come to your Piety, with this my defence, knowing your goodness, and remembering your faithful promises, and being confident that, as it is written in the divine Proverbs, Just speeches are acceptable to a gracious king [1360] .' But when I had already entered upon my journey, and had passed through the desert [1361] , a report suddenly reached me [1362] , which at first I thought to be incredible, but which afterwards proved to be true. It was rumoured everywhere that Liberius, Bishop of Rome, the great Hosius of Spain, Paulinus of Gaul, Dionysius and Eusebius of Italy, Lucifer of Sardinia, and certain other Bishops and Presbyters and Deacons, had been banished [1363] because they refused to subscribe to my condemnation. These had been banished: and Vincentius of Capua, Fortunatian of Aquileia, Heremius of Thessalonica, and all the Bishops of the West, were treated with no ordinary force, nay were suffering extreme violence and grievous injuries, until they could be induced to promise that they would not communicate with me. While I was astonished and perplexed at these tidings, behold another report [1364] overtook me, respecting them of Egypt and Libya, that nearly ninety Bishops had been under persecution, and that their Churches were given up to the professors of Arianism; that sixteen had been banished, and of the rest, some had fled, and others were constrained to dissemble. For the persecution was said to be so violent in those parts, that at Alexandria, while the brethren were praying during Easter and on the Lord's days in a desert place near the cemetery, the General came upon them with a force of soldiery, more than three thousand in number, with arms, drawn swords, and spears; whereupon outrages, such as might be expected to follow so unprovoked an attack, were committed against women and children, who were doing nothing more than praying to God. It would perhaps be unseasonable to give an account of them now, lest the mere mention of such enormities should move us all to tears. But such was their cruelty, that virgins were stripped, and even the bodies of those who died from the blows they received were not immediately given up for burial, but were cast out to the dogs, until their relatives, with great risk to themselves, came secretly and stole them away, and much effort was necessary, that no one might know it. __________________________________________________________________

[1360] Prov. xvi. 13. quoted otherwise, supr. §12.

[1361] [Probably the Libyan desert, as Const. was now in Italy.]

[1362] In this chapter he breaks off his Oratorical form, and ends his Apology much more in the form of a letter, vid. however ton logon kairon, infr. §§34, 35 init. prosphoneso, §35.

[1363] Council of Milan 355, see Apol. Fug. 5.

[1364] Vid. Hist. Ar. §§31, 32, 54, 70, &c. [Prolegg. ch, ii. §8 (1).] __________________________________________________________________

28. The news of the intrusion of George.

The rest of their proceedings will perhaps be thought incredible, and will fill all men with astonishment, by reason of their extreme atrocity. It is necessary however to speak of them, in order that your Christian zeal and piety may perceive that their slanders and calumnies against us are framed for no other end, than that they may drive us out of the Churches, and introduce their own impiety in our place. For when the lawful Bishops, men of advanced age, had some of them been banished, and others forced to fly, heathens and catechumens, those who hold the first places in the senate and men who are notorious for their wealth, were straightway commissioned by the Arians to preach the holy faith instead of Christians [1365] . And enquiry was no longer made, as the Apostle enjoined, if any be blameless [1366] :' but according to the practice of the impious Jeroboam, he who could give most money was named Bishop; and it made no difference to them, even if the man happened to be a heathen, so long as he furnished them with money. Those who had been Bishops from the time of Alexander, monks and ascetics, were banished: and men practised only in calumny corrupted, as far as in them lay, the Apostolic rule, and polluted the Churches. Truly their false accusations against us have gained them much, that they should be able to commit iniquity, and to do such things as these in your time; so that the words of Scripture may be applied to them, Woe unto those through whom My name is blasphemed among the Gentiles [1367] .' __________________________________________________________________

[1365] Hist Ar. §73.

[1366] Tit. i. 8.

[1367] Rom. ii. 24. __________________________________________________________________

29. Athanasius has heard of his own proscription.

Such were the rumours that were noised abroad; and although everything was thus turned upside down, I still did not relinquish my earnest desire of coming to your Piety, but was again setting forward on my journey. And I did so the more eagerly, being confident that these proceedings were contrary to your wishes, and that if your Grace should be informed of what was done, you would prevent it for the time to come. For I could not think that a righteous king could wish Bishops to be banished, and virgins to be stripped, or the Churches to be in any way disturbed. While I thus reasoned and hastened on my journey, behold a third report reached me, to the effect that letters had been written to the Princes of Auxumis, desiring that Frumentius [1368] , Bishop of Auxumis, should be brought from thence, and that search should be made for me even as far as the country of the Barbarians, that I might be handed over to the Commentaries [1369] (as they are called) of the Prefects, and that all the laity and clergy should be compelled to communicate with the Arian heresy, and that such as would not comply with this order should be put to death. To shew that these were not merely idle rumours, but that they were confirmed by facts, since your Grace has given me leave, I produce the letter. My enemies were constantly reading it, and threatening each one with death. __________________________________________________________________

[1368] [Prolegg. ch. ii. §§4, 7, 8 (1).]

[1369] That is, the prison. The official books,' Montfaucon (apparently) in Onomast. vid. Gothofr. Cod. Theod. ix. 3. 1. 5. However, in ix. 30. p. 243. he says, Malim pro ipsa custodia accipere. And so Du Cange in voc., and this meaning is here followed, vid. supr. Apol. contr. Arian. §8, where commentarius is translated jailor.' __________________________________________________________________

30. A copy of the letter of Constantius against Athanasius.

Victor Constantius Maximus Augustus to the Alexandrians.

Your city, preserving its national character, and remembering the virtue of its founders, has habitually shewn itself obedient unto us, as it does at this day; and we on our part should consider ourselves greatly wanting in our duty, did not our good will eclipse even that of Alexander himself. For as it belongs to a temperate mind, to behave itself orderly in all respects, so it is the part of royalty, on account of virtue, permit me to say, such as yours, to embrace you above all others; you, who rose up as the first teachers of wisdom who were the first to acknowledge [1370] God; who moreover have chosen for yourselves the most consummate masters; and have cordially acquiesced in our opinion, justly abominating that impostor and cheat, and dutifully uniting yourselves to those venerable men who are beyond all admiration. And yet, who is ignorant, even among those who live in the ends of the earth, what violent party spirit was displayed in the late proceedings? with which we know not anything that has ever happened, worthy to be compared. The majority of the citizens had their eyes blinded, and a man who had come forth from the lowest dens of infamy obtained authority among them, entrapping into falsehood, as under cover of darkness, those who were desirous to know the truth;--one who never provided for them any fruitful and edifying discourse, but corrupted their minds with unprofitable subtleties. His flatterers shouted and applauded him; they were astonished at his powers, and they still probably murmur secretly; while the majority of the more simple sort took their cue from them. And thus all went with the stream, as if a flood had broken in, while everything was entirely neglected. One of the multitude was in power;--how can I describe him more truly than by saying, that he was superior in nothing to the meanest of the people, and that the only kindness which he shewed to the city was, that he did not thrust her citizens down into the pit. This noble-minded and illustrious person did not wait for judgment to proceed against him, but sentenced himself to banishment, as he deserved. So that now it is for the interest of the Barbarians to remove him out of the way, lest he lead some of them into impiety, for he will make his complaint, like distressed characters in a play, to those who first fall in with him. To him however we will now bid a long farewell. For yourselves there are few with whom I can compare you: I am bound rather to honour you separately above all others, for the great virtue and wisdom which your actions, that are celebrated almost through the whole world, proclaim you to possess. Go on in this sober course. I would gladly have repeated to me a description of your conduct in such terms of praise as it deserves; O you who have eclipsed your predecessors in the race of glory, and will be a noble example both to those who are now alive, and to all who shall come after, and alone have chosen for yourselves the most perfect of beings as guide for your conduct, both in word and deed, and hesitated not a moment, but manfully transferred your affections, and gave yourselves up to the other side, leaving those grovelling [1371] and earthly teachers, and stretching forth towards heavenly things, under the guidance of the most venerable George [1372] , than whom no man is more perfectly instructed therein. Under him you will continue to have a good hope respecting the future life, and will pass your time in this present world, in rest and quietness. Would that all the citizens together would lay hold on his words, as a sacred anchor, so that we might need neither knife nor cautery for those whose souls are diseased! Such persons we most earnestly advise to renounce their zeal in favour of Athanasius, and not even to remember the foolish things which he spoke so plentifully among them. Otherwise they will bring themselves before they are aware into extreme peril, from which we know not any one who will be skilful enough to deliver such factious persons. For while that pestilent fellow Athanasius is driven from place to place, being convicted of the basest crimes, for which he would only suffer the punishment he deserves, if one were to kill him ten times over, it would be inconsistent in us to suffer those flatterers and juggling ministers of his to exult against us; men of such a character as it is a shame even to speak of, respecting whom orders have long ago been given to the magistrates, that they should be put to death. But even now perhaps they shall not die, if they desist from their former offences, and repent at last. For that most pestilent fellow Athanasius led them on, and corrupted the whole state, and laid his impious and polluted hands upon the most holy things. __________________________________________________________________

[1370] On the reading, cf. infr. note 6.

[1371] ton chamai, vid. contr. Euseb. H. E. vii. 27.

[1372] Of Cappadocia, de Syn. 37, note 3. __________________________________________________________________

31. Letter of Constantius to the Ethiopians against Frumentius.

The following is the letter which was written to the Princes of Auxumis respecting Frumentius, Bishop of that place.

Constantius Victor Maximus Augustus, to Æzanes and Sazanes.

It is altogether a matter of the greatest care and concern to us, to extend the knowledge of the supreme God [1373] ; and I think that the whole race of mankind claims from us equal regard in this respect, in order that they may pass their lives in hope, being brought to a proper knowledge of God, and having no differences with each other in their enquiries concerning justice and truth. Wherefore considering that you are deserving of the same provident care as the Romans, and desiring to shew equal regard for your welfare, we command that the same doctrine be professed in your Churches as in theirs. Send therefore speedily into Egypt the Bishop Frumentius to the most venerable Bishop George, and the rest who are there, who have especial authority to appoint to these offices, and to decide questions concerning them. For of course you know and remember (unless you alone pretend to be ignorant of that which all men are well aware of) that this Frumentius was advanced to his present rank by Athanasius, a man who is guilty of ten thousand crimes; for he has not been able fairly to clear himself of any of the charges brought against him, but was at once deprived of his see, and now wanders about destitute of any fixed abode, and passes from one country to another, as if by this means he could escape his own wickedness. Now if Frumentius shall readily obey our commands, and shall submit to an enquiry into all the circumstances of his appointment, he will shew plainly to all men, that he is in no respect opposed to the laws of the Church and the established [1374] faith. And being brought to trial, when he shall have given proof of his general good conduct, and submitted an account of his life to those who are to judge of these things, he shall receive his appointment from them, if it shall indeed appear that he has any right to be a Bishop. But if he shall delay and avoid the trial, it will surely be very evident, that he has been induced by the persuasions of the wicked Athanasius, thus to indulge impiety against God, choosing to follow the course of him whose wickedness has been made manifest. And our fear is lest he should pass over into Auxumis and corrupt your people, by setting before them accursed and impious statements, and not only unsettle and disturb the Churches, and blaspheme the supreme God, but also thereby cause utter overthrow and destruction to the several nations whom he visits. But I am sure that Frumentius will return home, perfectly acquainted with all matters that concern the Church, having derived much instruction, which will be of great and general utility, from the conversation of the most venerable George, and such other of the Bishops, as are excellently qualified to communicate such knowledge. May God continually preserve you, most honoured brethren. __________________________________________________________________

[1373] he tou kreittonos gnosis, vid. ton kreittona, infr. And so in Arius's Thalia, the Eternal Father, in contrast to the Son, is called ho kreitton, ton kreittona, de Synod. §15. So again, theon ton [onta] sunientas, supr. §30, and suneton theou in the Thalia, Orat. i. 5. Again, sophias exegetas, supr. §30 and ton sophias metachonton, kata panta sophon in the Thalia, ibid. And ton exegeton tous akrous heilesthe, supr. §30, and touton kat' ichnos elthon in the Thalia.

[1374] kratouse, supr. §23, note 6. __________________________________________________________________

32. He defends his Flight.

Hearing, nay almost seeing, these things, through the mournful representations of the messengers, I confess I turned back again into the desert, justly concluding, as your Piety will perceive, that if I was sought after, that I might be sent as soon as I was discovered to the Prefects [1375] , I should be prevented from ever coming to your Grace; and that if those who would not subscribe against me, suffered so severely as they did, and the laity who refused to communicate with the Arians were ordered for death, there was no doubt at all but that ten thousand new modes of destruction would be devised by the calumniators against me; and that after my death, they would employ against whomsoever they wished to injure, whatever means they chose, venting their lies against us the more boldly, for that then there would no longer be any one left who could expose them. I fled, not because I feared your Piety (for I know your long-suffering and goodness), but because from what had taken place, I perceived the spirit of my enemies, and considered that they would make use of all possible means to accomplish my destruction, from fear that they would be brought to answer for what they had done contrary to the intentions of your Excellency. For observe, your Grace commanded that the Bishops should be expelled only out of the cities and the province. But these worthy persons presumed to exceed your commands, and banished aged men and Bishops venerable for their years into desert and unfrequented and frightful places, beyond the boundaries of three provinces [1376] . Some of them were sent off from Libya to the great Oasis; others from the Thebais to Ammoniaca in Libya [1377] . Neither was it from fear of death that I fled; let none of them condemn me as guilty of cowardice; but because it is the injunction of our Saviour [1378] that we should flee when we are persecuted, and hide ourselves when we are sought after, and not expose ourselves to certain dangers, nor by appearing before our persecutors inflame still more their rage against us. For to give one's self up to one's enemies to be murdered, is the same thing as to murder one's self; but to flee, as our Saviour has enjoined, is to know our time, and to manifest a real concern for our persecutors, lest if they proceed to the shedding of blood, they become guilty of the transgression of the law, Thou shalt not kill [1379] .' And yet these men by their calumnies against me, earnestly wish that I should suffer death. What they have again lately done proves that this is their desire and murderous intention. You will be astonished, I am sure, Augustus, most beloved of God, when you hear it; it is indeed an outrage worthy of amazement. What it is, I pray you briefly to hear. __________________________________________________________________

[1375] Supr. §29.

[1376] Egypt was divided into three Provinces till Hadrian's time, Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis; Hadrian made them four; Epiphanius speaks of them as seven. Hær. 68. i. By the time of Arcadius they had become eight. vid. Orlendini Orbis Sacer et Prof. vol. i. p. 118. vid. supr. Encyc. §3, n. 2, Apol. Ar. §83.

[1377] Hist. Ar. 72.

[1378] Vid. Apol. de Fug. init.; Matt. x. 23.

[1379] Exod. xx. 13. __________________________________________________________________

33. Conduct of the Arians towards the consecrated Virgins.

The Son of God, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, having become man for our sakes, and having destroyed death, and delivered our race from the bondage of corruption [1380] , in addition to all His other benefits bestowed this also upon us, that we should possess upon earth, in the state of virginity [1381] , a picture of the holiness of Angels. Accordingly such as have attained this virtue, the Catholic Church has been accustomed to call the brides of Christ. And the heathen who see them express their admiration of them as the temples of the Word. For indeed this holy and heavenly profession is nowhere [1382] established, but only among us Christians, and it is a very strong argument that with us is to be found the genuine and true religion. Your most religious father Constantine Augustus, of blessed memory, honoured the Virgins above all the rest, and your Piety in several letters has given them the titles of the honourable and holy women. But now these worthy Arians who have slandered me, and by whom conspiracies have been formed against most of the Bishops, having obtained the consent and cooperation of the magistrates, first stripped them, and then caused them to be suspended upon what are called the Hermetaries [1383] , and scourged them on the ribs so severely three several times, that not even real malefactors have ever suffered the like. Pilate, to gratify the Jews of old, pierced one of our Saviour's sides with a spear. These men have exceeded the madness of Pilate, for they have scourged not one but both His sides; for the limbs of the Virgins are in an especial manner the Saviour's own. All men shudder at hearing the bare recital of deeds like these. These men alone not only did not fear to strip and to scourge those undefiled limbs, which the Virgins had dedicated solely to our Saviour Christ; but, what is worse than all, when they were reproached by every one for such extreme cruelty, instead of manifesting any shame, they pretended that it was commanded by your Piety. So utterly presumptuous are they and full of wicked thoughts and purposes. Such a deed as this was never heard of in past persecutions [1384] : or supposing that it ever occurred before, yet surely it was not befitting either that Virginity should suffer such outrage and dishonour, in the time of your Majesty, a Christian, or that these men should impute to your Piety their own cruelty. Such wickedness belongs only to heretics, to blaspheme the Son of God, and to do violence to His holy Virgins. __________________________________________________________________

[1380] 2 Tim. i. 10; Rom. viii. 21.

[1381] Cf. Ep. Fest. i. 3, Ep. ad Amun, also de Incar. 27, 48, 51.

[1382] [Revillout (in the work quoted supr. p. 188), p. 479 sq. states the contrary with regard to Egypt. He refers to the opening of Plutarch's de Is. et Osir., also to Brunet de Presle Serapeum.]

[1383] A rack, or horse, Tillemont. vol. viii. p. 169.

[1384] Vid. Hist. Ar. §§40, 64. __________________________________________________________________

34. He expostulates with Constantius.

Now when such enormities as these were again perpetrated by the Arians, I surely was not wrong in complying with the direction of Holy Scripture, which says, Hide thyself for a little moment, until the wrath of the Lord be overpast [1385] .' This was another reason for my withdrawing myself, Augustus, most beloved of God; and I refused not, either to depart into the desert, or, if need were, to be let down from a wall in a basket [1386] . I endured everything, I even dwelt among wild beasts, that your favour might return to me, waiting for an opportunity to offer to you this my defence, confident as I am that they will be condemned, and your goodness manifested unto me. O, Augustus, blessed and most beloved of God, what would you have had me to do? to come to you while my calumniators were inflamed with rage against me, and were seeking to kill me; or, as it is written, to hide myself a little, that in the mean time they might be condemned as heretics, and your goodness might be manifested unto me? or would you have had me, Sire, to appear before your magistrates, in order that though you had written merely in the way of threatening, they not understanding your intention, but being exasperated against me by the Arians, might kill me on the authority of your letters, and on that ground ascribe the murder to you? It would neither have been becoming in me to surrender, and give myself up that my blood might be shed, nor in you, as a Christian King, to have the murder of Christians, and those too Bishops, imputed unto you. __________________________________________________________________

[1385] Is. xxvi. 20, LXX.

[1386] 2 Cor. xi. 33. __________________________________________________________________

35. It was therefore better for me to hide myself, and to wait for this opportunity. Yes, I am sure that from your knowledge of the sacred Scriptures you will assent and approve of my conduct in this respect. For you will perceive that, now those who exasperated you against us have been silenced, your righteous clemency is apparent, and it is proved to all men that you never persecuted the Christians at all, but that it was they who made the Churches desolate, that they might sow the seeds of their own impiety everywhere; on account of which I also, had I not fled, should long ago have suffered from their treachery. For it is very evident that they who scrupled not to utter such calumnies against me, before the great Augustus, and who so violently assailed Bishops and Virgins, sought also to compass my death. But thanks be to the Lord who has given you the kingdom. All men are confirmed in their opinion of your goodness, and of their wickedness, from which I fled at the first, that I might now make this appeal unto you, and that you might find some one towards whom you may shew kindness. I beseech you, therefore, forasmuch as it written, A soft answer turneth away wrath,' and righteous thoughts are acceptable unto the King [1387] ;' receive this my defence, and restore all the Bishops and the rest of the Clergy to their countries and their Churches; so that the wickedness of my accusers may be made manifest, and that you, both now and in the day of judgment, may have boldness to say to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the King of all, "None of Thine have I lost [1388] ," but these are they who designed the ruin of all, while I was grieved for those who perished, and for the Virgins who were scourged, and for all other things that were committed against the Christians; and I brought back them that were banished, and restored them to their own Churches.' __________________________________________________________________

[1387] Prov. xv. 1; xvi. 13. vid. §27, note 1.

[1388] John xviii. 9. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

Introduction to Apologia de Fuga.

------------------------

The date of this Defence of his Flight must be placed early enough to fall within the lifetime, or very close to the death (§1. n. 1), of Leontius of Antioch, and late enough to satisfy the references (§6) to the events at the end of May 357 (see notes there), and to the lapse of Hosius, the exact date of which again depends upon that of the Sirmian Council of 357, which, if held the presence of Constantius, must have fallen as late as August (Gwatk. Stud. 157, n. 3). Athanasius not only refers to the lapse of Hosius, but by the quotation he makes from Gal. ii. 5, appears to know of its merely temporary nature (see D.C.B. iii. 173). How early, then, does the first-named condition compel us to place the Defence?' Upon the news of the death of Leontius reaching Italy (Soz. iv. 12), Eudoxius obtained the leave of Constantius (who was in Italy, April 28 to July 3, 357, and again, Nov. 10 to Dec. 10, Gwatk. p. 292), to repair to Antioch. There he got himself elected bishop, assembled a council (Acacius and other Homoeans), and wrote a synodal letter, expelling from the Antiochene Church those who dissented. Some of the latter repaired to Ancyra with a letter from the semi-Arian George of Laodicea; at Ancyra, Basil assembled a small council (before Easter, April 12, 358, see D.C.B. i. 281, Epiph. Hær. 73), which wrote to the Emperor protesting against the proceedings of Eudoxius. To gain room for these events, at the very least five months, and probably more, must be allowed to elapse between the death of Leontius and April 12, 358. Leontius must therefore have died in the summer (Gwatk. p. 153, note), or at the very latest in October, 357. We cannot, therefore, place the Apology much after this date, for the reference to Hosius shews--in addition to many other indications--how quickly Athanasius in his hiding-place was informed of current events.

The Apology was drawn forth by the charge of cowardice circulated against him by the Arianising party, especially by the three bishops named in §1. After a preamble upon the motives of his accusers (1, 2), he shews that his own case is but part of a general system (3-5) of expatriation directed against orthodox bishops. He then refers to the circumstance of the attack upon himself, and dwells at length upon the tyranny of George (6, 7) and the banishment of Egyptian and Libyan bishops. This brings him to the argument (8-22) which gives its name to the tract. After pressing the point that if flight be evil, those who persecute are the responsible cause (8, 9), and hinting at the real motive of their mortification at his escape (10), he defends his flight by the example first (10, 11) of the Scripture Saints, secondly of the Lord Himself (12-15). From the latter, he returns to the conduct of the Saints, who, unlike the Lord (16), were unaware of their appointed time, yet fled or not (17) as circumstances and the direction of the Spirit required them to do. The Saints if they fled were not moved to do so by cowardice, else how could their flight so frequently have been the occasion of divine communications (18-20), and how could such good (21, 22) have resulted from it? As a pendant to this vindication of flight on principle comes a short (23) but weighty rebuke of persecution as inherently devilish to de diokein diabolikon estin epicheirema. From principle, Athanasius now passes to fact. He gives a graphic description (24) of the night attack on the Church of Theonas, and shews (25, 26) how fully his action on that occasion is covered by the examples of the ancient Saints of God. He concludes (26, 27) with a somewhat exasperated denunciation of his opponents, and a prayer for the frustration of their intrigues.

The Apology is a locus classicus on the duty of Christians under persecution. Athanasius was not the first great bishop who felt called upon to defend his conduct in retreating until the tyranny be overpast' (see Cyprian, Ep. 20. August. Ep. 228). His principles are laid down with regard to the common welfare. Rashness must be avoided, with its tendency to a reaction (17, end), and its presumption in forestalling the time appointed by Providence for our death. But neither must that time be evaded. When our end must come, we must face it quietly. Accordingly (22) it is a duty to escape when we can, and to hide when sought for rather than to follow the exceptional (ib.) action of certain martyrs in courting death.

It is uncertain to whom the Defence' was addressed: it was perhaps a memorandum' to be circulated wherever opportunity offered. The tract has always been justly admired for its lucidity, force, and dignity. It is quoted largely by Socrates (ii. 28, iii. 8) and by Theodoret (H. E. ii. 15). __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

Defence of His Flight.

------------------------

1. Athanasius charged with cowardice for escaping.

I hear that Leontius [1389] , now at Antioch, and Narcissus [1390] of the city of Nero, and George [1391] , now at Laodicea, and the Arians who are with them, are spreading abroad many slanderous reports concerning me, charging me with cowardice, because forsooth, when I myself was sought by them, I did not surrender myself into their hands. Now as to their imputations and calumnies, although there are many things that I could write, which even they are unable to deny, and which all who have heard of their proceedings know to be true, yet I shall not be prevailed upon to make any reply to them, except only to remind them of the words of our Lord, and of the declaration of the Apostle, that a lie is of the Devil,' and that, revilers shall not inherit the kingdom of God [1392] .' For it is sufficient thereby to prove, that neither their thoughts nor their words are according to the Gospel, but that after their own pleasure, whatsoever themselves desire, that they think to be good. __________________________________________________________________

[1389] Leontius died in the summer of 357, probably before Ath. wrote.

[1390] De Syn. 17.

[1391] Apol. Ar. 48.

[1392] John viii. 44; 1 Cor. vi. 10. __________________________________________________________________

2. Insincerity of this charge.

But forasmuch as they pretend to charge me with cowardice, it is necessary that I should write somewhat concerning this, whereby it shall be proved that they are men of wicked minds, who have not read the sacred Scriptures: or if they have read them, that they do not believe the divine inspiration of the oracles they contain. For had they believed this, they would not dare to act contrary to them, nor imitate the malice of the Jews who slew the Lord. For God having given them a commandment, Honour thy father and thy mother,' and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death [1393] ;' that people established a contrary law, changing the honour into dishonour, and alienating to other uses the money which was due from the children to their parents. And though they had read what David did, they acted in contradiction to his example, and accused the guiltless for plucking the ears of corn, and rubbing them in their hands on the Sabbath day [1394] . Not that they cared either for the laws, or for the Sabbath, for they were guilty of greater transgressions of the law on that day: but being wicked-minded, they grudged the disciples the way of salvation, and desired that their own private notions should have the sole pre-eminence. They however have received the reward of their iniquity, having ceased to be an holy nation, and being counted henceforth as the rulers of Sodom, and as the people of Gomorrah [1395] . And these men likewise, not less than they, seem to me to have received their punishment already in their ignorance of their own folly. For they understand not what they say, but think that they know things of which they are ignorant; while the only knowledge that is in them is to do evil, and to frame devices more and more wicked day by day. Thus they reproach us with our present flight, not for the sake of virtue, as wishing us to shew manliness by coming forward (how is it possible that such a wish can be entertained by enemies in behalf of those who run not with them in the same career of madness?); but being full of malice, they pretend this, and buzz [1396] all around that such is the case, thinking, foolish as indeed they are, that through fear of their revilings, we shall yet be induced to give ourselves up to them. For this is what they desire: to accomplish this they have recourse to all kinds of schemes: they pretend themselves to be friends, while they search as enemies, to the end that they may glut themselves with our blood, and put us also out of the way, because we have always opposed and do still oppose their impiety, and confute and brand their heresy. __________________________________________________________________

[1393] Matt. xv. 4.

[1394] Luke vi. 1. sqq.

[1395] Isa. i. 10, 11.

[1396] peribombein, Nic. Def. 14, note 1; Greg. Naz. Orat. 27. n. 2. __________________________________________________________________

3. Outrages of the Arians against the Bishops.

For whom have they ever persecuted and taken, that they have not insulted and injured as they pleased? Whom have they ever sought after and found, that they have not handled in such a manner, that either he has died a miserable death, or has been ill-treated in every way? Whatever the magistrates appear to do, it is their work; and the others are merely the tools of their will and wickedness. In consequence, where is there a place that has not some memorial of their malice? Who has ever opposed them, without their conspiring against him, inventing pretexts for his ruin after the manner of Jezebel? Where is there a Church that is not at this moment lamenting the success of their plots against her Bishops? Antioch is mourning for the orthodox Confessor Eustathius [1397] ; Balaneæ for the most admirable Euphration [1398] ; Paltus and Antaradus for Kymatius [1399] and Carterius; Adrianople for that lover of Christ, Eutropius, and his successor Lucius, who was often loaded with chains by their means, and so perished; Ancyra mourns for Marcellus, Berrhoea [1400] for Cyrus [1401] , Gaza for Asclepas. Of all these, after inflicting many outrages, they by their intrigues procured the banishment; but for Theodulus and Olympius, Bishops of Thrace, and for us and our Presbyters, they caused diligent search to be made, to the intent that if we were discovered we should suffer capital punishment: and probably we should have so perished, had we not fled at that very time contrary to their intentions. For letters to that effect were delivered to the Proconsul Donatus against Olympius and his fellows, and to Philagrius against me. And having raised a persecution against Paul, Bishop of Constantinople, as soon as they found him, they caused him to be openly strangled [1402] at a place called Cucusus in Cappadocia, employing as their executioner for the purpose Philip, who was Prefect. He was a patron of their heresy, and the tool of their wicked designs. __________________________________________________________________

[1397] Vid. Hist. Arian. §4. also Theodoret Hist. i. 20. [Prolegg. ch. ii. §4.] The name of Euphration occurs de Syn. 17 as the Bishop to whom Eusebius of Cæsarea wrote an heretical letter. Balaneæ is on the Syrian coast. Paltus also and Antaradus are in Syria, and these persecutions took place about a.d. 338; that of Eutropius, and of Lucius his successor, about 331, shortly after the proceedings against Eustathius. Cyrus too was banished under pretence of Sabellianism about 338. For Asclepas, Theodulus, and Olympius vid. Hist. Arian. §19. and supr. Apol. Ar. 44, 45.

[1398] Hist. Arian. 5.

[1399] Tom. ad Ant.

[1400] Beroea, Hist. Ar. 5.

[1401] Tom. ad Ant.

[1402] a.d. 350, infr. Hist. Arian. §4; for Cucusus, see D.C.B. i. 529, 530. __________________________________________________________________

4. Proceedings after the Council of Milan.

Are they then satisfied with all this, and content to be quiet for the future? By no means; they have not given over yet, but like the horseleach [1403] in the Proverbs, they revel more and more in their wickedness, and fix themselves upon the larger dioceses. Who can adequately describe the enormities they have already perpetrated? who is able to recount all the deeds that they have done? Even very lately, while the Churches were at peace, and the people worshipping in their congregations, Liberius, Bishop of Rome, Paulinus [1404] , Metropolitan of Gaul, Dionysius [1405] , Metropolitan of Italy, Lucifer [1406] , Metropolitan of the Sardinian islands, and Eusebius [1407] of Italy, all of them good Bishops and preachers of the truth, were seized and banished [1408] , on no pretence whatever, except that they would not unite themselves to the Arian heresy, nor subscribe to the false accusations and calumnies which they had invented against me. __________________________________________________________________

[1403] Hist. Arian. §65; Prov. xxx. 15.

[1404] Of Treveri.

[1405] Of Milan.

[1406] Of Cagliari.

[1407] Of Vercellæ.

[1408] [Council of Milan, 355.] __________________________________________________________________

5. In praise of Hosius.

Of the great Hosius [1409] , who answers to his name, that confessor of a happy old age, it is superfluous for me to speak, for I suppose it is known unto all men that they caused him also to be banished; for he is not an obscure person, but of all men the most illustrious, and more than this. When was there a Council held, in which he did not take the lead [1410] , and by right counsel convince every one? Where is there a Church that does not possess some glorious monuments of his patronage? Who has ever come to him in sorrow, and has not gone away rejoicing? What needy person ever asked his aid, and did not obtain what he desired? And yet even on this man they made their assault, because knowing the calumnies which they invent in behalf of their iniquity, he would not subscribe to their designs against us. And if afterwards, upon the repeated stripes above measure that were inflicted upon him, and the conspiracies that were formed against his kinsfolk, he yielded [1411] to them for a time [1412] , as being old and infirm in body, yet at least their wickedness is shewn even in this circumstance; so zealously did they endeavour by all means to prove that they were not truly Christians. __________________________________________________________________

[1409] Hist. Ar. 42.

[1410] [Nicæa and Sardica are specially referred to, but see Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (1) note 5, sub. fin.]

[1411] [Apol. Ar. 89, Hist. Ar. 45, 357 a.d.]

[1412] Gal. ii. 5. __________________________________________________________________

6. Outrages of George upon the Alexandrians.

After this they again fastened themselves upon Alexandria, seeking anew to put us to death: and their proceedings were now worse than before. For on a sudden the Church was surrounded by soldiers, and sounds of war took the place of prayers. Then George [1413] of Cappadocia who was sent by them, having arrived during the season of Lent [1414] , brought an increase of evils which they had taught him. For after Easter week, Virgins were thrown into prison; Bishops were led away in chains by soldiers; houses of orphans and widows were plundered, and their loaves taken away; attacks were made upon houses, and Christians thrust forth in the night, and their dwellings sealed up: brothers of clergymen were in danger of their lives on account of their brethren. These outrages were sufficiently dreadful, but more dreadful than these followed. For on the week that succeeded the Holy Pentecost [May 11], when the people after their fast had gone out to the cemetery to pray, because that all refused communion with George, that abandoned person, on learning this, stirred up against them the commander Sebastian, a Manichee; who straightway with a multitude of soldiers with arms, drawn swords, bows, and spears, proceeded to attack the people, though it was the Lord's day [1415] : and finding a few praying (for the greater part had already retired on account of the lateness of the hour), he committed such outrages as became a disciple of these men. Having lighted a pile, he placed certain virgins near the fire, and endeavoured to force them to say that they were of the Arian faith: and when he saw that they were getting the mastery, and cared not for the fire, he immediately stripped them naked, and beat them in the face in such a manner, that for some time they could hardly be recognised. __________________________________________________________________

[1413] Apol. Const. 30, note 5, and reff.

[1414] [Comp. Encyc. §4. The present passage certainly appears to put the arrival of George in the Lent immediately following the irruption of Syrianus: but see Prolegg. ch. ii. §8 (1), note 5, below, Fest. Index, xxix., and the explanation in Chron. Aceph. that the party of George took possession of the Churches (in June 356), eight months before George arrived in person. Cf. Introd. to Apol. Const.]

[1415] [Sunday, May 18, 357. The Roman martyrology celebrates these victims on May 21, which suits the reference of the present passage to 357.] __________________________________________________________________

7. Outrages of George.

And having seized upon forty men, he beat them after a new fashion. Cutting some sticks fresh from the palm tree, with the thorns still upon them [1416] , he scourged them on the back so severely, that some of them were for a long time under surgical treatment on account of the thorns which had broken off in their flesh, and others unable to bear up under their sufferings died. All those whom they had taken, and the virgin, they sent away together into banishment to the great Oasis. And the bodies of those who had perished they would not at first suffer to be given up to their friends, but concealed them in any way they pleased, and cast them out without burial [1417] , in order that they might not appear to have any knowledge of these cruel proceedings. But herein their deluded minds greatly misled them. For the relatives of the dead, both rejoicing at the confession, and grieving for the bodies of their friends, published abroad so much the more this proof of their impiety and cruelty. Moreover they immediately banished out of Egypt and Libya the following Bishops [1418] , Ammonius, Muïus [1419] , Gaïus, Philo [1420] , Hermes, Plenius, Psenosiris, Nilammon, Agathus, Anagamphus, Marcus, Ammonius, another Marcus, Dracontius [1421] , Adelphius [1422] , Athenodorus, and the Presbyters, Hierax [1423] , and Dioscorus; whom they drove forth under such cruel treatment, that some of them died on the way, and others in the place of their banishment. They caused also more than thirty Bishops to take to flight; for their desire was, after the example of Ahab, if it were possible, utterly to root out the truth. Such are the enormities of which these impious men have been guilty. __________________________________________________________________

[1416] Hist. Arian. §72.

[1417] Ibid. §72 fin. Apol. Const. 27.

[1418] Ibid. and see Hist. Ar. §72.

[1419] Hieron. V. Hilar. §30. [Rather see Letter 49. 7, notes 3 (a and b), and Vit. Pachom. 72, where the same names occur together.]

[1420] Hieron. V. Hilar. §30. [Rather see Letter 49. 7, notes 3 (a and b), and Vit. Pachom. 72, where the same names occur together.]

[1421] Letter 49.

[1422] Letter 60.

[1423] Letter 49. 10. __________________________________________________________________

8. If it is wrong to flee, it is worse to persecute.

But although [1424] they have done all this, yet they are not ashamed of the evils they have already contrived against me, but proceed now to accuse me, because I have been able to escape their murderous hands. Nay, they bitterly bewail themselves, that they have not effectually put me out of the way; and so they pretend to reproach me with cowardice, not perceiving that by thus murmuring against me, they rather turn the blame upon themselves. For if it be a bad thing to flee, it is much worse to persecute; for the one party hides himself to escape death, the other persecutes with a desire to kill; and it is written in the Scriptures that we ought to flee; but he that seeks to destroy transgresses the law, nay, and is himself the occasion of the other's flight. If then they reproach me with my flight, let them be more ashamed of their own persecution [1425] . Let them cease to conspire, and they who flee will forthwith cease to do so. But they, instead of giving over their wickedness, are employing every means to obtain possession of my person, not perceiving that the flight of those who are persecuted is a strong argument against those who persecute. For no man flees from the gentle and the humane, but from the cruel and the evil-minded. Every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt [1426] ,' fled from Saul, and took refuge with David. But this is the reason why these men desire to cut off those who are in concealment, that there may be no evidence forthcoming of their wickedness. But herein their minds seem to be blinded with their usual error. For the more the flight of their enemies becomes known, so much the more notorious will be the destruction or the banishment which their treachery has brought upon them [1427] ; so that whether they kill them outright, their death will be the more loudly noised abroad against them, or whether they drive them into banishment, they will but be sending forth everywhere monuments of their own iniquity. __________________________________________________________________

[1424] Cited by Socrates iii. 8.

[1425] Apol. Ar. §4.

[1426] 1 Sam. xxii. 2.

[1427] Hist. Arian. §§34, 35. __________________________________________________________________

9. The accusation shews the mind of the accusers.

Now if they had been of sound mind, they would have seen that they were in this strait, and that they were falling foul of their own arguments. But since they have lost all judgment, they are still led on to persecute, and seek to destroy, and yet perceive not their own impiety. It may be they even venture to accuse Providence itself (for nothing is beyond the reach of their presumption), that it does not deliver up to them those whom they desire; certain as it is, according to the saying of our Saviour, that not even a sparrow can fall into the snare without our Father which is in heaven [1428] . But when these accursed ones obtain possession of any one, they immediately forget not only all other, but even themselves; and raising their brow in very haughtiness, they neither acknowledge times and seasons, nor respect human nature in those whom they injure. Like the tyrant of Babylon [1429] , they attack more furiously; they shew pity to none, but mercilessly upon the ancient,' as it is written, they very heavily lay the yoke,' and they add to the grief of them that are wounded [1430] .' Had they not acted in this manner; had they not driven into banishment those who spoke in my defence against their calumnies, their representations might have appeared to some persons sufficiently plausible. But since they have conspired against so many other Bishops of high character, and have spared neither the great confessor Hosius, nor the Bishop of Rome, nor so many others from the Spains and the Gauls, and Egypt, and Libya, and the other countries, but have committed such cruel outrages against all who have in any way opposed them in my behalf; is it not plain that their designs have been directed rather against me than against any other, and that their desire is miserably to destroy me as they have done others? To accomplish this they vigilantly watch for an opportunity, and think themselves injured, when they see those safe, whom they wished not to live. __________________________________________________________________

[1428] Matt. x. 29.

[1429] Encyc. 5.

[1430] Is. xlvii. 6; Ps. lxix. 26. __________________________________________________________________

10. Their real grievance is not that Athanasius is a coward, but that he is free.

Who then does not perceive their craftiness? Is it not very evident to every one that they do not reproach me with cowardice from regard to virtue, but that being athirst for blood, they employ these their base devices as nets, thinking thereby to catch those whom they seek to destroy? That such is their character is shewn by their actions, which have convicted them of possessing dispositions more savage than wild beasts, and more cruel than Babylonians. But although the proof against them is sufficiently clear from all this, yet since they still dissemble with soft words after the manner of their father the devil [1431] ,' and pretend to charge me with cowardice, while they are themselves more cowardly than hares; let us consider what is written in the Sacred Scriptures respecting such cases as this. For thus they will be shewn to fight against the Scriptures no less than against me, while they detract from the virtues of the Saints.

For if they reproach men for hiding themselves from those who seek to destroy them, and accuse those who flee from their persecutors, what will they do when they see Jacob fleeing from his brother Esau, and Moses withdrawing into Midian for fear of Pharaoh? What excuse will they make for David, after all this idle talk, for fleeing from his house on account of Saul, when he sent to kill him, and for hiding himself in the cave, and for changing his appearance, until he withdrew from Abimelech [1432] , and escaped his designs against him? What will they say, they who are ready to say anything, when they see the great Elijah, after calling upon God and raising the dead, hiding himself for fear of Ahab, and fleeing from the threats of Jezebel? At which time also the sons of the prophets, when they were sought after, hid themselves with the assistance of Obadiah, and lay concealed in caves [1433] . __________________________________________________________________

[1431] John viii. 44.

[1432] Achish, 1 Sam. xxi. 13 [but cf. title of Ps. xxxiv.]

[1433] 1 Kings xviii. 15; Hist. Ar. §53. __________________________________________________________________

11. Examples of Scripture Saints in defence of flight.

Perhaps they have not read these histories; as being out of date; yet have they no recollection of what is written in the Gospel? For the disciples also withdrew and hid themselves for fear of the Jews; and Paul, when he was sought after by the governor at Damascus, was let down from the wall in a basket, and so escaped his hands. As the Scripture then relates these things of the Saints, what excuse will they be able to invent for their wickedness? To reproach them with cowardice would be an act of madness, and to accuse them of acting contrary to the will of God, would be to shew themselves entirely ignorant of the Scriptures. For there was a command under the law [1434] that cities of refuge should be appointed, in order that they who were sought after to be put to death, might at least have some means of saving themselves. And when He Who spake unto Moses, the Word of the Father, appeared in the end of the world, He also gave this commandment, saying, But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another:' and shortly after He says, When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand); then let them which be in Judæa flee into the mountains: let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes [1435] .' Knowing these things, the Saints regulated their conduct accordingly. For what our Lord has now commanded, the same also He spoke by His Saints before His coming in the flesh: and this is the rule which is given unto men to lead them to perfection--what God commands, that to do. __________________________________________________________________

[1434] Ex. xxi. 13.

[1435] Matt. x. 23; xxiv. 15. __________________________________________________________________

12. The Lord an example of timely flight.

Wherefore also the Word Himself, being made man for our sakes, condescended to hide Himself when He was sought after, as we do: and also when He was persecuted, to flee and avoid the designs of His enemies. For it became Him, as by hunger and thirst and suffering, so also by hiding Himself and fleeing, to shew that He had taken our flesh, and was made man. Thus at the very first, as soon as He became man, when He was a little child, He Himself by His Angel commanded Joseph, Arise, and take the young Child and His Mother, and flee into Egypt; for Herod will seek the young Child's life [1436] .' And when Herod was dead, we find Him withdrawing to Nazareth by reason of Archelaus his son. And when afterwards He was shewing Himself to be God, and made whole the withered hand, the Pharisees went out, and held a council against Him, how they might destroy Him; but when Jesus knew it, He withdrew Himself from thence [1437] . So also when He raised Lazarus from the dead, from that day forth,' says the Scripture, they took counsel for to put Him to death. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence into the country near to the wilderness [1438] .' Again, when our Saviour said, Before Abraham was, I am,' the Jews took up stones to cast at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple [1439] .' And going through the midst of them, He went His way,' and so passed by [1440] .' __________________________________________________________________

[1436] Matt. ii. 13.

[1437] Matt. xii. 15.

[1438] John xi. 53, 54.

[1439] John viii. 58, 59.

[1440] Luke iv. 30. __________________________________________________________________

13. Example of Our Lord.

When they see these things, or rather even hear of them, for see they do not, will they not desire, as it is written, to become fuel of fire [1441] ,' because their counsels and their words are contrary to what the Lord both did and taught? Also when John was martyred, and his disciples buried his body, when Jesus heard of it, He departed thence by ship into a desert place apart [1442] .' Thus the Lord acted, and thus He taught. Would that these men were even now ashamed of their conduct, and confined their rashness to man, nor proceeded to such extreme madness as even to charge our Saviour with cowardice! for it is against Him that they now utter their blasphemies. But no one will endure such madness; nay it will be seen that they do not understand the Gospels. The cause must be a reasonable and just one, which the Evangelists represent as weighing with our Saviour to withdraw and to flee; and we ought therefore to assign the same for the conduct of all the Saints. (For whatever is written concerning our Saviour in His human nature, ought to be considered as applying to the whole race of mankind [1443] ; because He took our body, and exhibited in Himself human infirmity.) Now of this cause John has written thus, They sought to take Him: but no man laid hands on Him, because His hour was not yet come [1444] .' And before it came, He Himself said to His Mother, Mine hour is not yet come [1445] :' and to them who were called His brethren, My time is not yet come [1446] .' And again, when His time was come, He said to the disciples, Sleep on now, and take your rest: for behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners [1447] .' __________________________________________________________________

[1441] Is. ix. 5.

[1442] Matt. xiv. 13.

[1443] Cf. Orat. i. 43.

[1444] John vii. 30.

[1445] John ii. 4.

[1446] John vii. 6.

[1447] Matt. xxvi. 45. __________________________________________________________________

14. An hour and a time for all men.

Now in so far as He was God and the Word of the Father, He had no time; for He is Himself the Creator of times [1448] . But being made man, He shews by speaking in this manner that there is a time allotted to every man; and that not by chance, as some of the Gentiles imagine in their fables, but a time which He, the Creator, has appointed to every one according to the will of the Father. This is written in the Scriptures, and is manifest to all men. For although it be hidden and unknown to all, what period of time is allotted to each, and how it is allotted; yet every one knows this, that as there is a time for spring and for summer, and for autumn and for winter, so, as it is written [1449] , there is a time to die, and a time to live. And so the time of the generation which lived in the days of Noah was cut short, and their years were contracted, because the time of all things was at hand. But to Hezekiah were added fifteen years. And as God promises to them that serve Him truly, I will fulfil the number of thy days [1450] ,' Abraham dies full of days,' and David besought God, saying, Take me not away in the midst of my days [1451] .' And Eliphaz, one of the friends of Job, being assured of this truth, said, Thou shalt come to thy grave like ripe corn, gathered in due time, and like as a shock of corn cometh in in his season [1452] .' And Solomon confirming his words, says, The souls of the unrighteous are taken away untimely [1453] .' And therefore he exhorts in the book of Ecclesiastes, saying, Be not overmuch wicked, neither be thou hard: why shouldest thou die before thy time [1454] ?' __________________________________________________________________

[1448] De Decr. 18, note 5.

[1449] Eccles. iii. 2.

[1450] Ex. xxiii. 26; Gen. xxv. 8.

[1451] Ps. cii. 24.

[1452] Job v. 26, LXX.

[1453] Vid. Prov. x. 27

[1454] Eccles. vii. 17. __________________________________________________________________

15. The Lord's hour and time.

Now as these things are written in the Scriptures, the case is clear, that the saints know that a certain time is measured to every man, but that no one knows the end of that time is plainly intimated by the words of David, Declare unto me the shortness of my days [1455] .' What he did not know, that he desired to be informed of. Accordingly the rich man also, while he thought that he had yet a long time to live, heard the words, Thou fool, this night they are requiring thy soul: then whose shall those things be which thou hast provided [1456] ?' And the Preacher speaks confidently in the Holy Spirit, and says, Man also knoweth not his time [1457] .' Wherefore the Patriarch Isaac said to his son Esau, Behold, I am old, and I know not the day of my death [1458] .' Our Lord therefore, although as God, and the Word of the Father, He both knew the time measured out by Him to all, and was conscious of the time for suffering, which He Himself had appointed also to His own body; yet since He was made man for our sakes, He hid Himself when He was sought after before that time came, as we do; when He was persecuted, He fled; and avoiding the designs of His enemies He passed by, and so went through the midst of them [1459] .' But when He had brought on that time which He Himself had appointed, at which He desired to suffer in the body for all men, He announces it to the Father, saying, Father, the hour is come; glorify Thy Son [1460] .' And then He no longer hid Himself from those who sought Him, but stood willing to be taken by them; for the Scripture says, He said to them that came unto Him, Whom seek ye [1461] ?' and when they answered, Jesus of Nazareth,' He saith unto them, I am He whom ye seek.' And this He did even more than once; and so they straightway led Him away to Pilate. He neither suffered Himself to be taken before the time came, nor did He hide Himself when it was come; but gave Himself up to them that conspired against Him, that He might shew to all men that the life and death of man depend upon the divine sentence; and that without our Father which is in heaven, neither a hair of man's head can become white or black, nor a sparrow ever fall into the snare [1462] . __________________________________________________________________

[1455] Ps. cii. 23, LXX.

[1456] Luke xii. 20.

[1457] Eccles. ix. 12.

[1458] Gen. xxvii. 2.

[1459] Luke iv. 30.

[1460] John xvii. 1.

[1461] John xviii. 4, 5.

[1462] Matt. v. 36; x. 29. __________________________________________________________________

6. The Lord's example followed by the Saints.

Our Lord therefore, as I said before, thus offered Himself for all; and the Saints having received this example from their Saviour (for all of them before His coming, nay always, were under His teaching), in their conflicts with their persecutors acted lawfully in flying, and hiding themselves when they were sought after. And being ignorant, as men, of the end of the time which Providence had appointed unto them, they were unwilling at once to deliver themselves up into the power of those who conspired against them. But knowing on the other hand what is written, that the portions' of man are in God's hand [1463] ,' and that the Lord killeth [1464] ,' and the Lord maketh alive,' they the rather endured unto the end, wandering about [1465] ,' as the Apostle has said, in sheepskins, and goatskins, being destitute, tormented, wandering in deserts,' and hiding themselves in dens and caves of the earth;' until either the appointed time of death arrived, or God who had appointed their time spake unto them, and stayed the designs of their enemies, or else delivered up the persecuted to their persecutors, according as it seemed to Him to be good. This we may well learn respecting all men from David: for when Joab instigated him to slay Saul, he said, As the Lord liveth, the Lord shall smite him; or his day shall come to die; or he shall descend into battle, and be delivered to the enemies; the Lord forbid that I should stretch forth my hand against the Lord's anointed [1466] .' __________________________________________________________________

[1463] Ps. xxxi. 15.

[1464] 1 Sam. ii. 6.

[1465] Heb. xi. 37, 38.

[1466] 1 Sam. xxvi. 10, 11. __________________________________________________________________

17. A time to flee and a time to stay.

And if ever in their flight they came unto those that sought after them, they did not do so without reason: but when the Spirit spoke unto them, then as righteous men they went and met their enemies; by which they also shewed their obedience and zeal towards God. Such was the conduct of Elijah, when, being commanded by the Spirit, he shewed himself unto Ahab [1467] ; and of Micaiah the prophet when he came to the same Ahab; and of the prophet who cried against the altar in Samaria, and rebuked Rehoboam [1468] ; and of Paul when he appealed unto Cæsar. It was not certainly through cowardice that they fled: God forbid. The flight to which they submitted was rather a conflict and war against death. For with wise caution they guarded against these two things; either that they should offer themselves up without reason (for this would have been to kill themselves, and to become guilty of death, and to transgress the saying of the Lord, What God hath joined let not man put asunder [1469] '), or that they should willingly subject themselves to the reproach of negligence, as if they were unmoved by the tribulations which they met with in their flight, and which brought with them sufferings greater and more terrible than death. For he that dies, ceases to suffer; but he that flies, while he expects daily the assaults of his enemies, esteems death lighter. They therefore whose course was consummated in their flight did not perish dishonourably, but attained as well as others the glory of martyrdom. Therefore it is that Job was accounted a man of mighty fortitude, because he endured to live under so many and such severe sufferings, of which he would have had no sense, had he come to his end. Wherefore the blessed Fathers thus regulated their conduct also; they shewed no cowardice in fleeing from the persecutor, but rather manifested their fortitude of soul in shutting themselves up in close and dark places, and living a hard life. Yet did they not desire to avoid the time of death when it arrived; for their concern was neither to shrink from it when it came, nor to forestall the sentence determined by Providence, nor to resist His dispensation, for which they knew themselves to be preserved; lest by acting hastily, they should become to themselves the cause of terror: for thus it is written, He that is hasty, with his lips, shall bring terror upon himself [1470] .' __________________________________________________________________

[1467] 1 Kings xxi. 18.

[1468] i.e. Jeroboam, 1 Kings xiii. 2.

[1469] Matt. xix. 6.

[1470] Prov. xiii. 3, LXX. __________________________________________________________________

18. The Saints who fled were no cowards.

Of a truth no one can possibly doubt that they were well furnished with the virtue of fortitude. For the Patriarch Jacob who had before fled from Esau, feared not death when it came, but at that very time blessed the Patriarchs, each according to his deserts. And the great Moses, who previously had hid himself from Pharaoh, and had withdrawn into Midian for fear of him, when he received the commandment, Return into Egypt [1471] ,' feared not to do so. And again, when he was bidden to go up into the mountain Abarim [1472] and die, he delayed not through cowardice, but even joyfully proceeded thither. And David, who had before fled from Saul, feared not to risk his life in war in defence of his people; but having the choice of death or of flight set before him, when he might have fled and lived, he wisely preferred death. And the great Elijah, who had at a former time hid himself from Jezebel, shewed no cowardice when he was commanded by the Spirit to meet Ahab, and to reprove Ahaziah. And Peter, who had hid himself for fear of the Jews, and the Apostle Paul who was let down in a basket, and fled, when they were told, Ye must bear witness at Rome [1473] ,' deferred not the journey; yea, rather, they departed rejoicing [1474] ; the one as hastening to meet his friends, received his death with exultation; and the other shrunk not from the time when it came, but gloried in it, saying, For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand [1475] .' __________________________________________________________________

[1471] Vid. Ex. iii. 10

[1472] Deut. xxxii. 49.

[1473] Vid. Acts xxiii. 11. [The reference to the Roman martyrdom of the two great Apostles should be noted. The tradition is as old as Clem. Rom.; much older than that of the Roman Episcopate of one of them.]

[1474] Vid. Euseb. Hist. ii. 25.

[1475] 2 Tim. iv. 6. __________________________________________________________________

19. The Saints courageous in their flight, and divinely favoured.

These things both prove that their previous flight was not the effect of cowardice; and testify that their after conduct also was of no ordinary character: and they loudly proclaim that they possessed in a high degree the virtue of fortitude. For neither did they withdraw themselves on account of a slothful timidity, on the contrary, they were at such times under the practice of a severer discipline than at others; nor were they condemned for their flight, or charged with cowardice, by such as are now so fond of criminating others. Nay they were blessed through that declaration of our Lord, Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake. [1476] ' Nor yet were these their sufferings without profit to themselves; for having tried them as gold in the furnace,' as Wisdom has said, God found them worthy of Himself [1477] . And then they shone the more like sparks,' being saved from them that persecuted them, and delivered from the designs of their enemies, and preserved to the end that they might teach the people; so that their flight and escape from the rage of them that sought after them, was according to the dispensation of the Lord. And so they became dear in the sight of God, and had the most glorious testimony to their fortitude. __________________________________________________________________

[1476] Matt. v. 10.

[1477] Wisd. iii. 57. __________________________________________________________________

20. Same Subject Continued.

Thus, for example, the Patriarch Jacob was favoured in his flight with many, even divine visions, and remaining quiet himself, he had the Lord on his side, rebuking Laban, and hindering the designs of Esau; and afterwards he became the Father of Judah, of whom sprang the Lord according to the flesh; and he dispensed the blessings to the Patriarchs. And when Moses the beloved of God was in exile, then it was that he saw that great sight, and being preserved from his persecutors, was sent as a prophet into Egypt, and being made the minister of those mighty wonders and of the Law, he led that great people in the wilderness. And David when he was persecuted wrote the Psalm, My heart uttered a good word [1478] ;' and, Our God shall come even visibly, and shall not keep silence [1479] .' And again he speaks more confidently, saying, Mine eye hath seen his desire upon mine enemies [1480] ;' and again, In God have I put my trust; I will not be afraid what man can do unto me [1481] .' And when he fled and escaped from the face of Saul to the cave,' he said, He hath sent from heaven and hath saved me. He hath given them to reproach that would tread me under their feet. God hath sent His mercy and truth, and hath delivered my soul from the midst of lions [1482] .' Thus he too was saved according to the dispensation of God, and afterwards became king, and received the promise, that from his seed our Lord should issue. And the great Elijah, when he withdrew to mount Carmel, called upon God, and destroyed at once more than four hundred prophets of Baal; and when there were sent to take him two captains of fifty with their hundred men, he said, Let fire come down from heaven [1483] ,' and thus rebuked them. And he too was preserved, so that he anointed Elisha in his own stead, and became a pattern of discipline for the sons of the prophets. And the blessed Paul, after writing these words, what persecutions I endured; but out of them all the Lord delivered me, and will deliver [1484] ;' could speak more confidently and say, But in all these things we are more than conquerors, for nothing shall separate us from the love of Christ [1485] .' For then it was that he was caught up to the third heaven, and admitted into paradise, where he heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter [1486] .' And for this end was he then preserved, that from Jerusalem even unto Illyricum' he might fully preach the Gospel [1487] .' __________________________________________________________________

Chapter II. 12. Arian statements. (part 3)

[1478] Ps. xlv. 1.

[1479] Ps. l. 3, LXX.

[1480] Ps. liv. 7.

[1481] Ps. lvi. 11.

[1482] Ps. lvii. 3.

[1483] 2 Kings i. 10.

[1484] 2 Tim. iii. 11.

[1485] Rom. viii. 35, 37.

[1486] 2 Cor. xii. 4.

[1487] Rom. xv. 19. __________________________________________________________________

21. The Saints fled for our sakes.

The flight of the saints therefore was neither blameable nor unprofitable. If they had not avoided their persecutors, how would it have come to pass that the Lord should spring from the seed of David? Or who would have preached the glad tidings of the word of truth? It was for this that the persecutors sought after the saints, that there might be no one to teach, as the Jews charged the Apostles; but for this cause they endured all things, that the Gospel might be preached. Behold, therefore, in that they were thus engaged in conflict with their enemies, they passed not the time of their flight unprofitably, nor while they were persecuted, did they forget the welfare of others: but as being ministers of the good word, they grudged not to communicate it to all men; so that even while they fled, they preached the Gospel, and gave warning of the wickedness of those who conspired against them, and confirmed the faithful by their exhortations. Thus the blessed Paul, having found it so by experience, declared beforehand, As many as will live godly in Christ, shall suffer persecution [1488] .' And so he straightway prepared them that fled for the trial, saying, Let us run with patience the race that is set before us [1489] ;' for although there be continual tribulations, yet tribulation worketh patience, and patience experience, and experience hope, and hope maketh not ashamed [1490] .' And the Prophet Isaiah when such-like affliction was expected, exhorted and cried aloud, Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors; hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast [1491] .' And so also the Preacher, who knew the conspiracies against the righteous, and said, If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter: for He that is higher than the highest regardeth, and there be higher than they: moreover there is the profit of the earth [1492] .' He had his own father David for an example, who had himself experienced the sufferings of persecution, and who supports them that suffer by the words, Be of good courage, and He shall strengthen your heart, all ye that put your trust in the Lord [1493] ;' for them that so endure, not man, but the Lord Himself (he says), shall help them, and deliver them, because they put their trust in Him:' for I also waited patiently for the Lord, and He inclined unto me, and heard my calling; He brought me up also out of the lowest pit, and out of the mire and clay [1494] .' Thus is shewn how profitable to the people and productive of good is the flight of the Saints, howsoever the Arians may think otherwise. __________________________________________________________________

[1488] 2 Tim. iii. 12.

[1489] Heb. xii. 1.

[1490] Rom. v. 4.

[1491] Is. xxvi. 20.

[1492] Eccles. v. 8, 9. LXX.

[1493] Ps. xxxi. 24.

[1494] Ps. xxxvii. 40; xl. 1. __________________________________________________________________

22. Same subject concluded.

Thus the Saints, as I said before, were abundantly preserved in their flight by the Providence of God, as physicians for the sake of them that had need. And to all men generally, even to us, is this law given, to flee when persecuted, and to hide when sought after, and not rashly tempt the Lord, but wait, as I said above, until the appointed time of death arrive, or the Judge determine something concerning them, according as it shall seem to Him to be good: that men should be ready, that, when the time calls, or when they are taken, they may contend for the truth even unto death. This rule the blessed Martyrs observed in their several persecutions. When persecuted they fled, while concealing themselves they shewed fortitude, and when discovered they submitted to martyrdom. And if some of them came and presented themselves to their persecutors [1495] , they did not do so without reason; for immediately in that case they were martyred, and thus made it evident to all that their zeal, and this offering up of themselves to their enemies, were from the Spirit. __________________________________________________________________

[1495] Vid. instances and passages collected in Pearson's Vind. Ignat. part ii. 0. 9; also Gibbon, ch. xvi. p. 428. Mosheim de Reb. Ante Const. p, 941. [See D.C.A. p. 1119 (3).] __________________________________________________________________

23. Persecution is from the Devil.

Seeing therefore that such are the commands of our Saviour, and that such is the conduct of the Saints, let these persons, to whom one cannot give a name suitable to their character,--let them, I say, tell us, from whom they learnt to persecute? They cannot say, from the Saints [1496] . No, but from the Devil (that is the only answer which is left to them);--from him who says, I will persue, I will overtake [1497] .' Our Lord commanded to flee, and the saints fled: but persecution is a device of the Devil, and one which he desires to exercise against all. Let them say then, to which we ought to submit ourselves; to the words of the Lord, or to their fabrications? Whose conduct ought we to imitate, that of the Saints, or that of those whose example these men have adopted? But since it is likely they cannot determine this question (for, as Esaias said, their minds and their consciences are blinded, and they think bitter to be sweet,' and light darkness [1498] ') let some one come forth from among us Christians, and put them to rebuke, and cry with a loud voice, It is better to trust in the Lord, than to attend to the foolish sayings of these men; for the "words" of the Lord have "eternal life [1499] ," but the things which these utter are full of iniquity and blood.' __________________________________________________________________

[1496] Hist. Arian. §§33, 67.

[1497] Ex. xv. 9.

[1498] Is. v. 20.

[1499] John vi. 68. __________________________________________________________________

24. Irruption of Syrianus.

This were sufficient to put a stop to the madness of these impious men, and to prove that their desire is for nothing else, but only through a love of contention to utter revilings and insults. But forasmuch as having once dared to fight against Christ, they have now become officious, let them enquire and learn into the manner of my withdrawal from their own friends. For the Arians were mixed with the soldiers in order to exasperate them against me, and, as they were unacquainted with my person, to point me out to them. And although they are destitute of all feelings of compassion, yet when they hear the circumstances they will surely be quiet for very shame. It was now night [1500] , and some of the people were keeping a vigil preparatory to a communion on the morrow, when the General Syrianus suddenly came upon us with more than five thousand soldiers, having arms and drawn swords, bows, spears, and clubs, as I have related above. With these he surrounded the Church, stationing his soldiers near at hand, in order that no one might be able to leave the Church and pass by them. Now I considered that it would be unreasonable in me to desert the people during such a disturbance, and not to endanger myself in their behalf; therefore I sat down upon my throne, and desired the Deacon to read a Psalm, and the people to answer, For His mercy endureth for ever [1501] ,' and then all to withdraw and depart home. But the General having now made a forcible entry, and the soldiers having surrounded the sanctuary for the purpose of apprehending us, the Clergy and those of the laity, who were still there, cried out, and demanded that we too should withdraw. But I refused, declaring that I would not do so, until they had retired one and all. Accordingly I stood up, and having bidden prayer, I then made my request of them, that all should depart before me, saying that it was better that my safety should be endangered, than that any of them should receive hurt. So when the greater part had gone forth, and the rest were following, the monks who were there with us and certain of the Clergy came up and dragged us away. And thus (Truth is my witness), while some of the soldiers stood about the sanctuary, and others were going round the Church, we passed through, under the Lord's guidance, and with His protection withdrew without observation, greatly glorifying God that we had not betrayed the people, but had first sent them away, and then had been able to save ourselves, and to escape the hands of them which sought after us. __________________________________________________________________

[1500] Apol. Const. 25.

[1501] Ps. cxxxvi. 1 [on psalmody at Alexandria, cf. Aug. Conf. x. 33.] __________________________________________________________________

25. Athanasius's wonderful escape.

Now when Providence had delivered us in such an extraordinary manner, who can justly lay any blame upon me, because we did not give ourselves up into the hands of them that sought after us, nor return and present ourselves before them? This would have been plainly to shew ingratitude to the Lord, and to act against His commandment, and in contradiction to the practice of the Saints. He who censures me in this matter must presume also to blame the great Apostle Peter, because though he was shut up and guarded by soldiers, he followed the angel that summoned him, and when he had gone forth from the prison and escaped in safety, he did not return and surrender himself, although he heard what Herod had done. Let the Arian in his madness censure the Apostle Paul, because when he was let down from the wall and had escaped in safety, he did not change his mind, and return and give himself up; or Moses, because he returned not out of Midian into Egypt, that he might be taken of them that sought after him; or David, because when he was concealed in the cave, he did not discover himself to Saul. As also the sons of the prophets remained in their caves, and did not surrender themselves to Ahab. This would have been to act contrary to the commandment, since the Scripture says, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God [1502] .' __________________________________________________________________

[1502] Deut. vi. 16; Matt. iv. 7. __________________________________________________________________

26. He acted according to the example of the Saints. Character of his accusers.

Being careful to avoid such an offence, and instructed by these examples, I so ordered my conduct; and I do not undervalue the favour and the help which have been shewn me of the Lord, howsoever these in their madness may gnash their teeth [1503] against us. For since the manner of our retreat was such as we have described, I do not think that any blame whatever can attach to it in the minds of those who are possessed of a sound judgment: seeing that according to holy Scripture, this pattern has been left us by the Saints for our instruction. But there is no atrocity, it would seem, which these men neglect to practise, nor will they leave anything undone which may shew their own wickedness and cruelty. And indeed their lives are only in accordance with their spirit and the follies of their doctrines; for there are no sins that one could charge them with, how heinous soever, that they do not commit without shame. Leontius [1504] for instance being censured for his intimacy with a certain young woman, named Eustolium, and prohibited from living with her, mutilated himself for her sake, in order that he might be able to associate with her freely. He did not however clear himself from suspicion, but rather on this account he was degraded from his rank as Presbyter. [Although the heretic Constantius by violence caused him to be named a Bishop [1505] .] Narcissus [1506] , besides being charged with many other transgressions, was degraded three times by different Councils; and now he is among them, most wicked man. And George [1507] , who was a Presbyter, was deposed for his wickedness, and although he had nominated himself a Bishop, he was nevertheless a second time deposed in the great Council of Sardica. And besides all this, his dissolute life was notorious, for he is condemned even by his own friends, as making the end of existence, and its happiness, to consist in the commission of the most disgraceful crimes. __________________________________________________________________

[1503] Sent. Dion. 16. Hist. Ar. §§68. 72.

[1504] Hist. Arian. §28 [but see D.C.B. iii. 688].

[1505] [The bracketed passage is omitted by some good witnesses to the text. The respectful tone of the Apology to Const.' is exchanged for cold reserve in this Apology,' and for unmeasured invective in Hist. Ar.]

[1506] De Syn. 17, &c.

[1507] Apol. Ar. 8, note 3. __________________________________________________________________

27. Conclusion.

Thus each surpasses the other in his own peculiar vices. But there is a common blot that attaches to them all, in that through their heresy they are enemies of Christ, and are no longer called Christians [1508] , but Arians. They ought indeed to accuse each other of the sins they are guilty of, for they are contrary to the faith of Christ; but they rather conceal them for their own sakes. And it is no wonder, that being possessed of such a spirit, and implicated in such vices, they persecute and seek after those who follow not the same impious heresy as themselves; that they delight to destroy them, and are grieved if they fail of obtaining their desires, and think themselves injured, as I said before, when they see those alive whom they wish to perish. May they continue to be injured in such sort, that they may lose the power of inflicting injuries, and that those whom they persecute may give thanks unto the Lord, and say in the words of the twenty-sixth Psalm, The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom then shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom then shall I be afraid? When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell [1509] ;' and again the thirtieth Psalm, Thou hast saved my soul from adversities; thou hast not shut me up into the hands of mine enemies; thou hast set my foot in a large room [1510] ' in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom to the Father in the Holy Spirit be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen. __________________________________________________________________

[1508] Vid. supr. Ep. Æg. 20 infr. Hist. Arian. §§17. 34 fin. 41 init. 59 fin. 64 init. De. Decr. 16, note 5.

[1509] Ps. xxvii. 1.

[1510] Ps. xxxi. 7, 8. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

Introduction to Historia Arianorum.

------------------------

(Written 358.)

This History takes up the narrative from the admission of Arius to communion at the dedication' synod of Jerusalem (adjourned Council of Tyre) in 335, as described in Apol. c. Ar. 84. It has been commonly assumed from its abrupt beginning (the tauta, referring to an antecedent narrative) that the History has lost its earlier chapters, which contained the story of Arianism ab ovo. Montfaucon suggests in fact that the copyists omitted the first chapters on account of their identity in substance with the great Apology. But this seems to require reconsideration. If the alleged missing chapters were different [1511] in form from the second part of the Apology, they would not have been omitted: for such repetitions of the same matter in other words are very frequent in the works of Athanasius: but if they were identical in form, they are not lost, and the conclusion is that the History was written with the express intention of continuing the Apology. The customary inference from the abrupt commencement of the History may be dismissed with a non sequitur. Such a commencement was natural under the circumstances: we may compare the case of Xenophon, whose Hellenica' begin with the words Meta de tauta, ou pollais hemerais husteron..., the reference being to the end of the history of Thucydides. The view here maintained is clinched by the fact that Athanasius at this very time reissued his Apology against the Arians with an appendix (§§89, 90) on the lapse of Hosius and Liberius [1512] .

The History of the Arians, then, is a complete work, and written to continue the narrative of the second part of the Apology. Being in fact a manifesto against Constantius, it naturally takes up the tale just before his entry upon the scene as the patron of Arianism. The substantially Athanasian authorship of the History cannot be questioned. The writer occasionally, like many others ancient and modern, speaks of himself in the third person (references §21, note 5, see also Orat. i. 3); but in other places he clearly identifies himself with Athanasius. The only passage which appears to distinguish the writer from Athanasius (§52, see note), may be due to the bishop's habitual (Apol. Const. 11) employment of an amanuensis, but more probably the text is corrupt; in any case the passage cannot weigh against the clear sense of §21. The immediate Athanasian authorship of the piece has been questioned partly on the ground of its alleged incompleteness, partly on that of several slight discrepancies with other writings. On this twofold ground it is inferred that the Arian History has passed through some obscure process of re-editing (Gwatkin, Studies, p. 99, §14 dependent on the Vita [Antonii] 86,' p. 127, not an uncorrupted work') by a later hand. I am quite unconvinced of this. The incompleteness of the work is, as I think I have shewn above, an unnecessary hypothesis, while the mistakes or inconsistencies may well be due to circumstances of composition. It was written in hiding, perhaps while moving from place to place, certainly under more pressure of highly wrought agitation and bitterness of spirit than any other work of Athanasius. The most accurate of men when working at leisure make strange slips at times (e.g. §13, note 4); the mistakes in the History are not more than one might expect in such a work. The principal are, §21 (see note 3), §14 (reference in note 8), §11, prin genesthai tauta (cf. Encycl. 5), §47 (inverting order of events in §39).

The date of the History is at first sight a difficulty. The fall of Liberius is dealt with in Part V., which must therefore have been written not earlier than 358 (the exact chronology of the lapse of Liberius is not certain), while yet in §4 Leontius, who died in the summer or autumn of 357, is still bishop of Antioch. We must therefore suppose that the History was begun at about the time when the Apologia de Fuga was finished (cf. the bitter conclusion of that tract) and completed when the lapse of Liberius was known in Egypt. A more accurate determination of date is not permitted by our materials.

The tract before us is in effect a fierce anonymous pamphlet against Constantius. Even apart from the references in the letters to the Monks and to Serapion (see below), the work bears clear marks of having been intended for secret circulation (for the practice, see Fialon, pp. 193-199). Instead of the "pious" Emperor who was so well versed in Scripture, whose presence would gladden a dedication festival, whose well-known humanity forbade the supposition that he could have perpetrated a deliberate injustice, we find a Costyllius (or "Connikin") whose misdeeds could only be palliated by the imbecility which rendered him the slave of his own servant--inhuman towards his nearest of kin,--false and crafty, a Pharaoh, a Saul, an Ahab, a Belshazzar, more cruel than Pilate or Maximian, ignorant of the Gospels, a patron of heresy, a precursor of Antichrist, an enemy of Christ, as if himself, Antichrist, and--the words must be written--self-abandoned to the future doom of fire' (Bright, Introd. p. lxxviii., and see §§9, 30, 32, 34, 40, 45, 46, 51, 53, 67-70, 74, 80). There are certainly many passages which one could wish that Athanasius had not written,--one, not necessary to specify, in which he fully condescends to the coarse brutality of the age, mingling it unpardonably with holy things. But Athanasius was human, and exasperated by inhuman vindictiveness and perfidy. If in the passages referred to he falls below himself, and speaks in the spirit of his generation, there are not wanting passages equal in nobility to anything he ever wrote. Once more to quote Dr. Bright: The beautiful description of the Archbishop's return from his second exile, and of its moral and religious effect upon Alexandrian Church society (25), the repeated protests against the principle of persecution as alien to the mind of the Church of Christ (29, 33, 67), the tender allusion to sympathy for the poor as instinctive in human nature (63), the vivid picture--doubtless somewhat coloured by imagination--of the stand made by Western bishops, and notably for a time by Liberius, against the tyrannous dictation of Constantius in matters ecclesiastical (34 sqq. 76), the generous estimate of Hosius and Liberius in the hour of their infirmity (41, 45), the three golden passages which describe the union maintained by a common faith and a sincere affection between friends who are separated from each other (40), the all-sufficient presence of God with His servants in their extremest solitude (47), and the future joy when heaven would be to sufferers for the truth as a calm haven to sailors after a storm (79). It is in such contexts that we see the true Athanasius, and touch the source of his magnificent insuperable constancy' (p. lxxix.). Nothing could be more just, or more happily put. It ought to be noted before leaving this part of the subject, that the language put into the mouth of Constantius and the Arians (33 fin. 1, 3, 9, 12, 15, 30, 42, 45, 60), is not so much a report of their words as a representationad invidiam of what is assumed to have been in their minds.' Other instances of this are to be found in Athanasius (Ep. Æg. 18, Orat. iii. 17), and he uses the device advisedly (de Syn. 7, middle).

The letter to Serapion on the death of Arius, and the letter to Monks, which in mss. and printed editions are prefixed to this treatise, will be found in the collection of letters below (No. 54 and 52). They have been removed from their time-honoured place in accordance with the general arrangement of this volume, though not without hesitation, and apart from any intention to dogmatise on the relation they bear to the present tract.

The Arian History' has commonly been called the Hist. Arianorum ad Monachos,' or even the Epistola ad Monachos;' even at the present day it is sometimes cited simply as ad Monachos.' The History has derived this title from the fact, that in the Codices and editions, the Letter and History are frequently joined together without any sign of division. At the same time the correctness of this collocation is not entirely free from doubt.

Serapion (Letter 54 §1) had written to Athanasius asking for three things,--a history of recent events relating to himself, an exposé of the Arian heresy, and an exact account of the death of Arius. The latter Athanasius furnishes in the letter just referred to. For the two former, he refers Serapion to a document he had written for the monks (haper egrapsa tois monachois), and which he now sends to Serapion. He begs Serapion at the end of his letter not on any account to part with the letters he has received, nor to copy them (he gave, he adds, the same directions to the monks, cf. Letter 52. 3), but to send them back with such corrections and additions as he might think desirable. He refers him to his letter to the monks for an explanation of the circumstances which render this precaution necessary. The monks (ib. 1) had apparently made the same request as Serapion afterwards made. It has been conjectured that the four Orations' against Arianism, or the first three, are the treatise on the heresy addressed to the monks and subsequently sent to Serapion. But the description of that treatise egrapsa di oligon (Letter 52. 1) is quite inapplicable to the longest treatise extant among the works of Athanasius. Still less, even if the Arian History were a fragment (see above), could we suppose that the accompanying treatise formed the missing first part. We must therefore acquiesce in the conclusion that the treatise in question has perished. Accordingly we cannot be sure (although it is generally regarded as highly probable [1513] ) that the historical portion is preserved to us in the Arian History.' In any case the Letter to Monks is quite unconnected with it in its subject matter, and ends with the blessing, as the History does with the doxology, in the form of an independent document.

While admitting, therefore, the naturalness of the traditional arrangement, we may fairly treat the two as distinct, and permit the Arian History to launch the reader without preamble in medias res.

As the tract is long, and various in its subject-matter, the following scheme of contents may be found useful. It will be noted that chronological order is observed in Parts I.-IV, i.e. till 355, when the existing persecution of Constantius, the main theme of the History (Letter 52, §1), is reached. The history of this persecution is dealt with (Parts V.-VII.) with much more fulness, and is grouped round subjects each of which covers more or less the same period. Part VIII. deals with the more recent events in Egypt.

Part I. Proceedings of the Arians from the Council of Tyre till the return of the Exiles (335-337).

§§1-3. General character of their proceedings.

§§4-7. Persecution of the orthodox bishops.

§8. Restoration of the exiles after Constantine's death.

Part II. Second Exile of Athanasius, till the Council of Sardica (337-343).

§9. Renewed intrigues against Athanasius.

§10. Gregory intruded by Constantius as bishop.

§11. Athanasius at Rome. Negotiations for a Council there.

§§12-14. Violent proceedings of Gregory. Case of Duke Balacius.

Part III. From Sardica till the Death of Constans (343-350). §15. The meeting of the Synod. Dismay of the Aria

Part III. From Sardica till the Death of Constans (343-350).

§15. The meeting of the Synod. Dismay of the Arianising bishops.

§16. Their flight from the Synod.

§17. Proceedings of the Synod.

§§18, 19. Continued persecution after it.

§20. The infamous plot of Stephen against the Sardican legates at Antioch.

§§21, 22. Constantius changes his mind and recalls Athanasius with a solemn oath to defend him for the future.

§§23, 24. Letters of Constantius at this time.

§25. Return of Athanasius (346).

§26. Recantation of Valens and Ursacius.

§27. Peace and joy of the Church.

Part IV. From the Death of Constans to the Council of Milan (351-355). §28. Renewed intrigues of the Arianisin

Part IV. From the Death of Constans to the Council of Milan (351-355).

§28. Renewed intrigues of the Arianising party.

§§29, 30. Valens, Ursacius, and the Emperor return to Arianism.

§§31, 32. Constantius again persecutes the Church.

§33. Wickedness of persecution. Western bishops banished by Constantius [at Milan].

§34. How they diffused the truth wherever they went.

Part V. Liberius (355-358).

§35-37. Firmness of Liberius and rage of Constantius.

§38. Concerning the eunuchs at the Court.

§39, 40. Liberius rebukes the Emperor and is cruelly exiled.

§41. After two years of exile, Liberius gives way under force.

Part VI. Hosius (355-358).

§42. Intrigues against Hosius.

§43. Vain attempts of Constantius to gain him over.

§44. Letter of Hosius remonstrating with the Emperor.

§§45, 46. Lapse of Hosius, his fidelity to Athanasius, recantation, and death.

§47. Monstrosity of the above proceedings.

Part VII. The attacks upon Athanasius (351-356).

§47. Athanasius isolated by the exile of other bishops.

§48. Attacks upon Athanasius himself (353-356).

§§49, (50), 51. Hypocrisy of the Emperor's pretended regard for his Father and Brother.

§§52, 53. Impropriety of Imperial intervention in Church affairs.

§54. The Churches at Alexandria given to the Arians.

§55. Violence of Cataphronius, Prefect of Egypt.

§§56, 57. Sack of the great church: divine judgments.

§58. Scenes of persecution.

§§59, 60. Savagery of Duke Sebastian. Martyrdom of Eutychius (356).

§§61-63. Cruel treatment of the poor, and of the clergy.

Part VIII. Further details of the Persecution in Egypt (357). §64. The Arian persecution more cruel than that

Part VIII. Further details of the Persecution in Egypt (357).

§64. The Arian persecution more cruel than that of Maximian.

§65. Martyrdom of Secundus of Barka.

§§66, 67. Persecution the disgrace of the new heresy.

§68, 69. Constantius worse than Ahab, &c., and inhuman toward his own family.

§70. His fickleness, lack of character, and tyranny.

§71. Novelty of this persecution on the part of pretended Christians.

§72. Cruel exile of bishops and torture of monks and lay people.

§73. Venal appointments to fill the vacancies thus created.

§74. The predicted signs of Antichrist applied to Constantius.

§75. Arrival of George at Alexandria.

§76, 77. Further marks of Antichrist in the tyranny of Constantius over the Church.

§78, 79. The Meletians the allies of Arianism in Egypt.

§80. Duty of separating from heretics.

§81. Appendix to §48. Second protest of the Church of Alexandria against the proceedings of Syrianus (356). __________________________________________________________________

[1511] i.e. slight modifications excepted, see Montf. in Migne, P.G. xxv. 318, note 46, and 389, note 60.

[1512] For another example of hastily inferred mutiliation, see §48, note 3.

[1513] See Eichhorn, p. 61; Bright. p. lxxiv. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

History of the Arians.

------------------------

Part I. Arian Persecution Under Constantine.

Part I.

Arian Persecution Under Constantine.

And not long after they put in execution the designs for the sake of which they had had recourse to these artifices; for they no sooner had formed their plans, but they immediately admitted Arius and his fellows to communion. They set aside the repeated condemnations which had been passed upon them, and again pretended the imperial authority [1514] in their behalf. And they were not ashamed to say in their letters, since Athanasius suffered, all jealousy [1515] has ceased, and let us henceforward receive Arius and his fellows;' adding, in order to frighten their hearers, because the Emperor has commanded it.' Moreover, they were not ashamed to add, for these men profess orthodox opinions;' not fearing that which is written, Woe unto them that call bitter sweet, that put darkness for light [1516] ;' for they are ready to undertake anything in support of their heresy. Now is it not hereby plainly proved to all men, that we both suffered heretofore, and that you now persecute us, not under the authority of an Ecclesiastical sentence [1517] , but on the ground of the Emperor's threats, and on account of our piety towards Christ? As also they conspired in like manner against other Bishops, fabricating charges against them also; some of whom fell asleep in the place of their exile, having attained the glory of Christian confession; and others are still banished from their country, and contend still more and more manfully against their heresy, saying, Nothing shall separate us from the love of Christ [1518] ?'

2. Arians sacrifice morality and integrity to party.

And hence also you may discern its character, and be able to condemn it more confidently. The man who is their friend and their associate in impiety, although he is open to ten thousand charges for other enormities which he has committed; although the evidence and proof against him are most clear; he is approved of by them, and straightway becomes the friend of the Emperor, obtaining an introduction by his impiety; and making very many pretences, he acquires confidence before the magistrates to do whatever he desires. But he who exposes their impiety, and honestly advocates the cause of Christ, though he is pure in all things, though he is conscious of no delinquencies, though he meets with no accuser; yet on the false pretences which they have framed against him, is immediately seized and sent into banishment under a sentence of the Emperor, as if he were guilty of the crimes which they wish to charge upon him, or as if, like Naboth, he had insulted the King; while he who advocates the cause of their heresy is sought for and immediately sent to take possession of the other's Church; and henceforth confiscations and insults, and all kinds of cruelty are exercised against those who do not receive him. And what is the strangest of all, the man whom the people desire, and know to be blameless [1519] , the Emperor takes away and banishes; but him whom they neither desire, nor know, he sends to them from a distant place with soldiers and letters from himself. And henceforward a strong necessity is laid upon them, either to hate him whom they love; who has been their teacher, and their father in godliness; and to love him whom they do not desire, and to trust their children to one of whose life and conversation and character they are ignorant; or else certainly to suffer punishment, if they disobey the Emperor.

3. Recklessness of their proceedings.

In this manner the impious are now proceeding, as heretofore, against the orthodox; giving proof of their malice and impiety amongst all men everywhere. For granting that they have accused Athanasius; yet what have the other Bishops done? On what grounds can they charge them? Has there been found in their case too the dead body of an Arsenius? Is there a Presbyter Macarius, or has a cup been broken amongst them? Is there a Meletian to play the hypocrite? No: but as their proceedings against the other Bishops shew the charges which they have brought against Athanasius, in all probability, to be false; so their attacks upon Athanasius make it plain, that their accusations of the other Bishops are unfounded likewise. This heresy has come forth upon the earth like some great monster, which not only injures the innocent with its words, as with teeth [1520] ; but it has also hired external power to assist it in its designs. And strange it is that, as I said before, no accusation is brought against any of them; or if any be accused, he is not brought to trial; or if a shew of enquiry be made, he is acquitted against evidence, while the convicting party is plotted against, rather than the culprit put to shame. Thus the whole party of them is full of idleness; and their spies, for Bishops [1521] they are not, are the vilest of them all. And if any one among them desire to become a Bishop, he is not told, a Bishop must be blameless [1522] ;' but only, Take up opinions contrary to Christ, and care not for manners. This will be sufficient to obtain favour for you, and friendship with the Emperor.' Such is the character of those who support the tenets of Arius. And they who are zealous for the truth, however holy and pure they shew themselves, are yet, as I said before, made culprits, whenever these men choose, and on whatever pretences it may seem good to them to invent. The truth of this, as I before remarked, you may clearly gather from their proceedings.

4. Arians persecute Eustathius and others.

There was one Eustathius [1523] , Bishop of Antioch, a Confessor, and sound in the Faith. This man, because he was very zealous for the truth, and hated the Arian heresy, and would not receive those who adopted its tenets, is falsely accused before the Emperor Constantine, and a charge invented against him, that he had insulted his mother [1524] . And immediately he is driven into banishment, and a great number of Presbyters and Deacons with him. And immediately after the banishment of the Bishop, those whom he would not admit into the clerical order on account of their impiety were not only received into the Church by them, but were even appointed the greater part of them to be Bishops, in order that they might have accomplices in their impiety. Among these was Leontius the eunuch [1525] , now of Antioch, and his predecessor Stephanus, George of Laodicea, and Theodosius who was of Tripolis, Eudoxius of Germanicia, and Eustathius [1526] , now of Sebastia.

5. Did they then stop here? No. For Eutropius [1527] , who was Bishop of Adrianople, a good man, and excellent in all respects, because he had often convicted Eusebius, and had advised them who came that way, not to comply with his impious dictates, suffered the same treatment as Eustathius, and was cast out of his city and his Church. Basilina [1528] was the most active in the proceedings against him. And Euphration of Balanea, Kymatius of Paltus, Carterius of Antaradus [1529] , Asclepas of Gaza, Cyrus of Beroea in Syria, Diodorus of Asia, Domnion of Sirmium, and Ellanicus of Tripolis, were merely known to hate the heresy; and some of them on one pretence or another, some without any, they removed under the authority of royal letters, drove them out of their cities, and appointed others whom they knew to be impious men, to occupy the Churches in their stead.

6. Case of Marcellus.

Of Marcellus [1530] , the Bishop of Galatia, it is perhaps superfluous for me to speak; for all men have heard how Eusebius and his fellows, who had been first accused by him of impiety, brought a counter-accusation against him, and caused the old man to be banished. He went up to Rome, and there made his defence, and being required by them, he offered a written declaration of his faith, of which the Council of Sardica approved. But Eusebius and his fellows made no defence, nor, when they were convicted of impiety out of their writings, were they put to shame, but rather assumed greater boldness against all. For they had an introduction to the Emperor from the women [1531] , and were formidable to all men.

7. Martyrdom of Paul of Constantinople.

And I suppose no one is ignorant of the case of Paul [1532] , Bishop of Constantinople; for the more illustrious any city is, so much the more that which takes place in it is not concealed. A charge was fabricated against him also. For Macedonius his accuser, who has now become Bishop in his stead (I was present myself at the accusation), afterwards held communion with him, and was a Presbyter under Paul himself. And yet when Eusebius with an evil eye wished to seize upon the Bishopric of that city (he had been translated in the same manner from Berytus to Nicomedia), the charge was revived against Paul; and they did not give up their plot, but persisted in the calumny. And he was banished first into Pontus by Constantine, and a second time by Constantius he was sent bound with iron chains to Singara in Mesopotamia, and from thence transferred to Emesa, and a fourth time he was banished to Cucusus in Cappadocia, near the deserts of Mount Taurus; where, as those who were with him have declared, he died by strangulation at their hands. And yet these men who never speak the truth, though guilty of this, were not ashamed after his death to invent another story, representing that he had died from illness; although all who live in that place know the circumstances. And even Philagrius [1533] , who was then Deputy-Governor [1534] of those parts, and represented all their proceedings in such manner as they desired, was yet astonished at this; and being grieved perhaps that another, and not himself, had done the evil deed, he informed Serapion the Bishop, as well as many other of our friends, that Paul was shut up by them in a very confined and dark place, and left to perish of hunger; and when after six days they went in and found him still alive, they immediately set upon the man, and strangled him. This was the end of his life; and they said that Philip who was Prefect was their agent in the perpetration of this murder. Divine Justice, however, did not overlook this; for not a year passed, when Philip was deprived of his office in great disgrace, so that being reduced to a private station, he became the mockery of those whom he least desired to be the witnesses of his fall. For in extreme distress of mind, groaning and trembling like Cain [1535] , and expecting every day that some one would destroy him, far from his country and his friends, he died, like one astounded at his misfortunes, in a manner that he least desired. Moreover these men spare not even after death those against whom they have invented charges whilst living. They are so eager to shew themselves formidable to all, that they banish the living, and shew no mercy on the dead; but alone of all the world they manifest their hatred to them that are departed, and conspire against their friends, truly inhuman as they are, and haters of that which is good, savage in temper beyond mere enemies, in behalf of their impiety, who eagerly plot the ruin of me and of all the rest, with no regard to truth, but by false charges.

8. Restoration of the Catholics.

Perceiving this to be the case, the three brothers, Constantine, Constantius, and Constans, caused all after the death of their father to return to their own country and Church; and while they wrote letters concerning the rest to their respective Churches, concerning Athanasius they wrote the following; which likewise shews the violence of the whole proceedings, and proves the murderous disposition of Eusebius and his fellows.

A copy of the Letter of Constantine Cæsar to the people of the Catholic Church in the city of the Alexandrians.

I suppose that it has not escaped the knowledge of your pious minds [1536] , &c.

This is his letter; and what more credible witness of their conspiracy could there be than he, who knowing these circumstances has thus written of them? __________________________________________________________________

[1514] §33.

[1515] phthonos.

[1516] Is. v. 20.

[1517] Infr. §76.

[1518] Rom. viii. 35.

[1519] 1 Tim. iii. 2.

[1520] Vid. Dan. vii. 5, 7.

[1521] Cf. §49. [The play on words cannot be rendered.]

[1522] 1 Tim. iii. 2.

[1523] Apol. Fug. 3, note 9.

[1524] If the common slander of the day concerning S. Helena was imputed to S. Eustathius, Constantine was likely to feel it keenly. Stabulariam,' says S. Ambrose, hanc primo fuisse asserunt, sic cognitam Constantio.' de Ob. Theod. 42, Stabularia, i.e. an innkeeper; so Rahab is sometimes considered to be cauponaria sive tabernaria et meretrix,' Cornel. à Lap. in Jos. ii. 1. ex homilias gunaikos ou semnes oude kata nomon sunelthouses. Zosim, Hist. ii. p. 78. Constantinus ex concubina Helena procreatus. Hieron. in Chron. Euseb. p. 773. (ed. Vallars.) Tillemont however maintains (Empereurs, t. 4. p. 613), and Gibbon fully admits (Hist. ch. 14. p. 190), the legitimacy of Constantine. The latter adds, Eutropius (x. 2.) expresses in a few words the real truth, and the occasion of the error, "ex obscuriori matrimonio ejus filius."' [Cf. Soz. ii. 19.]

[1525] Below, §28, note.

[1526] Ep. Æg. 7.

[1527] Ap. Fug. 3.

[1528] Julian's mother.

[1529] [The text must be corrected thus; see Apol. Fug. 3.]

[1530] Apol. Ar. 32.

[1531] i.e. Constantia, Constantine's sister.

[1532] Ap. Fug. 3. For the presence of Ath. at CP. in 337, see Prolegg. ii. §5 fin.]

[1533] [Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. §6 (1) note 3.]

[1534] Vicarius, i.e. vicarius Præfecti, agens vicem Præfecti;' Gothofred in Cod. Theod. i. tit. 6. vid. their office, &c., drawn out at length, ibid. t. 6, p. 334.

[1535] Gen. iv. 12, LXX. supr. p. 241.

[1536] Given above, Apol. contr. Arian. §87. __________________________________________________________________

Part II. First Arian Persecution under Constantius.

Part II.

First Arian Persecution under Constantius.

9. Eusebius and his fellows, however, seeing the declension of their heresy, wrote to Rome, as well as to the Emperors Constantine and Constans, to accuse [1537] Athanasius: but when the persons who were sent by Athanasius disproved the statements which they had written, they were put to shame by the Emperors; and Julius, Bishop of Rome, wrote to say [1538] that a Council ought to be held, wherever we should desire, in order that they might exhibit the charges which they had to make, and might also freely defend themselves concerning those things of which they too were accused. The Presbyters also who were sent by them, when they saw themselves making an exposure, requested that this might be done. Whereupon these men, whose conduct is suspicious in all that they do, when they see that they are not likely to get the better in an Ecclesiastical trial, betake themselves to Constantius alone, and thenceforth bewail themselves, as to the patron of their heresy. Spare,' they say, the heresy; you see that all men have withdrawn from us; and very few of us are now left. Begin to persecute, for we are being deserted even of those few, and are left destitute. Those persons whom we forced over to our side, when these men were banished, they now by their return have persuaded again to take part against us. Write letters therefore against them all, and send out Philagrius a second time [1539] as Prefect of Egypt, for he is able to carry on a persecution favourably for us, as he has already shewn upon trial, and the more so, as he is an apostate. Send also Gregory as Bishop to Alexandria, for he too is able to strengthen our heresy.'

10. Violent Intrusion of Gregory.

Accordingly Constantius at once writes letters, and commences a persecution against all, and sends Philagrius as Prefect with one Arsacius an eunuch; he sends also Gregory with a military force. And the same consequences followed as before [1540] . For gathering together a multitude of herdsmen and shepherds, and other dissolute youths belonging to the town, armed with swords and clubs, they attacked in a body the Church which is called the Church of Quirinus [1541] ; and some they slew, some they trampled under foot, others they beat with stripes and cast into prison or banished. They haled away many women also, and dragged them openly into the court, and insulted them, dragging them by the hair. Some they proscribed; from some they took away their bread [1542] for no other reason, but that they might be induced to join the Arians, and receive Gregory, who had been sent by the Emperor.

11. The Easterns decline the Council at Rome.

Athanasius, however, before these things happened [1543] , at the first report of their proceedings, sailed to Rome, knowing the rage of the heretics, and for the purpose of having the Council held as had been determined. And Julius wrote letters to them, and sent the Presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus, appointing a day [1544] , that they might either come, or consider themselves as altogether suspected persons. But as soon as Eusebius and his fellows heard that the trial was to be an Ecclesiastical one, at which no Count would be present, nor soldiers stationed before the doors, and that the proceedings would not be regulated by royal order (for they have always depended upon these things to support them against the Bishops, and without them they have no boldness even to speak); they were so alarmed that they detained the Presbyters till after the appointed time, and pretended an unseemly excuse, that they were not able to come now on account of the war which was begun by the Persians [1545] . But this was not the true cause of their delay, but the fears of their own consciences. For what have Bishops to do with war? Or if they were unable on account of the Persians to come to Rome, although it is at a distance and beyond sea, why did they like lions [1546] go about the parts of the East and those which are near the Persians, seeking who was opposed to them, that they might falsely accuse and banish them?

12. At any rate, when they had dismissed the Presbyters with this improbable excuse, they said to one another, Since we are unable to get the advantage in an Ecclesiastical trial, let us exhibit our usual audacity.' Accordingly they write to Philagrius, and cause him after a while to go out with Gregory into Egypt. Whereupon the Bishops are severely scourged and cast into chains [1547] . Sarapammon, for instance, Bishop and Confessor, they drive into banishment; Potammon, Bishop and Confessor, who had lost an eye in the persecution, they beat with stripes on the neck so cruelly, that he appeared to be dead before they came to an end. In which condition he was cast aside, and hardly after some hours, being carefully attended and fanned, he revived, God granting him his life; but a short time after he died of the sufferings caused by the stripes, and attained in Christ to the glory of a second martyrdom. And besides these, how many monks were scourged, while Gregory sat by with Balacius the Duke!' how many Bishops were wounded! how many virgins were beaten!

13. Cruelties of Gregory at Alexandria.

After this the wretched Gregory called upon all men to have communion with him. But if thou didst demand of them communion, they were not worthy of stripes: and if thou didst scourge them as if evil persons, why didst thou ask it of them as if holy? But he had no other end in view, except to fulfil the designs of them that sent him, and to establish the heresy. Wherefore he became in his folly a murderer and an executioner, injurious, crafty, and profane; in one word, an enemy of Christ. He so cruelly persecuted the Bishop's aunt, that even when she died he would not suffer her to be buried [1548] . And this would have been her lot; she would have been cast away without burial, had not they who attended on the corpse carried her out as one of their own kindred. Thus even in such things he shewed his profane temper. And again when the widows and other mendicants [1549] had received alms, he commanded what had been given them to be seized, and the vessels in which they carried their oil and wine to be broken, that he might not only shew impiety by robbery, but in his deeds dishonour the Lord; from whom very shortly [1550] he will hear those words, Inasmuch as thou hast dishonoured these, thou hast dishonoured Me [1551] .'

14. Profaneness of Gregory and death of Balacius.

And many other things he did, which exceed the power of language to describe, and which whoever should hear would think to be incredible. And the reason why he acted thus was, because he had not received his ordination according to ecclesiastical rule, nor had been called to be a Bishop by apostolical tradition [1552] ; but had been sent out from court with military power and pomp, as one entrusted with a secular government. Wherefore he boasted rather to be the friend of Governors, than of Bishops and Monks. Whenever, therefore, our Father Antony wrote to him from the mountains, as godliness is an abomination to a sinner, so he abhorred the letters of the holy man. But whenever the Emperor, or a General, or other magistrate, sent him a letter, he was as much overjoyed as those in the Proverbs, of whom the Word has said indignantly, Woe unto them who leave the path of uprightness who rejoice to do evil, and delight in the frowardness of the wicked [1553] .' And so he honoured with presents the bearers of these letters; but once when Antony wrote to him he caused Duke Balacius to spit upon the letter, and to cast it from him. But Divine Justice did not overlook this; for no long time after, when the Duke was on horseback, and on his way to the first halt [1554] , the horse turned his head, and biting him on the thigh, threw him off; and within three days he died. __________________________________________________________________

[1537] Apol. c. Ar. 3.

[1538] Ib. 20.

[1539] §7, note 1, Encycl. 3.

[1540] Upon the Commission, Apol. Ar. 15.

[1541] Cyrinus.

[1542] Vid. infr. §63.

[1543] [A misstatement, cf. supra pp. 91, 95, note 1.]

[1544] prothesmian, Apol. Ar. 25, note 6 [a.d. 340].

[1545] Apol. Ar. 25, note 8.

[1546] 1 Pet. v. 8.

[1547] Apol. Ar. 30 and foll.

[1548] Cf. Apol. Const. §27 fin.

[1549] anexodon, vid. infr. §60. Tillemont translates it, prisoners. Montfaucon has been here followed; vid. Collect. Nov. t. 2. p. xliii.

[1550] hoson oudepo, as §32. George was pulled to pieces by the populace, a.d. 362. This was written a.d. 358, or later. [There is the common confusion in this note between Gregory and George. Gregory had died June 26, 345.]

[1551] Vid. Matt. xxv. 45.

[1552] [Prolegg. ch. iv. §4.].

[1553] Prov. ii. 13, 14, LXX.

[1554] monen. vid. supr. Ap. Ar. 29, note 2. This halt or station which lay up the Nile was called Cereu (V. Ant. §86), or Chæreu, or the land or property of Chæreas, vid. Naz. Orat. 21, 29, who says it was the place where the people met Athanasius on his return from exile on Constantius's death. [The incident is related differently in Vit. Ant. ubi supra: see note there.] __________________________________________________________________

Part III. Restoration of the Catholics on the Council of Sardica

Part III.

Restoration of the Catholics on the Council of Sardica

15. While they were proceeding in like measures towards all, at Rome about fifty Bishops assembled [1555] , and denounced Eusebius and his fellows as persons suspected, afraid to come, and also condemned as unworthy of credit the written statement they had sent; but us they received, and gladly embraced our communion. While these things were taking place, a report of the Council held at Rome, and of the proceedings against the Churches at Alexandria, and through all the East, came to the hearing of the Emperor Constans [1556] . He writes to his brother Constantius, and immediately they both determine [1557] that a Council shall be called, and matters be brought to a settlement, so that those who had been injured may be released from further suffering, and the injurious be no longer able to perpetrate such outrages. Accordingly there assemble at the city of Sardica both from the East and West to the number of one hundred and seventy Bishops [1558] , more or less; those who came from the West were Bishops only, having Hosius for their father, but those from the East brought with them instructors of youth and advocates, Count Musonianus, and Hesychius [1559] the Castrensian; on whose account they came with great alacrity, thinking that everything would be again managed by their authority. For thus by means of these persons they have always shewn themselves formidable to any whom they wished to intimidate, and have prosecuted their designs against whomsoever they chose. But when they arrived and saw that the cause was to be conducted as simply an ecclesiastical one, without the interference of the Count or of soldiers; when they saw the accusers who came from every church and city, and the evidence which was brought against them, when they saw the venerable Bishops Arius and Asterius [1560] , who came up in their company, withdrawing from them and siding with us [1561] , and giving an account of their cunning, and how suspicious their conduct was, and that they were fearing the consequences of a trial, lest they should be convicted by us of being false informers, and it should be discovered by those whom they produced in the character of accusers, that they had themselves suggested all they were to say, and were the contrivers of the plot. Perceiving this to be the case, although they had come with great zeal, as thinking that we should be afraid to meet them, yet now when they saw our alacrity, they shut themselves up in the Palace [1562] (for they had their abode there), and proceeded to confer with one another in the following manner: We came hither for one result; and we see another; we arrived in company with Counts, and the trial is proceeding without them. We are certainly condemned. You all know the orders that have been given. Athanasius and his fellows have the reports of the proceedings in the Mareotis [1563] , by which he is cleared, and we are covered with disgrace. Why then do we delay? why are we so slow? Let us invent some excuse and be gone, or we shall be condemned if we remain. It is better to suffer the shame of fleeing, than the disgrace of being convicted as false accusers. If we flee, we shall find some means of defending our heresy; and even if they condemn us for our flight, still we have the Emperor as our patron, who will not suffer the people to expel us from the Churches.'

16. Secession of the Easterns at Sardica.

Thus then they reasoned with themselves and Hosius and all the other Bishops repeatedly signified to them the alacrity of Athanasius and his fellows, saying, They are ready with their defence, and pledge themselves to prove you false accusers.' They said also, If you fear the trial, why did you come to meet us? either you ought not to have come, or now that you have come, not to flee.' When they heard this, being still more alarmed, they had recourse to an excuse even more unseemly than that they pretended at Antioch, viz. that they betook themselves to flight because the Emperor had written to them the news of his victory over the Persians. And this excuse they were not ashamed to send by Eustathius a Presbyter of the Sardican Church. But even thus their flight did not succeed according to their wishes; for immediately the holy Council, of which the great Hosius was president, wrote to them plainly, saying, Either come forward and answer the charges which are brought against you, for the false accusations which you have made against others, or know that the Council will condemn you as guilty, and declare Athanasius and his fellows free and clear from all blame.' Whereupon they were rather impelled to flight by the alarms of conscience, than to compliance with the proposals of the letter; for when they saw those who had been injured by them, they did not even turn their faces to listen to their words, but fled with greater speed.

17. Proceedings of the Council of Sardica.

Under these disgraceful and unseemly circumstances their flight took place. And the holy Council, which had been assembled out of more than five and thirty provinces, perceiving the malice of the Arians, admitted Athanasius and his fellows to answer to the charges which the others had brought against them, and to declare the sufferings which they had undergone. And when they had thus made their defence, as we said before, they approved and so highly admired their conduct that they gladly embraced their communion, and wrote letters to all quarters, to the diocese of each, and especially to Alexandria and Egypt, and the Libyas, declaring Athanasius and his friends to be innocent, and free from all blame, and their opponents to be calumniators, evil-doers, and everything rather than Christians. Accordingly they dismissed them in peace; but deposed Stephanus and Menophantus, Acacius and George of Laodicea, Ursacius and Valens, Theodorus and Narcissus. For against Gregory, who had been sent to Alexandria by the Emperor, they put forth a proclamation to the effect that he had never been made a Bishop, and that he ought not to be called a Christian. They therefore declared the ordinations which he professed to have conferred to be void, and commanded that they should not be even named in the Church, on account of their novel and illegal nature. Thus Athanasius and his friends were dismissed in peace (the letters concerning them are inserted at the end on account of their length [1564] ), and the Council was dissolved.

18. Arian Persecution after Sardica.

But the deposed persons, who ought now to have remained quiet, with those who had separated after so disgraceful a flight, were guilty of such conduct, that their former proceedings appear trifling in comparison of these. For when the people of Adrianople would not have communion with them, as men who had fled from the Council, and had proved culprits, they carried their complaints to the Emperor Constantius, and succeeded in causing ten of the laity to be beheaded, belonging to the Manufactory of arms [1565] there, Philagrius, who was there again as Count, assisting their designs in this matter also. The tombs of these persons, which we have seen in passing [1566] by, are in front of the city. Then as if they had been quite successful, because they had fled lest they should be convicted of false accusation, they prevailed with the Emperor to command whatsoever they wished to be done. Thus they caused two Presbyters and three Deacons to be banished from Alexandria into Armenia. As to Arius and Asterius, the one Bishop of Petræ [1567] in Palestine, the other Bishop in Arabia, who had withdrawn from their party, they not only banished into upper Libya, but also caused them to be treated with insult.

19. Tyrannical measures against the Alexandrians.

And as to Lucius [1568] , Bishop of Adrianople, when they saw that he used great boldness of speech against them, and exposed their impiety, they again, as they had done before, caused him to be bound with iron chains on the neck and hands, and so drove him into banishment, where he died, as they know. And Diodorus a Bishop [1569] they remove; but against Olympius of Æni, and Theodulus of Trajanople [1570] , both Bishops of Thrace, good and orthodox men, when they perceived their hatred of the heresy, they brought false charges. This Eusebius and his fellows had done first of all, and the Emperor Constantius wrote letters on the subject; and next these men [1571] revived the accusation. The purport of the letter was, that they should not only be expelled from their cities and churches, but should also suffer capital punishment, wherever they were discovered. However surprising this conduct may be, it is only in accordance with their principles; for as being instructed by Eusebius and his fellows in such proceedings, and as heirs of their impiety and evil principles, they wished to shew themselves formidable at Alexandria, as their fathers had done in Thrace. They caused an order to be written, that the ports and gates of the cities should be watched, lest availing themselves of the permission granted by the Council, the banished persons should return to their churches. They also cause orders to be sent to the magistrates at Alexandria, respecting Athanasius and certain Presbyters, named therein, that if either the Bishop [1572] , or any of the others, should be found coming to the city or its borders, the magistrate should have power to behead those who were so discovered. Thus this new Jewish heresy does not only deny the Lord, but has also learnt to commit murder.

20. Plot against the Catholic Legates at Antioch.

Yet even after this they did not rest; but as the father of their heresy goeth about like a lion, seeking whom he may devour, so these obtaining the use of the public posts [1573] went about, and whenever they found any that reproached them with their flight, and that hated the Arian heresy, they scourged them, cast them into chains, and caused them to be banished from their country; and they rendered themselves so formidable, as to induce many to dissemble, many to fly into the deserts, rather than willingly even to have any dealings with them. Such were the enormities which their madness prompted them to commit after their flight. Moreover they perpetrate another outrageous act, which is indeed in accordance with the character of their heresy, but is such as we never heard of before, nor is likely soon to take place again, even among the more dissolute of the Gentiles, much less among Christians. The holy Council had sent as Legates the Bishops Vincentius [1574] of Capua (this is the Metropolis of Campania), and Euphrates of Agrippina [1575] (this is the Metropolis of Upper Gaul), that they might obtain the Emperor's consent to the decision of the Council, that the Bishops should return to their Churches, inasmuch as he was the author of their expulsion. The most religious Constans had also written to his brother [1576] , and supported the cause of the Bishops. But these admirable men, who are equal to any act of audacity, when they saw the two Legates at Antioch, consulted together and formed a plot, which Stephanus [1577] undertook by himself to execute, as being a suitable instrument for such purposes. Accordingly they hire a common harlot, even at the season of the most holy Easter, and stripping her introduce her by night into the apartment of the Bishop Euphrates. The harlot who thought that it was a young man who had sent to invite her, at first willingly accompanied them; but when they thrust her in, and she saw the man asleep and unconscious of what was going on, and when presently she distinguished his features, and beheld the face of an old man, and the array of a Bishop, she immediately cried aloud, and declared that violence was used towards her. They desired her to be silent, and to lay a false charge against the Bishop; and so when it was day, the matter was noised abroad, and all the city ran together; and those who came from the Palace were in great commotion, wondering at the report which had been spread abroad, and demanding that it should not be passed by in silence. An enquiry, therefore, was made, and her master gave information concerning those who came to fetch the harlot, and these informed against Stephanus; for they were his Clergy. Stephanus, therefore, is deposed [1578] , and Leontius the eunuch appointed in his place, only that the Arian heresy may not want a supporter.

21. Constantius' change of mind.

And now the Emperor Constantius, feeling some compunctions, returned to himself; and concluding from their conduct towards Euphrates, that their attacks upon the others were of the same kind, he gives orders that the Presbyters and Deacons who had been banished from Alexandria into Armenia should immediately be released. He also writes publicly to Alexandria [1579] , commanding that the clergy and laity who were friends of Athanasius should suffer no further persecution. And when Gregory died about ten months [1580] after, he sends for Athanasius with every mark of honour, writing to him no less than three times a very friendly letter [1581] in which he exhorted him to take courage and come. He sends also a Presbyter and a Deacon, that he may be still further encouraged to return; for he thought that, through alarm at what had taken place before, I [1582] did not care to return. Moreover he writes to his brother Constans, that he also would exhort me to return. And he affirmed that he had been expecting Athanasius a whole year, and that he would not permit any change to be made, or any ordination to take place, as he was preserving the Churches for Athanasius their Bishop.

22. Athanasius visits Constantius.

When therefore he wrote in this strain, and encouraged him by means of many (for he caused Polemius, Datianus, Bardion, Thalassus [1583] , Taurus [1584] , and Florentius, his Counts, in whom Athanasius could best confide, to write also): Athanasius committing the whole matter to God, who had stirred the conscience of Constantius to do this, came with his friends to him; and he gave him a favourable audience [1585] , and sent him away to go to his country and his Churches, writing at the same time to the magistrates in the several places, that whereas he had before commanded the ways to be guarded, they should now grant him a free passage. Then when the Bishop complained of the sufferings he had undergone, and of the letters which the Emperor had written against him, and besought him that the false accusations against him might not be revived by his enemies after his departure, saying [1586] , If you please, summon these persons; for as far as we are concerned they are at liberty to stand forth, and we will expose their conduct;' he would not do this, but commanded that whatever had been before slanderously written against him should all be destroyed and obliterated, affirming that he would never again listen to any such accusations, and that his purpose was fixed and unalterable. This he did not simply say, but sealed his words with oaths, calling upon God to be witness of them. And so encouraging him with many other words, and desiring him to be of good courage, he sends the following letters to the Bishops and Magistrates.

23. Constantius Augustus, the Great, the Conqueror, to the Bishops and Clergy of the Catholic Church.

The most Reverend Athanasius has not been deserted by the grace of God [1587] , &c.

Another Letter.

From Constantius to the people of Alexandria.

Desiring as we do your welfare in all respects [1588] , &c.

Another Letter.

Constantius Augustus, the Conqueror, to Nestorius, Prefect of Egypt.

It is well known that an order was heretofore given by us, and that certain documents are to be found prejudicial to the estimation of the most reverend Bishop Athanasius; and that these exist among the Orders [1589] of your worship. Now we desire your Sobriety, of which we have good proof, to transmit to our Court, in compliance with this our order, all the letters respecting the fore-mentioned person, which are found in your Order-book.

24. The following is the letter which he wrote after the death of the blessed Constans. It was written in Latin, and is here translated into Greek [1590] .

Constantius Augustus, the Conqueror, to Athanasius.

It is not unknown to your Prudence, that it was my constant prayer, that prosperity might attend my late brother Constans in all his undertakings; and your wisdom may therefore imagine how greatly I was afflicted when I learnt that he had been taken off by most unhallowed hands. Now whereas there are certain persons who at the present truly mournful time are endeavouring to alarm you, I have therefore thought it right to address this letter to your Constancy, to exhort you that, as becomes a Bishop, you would teach the people those things which pertain to the divine religion, and that, as you are accustomed to do, you would employ your time in prayers together with them, and not give credit to vain rumours, whatever they may be. For our fixed determination is, that you should continue, agreeably to our desire, to perform the office of a Bishop in your own place. May Divine Providence preserve you, most beloved parent, many years.

25. Return of Athanasius from second exile.

Under these circumstances, when they had at length taken their leave, and begun their journey, those who were friendly rejoiced to see a friend; but of the other party, some were confounded at the sight of him; others not having the confidence to appear, hid themselves; and others repented of what they had written against the Bishop. Thus all the Bishops of Palestine [1591] , except some two or three, and those men of suspected character, so willingly received Athanasius, and embraced communion with him, that they wrote to excuse themselves, on the ground that in what they had formerly written, they had acted, not according to their own wishes, but by compulsion. Of the Bishops of Egypt and the Libyan provinces, of the laity both of those countries and of Alexandria, it is superfluous for me to speak. They all ran [1592] together, and were possessed with unspeakable delight, that they had not only received their friends alive contrary to their hopes; but that they were also delivered from the heretics who were as tyrants and as raging dogs towards them. Accordingly great was their joy [1593] , the people in the congregations encouraging one another in virtue. How many unmarried women, who were before ready to enter upon marriage, now remained virgins to Christ! How many young men, seeing the examples of others, embraced the monastic life! How many fathers persuaded their children, and how many were urged by their children, not to be hindered from Christian asceticism! How many wives persuaded their husbands, and how many were persuaded by their husbands, to give themselves to prayer [1594] , as the Apostle has spoken! How many widows and how many orphans, who were before hungry and naked, now through the great zeal of the people, were no longer hungry, and went forth clothed! In a word, so great was their emulation in virtue, that you would have thought every family and every house a Church, by reason of the goodness of its inmates, and the prayers which were offered to God. And in the Churches there was a profound and wonderful peace, while the Bishops wrote from all quarters, and received from Athanasius the customary letters of peace.

26. Recantation of Ursacius and Valens.

Moreover Ursacius and Valens, as if suffering the scourge of conscience, came to another mind, and wrote to the Bishop himself a friendly and peaceable letter [1595] , although they had received no communication from him. And going up to Rome they repented, and confessed that all their proceedings and assertions against him were founded in falsehood and mere calumny. And they not only voluntarily did this, but also anathematized the Arian heresy, and presented a written declaration of their repentance, addressing to the Bishop Julius the following letter in Latin, which has been translated into Greek. The copy was sent to us in Latin by Paul [1596] , Bishop of Treveri.

Translation from the Latin.

Ursacius and Valens to my Lord the most blessed Pope Julius.

Whereas it is well known that we [1597] , &c.

Translation from the Latin.

The Bishops Ursacius and Valens to my Lord and Brother, the Bishop Athanasius.

Having an opportunity of sending [1598] , &c.

After writing these, they also subscribed the letters of peace which were presented to them by Peter and Irenæus, Presbyters of Athanasius, and by Ammonius a layman, who were passing that way, although Athanasius had sent no communication to them even by these persons.

27. Triumph of Athanasius.

Now who was not filled with admiration at witnessing these things, and the great peace that prevailed in the Churches? who did not rejoice to see the concord of so many Bishops? who did not glorify the Lord, beholding the delight of the people in their assemblies? How many enemies repented! How many excused themselves who had formerly accused him falsely! How many who formerly hated him, now shewed affection for him! How many of those who had written against him, recanted their assertions? Many also who had sided with the Arians, not through choice but by necessity, came by night and excused themselves. They anathematized the heresy, and besought him to pardon them, because, although through the plots and calumnies of these men they appeared bodily on their side, yet in their hearts they held communion with Athanasius, and were always with him. Believe me, this is true. __________________________________________________________________

[1555] Apol. Ar. 1, note 1.

[1556] Apol. Const. 4, note 8.

[1557] Below, §50.

[1558] Vid. supr. pp. 127, note 10, and 147.

[1559] Apol. Ar. 36, notes 8, 9.

[1560] Below, §18.

[1561] [Cf. §21, note 5.]

[1562] The word Palatium sometimes stands for the space or limits set apart in cities for the Emperor, Cod. Theod. XV. i. 47. sometimes for the buildings upon it, ibid. VII. x. 2, which were one of the four public works mentioned in the Laws. ibid. XV. i. 35. and 36. None but great officers of state were admitted into it. XV. i. 47. Even the judges might not lodge in it, except there was no Prætorium, VII. x. 2. Gothofr. in VII. x. 1 enumerates (with references) the Palatia in Antioch, Daphne, Constantinople, Hereclea, Milan, Treves, &c. It was a great mark then of imperial favour that the Eastern bishops were accommodated in the Palatium at Sardica.

[1563] Apol. Ar. §83, &c.

[1564] Not found there, but in Apol. contr. Ar. §§37, foll.

[1565] De Fabricis, vid. Gothofr. in Cod. Theod. x. 21.

[1566] [Apparently on his way from Treveri (see 21, n. 3) back to Alexandria in 346.]

[1567] [See pp. 148, 128 note, and infr., Tom. ad Ant. §8. In the text Petræ is wrongly placed in Palestine. The slip is one of many in this tract; see Introd. above.]

[1568] Apol. Ar. 45, Apol. Fug. 3.

[1569] Of Tenedos, vid. Apol. Ar. 50, supr. §5.

[1570] Apol. Ar. 45, note 2.

[1571] Acacius, &c.

[1572] This accounts for Ath.'s caution, Apol. Ar. 51, and below §21.

[1573] Apol. Ar. 70, note 5.

[1574] Ap. Const. 3, note 3.

[1575] Cologne.

[1576] Infr. §50.

[1577] Bishop of Antioch, cf. §4, above.

[1578] [Between Easter and Midsummer 344.]

[1579] [Probably about August 344.]

[1580] [June 26, 345. Athanasius received some at least of the letters at Aquileia, where he spent Easter, 345 (Apol. Ar. 51, Fest. Ind. xvii.). He then went to see Constans at Treveri, apparently in May, 346 (Apol. Const. 4, Gwatkin, Stud. 127, n.). This compels us to assume that the first invitation to Ath. to return must have been wrung (infr. 49, 50) from Constantius before the death of Gregory. The statement in the text is therefore so far inexact, but the lung illness of Gregory must have made his death a matter of daily expectation, cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. §6 (3) fin.]

[1581] Apol. Ar. 51.

[1582] [Here for once Ath. speaks in the first person, cf. §§15, 26, 64, 69, and 51, note 2a.]

[1583] Apol. Const. 3.

[1584] At Ariminum.

[1585] Apol. Ar. 54; Apol. Const. 5.

[1586] Below, §44.

[1587] Vid. Apol. contr. Arian. §54.

[1588] Ib. §55.

[1589] Or Acta Publica, vid. supr. Ap. Ar. 56.

[1590] Another translation, Apol. Const. 23.

[1591] Apol. Ar. 57.

[1592] Oct. 21, 346.

[1593] Apol. Ar. 53.

[1594] 1 Cor. vii. 5.

[1595] Apol. Ar. 58 [a.d. 347].

[1596] Paulinus, supr. pp. 130, 227.

[1597] Vid. Apol. contr. Ar. §58.

[1598] Ibid. __________________________________________________________________

Part IV. Second Arian Persecution under Constantius

Part IV.

Second Arian Persecution under Constantius

28. But the inheritors of the opinions and impiety of Eusebius and his fellows, the eunuch Leontius [1599] , who ought not to remain in communion even as a layman [1600] , because he mutilated himself that he might henceforward be at liberty to sleep with one Eustolium, who is a wife as far as he is concerned, but is called a virgin; and George and Acacius, and Theodorus, and Narcissus, who are deposed by the Council; when they heard and saw these things, were greatly ashamed. And when they perceived the unanimity and peace that existed between Athanasius and the Bishops (they were more than four hundred [1601] , from great Rome, and all Italy, from Calabria, Apulia, Campania, Bruttia, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, and the whole of Africa; and those from Gaul, Britain, and Spain, with the great Confessor Hosius; and also those from Pannonia, Noricum, Siscia, Dalmatia, Dardania, Dacia, Moesia, Macedonia, Thessaly, and all Achaia, and from Crete, Cyprus, and Lycia, with most of those from Palestine, Isauria, Egypt, the Thebais, the whole of Libya, and Pentapolis); when I say they perceived these things, they were possessed with envy and fear; with envy, on account of the communion of so many together; and with fear, lest those who had been entrapped by them should be brought over by the unanimity of so great a number, and henceforth their heresy should be triumphantly exposed, and everywhere proscribed.

29. Relapse of Ursacius and Valens.

First of all they persuade Ursacius, Valens and their fellows to change sides again, and like dogs [1602] to return to their own vomit, and like swine to wallow again in the former mire of their impiety; and they make this excuse for their retractation, that they did it through fear of the most religious Constans. And yet even had there been cause for fear, yet if they had confidence in what they had done, they ought not to have become traitors to their friends. But when there was no cause for fear, and yet they were guilty of a lie, are they not deserving of utter condemnation? For no soldier was present, no Palatine or Notary [1603] had been sent, as they now send them, nor yet was the Emperor there, nor had they been invited by any one, when they wrote their recantation. But they voluntarily went up to Rome, and of their own accord recanted and wrote it down in the Church, where there was no fear from without, where the only fear is the fear of God, and where every one has liberty of conscience. And yet although they have a second time become Arians, and then have devised this unseemly excuse for their conduct, they are still without shame.

30. Constantius changes sides again.

In the next place they went in a body to the Emperor Constantius, and besought him, saying, When we first made our request to you, we were not believed; for we told you, when you sent for Athanasius, that by inviting him to come forward, you are expelling our heresy. For he has been opposed to it from the very first, and never ceases to anathematize it. He has already written letters against us into all parts of the world, and the majority of men have embraced communion with him; and even of those who seemed to be on our side, some have been gained over by him, and others are likely to be. And we are left alone, so that the fear is, lest the character of our heresy become known, and henceforth both we and you gain the name of heretics. And if this come to pass, you must take care that we be not classed with the Manichæans. Therefore begin again to persecute, and support the heresy, for it accounts you its king.' Such was the language of their iniquity. And the Emperor, when in his passage through the country on his hasty march against Magnentius [1604] , he saw the communion of the Bishops with Athanasius, like one set on fire, suddenly changed his mind, and no longer remembered his oaths, but was alike forgetful of what he had written and regardless of the duty he owed his brother. For in his letters to him, as well as in his interview with Athanasius, he took oaths that he would not act otherwise than as the people should wish, and as should be agreeable to the Bishops. But his zeal for impiety caused him at once to forget all these things. And yet one ought not to wonder that after so many letters and so many oaths Constantius had altered his mind, when we remember that Pharaoh of old, the tyrant of Egypt, after frequently promising and by that means obtaining a remission of his punishments, likewise changed, until he at last perished together with his associates.

31. Constantius begins to persecute.

He compelled then the people in every city to change their party; and on arriving at Arles and Milan [1605] , he proceeded to act entirely in accordance with the designs and suggestions of the heretics; or rather they acted themselves, and receiving authority from him, furiously attacked every one. Letters and orders were immediately sent hither to the Prefect, that for the future the corn should be taken from Athanasius and given to those who favoured the Arian doctrines, and that whoever pleased might freely insult them that held communion with him; and the magistrates were threatened if they did not hold communion with the Arians. These things were but the prelude to what afterwards took place under the direction of the Duke Syrianus. Orders were sent also to the more distant parts, and Notaries despatched to every city, and Palatines, with threats to the Bishops and Magistrates, directing the Magistrates to urge on the Bishops, and informing the Bishops that either they must subscribe against Athanasius, and hold communion with the Arians, or themselves undergo the punishment of exile, while the people who took part with them were to understand that chains, and insults, and scourgings, and the loss of their possessions, would be their portion. These orders were not neglected, for the commissioners had in their company the Clergy of Ursacius and Valens, to inspire them with zeal, and to inform the Emperor if the Magistrates neglected their duty. The other heresies, as younger sisters of their own [1606] , they permitted to blaspheme the Lord, and only conspired against the Christians, not enduring to hear orthodox language concerning Christ. How many Bishops in consequence, according to the words of Scripture, were brought before rulers and kings [1607] , and received this sentence from magistrates, Subscribe, or withdraw from your churches, for the Emperor has commanded you to be deposed!' How many in every city were roughly handled, lest they should accuse them as friends of the Bishops! Moreover letters were sent to the city authorities, and a threat of a fine was held out to them, if they did not compel the Bishops of their respective cities to subscribe. In short, every place and every city was full of fear and confusion, while the Bishops were dragged along to trial, and the magistrates witnessed the lamentations and groans of the people.

32. Persecution by Constantius.

Such were the proceedings of the Palatine commissioners; on the other hand, those admirable persons, confident in the patronage which they had obtained, display great zeal, and cause some of the Bishops to be summoned before the Emperor, while they persecute others by letters, inventing charges against them; to the intent that the one might be overawed by the presence of Constantius, and the other, through fear of the commissioners and the threats held out to them in these pretended accusations, might be brought to renounce their orthodox and pious opinions. In this manner it was that the Emperor forced so great a multitude of Bishops, partly by threats, and partly by promises, to declare, We will no longer hold communion with Athanasius.' For those who came for an interview, were not admitted to his presence, nor allowed any relaxation, not so much as to go out of their dwellings, until they had either subscribed, or refused and incurred banishment thereupon. And this he did because he saw that the heresy was hateful to all men. For this reason especially he compelled so many to add their names to the small number [1608] of the Arians, his earnest desire being to collect together a crowd of names, both from envy of the Bishop, and for the sake of making a shew in favour of the Arian impiety, of which he is the patron; supposing that he will be able to alter the truth, as easily as he can influence the minds of men. He knows not, nor has ever read, how that the Sadducees and the Herodians, taking unto them the Pharisees, were not able to obscure the truth; rather it shines out thereby more brightly every day, while they crying out, We have no king but Cæsar [1609] ,' and obtaining the judgment of Pilate in their favour, are nevertheless left destitute, and wait in utter shame, expecting shortly [1610] to become bereft, like the partridge [1611] , when they shall see their patron near his death.

33. Persecution is from the Devil.

Now if it was altogether unseemly in any of the Bishops to change their opinions merely from fear of these things, yet it was much more so, and not the part of men who have confidence in what they believe, to force and compel the unwilling. In this manner it is that the Devil, when he has no truth on his side [1612] , attacks and breaks down the doors of them that admit him with axes and hammers [1613] . But our Saviour is so gentle that He teaches thus, If any man wills to come after Me,' and, Whoever wills to be My disciple [1614] ;' and coming to each He does not force them, but knocks at the door and says, Open unto Me, My sister, My spouse [1615] ;' and if they open to Him, He enters in, but if they delay and will not, He departs from them. For the truth is not preached with swords or with darts, nor by means of soldiers; but by persuasion and counsel. But what persuasion is there where fear of the Emperor prevails? or what counsel is there, when he who withstands them receives at last banishment and death? Even David, although he was a king, and had his enemy in his power, prevented not the soldiers by an exercise of authority when they wished to kill his enemy, but, as the Scripture says, David persuaded his men by arguments, and suffered them not to rise up and put Saul to death [1616] . But he, being without arguments of reason, forces all men by his power, that it may be shewn to all, that their wisdom is not according to God, but merely human, and that they who favour the Arian doctrines have indeed no king but Cæsar; for by his means it is that these enemies of Christ accomplish whatsoever they wish to do. But while they thought that they were carrying on their designs against many by his means, they knew not that they were making many to be confessors, of whom are those who have lately [1617] made so glorious a confession, religious men, and excellent Bishops, Paulinus [1618] Bishop of Treveri, the metropolis of the Gauls, Lucifer, Bishop of the metropolis of Sardinia, Eusebius of Vercelli in Italy, and Dionysius of Milan, which is the metropolis of Italy. These the Emperor summoned before him, and commanded them to subscribe against Athanasius, and to hold communion with the heretics; and when they were astonished at this novel procedure, and said that there was no Ecclesiastical Canon to this effect, he immediately said, Whatever I will, be that esteemed a Canon; the "Bishops" of Syria let me thus speak. Either then obey, or go into banishment.'

34. Banishment of the Western Bishops spread the knowledge of the truth.

When the Bishops heard this they were utterly amazed, and stretching forth their hands to God, they used great boldness of speech against him teaching him that the kingdom was not his, but God's, who had given it to him, Whom also they bid him fear, lest He should suddenly take it away from him. And they threatened him with the day of judgment, and warned him against infringing Ecclesiastical order, and mingling Roman sovereignty with the constitution [1619] of the Church, and against introducing the Arian heresy into the Church of God. But he would not listen to them, nor permit them to speak further, but threatened them so much the more, and drew his sword against them, and gave orders for some of them to be led to execution; although afterwards, like Pharaoh, he repented. The holy men therefore shaking off the dust, and looking up to God, neither feared the threats of the Emperor, nor betrayed their cause before his drawn sword; but received their banishment, as a service pertaining to their ministry. And as they passed along, they preached the Gospel in every place and city [1620] , although they were in bonds, proclaiming the orthodox faith, anathematizing the Arian heresy, and stigmatizing the recantation of Ursacius and Valens. But this was contrary to the intention of their enemies; for the greater was the distance of their place of banishment, so much the more was the hatred against them increased, while the wanderings of these men were but the heralding of their impiety. For who that saw them as they passed along, did not greatly admire them as Confessors, and renounce and abominate the others, calling them not only impious men, but executioners and murderers, and everything rather than Christians? __________________________________________________________________

[1599] On the suneisaktai, vid. [D.C.A. 1939 sqq. Bright, Notes on Canons, p. 839], Mosheim de Rebus Ante Const. p. 599, Routh, Reliqu. Sacr. t. 2. p. 606. t. 3. p. 445. Basnag. Diss. vii. 19. in Ann. Eccles. t. 2. Muratori, Anecdot. Græc. p. 218. Dodwell, Dissert. Cyprian. iii. Bevereg. in Can. Nic. 3. Suicer. Thesaur. in voc. &c. &c. It is conjectured by Beveridge, Dodwell, Van Espen, &c., that Leontius gave occasion to the first Canon of the Nicene Council, peri ton tolmonton heautous ektemnein

[1600] Can. Ap. 17. but vid. Morin. de Pæn. p. 185.

[1601] After Sardica, vid. Apol. Ar. 50, note 10.

[1602] [351 a.d.] Cf. 2 Pet. ii. 22.

[1603] Apol. Const. 19.

[1604] [351 a.d.]

[1605] [353 and 355.]

[1606] De Syn. 12, note 11.

[1607] Mark xiii. 9.

[1608] Cf. de Syn. 5, note, and above Ep. Æg. 7.

[1609] John xix. 15, and Orat. i. 8, note.

[1610] hoson oudepo, above, 13; Const. died Nov. 3, 361 aged 45.

[1611] Jer. xvii. 11, LXX.

[1612] Vid. note on §67 [and Bright, Hist. Writings of Ath. p. lxviii. note 9].

[1613] Vid. Ps. lxxiv. 6

[1614] Matt. xvi. 24.

[1615] Cant. v. 2.

[1616] 1 Sam. xxvi. 9.

[1617] Apol. Const. 27; Apol. Fug. 4, and below, §76.

[1618] §26, and references there.

[1619] diatage, cf. §36.

[1620] Infr. §40, vid. Acts viii. 4; Phil. i. 13. __________________________________________________________________

Part V. Persecution and Lapse of Liberius

Part V.

Persecution and Lapse of Liberius

35. Now it had been better if from the first Constantius had never become connected with this heresy at all; or being connected with it, if he had not yielded so much to those impious men; or having yielded to them, if he had stood by them only thus far, so that judgment might come upon them all for these atrocities alone. But as it would seem, like madmen, having fixed themselves in the bonds of impiety, they are drawing down upon their own heads a more severe judgment. Thus from the first [1621] they spared not even Liberius, Bishop of Rome, but extended [1622] their fury even to those parts; they respected not his bishopric, because it was an Apostolical throne; they felt no reverence for Rome, because she is the Metropolis of Romania [1623] ; they remembered not that formerly in their letters they had spoken of her Bishops as Apostolical men. But confounding all things together, they at once forgot everything, and cared only to shew their zeal in behalf of impiety. When they perceived that he was an orthodox man and hated the Arian heresy, and earnestly endeavoured to persuade all persons to renounce and withdraw from it, these impious men reasoned thus with themselves: If we can persuade Liberius, we shall soon prevail over all.' Accordingly they accused him falsely before the Emperor; and he, expecting easily to draw over all men to his side by means of Liberius, writes to him, and sends a certain eunuch called Eusebius with letters and offerings, to cajole him with the presents, and to threaten him with the letters. The eunuch accordingly went to Rome, and first proposed to Liberius to subscribe against Athanasius, and to hold communion with the Arians, saying, The Emperor wishes it, and commands you to do so.' And then shewing him the offerings, he took him by the hand, and again besought him saying, Obey the Emperor, and receive these.'

36. The Eunuch Eusebius attempts Liberius in vain.

But the Bishop endeavoured to convince him, reasoning with him thus: How is it possible for me to do this against Athanasius? how can we condemn a man, whom not one [1624] Council only, but a second [1625] assembled from all parts of the world, has fairly acquitted, and whom the Church of the Romans dismissed in peace? who will approve of our conduct, if we reject in his absence one, whose presence [1626] amongst us we gladly welcomed, and admitted him to our communion? This is no Ecclesiastical Canon; nor have we had transmitted to us any such tradition [1627] from the Fathers, who in their turn received from the great and blessed Apostle Peter [1628] . But if the Emperor is really concerned for the peace of the Church, if he requires our letters respecting Athanasius to be reversed, let their proceedings both against him and against all the others be reversed also; and then let an Ecclesiastical Council be called at a distance from the Court, at which the Emperor shall not be present, nor any Count be admitted, nor magistrate to threaten us, but where only the fear of God and the Apostolical rule [1629] shall prevail; that so in the first place, the faith of the Church may be secure, as the Fathers defined it in the Council of Nicæa, and the supporters of the Arian doctrines may be cast out, and their heresy anathematized. And then after that, an enquiry being made into the charges brought against Athanasius, and any other besides, as well as into those things of which the other party is accused, let the culprits be cast out, and the innocent receive encouragement and support. For it is impossible that they who maintain an impious creed can be admitted as members of a Council: nor is it fit that an enquiry into matters of conduct should precede the enquiry concerning the faith [1630] ; but all diversity of opinions on points of faith ought first to be eradicated, and then the enquiry made into matters of conduct. Our Lord Jesus Christ did not heal them that were afflicted, until they shewed and declared what faith they had in Him. These things we have received from the Fathers; these report to the Emperor; for they are both profitable for him and edifying to the Church. But let not Ursacius and Valens be listened to, for they have retracted their former assertions, and in what they now say they are not to be trusted.'

37. Liberius refuses the Emperor's offering.

These were the words of the Bishop Liberius. And the eunuch, who was vexed, not so much because he would not subscribe, as because he found him an enemy to the heresy, forgetting that he was in the presence of a Bishop, after threatening him severely, went away with the offerings; and next commits an offence, which is foreign to a Christian, and too audacious for a eunuch. In imitation of the transgression of Saul, he went to the Martyry [1631] of the Apostle Peter, and then presented the offerings. But Liberius having notice of it, was very angry with the person who kept the place, that he had not prevented him, and cast out the offerings as an unlawful sacrifice, which increased the anger of the mutilated creature against him. Consequently he exasperates the Emperor against him, saying, The matter that concerns us is no longer the obtaining the subscription of Liberius, but the fact that he is so resolutely opposed to the heresy, that he anathematizes the Arians by name.' He also stirs up the other eunuchs to say the same; for many of those who were about Constantius, or rather the whole number of them, are eunuchs [1632] , who engross all the influence with him, and it is impossible to do anything there without them. The Emperor accordingly writes to Rome, and again Palatines, and Notaries, and Counts are sent off with letters to the Prefect, in order that either they may inveigle Liberius by stratagem away from Rome and send him to the Court to him, or else persecute him by violence.

38. The evil influence of Eunuchs at Court.

Such being the tenor of the letters, there also fear and treachery forthwith became rife throughout the whole city. How many were the families against which threats were held out! How many received great promises on condition of their acting against Liberius! How many Bishops hid themselves when they saw these things! How many noble women retired to country places in consequence of the calumnies of the enemies of Christ! How many ascetics were made the objects of their plots! How many who were sojourning there, and had made that place their home, did they cause to be persecuted! How often and how strictly did they guard the harbour [1633] and the approaches to the gates, lest any orthodox person should enter and visit Liberius! Rome also had trial of the enemies of Christ, and now experienced what before she would not believe, when she heard how the other Churches in every city were ravaged by them. It was the eunuchs who instigated these proceedings against all. And the most remarkable circumstance in the matter is this; that the Arian heresy which denies the Son of God, receives its support from eunuchs, who, as both their bodies are fruitless, and their souls barren of virtue, cannot bear even to hear the name of son. The Eunuch of Ethiopia indeed, though he understood not what he read [1634] , believed the words of Philip, when he taught him concerning the Saviour; but the eunuchs of Constantius cannot endure the confession of Peter [1635] , nay, they turn away when the Father manifests the Son, and madly rage against those who say, that the Son of God is His genuine Son, thus claiming as a heresy of eunuchs, that there is no genuine and true offspring of the Father. On these grounds it is that the law forbids such persons to be admitted into any ecclesiastical Council [1636] ; notwithstanding which they have now regarded these as competent judges of ecclesiastical causes, and whatever seems good to them, that Constantius decrees, while men with the name of Bishops dissemble with them. Oh! who shall be their historian? who shall transmit the record of these things to another generation? who indeed would believe it, were he to hear it, that eunuchs who are scarcely entrusted with household services (for theirs is a pleasure-loving race, that has no serious concern but that of hindering in others what nature has taken from them); that these, I say, now exercise authority in ecclesiastical matters, and that Constantius in submission to their will treacherously conspired against all, and banished Liberius!

39. Liberius's speech to Constantius.

For after the Emperor had frequently written to Rome, had threatened, sent commissioners, devised schemes, on the persecution [1637] subsequently breaking out at Alexandria, Liberius is dragged before him, and uses great boldness of speech towards him. Cease,' he said, to persecute the Christians; attempt not by my means to introduce impiety into the Church. We are ready to suffer anything rather than to be called Arian madmen. We are Christians; compel us not to become enemies of Christ. We also give you this counsel: fight not against Him who gave you this empire, nor shew impiety towards Him instead of thankfulness [1638] ;' persecute not them that believe in Him, lest you also hear the words, It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks [1639] .' Nay, I would that you might hear them, that you might obey, as the holy Paul did. Behold, here we are; we are come, before they fabricate charges. For this cause we hastened hither, knowing that banishment awaits us at your hands, that we might suffer before a charge encounters us, and that all may clearly see that all the others too have suffered as we shall suffer, and that the charges brought against them were fabrications of their enemies, and all their proceedings were mere calumny and falsehood.'

40. Banishment of Liberius and others.

These were the words of Liberius at that time, and he was admired by all men for them. But the Emperor instead of answering [1640] , only gave orders for their banishment, separating each of them from the rest, as he had done in the former cases. For he had himself devised this plan in the banishments which he inflicted, that so the severity of his punishments might be greater than that of former tyrants and persecutors [1641] . In the former persecution Maximian, who was then Emperor, commanded a number of Confessors to be banished together [1642] , and thus lightened their punishment by the consolation which he gave them in each other's society. But this man was more savage than he; he separated those who had spoken boldly and confessed together, he put asunder those who were united by the bond of faith, that when they came to die they might not see one another; thinking that bodily separation can disunite also the affections of the mind, and that being severed from each other, they would forget the concord and unanimity which existed among them. He knew not that however each one may remain [1643] apart from the rest, he has nevertheless with him that Lord, whom they confessed in one body together, who will also provide (as he did in the case of the Prophet Elisha [1644] ) that more shall be with each of them, than there are soldiers with Constantius. Of a truth iniquity is blind; for in that they thought to afflict the Confessors, by separating them from one another, they rather brought thereby a great injury upon themselves. For had they continued in each other's company, and abode together, the pollutions of those impious men would have been proclaimed from one place only; but now by putting them asunder, they have made their impious heresy and wickedness to spread abroad and become known in every place [1645] .

41. Lapse of Liberius.

Who that shall hear what they did in the course of these proceedings will not think them to be anything rather than Christians? When Liberius sent Eutropius, a Presbyter, and Hilarius, a Deacon, with letters to the Emperor, at the time that Lucifer and his fellows made their confession, they banished the Presbyter on the spot, and after stripping Hilarius [1646] the Deacon and scourging him on the back, they banished him too, clamouring at him, Why didst thou not resist Liberius instead of being the bearer of letters from him.' Ursacius and Valens, with the eunuchs who sided with them, were the authors of this outrage. The Deacon, while he was being scourged, praised the Lord, remembering His words, I gave My back to the smiters [1647] ;' but they while they scourged him laughed and mocked him, feeling no shame that they were insulting a Levite. Indeed they acted but consistently in laughing while he continued to praise God; for it is the part of Christians to endure stripes, but to scourge Christians is the outrage of a Pilate or a Caiaphas. Thus they endeavoured at the first to corrupt the Church of the Romans, wishing to introduce impiety into it as well as others. But Liberius after he had been in banishment two years gave way, and from fear of threatened death subscribed. Yet even this only shews their violent conduct, and the hatred of Liberius against the heresy, and his support of Athanasius, so long as he was suffered to exercise a free choice. For that which men are forced by torture to do contrary to their first judgment, ought not to be considered the willing deed of those who are in fear, but rather of their tormentors. They however attempted everything in support of their heresy, while the people in every Church, preserving the faith which they had learnt, waited for the return of their teachers, and condemned the Antichristian heresy, and all avoid it, as they would a serpent. __________________________________________________________________

[1621] In contrast to date of his fall.

[1622] ten manian exeteinan; vid. ekteinai ten manian, §42. And so in the letter of the Council of Chalcedon to Pope Leo; which says that Dioscorus, kat' autou tes ampelou ten phulaken para tou soteros epitetrammenou ten manian exeteine, legomen de tes ses hosiotetos. Hard. Conc. t. 2. p. 656. [Cf. Prolegg. ch. iv. §4.]

[1623] By Romania is meant the Roman Empire, according to Montfaucon after Nannius. vid. Præfat. xxxiv. xxxv. And so Epiph. Hær, lxvi, 1 fin, p. 618, and lxviii. 2 init. p. 728, Nil. Ep. i. 75. vid. Du Cange Gloss. Græc. in voc.

[1624] At Alexandria.

[1625] At Sardica.

[1626] Vid. Apol. Ar. 29.

[1627] paradosis, vid. §14.

[1628] Apol. Ar. §35.

[1629] ton apostolon diataxis, cf. §34.

[1630] Vid. Pallavicin. Conc. Trid. vi. 7. Sarpi. Hist. ii. 37.

[1631] [1 Sam. xiii. 9. cf. D.C.A. 1132, s.v. Martyrium.]

[1632] Vid. Gibbon, Hist. ch. 19 init.

[1633] Ostia, vid. Gibbon, Hist. ch. 31, p. 303.

[1634] Acts viii. 27.

[1635] Matt. xvi. 16, allusion to Liberius? vid. Hard. Conc. t. 2. p. 305 E.

[1636] Can. Nic. 1.

[1637] [356 a.d.]

[1638] Cf. §34.

[1639] Acts ix. 5.

[1640] [But see Theodoret, Hist. ii. 16.]

[1641] Cf. infr. §60.

[1642] §64 [a.d. 355].

[1643] Cf. §47.

[1644] 2 Kings vi. 16.

[1645] Cf. §34.

[1646] This Hilary afterwards followed Lucifer of Calaris in his schism. He is supposed to be the author of the Comments on S. Paul's Epistles attributed to S. Ambrose, who goes under the name of Ambrosiaster.

[1647] Isa. l. 6. __________________________________________________________________

Part VI. Persecution and Lapse of Hosius

Part VI.

Persecution and Lapse of Hosius

42. But although they had done all this, yet these impious men thought they had accomplished nothing, so long as the great Hosius escaped their wicked machinations. And now they undertook to extend their fury [1648] to that great old man. They felt no shame at the thought that he is the father [1649] of the Bishops; they regarded not that he had been a Confessor [1650] ; they reverenced not the length of his Episcopate, in which he had continued more than sixty years; but they set aside everything, and looked only to the interests of their heresy, as being of a truth such as neither fear God, nor regard man [1651] . Accordingly they went to Constantius, and again employed such arguments as the following: We have done everything; we have banished the Bishop of the Romans; and before him a very great number of other Bishops, and have filled every place with alarm. But these strong measures of yours are as nothing to us, nor is our success at all more secure, so long as Hosius remains. While he is in his own place, the rest also continue in their Churches, for he is able by his arguments and his faith to persuade all men against us. He is the president of Councils [1652] , and his letters are everywhere attended to. He it was who put forth the Nicene Confession, and proclaimed everywhere that the Arians were heretics. If therefore he is suffered to remain, the banishment of the rest is of no avail, for our heresy will be destroyed. Begin then to persecute him also and spare him not, ancient as he is. Our heresy knows not to honour even the hoary hairs of the aged.'

43. Brave resistance of Hosius.

Upon hearing this, the Emperor no longer delayed, but knowing the man, and the dignity of his years, wrote to summon him. This was when he first [1653] began his attempt upon Liberius. Upon his arrival he desired him, and urged him with the usual arguments, with which he thought also to deceive the others, that he would subscribe against us, and hold communion with the Arians. But the old man, scarcely bearing to hear the words, and grieved that he had even ventured to utter such a proposal, severely rebuked him, and after gaining his consent, withdrew to his own country and Church. But the heretics still complaining, and instigating him to proceed (he had the eunuchs also to remind him and to urge him further), the Emperor again wrote in threatening terms; but still Hosius, while he endured their insults, was unmoved by any fear of their designs against him, and remaining firm to his purpose, as one who had built the house of his faith upon the rock, he spake boldly against the heresy, regarding the threats held out to him in the letters but as drops of rain and blasts of wind. And although Constantius wrote frequently, sometimes flattering him with the title of Father, and sometimes threatening and recounting the names of those who had been banished, and saying, Will you continue the only person to oppose the heresy? Be persuaded and subscribe against Athanasius; for whoever subscribes against him thereby embraces with us the Arian cause;' still Hosius remained fearless, and while suffering these insults, wrote an answer in such terms as these. We have read the letter, which is placed at the end [1654] .

44. Hosius to Constantius the Emperor sends health in the Lord.'

I was a Confessor at the first, when a persecution arose in the time of your grandfather Maximian; and if you shall persecute me, I am ready now, too, to endure anything rather than to shed innocent blood and to betray the truth. But I cannot approve of your conduct in writing after this threatening manner. Cease to write thus; adopt not the cause of Arius, nor listen to those in the East, nor give credit to Ursacius, Valens and their fellows. For whatever they assert, it is not on account of Athanasius, but for the sake of their own heresy. Believe my statement, O Constantius, who am of an age to be your grandfather. I was present at the Council of Sardica, when you and your brother Constans of blessed memory assembled us all together; and on my own account I challenged the enemies of Athanasius, when they came to the church where I abode [1655] , that if they had anything against him they might declare it; desiring them to have confidence, and not to expect otherwise than that a right judgment would be passed in all things. This I did once and again, requesting them, if they were unwilling to appear before the whole Council, yet to appear before me alone; promising them also, that if he should be proved guilty, he should certainly be rejected by us; but if he should be found to be blameless, and should prove them to be calumniators, that if they should then refuse to hold communion with him, I would persuade him to go with me into the Spains. Athanasius was willing to comply with these conditions, and made no objection to my proposal; but they, altogether distrusting their cause, would not consent. And on another occasion Athanasius came to your Court [1656] , when you wrote for him, and his enemies being at the time in Antioch, he requested that they might be summoned either altogether or separately, in order that they might either convict him, or be convicted [1657] , and might either in his presence prove him to be what they represented, or cease to accuse him when absent. To this proposal also you would not listen, and they equally rejected it. Why then do you still give ear to them that speak evil of him? How can you endure Valens and Ursacius, although they have retracted and made a written confession of their calumnies [1658] ? For it is not true, as they pretend, that they were forced to confess; there were no soldiers at hand to influence them; your brother was not cognizant of the matter [1659] . No, such things were not done under his government, as are done now; God forbid. But they voluntarily went up to Rome, and in the presence of the Bishop and Presbyters wrote their recantation, having previously addressed to Athanasius a friendly and peaceable letter. And if they pretend that force was employed towards them, and acknowledge that this is an evil thing, which you also disapprove of; then do you cease to use force; write no letters, send no Counts; but release those that have been banished, lest while you are complaining of violence, they do but exercise greater violence. When was any such thing done by Constans? What Bishop suffered banishment? When did he appear as arbiter of an Ecclesiastical trial? When did any Palatine of his compel men to subscribe against any one, that Valens and his fellows should be able to affirm this? Cease these proceedings, I beseech you, and remember that you are a mortal man. Be afraid of the day of judgment, and keep yourself pure thereunto. Intrude not yourself into Ecclesiastical matters, neither give commands unto us concerning them; but learn them from us. God has put into your hands the kingdom; to us He has entrusted the affairs of His Church; and as he who would steal the empire from you would resist the ordinance of God, so likewise fear on your part lest by taking upon yourself the government of the Church, you become guilty of a great offence. It is written, "Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's [1660] ." Neither therefore is it permitted unto us to exercise an earthly rule, nor have you, Sire, any authority to burn incense [1661] . These things I write unto you out of a concern for your salvation. With regard to the subject of your letters, this is my determination; I will not unite myself to the Arians; I anathematize their heresy. Neither will I subscribe against Athanasius, whom both we and the Church of the Romans and the whole Council pronounced to be guiltless. And yourself also, when you understood this, sent for the man, and gave him permission to return with honour to his country and his Church. What reason then can there be for so great a change in your conduct? The same persons who were his enemies before, are so now also; and the things they now whisper to his prejudice (for they do not declare them openly in his presence), the same they spoke against him, before you sent for him; the same they spread abroad concerning him when they come to the Council. And when I required them to come forward, as I have before said, they were unable to produce their proofs; had they possessed any, they would not have fled so disgracefully. Who then persuaded you so long after to forget your own letters and declarations? Forbear, and be not influenced by evil men, lest while you act for the mutual advantage of yourself and them, you render yourself responsible. For here you comply with their desires, hereafter in the judgment you will have to answer for doing so alone. These men desire by your means to injure their enemy, and wish to make you the minister of their wickedness, in order that through your help they may sow the seeds [1662] of their accursed heresy in the Church. Now it is not a prudent thing to cast one's self into manifest danger for the pleasure of others. Cease then, I beseech you, O Constantius, and be persuaded by me. These things it becomes me to write, and you not to despise.'

45. Lapse of Hosius, due to cruel persecution.

Such were the sentiments, and such the letter, of the Abraham-like old man, Hosius, truly so called [1663] . But the Emperor desisted not from his designs, nor ceased to seek an occasion against him; but continued to threaten him severely, with a view either to bring him over by force, or to banish him if he refused to comply. And as the Officers and Satraps of Babylon [1664] , seeking an occasion against Daniel, found none except in the law of his God; so likewise these present Satraps of impiety were unable to invent any charge against the old man (for this true Hosius, and his blameless life were known to all), except the charge of hatred to their heresy. They therefore proceeded to accuse him; though not under the same circumstances as those others accused Daniel to Darius, for Darius was grieved to hear the charge, but as Jezebel accused Naboth, and as the Jews applied themselves to Herod. And they said, He not only will not subscribe against Athanasius, but also on his account condemns us; and his hatred to the heresy is so great, that he also writes to others, that they should rather suffer death, than become traitors to the truth. For, he says, our beloved Athanasius also is persecuted for the Truth's sake, and Liberius, Bishop of Rome, and all the rest, are treacherously assailed.' When this patron of impiety, and Emperor of heresy [1665] , Constantius, heard this, and especially that there were others also in the Spains of the same mind as Hosius, after he had tempted them also to subscribe, and was unable to compel them to do so, he sent for Hosius, and instead of banishing him, detained him a whole year in Sirmium. Godless, unholy, without natural affection, he feared not God, he regarded not his father's affection for Hosius, he reverenced not his great age, for he was now a hundred years old [1666] ; but all these things this modern Ahab, this second Belshazzar of our times, disregarded for the sake of impiety. He used such violence towards the old man, and confined him so straitly, that at last, broken by suffering, he was brought, though hardly, to hold communion with Valens, Ursacius, and their fellows, though he would not subscribe against Athanasius. Yet even thus he forgot not his duty, for at the approach of death, as it were by his last testament, he bore witness to the force which had been used towards him, and anathematized the Arian heresy, and gave strict charge that no one should receive it.

46. Arbitrary expulsion of so many bishops.

Who that witnessed these things, or that has merely heard of them, will not be greatly amazed, and cry aloud unto the Lord, saying, Wilt Thou make a full end of Israel [1667] ?' Who that is acquainted with these proceedings, will not with good reason cry out and say, A wonderful and horrible thing is done in the land;' and, The heavens are astonished at this, and the earth is even more horribly afraid [1668] .' The fathers of the people and the teachers of the faith are taken away, and the impious are brought into the Churches? Who that saw when Liberius, Bishop of Rome, was banished, and when the great Hosius, the father [1669] of the Bishops, suffered these things, or who that saw so many Bishops banished out of Spain and the other parts, could fail to perceive, however little sense he might possess, that the charges [1670] against Athanasius also and the rest were false, and altogether mere calumny? For this reason those others also endured all suffering, because they saw plainly that the conspiracies laid against these were founded in falsehood. For what charge was there against Liberius? or what accusation against the aged Hosius? who bore even a false witness against Paulinus, and Lucifer, and Dionysius, and Eusebius? or what sin could be lain to the account of the rest of the banished Bishops, and Presbyters, and Deacons? None whatever; God forbid. There were no charges against them on which a plot for their ruin might be formed; nor was it on the ground of any accusation that they were severally banished. It was an insurrection of impiety against godliness; it was zeal for the Arian heresy, and a prelude to the coming of Antichrist, for whom Constantius is thus preparing the way. __________________________________________________________________

[1648] ekteinai ten manian

[1649] Ap. Fug. 5.

[1650] Under Maximian.

[1651] Luke xviii. 2.

[1652] Of Nicæa and Sardica (Ap. Fug. 5).

[1653] i.e. two years before his fall.

[1654] Transferred by copyists hither.

[1655] [i.e. at Sardica, cf. Apol. Ar. 36.]

[1656] Cf. §22.

[1657] Apol. Const. 5.

[1658] Apol. Ar. 58.

[1659] §29.

[1660] Matt. xxii. 21.

[1661] [The language of Hosius is figurative. The first mention of incense as a rite in Christian worship is in ps.-Dionys., about a.d. 500, cf. D.C.A. p. 830 sq.]

[1662] Vid. de Decr. 2, note 6. It is remarkable, this letter having so much its own character, and being so unlike Athanasius's writings in style, that a phrase characteristic of him should here occur in it. Did Athan. translate it from Latin?

[1663] ho alethos Osios. kataskopoi, ou gar episkopoi, supr. §3. infr. §§48, 76 fin. and so alethos Eusebie, Theod. Hist. i. 4. 'Onesimon, ton pote soi achreston, nuni de euchreston, Philem. 10. De Syn. 26, note 6.

[1664] Dan. vi. 5.

[1665] §§9, 30, 54.

[1666] oute ton Theon phobebeis ho atheos, oute tou patros ten diathesin aidestheis ho anosios, oute to geras aischuntheis ho astorgos.

[1667] Ez. xi. 13.

[1668] Jer. v. 30; ii. 12.

[1669] Cf. §15.

[1670] Vid. in Apol. contr. Ar. and ad Const. __________________________________________________________________

Part VII. Persecution at Alexandria

Part VII.

Persecution at Alexandria

47. After' he had accomplished all that he desired against the Churches in Italy, and the other parts; after he had banished some, and violently oppressed others, and filled every place with fear, he at last turned his fury, as it had been some pestilential disorder, against Alexandria. This was artfully contrived by the enemies of Christ; for in order that they might have a show of the signatures of many Bishops, and that Athanasius might not have a single Bishop in his persecution to whom he could even complain, they therefore anticipated his proceedings, and filled every place with terror, which they kept up to second them in the prosecution of their designs. But herein they perceived not through their folly that they were not exhibiting the deliberate choice of the Bishops, but rather the violence which themselves had employed; and that, although his brethren should desert him, and his friends and acquaintance stand afar off, and no one be found to sympathise with him and console him, yet far above all these, a refuge with his God was sufficient for him. For Elijah also was alone in his persecution, and God was all in all to the holy man. And the Saviour has given us an example herein, who also was left alone, and exposed to the designs of His enemies, to teach us, that when we are persecuted and deserted by men, we must not faint, but place our hope in Him, and not betray the Truth. For although at first truth may seem to be afflicted, yet even they who persecute shall afterwards acknowledge it.

48. Attacks upon the Alexandrian Church.

Accordingly they urge on the Emperor, who first writes a menacing letter, which he sends to the Duke and the soldiers. The Notaries Diogenius and Hilarius [1671] , and certain Palatines with them, were the bearers of it; upon whose arrival those terrible and cruel outrages were committed against the Church, which I have briefly related a little above [1672] , and which are known to all men from the protests put forth by the people, which are inserted at the end of this history, so that any one may read them. Then after these proceedings on the part of Syrianus, after these enormities had been perpetrated, and violence offered to the Virgins, as approving of such conduct and the infliction of these evils upon us, he writes again to the senate and people of Alexandria, instigating the younger men, and requiring them to assemble together, and either to persecute Athanasius, or consider themselves as his enemies. He however had withdrawn before these instructions reached them, and from the time when Syrianus broke into the Church; for he remembered that which was written, Hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast [1673] .' One Heraclius, by rank a Count, was the bearer of this letter, and the precursor of a certain George that was despatched by the Emperor as a spy, for one that was sent from him cannot be a Bishop [1674] ; God forbid. And so indeed his conduct and the circumstances which preceded his entrance sufficiently prove.

49 and 50. Hypocrisy of the pretended respect of Constantius for his brother's memory.

Heraclius then published the letter, which reflected great disgrace upon the writer. For whereas, when the great Hosius wrote to Constantius, he had been unable to make out any plausible pretext for his change of conduct, he now invented an excuse much more discreditable to himself and his advisers. He said, From regard to the affection I entertained towards my brother of divine and pious memory, I endured for a time the coming of Athanasius among you.' This proves that he has both broken his promise, and behaved ungratefully to his brother after his death. He then declares him to be, as indeed he is, deserving of divine and pious remembrance;' yet as regards a command of his, or to use his own language, the affection' he bore him, even though he complied merely for the sake' of the blessed Constans, he ought to deal fairly by his brother, and make himself heir to his sentiments as well as to the Empire. But, although, when seeking to obtain his just rights, he deposed Vetranio, with the question, To whom does the inheritance belong after a brother's death [1675] ?' yet for the sake of the accursed heresy of the enemies of Christ, he disregards the claims of justice, and behaves undutifully towards his brethren. Nay, for the sake of this heresy, he would not consent to observe even his father's wishes without infringement; but, in what he may gratify these impious men, he pretends to adopt his intention, while in order to distress the others, he cares not to shew the reverence which is due unto a father. For in consequence of the calumnies of Eusebius and his fellows, his father sent the Bishop for a time into Gaul to avoid the cruelty of his persecutors (this was shewn by the blessed Constantine, the brother of the former, after their father's death, as appears by his letters [1676] ), but he would not be persuaded by Eusebius and his fellows to send the person whom they desired for a Bishop, but prevented the accomplishment of their wishes, and put a stop to their attempts with severe threats.

51. How Constantius shews his respect for his father and brother.

If therefore, as he declares in his letters, he desired to observe his sire's practice, why did he first send out Gregory, and now this George, the eater of stores [1677] ? Why does he endeavour so earnestly to introduce into the Church these Arians, whom his father named Porphyrians [1678] , and banish others while he patronises them? Although his father admitted Arius to his presence, yet when Arius perjured himself and burst asunder [1679] he lost the compassion of his father; who, on learning the truth, condemned him as an heretic. Why moreover, while pretending to respect the Canon of the Church, has he ordered the whole course of his conduct in opposition to them? For where is there a Canon that a Bishop should be appointed from Court? Where is there a Canon [1680] that permits soldiers to invade Churches? What tradition is there allowing counts and ignorant eunuchs to exercise authority in Ecclesiastical matters, and to make known by their edicts the decisions of those who bear the name of Bishops? He is guilty of all manner of falsehood for the sake of this unholy heresy. At a former time he sent out Philagrius as Prefect a second time [1681] , in opposition to the opinion of his father, and we see what has taken place now. Nor for his brother's sake' does he speak the truth. For after his death he wrote not once nor twice, but three times to the Bishop, and repeatedly promised him that he would not change his behaviour towards him, but exhorted him to be of good courage, and not suffer any one to alarm him, but to continue to abide in his Church in perfect security. He also sent his commands by Count Asterius, and Palladius the Notary, to Felicissimus, who was then Duke, and to the Prefect Nestorius, that if either Philip the Prefect, or any other should venture to form any plot against Athanasius, they should prevent it.

52. The Emperor has no right to rule the Church.

Wherefore when Diogenes came, and Syrianus laid in wait for us, both he and we [1682] and the people demanded to see the Emperor's letters, supposing that, as it is written, Let not a falsehood be spoken before the king [1683] ;' so when a king has made a promise, he will not lie, nor change. If then for his brother's sake he complied,' why did he also write those letters upon his death? And if he wrote them for his memory's sake,' why did he afterwards behave so very unkindly towards him, and persecute the man, and write what he did, alleging a judgment of Bishops, while in truth he acted only to please himself? Nevertheless his craft has not escaped detection, but we have the proof of it ready at hand. For if a judgment had been passed by Bishops, what concern had the Emperor with it? Or if it was only a threat of the Emperor, what need in that case was there of the so-named Bishops? When was such a thing heard of before from the beginning of the world? When did a judgment of the Church receive its validity from the Emperor? or rather when was his decree ever recognised by the Church? There have been many Councils held heretofore; and many judgments passed by the Church; but the Fathers never sought the consent of the Emperor thereto, nor did the Emperor busy himself with the affairs of the Church [1684] . The Apostle Paul had friends among them of Cæsar's household, and in his Epistle to the Philippians he sent salutations from them; but he never took them as his associates in Ecclesiastical judgments. Now however we have witnessed a novel spectacle, which is a discovery of the Arian heresy. Heretics have assembled together with the Emperor Constantius, in order that he, alleging the authority of the Bishops, may exercise his power against whomsoever he pleases, and while he persecutes may avoid the name of persecutor; and that they, supported by the Emperor's government, may conspire the ruin of whomsoever they will [1685] and these are all such as are not as impious as themselves. One might look upon their proceedings as a comedy which they are performing on the stage, in which the pretended Bishops are actors, and Constantius the performer of their behests, who makes promises to them, as Herod did to the daughter of Herodias, and they dancing before him accomplish through false accusations the banishment and death of the true believers in the Lord.

53. Despotic interference of Constantius.

Who indeed has not been injured by their calumnies? Whom have not these enemies of Christ conspired to destroy? Whom has Constantius failed to banish upon charges which they have brought against them? When did he refuse to hear them willingly? And what is most strange, when did he permit any one to speak against them, and did not more readily receive their testimony, of whatever kind it might be? Where is there a Church which now enjoys the privilege of worshipping Christ freely? If a Church be a maintainer of true piety, it is in danger; if it dissemble, it abides in fear. Every place is full of hypocrisy and impiety, so far as he is concerned; and wherever there is a pious person and a lover of Christ (and there are many such everywhere, as were the prophets and the great Elijah) they hide themselves, if so be that they can find a faithful friend like Obadiah, and either they withdraw into caves and dens of the earth, or pass their lives in wandering about in the deserts. These men in their madness prefer such calumnies against them as Jezebel invented against Naboth, and the Jews against the Saviour; while the Emperor, who is the patron of the heresy, and wishes to pervert the truth, as Ahab wished to change the vineyard into a garden of herbs, does whatever they desire him to do, for the suggestions he receives from them are agreeable to his own wishes.

54. Constantius gives up the Alexandrian Churches to the heretics.

Accordingly he banished, as I said before the genuine Bishops, because they would not profess impious doctrines, to suit his own pleasure; and so he now sent Count Heraclius to proceed against Athanasius, who has publicly made known his decrees, and announced the command of the Emperor to be, that unless they complied with the instructions contained in his letters, their bread [1686] should be taken away, their idols overthrown, and the persons of many of the city-magistrates and people delivered over to certain slavery. After threatening them in this manner, he was not ashamed to declare publicly with a loud voice, The Emperor disclaims Athanasius, and has commanded that the Churches be given up to the Arians.' And when all wondered to hear this, and made signs to one another, exclaiming, What! has Constantius become a heretic?' instead of blushing as he ought, the man all the more obliged the senators and heathen magistrates and wardens [1687] of the idol temples to subscribe to these conditions, and to agree to receive as their Bishop whomsoever [1688] the Emperor should send them. Of course Constantius was strictly upholding the Canon of the Church, when he caused this to be done; when instead of requiring letters from the Church, he demanded them of the market-place, and instead of the people he asked them of the wardens of the temples. He was conscious that he was not sending a Bishop to preside over Christians, but a certain intruder for those who subscribed to his terms.

55. Irruption into the great Church.

The Gentiles accordingly, as purchasing by their compliance the safety of their idols, and certain of the trades [1689] , subscribed, though unwillingly, from fear of the threats which he had held out to them; just as if the matter had been the appointment of a general, or other magistrate. Indeed what as heathen, were they likely to do, except whatever was pleasing to the Emperor? But the people having assembled in the great Church (for it was the fourth day of the week), Count Heraclius on the following day [1690] takes with him Cataphronius the Prefect of Egypt, and Faustinus the Receiver-General [1691] , and Bithynus a heretic; and together they stir up the younger men of the common multitude [1692] who worshipped idols, to attack the Church, and stone the people, saying that such was the Emperor's command. As the time of dismissal however had arrived, the greater part had already left the Church, but there being a few women still remaining, they did as the men had charged them, whereupon a piteous spectacle ensued. The few women had just risen from prayer and had sat down when the youths suddenly came upon them naked with stones and clubs. Some of them the godless wretches stoned to death; they scourged with stripes the holy persons of the Virgins, tore off their veils and exposed their heads, and when they resisted the insult, the cowards kicked them with their feet. This was dreadful, exceedingly dreadful; but what ensued was worse, and more intolerable than any outrage. Knowing the holy character of the virgins, and that their ears were unaccustomed to pollution, and that they were better able to bear stones and swords than expressions of obscenity, they assailed them with such language. This the Arians suggested to the young men, and laughed at all they said and did; while the holy Virgins and other godly women fled from such words as they would from the bite of asps, but the enemies of Christ assisted them in the work, nay even, it may be, gave utterance to the same; for they were well-pleased with the obscenities which the youths vented upon them.

56. The great Church pillaged.

After this, that they might fully execute the orders they had received (for this was what they earnestly desired, and what the Count and the Receiver-General instructed them to do), they seized upon the seats, the throne, and the table which was of wood [1693] , and the curtains [1694] of the Church, and whatever else they were able, and carrying them out burnt them before the doors in the great street, and cast frankincense upon the flame. Alas! who will not weep to hear of these things, and, it may be, close his ears, that he may not have to endure the recital, esteeming it hurtful merely to listen to the account of such enormities? Moreover they sang the praises of their idols, and said, Constantius hath become a heathen, and the Arians have acknowledged our customs;' for indeed they scruple not even to pretend heathenism, if only their heresy may be established. They even were ready to sacrifice a heifer which drew the water for the gardens in the Cæsareum [1695] ; and would have sacrificed it, had it not been a female [1696] ; for they said that it was unlawful for such to be offered among them.

57. Thus acted the impious [1697] Arians in conjunction with the heathens, thinking that these things tended to our dishonour. But Divine justice reproved their iniquity, and wrought a great and remarkable sign, thereby plainly shewing to all men, that as in their acts of impiety they had dared to attack none other but the Lord, so in these proceedings also they were again attempting to do dishonour unto Him. This was more manifestly proved by the marvellous event which now came to pass. One of these licentious youths ran into the Church, and ventured to sit down upon the throne; and as he sat there the wretched man uttered with a nasal sound some lascivious song. Then rising up he attempted to pull away the throne, and to drag it towards him; he knew not that he was drawing down vengeance upon himself. For as of old the inhabitants of Azotus, when they ventured to touch [1698] the Ark, which it was not lawful for them even to look upon, were immediately destroyed by it, being first grievously tormented by emerods; so this unhappy person who presumed to drag the throne, drew it upon himself, and, as if Divine justice had sent the wood to punish him, he struck it into his own bowels; and instead of carrying out the throne, he brought out by his blow his own entrails; so that the throne took away his life, instead of his taking it away. For, as it is [1699] written of Judas, his bowels gushed out; and he fell down and was carried away, and the day after he died. Another also entered the Church with boughs of trees [1700] and, as in the Gentile manner he waved them in his hands and mocked, he was immediately struck with blindness, so as straightway to lose his sight, and to know no longer where he was; but as he was about to fall, he was taken by the hand and supported by his companions out of the place, and when on the following day he was with difficulty brought to his senses, he knew not either what he had done or suffered in consequence of his audacity.

58. General Persecution at Alexandria.

The Gentiles, when they beheld these things, were seized with fear, and ventured on no further outrage; but the Arians were not even yet touched with shame, but, like the Jews when they saw the miracles, were faithless and would not believe, nay, like Pharaoh, they were hardened; they too having placed their hopes below, on the Emperor and his eunuchs. They permitted the Gentiles, or rather the more abandoned of the Gentiles, to act in the manner before described; for they found that Faustinus, who is the Receiver-General by style, but is a vulgar [1701] person in habits, and profligate in heart, was ready to play his part with them in these proceedings, and to stir up the heathen. Nay, they undertook to do the like themselves, that as they had modelled their heresy upon all other heresies together [1702] , so they might share their wickedness with the more depraved of mankind. What they did through the instrumentality of others I described above; the enormities they committed themselves surpass the bounds of all wickedness; and they exceed the malice of any hangman. Where is there a house which they did not ravage? where is there a family they did not plunder on pretence of searching for their opponents? where is there a garden they did not trample under foot? what tomb [1703] did they not open, pretending they were seeking for Athanasius, though their sole object was to plunder and spoil all that came in their way? How many men's houses were sealed up [1704] ! The contents of how many persons' lodgings did they give away to the soldiers who assisted them! Who had not experience of their wickedness? Who that met them but was obliged to hide himself in the market-place? Did not many an one leave his house from fear of them, and pass the night in the desert? Did not many an one, while anxious to preserve his property from them, lose the greater part of it? And who, however inexperienced of the sea, did not choose rather to commit himself to it, and to risk all its dangers, than to witness their threatenings? Many also changed their residences, and removed from street to street, and from the city to the suburbs. And many submitted to severe fines, and when they were unable to pay, borrowed of others, merely that they might escape their machinations.

59. Violence of Sebastianus.

For they made themselves formidable to all men, and treated all with great arrogance, using the name of the Emperor, and threatening them with his displeasure. They had to assist them in their wickedness the Duke Sebastianus, a Manichee, and a profligate young man; the [1705] Prefect, the Count, and the Receiver-General as a dissembler. Many Virgins who condemned their impiety, and professed the truth, they brought out from the houses; others they insulted as they walked along the streets, and caused their heads to be uncovered by their young men. They also gave permission to the females of their party to insult whom they chose; and although the holy and faithful women withdrew on one side, and gave them the way, yet they gathered round them like Bacchanals and Furies [1706] , and esteemed it a misfortune if they found no means to injure them, and spent that day sorrowfully on which they were unable to do them some mischief. In a word, so cruel and bitter were they against all, that all men called them hangmen, murderers, lawless, intruders, evil-doers, and by any other name rather than that of Christians.

60. Martyrdom of Eutychius.

Moreover, imitating the savage practices of Scythians, they seized upon Eutychius a Subdeacon, a man who had served the Church honourably, and causing him to be scourged on the back with a leather whip, till he was at the point of death, they demanded that her should be sent away to the mines; and not simply to any mine, but to that of Phæno [1707] , where even a condemned murderer is hardly able to live a few days. And what was most unreasonable in their conduct, they would not permit him even a few hours to have his wounds dressed, but caused him to be sent off immediately, saying, If this is done, all men will be afraid, and henceforward will be on our side.' After a short interval, however, being unable to accomplish his journey to the mine on account of the pain of his stripes, he died on the way. He perished rejoicing, having obtained the glory of martyrdom. But the miscreants were not even yet ashamed, but in the words of Scripture, having bowels without mercy [1708] ,' they acted accordingly, and now again perpetrated a satanic deed. When the people prayed them to spare Eutychius and besought them for him, they caused four honourable and free citizens to be seized, one of whom was Hermias who washed the beggars' feet [1709] ; and after scourging them very severely, the Duke cast them into the prison. But the Arians, who are more cruel even than Scythians, when they had seen that they did not die from the stripes they had received, complained of the Duke and threatened, saying, We will write and tell the eunuchs [1710] , that he does not flog as we wish.' Hearing this he was afraid, and was obliged to beat the men a second time; and they being beaten, and knowing for what cause they suffered and by whom they had been accused, said only, We are beaten for the sake of the Truth, but we will not hold communion with the heretics: beat us now as thou wilt; God will judge thee for this.' The impious men wished to expose them to danger in the prison, that they might die there; but the people of God observing their time, besought him for them, and after seven days or more they were set at liberty.

61. Ill-treatment of the poor.

But the Arians, as being grieved at this, again devised another yet more cruel and unholy deed; cruel in the eyes of all men, but well suited to their antichristian heresy. The Lord commanded that we should remember the poor; He said, Sell that ye have, and give alms' and again I was a hungred, and ye gave Me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink; for inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of these little ones, ye have done it unto Me [1711] .' But these men, as being in truth opposed to Christ, have presumed to act contrary to His will in this respect also. For when the Duke gave up the Churches to the Arians, and the destitute persons and widows were unable to continue any longer in them, the widows sat down in places which the Clergy entrusted with the care of them appointed. And when the Arians saw that the brethren readily ministered unto them and supported them, they persecuted the widows also, beating them on the feet, and accused those who gave to them before the Duke. This was done by means of a certain soldier named Dynamius. And it was well-pleasing to Sebastian [1712] , for there is no mercy in the Manichæans; nay, it is considered a hateful thing among them to shew mercy to a poor man [1713] . Here then was a novel subject of complaint; and a new kind of court now first invented by the Arians. Persons were brought to trial for acts of kindness which they had performed; he who shewed mercy was accused, and he who had received a benefit was beaten; and they wished rather that a poor man should suffer hunger, than that he who was willing to shew mercy should give to him. Such sentiments these modern Jews, for such they are, have learned from the Jews of old, who when they saw him who had been blind from his birth recover his sight, and him who had been a long time sick of the palsy made whole, accused [1714] the Lord who had bestowed these benefits upon them, and judged them to be transgressors who had experienced His goodness [1715] .

62. Ill-treatment of the poor.

Who was not struck with astonishment at these proceedings? Who did not execrate both the heresy, and its defenders? Who failed to perceive that the Arians are indeed more cruel than wild beasts? For they had no prospect of gain [1716] from their iniquity, for the sake of which they might have acted in this manner; but they rather increased the hatred of all men against themselves. They thought by treachery and terror to force certain persons into their heresy, so that they might be brought to communicate with them; but the event turned out quite the contrary. The sufferers endured as martyrdom whatever they inflicted upon them, and neither betrayed nor denied the true faith in Christ. And those who were without and witnessed their conduct, and at last even the heathen, when they saw these things, execrated them as antichristian, as cruel executioners; for human nature is prone to pity and sympathise with the poor. But these men have lost even the common sentiments of humanity; and that kindness which they would have desired to meet with at the hands of others, had themselves been sufferers, they would not permit others to receive, but employed against them the severity and authority of the magistrates, and especially of the Duke.

63. Ill-treatment of the Presbyters and Deacons.

What they have done to the Presbyters and Deacons; how they drove them into banishment under sentence passed upon them by the Duke and the magistrates, causing the soldiers to bring out their kinsfolk from the houses [1717] , and Gorgonius, the commander of the police [1718] to beat them with stripes; and how (most cruel act of all) with much insolence they plundered the loaves [1719] of these and of those who were now dead; these things it is impossible for words to describe, for their cruelty surpasses all the powers of language. What terms could one employ which might seem equal to the subject? What circumstances could one mention first, so that those next recorded would not be found more dreadful, and the next more dreadful still? All their attempts and iniquities [1720] were full of murder and impiety; and so unscrupulous and artful are they, that they endeavour to deceive by promises of protection, and by bribing with money [1721] , that so, since they cannot recommend themselves by fair means, they may thereby make some display to impose on the simple. __________________________________________________________________

[1671] Ap. Const. 22, 24, below, §81.

[1672] §31, &c.

[1673] Is. xxvi. 20.

[1674] kataskopou, ouk episkopos, vid. §45, note 6.

[1675] [a.d. 350, cf. Gibbon Hist. ch. xviii. vol. ii. p. 378.]

[1676] Apol. Ar. 87.

[1677] George had been pork-contractor to the army, and had been detected in peculation. vid. de Syn. 37, note 3.

[1678] Constantine called the Arians by this title after the philosopher Porphyry, the great enemy of Christianity. Socrates has preserved the Edict. Hist. i. 9.

[1679] De Morte Arii 3, &c.

[1680] Encycl. 2; Apol. Ar. 36.

[1681] §7, note 1.

[1682] The amanuensis here appears to speak for himself: but the Benedictines, with great probability, conjecture tote kai for autos te kai.

[1683] Ecclus. vii. 5 [Apol. Const. 2].

[1684] [This may well be taken as a statement of what ought to be; but in view of the history of the fourth century it can only be called a rhetorical exaggeration. See supr. §15, Apol. Ar. 36, ekeleusan, Prolegg. ch. ii. §6 (1) init., and D.C.A. p. 475, with reff. there given.]

[1685] hois an ethelosi, and just before hon an etheloi. [And more strikingly just below, §53 fin. ha thelousi prattei, epei kai autos haper ethelen ekouse par' auton.] This is a very familiar phrase with Athan. i.e. hos ethelesen, haper ethelesan, hotan thelosin, ous ethelesan, &c. &c. Some instances are given supr. Apol. Ar. 2, note 3, and de Syn. 13, note 6.

[1686] Cf. §§31, 63, note 6.

[1687] Encycl. §5.

[1688] [Observe that George has not yet arrived. Heraclius arrived as his precursor' (supr. §48) along with Cataphronius the new Prefect, on June 10, 356; see §55.]

[1689] ton ergasion,--trades, or workmen. vid. supr. Apol. Ar. 15. Montfaucon has a note upon the word in the Collect. Nov. t. 2. p. xxvi. where he corrects his Latin in loc. of the former passage very nearly in conformity to the rendering given of it above, p. 108. In Onomastico monuimus, hic ergasias "officinarum operas" commodius exprimere.' And he quotes an inscription [C.I.G. i. 3924] touto to heroon stephanoi he ergasia ton bapheon.

[1690] [i.e. Thursday, June 13, 356, three days after the arrival of Heraclius and Cataphronius. The church in question was apparently that of Theonas, or the Cæsareum (p. 298). According to Hist. Aceph. the churches were formally handed over to the Arians on June 15, i.e. on the Saturday. The Hist. Aceph. here fits minutely the scattered notices of Athan.: see Prolegg. ch. ii. §8 (1).]

[1691] Catholicus, ib. 10, note 4.

[1692] ton agoraion, vid. Acts xvii. 5. agora has been used just above. vid. Suicer. Thesaur. in voc.

[1693] Vid. Fleury's Church History, xxii. 7. p. 129, note k. [Oxf. tr. 1843.] By specifying the material, Athan. implies that altars were sometimes not of wood. [cf. D.C.A. 61 sq.]

[1694] Curtains were at the entrance, and before the chancel. vid. Bingh. Antiqu. viii. 6. §8. Hofman. Lex. in voc. velum. also Chrysost. Hom. iii. in Eph.

[1695] The royal quarter in Alexandria, vid. Apol. Const. 15. In other Palatia an aqueduct was necessary, e.g. vid. Cod. Theod. xv. 2. even at Daphne, though it abounded in springs, ibid. 1, 2.

[1696] Vid. Herodot. ii. 41. who says that cows and heifers were sacred to Isis. vid. Jablonski Pantheon Æg. i. 1. §15. who says that Isis was worshipped in the shape of a cow, and therefore the cows received divine honours. Yet bulls were sacrificed to Apis, ibid. iv. 2. §9. vid. also Schweighæuser in loc. Herod.

[1697] Vid. note on de Decr. §1. This is a remarkable instance of the special and technical sense of the words, eusebeia, asebountes, &c. being here contrasted with pagan blasphemy, &c.

[1698] 1 Sam. 5, 6.

[1699] Acts i. 18.

[1700] [meta thallon; phallon pro vera lectione probabiliter haberi posse arbitror.' Montf. Coll. Nov. t. ii.]

[1701] agoraion, see §§55, note 11, above.

[1702] Cf. Ep. Æg. 17, and §31, note 8.

[1703] Vid. Socr. Hist. iv. 13.

[1704] Apol. Fug. 6.

[1705] Cf. §55.

[1706] Vid. de Syn. 31, note 4, also Greg. Naz. Orat. 35. 3. Epiph. Hær. 69. 3. Theod. Hist. i. 3. (P. 730. ed. Schulze).

[1707] The mines of Phæno lie almost in a direct line between Petræ and Zoar, which is at the southern extremity of the Dead Sea. They formed the place of punishment of Confessors in the Maximinian Persecution, Euseb. de Mart. Pal. 7, and in the Arian Persecution at Alexandria after Athan. Theod. H. E. iv. 19, p. 996. Phæno was once the seat of a Bishopric, which sent a Bishop to the Councils at Ephesus, the Ecumenical, and the Latrocinium. vid. Reland. Palestine, pp. 951, 952. Montfaucon in loc. Athan. Le Quien. Or. Christ. t. 3. p. 745.

[1708] Prov. xii. 10.

[1709] Ermeian louonta tous anexodous, Inauspicato verterat Hermantius, qui angiportos non pervios lavabat;' Montfaucon, Coll. Nov. t. 2. p. xliii. who translates as above, yet not satisfactorily, especially as there is no article before louonta. Tillemont says, qui avait "quelle charge" dans la police de la ville,' understanding by anexodoi, inclusi sive incarcerati homines;' whereas they are ii qui ana tas exodous in exitibus viarum, stipem cogunt.' Montf. ibid. For the custom of washing the feet vid. Bingh. Antiqu. xii. 4. §10.

[1710] Cf. §38.

[1711] Luke xii. 33; Matt. xxv. 35, 40.

[1712] Cf. §81.

[1713] They would give money, but thought it wrong to give food. Ath. was possibly unaware of this distinction. See Bright, Introd. to Hist. Tracts, p. lxxi. note 7.]

[1714] Joh. ix.; Matt. ix. 3.

[1715] Vid. de Decr. §1.

[1716] Cf. note on Orat. i. §8.

[1717] §59.

[1718] strategou, infr. §81, note.

[1719] tous artous [i.e. their stated allowance: see also Apol. Ar. 18], the word occurs Encycl. 4, Apol. Fug. 6, supr. §§31, 54, in this sense: but Nannius, Hermant, and Tillemont, with some plausibility understand it as a Latin term naturalized, and translate most cruel of all, with much insolence they tore the "limbs" of the dead,' alleging that merely to take away loaves' was not so cruel' as to take away lives,' which the Arians had done [the parallels refute this, apart from linguistic grounds].

[1720] asebemata

[1721] p. 227, note 8, infr. §73. __________________________________________________________________

Part VIII. Persecution in Egypt.

Part VIII.

Persecution in Egypt.

64. Who would call them even by the name of Gentiles; much less by that of Christians? Would any one regard their habits and feelings as human, and not rather those of wild beasts, seeing their cruel and savage conduct? They are more worthless than public hangmen; more audacious than all other heretics. To the Gentiles they are much inferior, and stand far apart and separate from them [1722] . I have heard from our fathers, and I believe their report to be a faithful one, that long ago, when a persecution arose in the time [1723] of Maximian, the grandfather of Constantius, the Gentiles concealed our brethren the Christians, who were sought after, and frequently suffered the loss of their own substance, and had trial of imprisonment, solely that they might not betray the fugitives. They protected those who fled to them for refuge, as they would have done their own persons, and were determined to run all risks on their behalf. But now these admirable persons, the inventors of a new heresy, act altogether the contrary part; and are distinguished for nothing but their treachery. They have appointed themselves as executioners, and seek to betray all alike, and make those who conceal others the objects of their plots, esteeming equally as their enemy both him that conceals and him that is concealed. So murderous are they; so emulous in their evil-doings of the wickedness of Judas.

65. Martyrdom of Secundus of Barka.

The crimes these men have committed cannot adequately be described. I would only say, that as I write and wish to enumerate all their deeds of iniquity, the thought enters my mind, whether this heresy be not the fourth daughter of the horse-leach [1724] in the Proverbs, since after so many acts of injustice, so many murders, it hath not yet said, It is enough.' No; it still rages, and goes about [1725] seeking after those whom it has not yet discovered, while those whom it has already injured, it is eager to injure anew. After the night attack, after the evils committed in consequence of it, after the persecution brought about by Heraclius, they cease not yet to accuse us falsely before the Emperor (and they are confident that as impious persons they will obtain a hearing), desiring that something more than banishment may be inflicted upon us, and that hereafter those who do not consent to their impieties may be destroyed. Accordingly, being now emboldened in an extreme degree, that most abandoned Secundus [1726] of Pentapolis, and Stephanus [1727] his accomplice, conscious that their heresy was a defence of any injustice they might commit, on discovering a Presbyter at Barka who would not comply with their desires (he was called Secundus, being of the same name, but not of the same faith with the heretic), they kicked him till he died [1728] . While he was thus suffering he imitated the Saint, and said, Let no one avenge my cause before human judges; I have the Lord for my avenger, for whose sake I suffer these things at their hands.' They however were not moved with pity at these words, nor did they feel any awe of the sacred season; for it was during the time of Lent [1729] that they thus kicked the man to death.

66. Persecution the weapon of Arianism.

O new heresy, that hast put on the whole devil in impiety and wicked deeds! For in truth it is but a lately invented evil; and although certain heretofore appear to have adopted its doctrines, yet they concealed them, and were not known to hold them. But Eusebius and Arius, like serpents coming out of their holes, have vomited forth the poison of this impiety; Arius daring to blasphemy openly, and [1730] Eusebius defending his blasphemy. He was not however able to support the heresy, until, as I said before, he found a patron [1731] for it in the Emperor. Our fathers called an Ecumenical Council, when three hundred of them, more or less [1732] , met together and condemned the Arian heresy, and all declared that it was alien and strange to the faith of the Church. Upon this its supporters, perceiving that they were dishonoured, and had now no good ground of argument to insist upon, devised a different method, and attempted to vindicate it by means of external power. And herein one may especially admire the novelty as well as wickedness of their device, and how they go beyond all other heresies. For these support their madness by persuasive arguments calculated to deceive the simple; the Greeks, as the Apostle has said, make their attack with excellency and persuasiveness of speech, and with plausible fallacies; the Jews, leaving the divine Scriptures, now, as the Apostle again has said, contend about fables and endless genealogies [1733] ;' and the Manichees and Valentinians with them, and others, corrupting the divine Scriptures, put forth fables in terms of their own inventions. But the Arians are bolder than them all, and have shewn that the other heresies are but their younger sisters [1734] , whom, as I have said, they surpass in impiety, emulating them all, and especially the Jews in their iniquity. For as the Jews, when they were unable to prove the charges which they pretended to allege against Paul, straightway led him to the chief captain and the governor; so likewise these men, who surpass the Jews in their devices, make use only of the power of the judges; and if any one so much as speaks against them, he is dragged before the Governor or the General.

67. Arianism worse than other heresies, because of Persecution.

The other heresies also, when the very Truth has refuted them on the clearest evidence, are wont to be silent, being simply confounded by their conviction. But this modern and accursed heresy, when it is overthrown by argument, when it is cast down and covered with shame by the very Truth, forthwith endeavours to coerce by violence and stripes and imprisonment those whom it has been unable to persuade by argument, thereby acknowledging itself to be anything rather than godly. For it is the part of true godliness not to compel [1735] , but to persuade, as I said before. Thus our Lord Himself, not as employing force, but as offering to their free choice, has said to all, If any man will follow after Me [1736] ;' and to His disciples, Will ye also go away [1737] ?' This heresy, however, is altogether alien from godliness; and therefore how otherwise should it act, than contrary to our Saviour, seeing also that it has enlisted that enemy of Christ, Constantius, as it were Antichrist himself [1738] , to be its leader in impiety? He for its sake has earnestly endeavoured to emulate Saul in savage cruelty. For when the priests gave victuals to David, Saul commanded, and they were all destroyed, in number three hundred and five [1739] ; and this man, now that all avoid the heresy, and confess a sound faith in the Lord, annuls a Council of full three hundred Bishops, banishes the Bishops themselves, and hinders the people from the practice of piety, and from their prayers to God, preventing their public assemblies. And as Saul overthrew Nob, the city of the priests, so this man, advancing even further in wickedness, has given up the Churches to the impious. And as he honoured Doeg the accuser before the true priests, and persecuted David, giving ear to the Ziphites; so this man prefers heretics to the godly, and still persecutes them that flee from him, giving ear to his own eunuchs, who falsely accuse the orthodox. He does not perceive that whatever he does or writes in behalf of the heresy of the Arians, involves an attack [1740] upon the Saviour.

68. Constantius worse than Saul, Ahab, and Pilate. His past conduct to his own relations.

Ahab himself did not act so cruelly towards the priests of God, as this man has acted towards the Bishops. For he was at least pricked in his conscience, when Naboth had been murdered, and was afraid at the sight [1741] of Elijah, but this man neither reverenced the great Hosius, nor was wearied or pricked in conscience, after banishing so many Bishops; but like another Pharaoh, the more he is afflicted, the more he is hardened, and imagines greater wickedness day by day. And the most extraordinary instance of his iniquity was the following. It happened that when the Bishops were condemned to banishment, certain other persons also received their sentence on charges of murder or sedition or theft, each according to the quality of his offence. These men after a few months he released, on being requested to do so, as Pilate did Barabbas; but the servants of Christ he not only refused to set at liberty, but even sentenced them to more unmerciful punishment in the place of their exile, proving himself an undying evil [1742] ' to them. To the others through congeniality of disposition he became a friend; but to the orthodox he was an enemy on account of their true faith in Christ. Is it not clear to all men from hence, that the Jews of old when they demanded Barabbas, and crucified the Lord, acted but the part which these present enemies of Christ are acting together with Constantius? nay, that he is even more bitter than Pilate. For Pilate, when he perceived [1743] the injustice of the deed, washed his hands; but this man, while he banishes the saints, gnashes his teeth against them more and more.

69. But what wonder is it if, after he has been led into impious errors, he is so cruel towards the Bishops, since the common feelings of humanity could not induce him to spare even his own kindred. His uncles [1744] he slew; his cousins he put out of the way; he commiserated not the sufferings of his father-in-law, though he had married his daughter, or of his kinsmen; but he has ever been a transgressor of his oaths towards all. So likewise he treated his brother in an unholy manner; and now he pretends to build his sepulchre, although he delivered up to the barbarians his betrothed wife Olympias, whom his brother had protected till his death, and had brought up as his intended consort. Moreover he attempted to set aside his wishes, although he boasts to be his heir [1745] ; for so he writes, in terms which any one possessed of but a small measure of sense would be ashamed of. But when I compare his letters, I find that he does not possess common understanding, but that his mind is solely regulated by the suggestions of others, and that he has no mind of his own at all. Now Solomon says, If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked [1746] .' This man proves by his actions that he is such an unjust one, and that those about him are wicked.

70. Inconstancy of Constantius.

How then, being such an one, and taking pleasure in such associates, can he ever design anything just or reasonable, entangled as he is in the iniquity of his followers, men who verily bewitch him, or rather who have trampled his brains under their heels? Wherefore he now writes letters [1747] , and then repents that he has written them, and after repenting is again stirred up to anger, and then again laments his fate, and being undetermined what to do, he shews a soul destitute of understanding. Being then of such a character, one must fairly pity him, because that under the semblance and name of freedom he is the slave of those who drag him on to gratify their own impious pleasure. In a word, while through his folly and inconstancy, as the Scripture saith [1748] , he is willing to comply with the desires of others, he has given himself up to condemnation, to be consumed by fire in the future judgment; at once consenting to do whatever they wish, and gratifying them in their designs against the Bishops, and in their exertion of authority over the Churches. For behold, he has now again thrown into disorder all the Churches of Alexandria [1749] and of Egypt and Libya, and has publicly given orders, that the Bishops of the Catholic Church and faith be cast out of their churches, and that they be all given up to the professors of the Arian doctrines [1750] . The General began to carry this order into execution; and straightway Bishops were sent off in chains, and Presbyters and Monks bound with iron, after being almost beaten to death with stripes. Disorder prevails in every place; all Egypt and Libya are in danger, the people being indignant at this unjust command, and seeing in it the preparation for the coming of Antichrist, and beholding their property plundered by others, and given up into the hands of the heretics.

71. This wickedness unprecedented.

When was ever such iniquity heard of? when was such an evil deed ever perpetrated, even in times of persecution? They were heathens who persecuted formerly; but they did not bring their idols into the Churches. Zenobia [1751] , was a Jewess, and a supporter of Paul of Samosata; but she did not give up the Churches to the Jews for Synagogues. This is a new piece of iniquity. It is not simply persecution, but more than persecution, it is a prelude and preparation [1752] for the coming of Antichrist. Even if it be admitted that they invented false charges against Athanasius and the rest of the Bishops whom they banished, yet what is this to their later practices? What charges have they to allege against the whole of Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis [1753] ? For they have begun no longer to lay their plots against individuals, in which case they might be able to frame a lie against them; but they have set upon all in a body, so that if they merely choose to invent accusations against them, they must be condemned. Thus their wickedness has blinded their understanding [1754] ; and they have required, without any reason assigned, that the whole body of the Bishops shall be expelled, and thereby they shew that the charges they framed against Athanasius and the rest of the Bishops whom they banished were false, and invented for no other purpose than to support the accursed heresy of the Arian enemies of Christ. This is now no longer concealed, but has become most manifest to all men. He commanded Athanasius to be expelled out of the city, and gave up the Churches to them. And the Presbyters and Deacons that were with him, who had been appointed by Peter and Alexander, were also expelled and driven into banishment; and the real Arians, who not through any suspicions arising from circumstances, but on account of the heresy had been expelled at first together with Arius himself by the Bishop Alexander,--Secundus in Libya, in Alexandria Euzoius [1755] the Chananæan, Julius, Ammon, Marcus, Irenæus, Zosimus, and Sarapion surnamed Pelycon, and in Libya Sisinnius, and the younger men with him, associates in his impiety; these have obtained possession of the Churches.

72. Banishment of Egyptian Bishops.

And the General Sebastian wrote to the governors and military authorities in every place; and the true Bishops were persecuted, and those who professed impious doctrines were brought in in their stead. They banished Bishops who had grown old in orders, and had been many years in the Episcopate, having been ordained by the Bishop Alexander; Ammonius [1756] , Hermes, Anagamphus, and Marcus, they sent to the Upper Oasis; Muis, Psenosiris, Nilammon, Plenes, Marcus, and Athenodorus to Ammoniaca, with no other intention than that they should perish in their passage through the deserts. They had no pity on them though they were suffering from illness, and indeed proceeded on their journey with so much difficulty on account of their weakness, that they were obliged to be carried in litters, and their sickness was so dangerous that the materials for their burial accompanied them. One of them indeed died, but they would not even permit the body to be given up to his friends for interment. With the same purpose they banished also the Bishop Dracontius to the desert places about Clysma, Philo to Babylon, Adelphius to Psinabla in the Thebais, and the Presbyters Hierax and Dioscorus to Syene. They likewise drove into exile Ammonius, Agathus, Agathodæmon, Apollonius, Eulogius, Apollos, Paphnutius, Gaius, and Flavius, ancient Bishops, as also the Bishops Dioscorus, Ammonius, Heraclides, and Psais; some of whom they gave up to work in the stone-quarries, others they persecuted with an intention to destroy, and many others they plundered. They banished also forty of the laity, with certain virgins whom they had before exposed to the fire [1757] ; beating them so severely with rods taken from palm-trees, that after lingering five days some of them died, and others had recourse to surgical treatment on account of the thorns left in their limbs, from which they suffered torments worse than death [1758] . But what is most dreadful to the mind of any man of sound understanding, though characteristic of these miscreants, is this: When the virgins during the scourging called upon the Name of Christ, they gnashed their teeth against them with increased fury. Nay more, they would not give up the bodies of the dead to their friends for burial, but concealed them that they might appear to be ignorant of the murder. They did not however escape detection; the whole city perceived it, and all men withdrew from them as executioners, as malefactors and robbers. Moreover they overthrew monasteries, and endeavoured to cast monks into the fire; they plundered houses, and breaking into the house of certain free citizens where the Bishop had deposited a treasure, they plundered and took it away. They scourged the widows on the soles of their feet, and hindered them from receiving their alms.

73. Character of Arian nominees.

Such were the iniquities practised by the Arians; and as to their further deeds of impiety, who could hear the account of them without shuddering? They had caused these venerable old men and aged Bishops to be sent into banishment; they now appointed in their stead profligate heathen youths, whom they thought to raise at once to the highest dignity, though they were not even Catechumens [1759] . And others who were accused of bigamy [1760] , and even of worse crimes, they nominated Bishops on account of the wealth and civil power which they possessed, and sent them out as it were from a market, upon their giving them gold. And now more dreadful calamities befel the people. For when they rejected these mercenary dependents of the Arians, so alien from themselves, they were scourged, they were proscribed, they were shut up in prison by the General (who did all this readily, being a Manichee), in order that they might no longer seek after their own Bishops, but be forced to accept those whom they abominated, men who were now guilty of the same mockeries as they had before practised among their idols.

74. The Episcopal appointments of Constantius a mark of Antichrist.

Will not every just person break forth into lamentations at the sight or hearing of these things, at perceiving the arrogance and extreme injustice of these impious men? The righteous lament in the place of the impious [1761] .' After all these things, and now that the impiety has reached such a pitch of audacity, who will any longer venture to call this Costyllius [1762] a Christian, and not rather the image of Antichrist? For what mark of Antichrist is yet wanting? How can he in any way fail to be regarded as that one? or how can the latter fail to be supposed such a one as he is? Did not the Arians and the Gentiles offer those sacrifices in the great Church in the Cæsareum [1763] , and utter their blasphemies against Christ as by His command? And does not the vision of Daniel thus describe [1764] Antichrist; that he shall make war with the saints, and prevail against them, and exceed all that have been before him in evil deeds and shall humble three kings, and speak words against the Most High, and shall think to change times and laws? Now what other person besides Constantius has ever attempted to do these things? He is surely such a one as Antichrist would be. He speaks words against the Most High by supporting this impious heresy: he makes war against the saints by banishing the Bishops; although indeed he exercises this power but for a little while [1765] to his own destruction. Moreover he has surpassed those before him in wickedness, having devised a new mode of persecution; and after he had overthrown three kings, namely Vetranio, Magnentius, and Gallus, he straightway undertook the patronage of impiety; and like a giant [1766] he has dared in his pride to set himself up against the Most High. He has thought to change laws, by transgressing the ordinance of the Lord given us through His Apostles, by altering the customs of the Church, and inventing a new kind of appointments. For he sends from strange places, distant a fifty days' journey [1767] , Bishops attended by soldiers to people unwilling to receive them; and instead of an introduction to the acquaintance of their people, they bring with them threatening messages and letters to the magistrates. Thus he sent Gregory from Cappadocia [1768] to Alexandria; he transferred Germinius from Cyzicus to Sirmium; he removed Cecropius from Laodicea to Nicomedia.

75. Arrival of George at Alexandria, and proceedings of Constantius in Italy.

Again he transferred from Cappadocia to Milan one Auxentius [1769] , an intruder rather than a Christian, whom he commanded to stay there, after he had banished for his piety towards Christ Dionysius the Bishop of the place, a godly man. But this person was as yet even ignorant of the Latin language, and unskilful in everything except impiety. And now one George, a Cappadocian, who was contractor of stores [1770] at Constantinople, and having embezzled all monies that he received, was obliged to fly, he commanded to enter Alexandria with military pomp, and supported by the authority of the General. Next, finding one Epictetus [1771] a novice, a bold young man, he loved him [1772] , perceiving that he was ready for wickedness; and by his means he carries on his designs against those of the Bishops whom he desires to ruin. For he is prepared to do everything that the Emperor wishes; who accordingly availing himself of his assistance, has committed at Rome a strange act, but one truly resembling the malice of Antichrist. Having made preparations in the Palace instead of the Church, and caused some three of his own eunuchs to attend instead of the people, he then compelled three [1773] ill-conditioned spies [1774] (for one cannot call them Bishops), to ordain forsooth as Bishop one Felix [1775] , a man worthy of them, then in the Palace. For the people perceiving the iniquitous proceedings of the heretics would not allow them to enter the Churches [1776] , and withdrew themselves far from them.

76. Tyrannous banishment of Bishops by Constantius.

Now what is yet wanting to make him Antichrist? or what more could Antichrist do at his coming than this man has done? Will he not find when he comes that the way has been already prepared for him by this man easily to deceive the people? Again [1777] , he claims to himself the right of deciding causes, which he refers to the Court instead of the Church, and presides at them in person. And strange it is to say, when he perceives the accusers at a loss, he takes up the accusation himself, so that the injured party may no longer be able to defend himself on account of the violence which he displays. This he did in the proceedings against Athanasius. For when he saw the boldness of the Bishops Paulinus, Lucifer, Eusebius, and Dionysius, and how out of the recantation of Ursacius and Valens [1778] they confuted those who spoke against the Bishop, and advised that Valens and his fellows should no longer be believed, since they had already retracted what they now asserted, he immediately stood up [1779] and said, I am now the accuser of Athanasius; on my account you must believe what these assert.' And then, when they said,--But how can you be an accuser, when the accused person is not present? for if you are his accuser, yet he is not present, and therefore cannot be tried. And the cause is not one that concerns Rome, so that you should be believed as being the Emperor; but it is a matter that concerns a Bishop; for the trial ought to be conducted on equal terms both to the accuser and the accused. And besides, how can you accuse him? for you could not be present to witness the conduct of one who lived at so great a distance from you; and if you speak but what you have heard from these, you ought also to give credit to what he says; but if you will not believe him, while you do believe them, it is plain that they assert these things for your sake, and accuse Athanasius only to gratify you?'--when he heard this, thinking that what they had so truly spoken was an insult to himself, he sent them into banishment; and being exasperated against Athanasius, he wrote in a more savage strain, requiring that he should suffer what has now befallen him, and that the Churches should be given up to the Arians, and that they should be allowed to do whatever they pleased.

77. Constantius the precursor of Antichrist.

Terrible indeed, and worse than terrible are such proceedings; yet conduct suitable to him who assumes the character of Antichrist. Who that beheld him taking the lead of his pretended Bishops, and presiding in Ecclesiastical causes, would not justly exclaim that this was the abomination of desolation [1780] ' spoken of by Daniel? For having put on the profession of Christianity, and entering into the holy places, and standing therein, he lays waste the Churches, transgressing their Canons, and enforcing the observance of his own decrees. Will any one now venture to say that this is a peaceful time with Christians, and not a time of persecution? A persecution indeed, such as never arose before, and such as no one perhaps will again stir up, except the son of lawlessness [1781] ,' do these enemies of Christ exhibit, who already present a picture of him in their own persons. Wherefore it especially behoves us to be sober, lest this heresy which has reached such a height of impudence, and has diffused itself abroad like the poison of an adder [1782] ,' as it is written in the Proverbs, and which teaches doctrines contrary to the Saviour; lest, I say, this be that falling away [1783] ,' after which He shall be revealed, of whom Constantius is surely the forerunner [1784] . Else wherefore is he so mad against the godly? wherefore does he contend for it as his own heresy, and call every one his enemy who will not comply with the madness of Arius, and admit gladly the allegations of the enemies of Christ, and dishonour so many venerable Councils? why did he command that the Churches should be given up to the Arians? was it not that, when that other comes, he may thus find a way to enter into them, and may take to himself him who has prepared those places for him? For the ancient Bishops who were ordained by Alexander, and by his predecessor Achillas, and by Peter before him, have been cast out; and those introduced whom the companions of soldiers nominated; and they nominated only such as promised to adopt their doctrines.

78. Alliance of Meletians with Arians.

This was an easy proposition for the Meletians to comply with; for the greater part, or rather the whole of them, have never had a religious education, nor are they acquainted with the sound faith [1785] ' in Christ, nor do they know at all what Christianity is, or what writings we Christians possess. For having come out, some of them from the worship of idols, and others from the senate, or from the first civil offices, for the sake of the miserable exemption [1786] from duty and for the patronage they gained, and having bribed [1787] the Meletians who preceded them, they have been advanced to this dignity even before they had been under instruction. And even if they pretended to have been such, yet what kind of instruction is to be obtained among the Meletians? But indeed without even pretending to be under instruction, they came at once, and immediately were called Bishops, just as children receive a name. Being then persons of this description, they thought the thing of no great consequence, nor even supposed that piety was different from impiety. Accordingly from being Meletians they readily and speedily became Arians; and if the Emperor should command them to adopt any other profession, they are ready to change again to that also. Their ignorance of true godliness quickly brings them to submit to the prevailing folly, and that which happens to be first taught them. For it is nothing to them to be carried about by every wind [1788] and tempest, so long as they are only exempt from duty, and obtain the patronage of men; nor would they scruple probably to change again [1789] to what they were before, even to become such as they were when they were heathens. Any how, being men of such an easy temper, and considering the Church as a civil senate, and like heathen being idolatrously minded, they put on the honourable name [1790] of the Saviour, under which they polluted the whole of Egypt, by causing so much as the name of the Arian heresy to be known therein. For Egypt has heretofore been the only country, throughout which the profession of the orthodox faith was boldly maintained [1791] ; and therefore these misbelievers have striven to introduce jealousy there also, or rather not they, but the devil who has stirred them up, in order that when his herald Antichrist shall come, he may find that the Churches in Egypt also are his own, and that the Meletians have already been instructed in his principles, and may recognise himself as already formed [1792] in them.

79. Behaviour of the Meletians contrasted with that of the Alexandrian Christians.

Such is the effect of that iniquitous order which was issued by Constantius. On the part of the people there was displayed a ready alacrity to submit to martyrdom, and an increased hatred of this most impious heresy; and yet lamentations for their Churches, and groans burst from all, while they cried unto the Lord, Spare Thy people, O Lord, and give not Thine heritage unto Thine enemies to reproach [1793] ;' but make haste to deliver us out of the hand of the lawless [1794] . For behold, they have not spared Thy servants, but are preparing the way for Antichrist.' For the Meletians will never resist him, nor will they care for the truth, nor will they esteem it an evil thing to deny Christ. They are men who have not approached the word with sincerity; like the chameleon [1795] they assume every various appearance; they are hirelings of any who will make use of them. They make not the truth their aim, but prefer before it their present pleasure; they say only, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die [1796] .' Such a profession and faithless temper is more worthy of Epicritian [1797] players than of Meletians. But the faithful servants of our Saviour, and the true Bishops who believe with sincerity, and live not for themselves, but for the Lord; these faithfully believing in our Lord Jesus Christ, and knowing, as I said before, that the charges which were alleged against the truth were false, and plainly fabricated for the sake of the Arian heresy (for by the recantation [1798] of Ursacius and Valens they detected the calumnies which were devised against Athanasius, for the purpose of removing him out of the way, and of introducing into the Churches the impieties of the enemies of Christ); these, I say, perceiving all this, as defenders and preachers of the truth, chose rather, and endured to be insulted and driven into banishment, than to subscribe against him, and to hold communion with the Arian madmen. They forgot not the lessons they had taught to others; yea, they know well that great dishonour remains for the traitors, but for them which confess the truth, the kingdom of heaven; and that to the careless and such as fear Constantius will happen no good thing; but for them that endure tribulations here, as sailors reach a quiet haven after a storm, as wrestlers receive a crown after the combat, so these shall obtain great and eternal joy and delight in heaven;--such as Joseph obtained after those tribulations; such as the great Daniel had after his temptations and the manifold conspiracies of the courtiers against him; such as Paul now enjoys, being crowned by the Saviour; such as the people of God everywhere expect. They, seeing these things, were not infirm of purpose, but waxed strong in faith [1799] , and increased in their zeal more and more. Being fully persuaded of the calumnies and impieties of the heretics, they condemn the persecutor, and in heart and mind run together the same course with them that are persecuted, that they also may obtain the crown of Confession.

80. Duty of separating from heretics.

One might say much more against this detestable and antichristian heresy, and might demonstrate by many arguments that the practices of Constantius are a prelude to the coming of Antichrist. But seeing that, as the Prophet [1800] has said, from the feet even to the head there is no reasonableness in it, but it is full of all filthiness and all impiety, so that the very name of it ought to be avoided as a dog's vomit or the poison of serpents; and seeing that Costyllius openly exhibits the image of the adversary [1801] ; in order that our words may not be too many, it will be well to content ourselves with the divine Scripture, and that we all obey the precept which it has given us both in regard to other heresies, and especially respecting this. That precept is as follows; Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of them, and be ye separate, that bear the vessels of the Lord [1802] .' This may suffice [1803] to instruct us all, so that if any one has been deceived by them, he may go out from them, as out of Sodom, and not return again unto them, lest he suffer the fate of Lot's wife; and if any one has continued from the beginning pure from this impious heresy, he may glory in Christ and say, We have not stretched out our hands to a strange god [1804] ; neither have we worshipped the works of our own hands, nor served the creature [1805] more than Thee, the God that hast created all things through Thy word, the Only-Begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom to Thee the Father together with the same Word in the Holy Spirit be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.'

81. The Second Protest [1806] .

The people of the Catholic Church in Alexandria, which is under the government of the most Reverend Bishop Athanasius, make this public protest by those whose names are under-written.

We have already protested against the nocturnal assault which was committed upon ourselves and the Lord's house; although in truth there needed no protest in respect to proceedings with which the whole city has been already made acquainted. For the bodies of the slain which were discovered were exposed in public, and the bows and arrows and other arms found in the Lord's house loudly proclaim the iniquity.

But whereas after our Protest already made, the most illustrious Duke Syrianus endeavours to force all men to agree with him, as though no tumult had been made, nor any had perished (wherein is no small proof that these things were not done according to the wishes of the most gracious Emperor Augustus Constantius; for he would not have been so much afraid of the consequences of this transaction, had he acted therein by command); and whereas also, when we went to him, and requested him not to do violence to any, nor to deny what had taken place, he ordered us, being Christians, to be beaten with clubs; thereby again giving proof of the nocturnal assault which has been directed against the Church:--

We therefore make also this present Protest, certain of us being now about to travel to the most religious Emperor Augustus: and we adjure Maximus the Prefect of Egypt, and the Controllers [1807] , in the name of Almighty God, and for the sake of the salvation of the most religious Augustus Constantius, to relate all these things to the piety of Augustus, and to the authority of the most illustrious Prefects [1808] . We adjure also the masters of vessels, to publish these things everywhere, and to carry them to the ears of the most religious Augustus, and to the Prefects and the Magistrates in every place, in order that it may be known that a war has been waged against the Church, and that, in the times of Augustus Constantius, Syrianus has caused virgins and many others to become martyrs.

As it dawned upon the fifth before the Ides of February [1809] , that is to say, the fourteenth of the month Mechir, while we were keeping vigil [1810] in the Lord's house, and engaged in our prayers (for there was to be a communion on the Preparation [1811] ); suddenly about midnight, the most illustrious Duke Syrianus attacked us and the Church with many legions of soldiers [1812] armed with naked swords and javelins and other warlike instruments, and wearing helmets on their heads; and actually while we were praying, and while the lessons were being read, they broke down the doors. And when the doors were burst open by the violence of the multitude, he gave command, and some of them were shooting; others shouting, their arms rattling, and their swords flashing in the light of the lamps; and forthwith virgins were being slain, many men trampled down, and falling over one another as the soldiers came upon them, and several were pierced with arrows and perished. Some of the soldiers also were betaking themselves to plunder, and were stripping the virgins, who were more afraid of being even touched by them than they were of death. The Bishop continued sitting upon his throne, and exhorted all to pray. The Duke led on the attack, having with him Hilarius the notary, whose part in the proceedings was shewn in the sequel. The Bishop was seized, and barely escaped being torn to pieces; and having fallen into a state of insensibility, and appearing as one dead, he disappeared from among them, and has gone we know not whither. They were eager to kill him. And when they saw that many had perished, they gave orders to the soldiers to remove out of sight the bodies of the dead. But the most holy virgins who were left behind were buried in the tombs, having attained the glory of martyrdom in the times of the most religious Constantius. Deacons also were beaten with stripes even in the Lord's house, and were shut up there.

Nor did matters stop even here: for after all this had happened, whosoever pleased broke open any door that he could, and searched, and plundered what was within. They entered even into those places which not even all Christians are allowed to enter. Gorgonius, the commander of the city force [1813] , knows this, for he was present. And no unimportant evidence of the nature of this hostile assault is afforded by the circumstance, that the armour and javelins and swords borne by those who entered were left in the Lord's house. They have been hung up in the Church until this time, that they might not be able to deny it: and although they sent several times Dynamius the soldier [1814] , as well as the Commander [1815] of the city police, desiring to take them away, we would not allow it, until the circumstance was known to all.

Now if an order has been given that we should be persecuted we are all ready to suffer martyrdom. But if it be not by order of Augustus, we desire Maximus the Prefect of Egypt and all the city magistrates to request of him that they may not again be suffered thus to assail us. And we desire also that this our petition may be presented to him, that they may not attempt to bring in hither any other Bishop: for we have resisted unto death [1816] , desiring to have the most Reverend Athanasius, whom God gave us at the beginning, according to the succession of our fathers; whom also the most religious Augustus Constantius himself sent to us with letters and oaths. And we believe that when his Piety is informed of what has taken place, he will be greatly displeased, and will do nothing contrary to his oaths, but will again give orders that our Bishop Athanasius shall remain with us.

To the Consuls to be elected [1817] after the Consulship of the most illustrious Arbæthion and Collianus [1818] , on the seventeenth Mechir [1819] , which is the day before the Ides of February. __________________________________________________________________

[1722] §§20, 29.

[1723] [303 a.d.]

[1724] Prov. xxx. 15.

[1725] perierchetai, 1 Pet. v. 8. supr. §20, and ad Adelph. §2 fin.

[1726] Ep. Æg. 7.

[1727] Cf. Hist. Aceph. ix., de Syn. 12, Thdt. H. E. ii. 28.

[1728] In like manner the party of Dioscorus at the Latrocinium, or Eutychian Council of Ephesus, a.d. 449, kicked to death Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople.

[1729] Encyc. 4.

[1730] Apol. Ar. 59.

[1731] §45.

[1732] Apol. Ar. 23.

[1733] 1 Tim. i. 4.

[1734] Cf. §31.

[1735] The early theory about persecution seems to have been this,--that that was a bad cause which depended' upon it, but that, when a cause' was good, there was nothing wrong in using force in due subordination' to argument [so Pius IX. in Encycl. Quanta cura,' speaks of the 'officium coercendi sancitis poenis violatores catholicæ religionis]; that there was as little impropriety in the civil magistrate's inducing individuals' by force, when they were incapable of higher motives, as by those secular blessings which follow on Christianity. Our Lord's kingdom was not of this world, that is, it did not depend on this world; but, as subduing, engrossing, and swaying this world, it at times condescended to make use of this world's weapons against itself. The simple question was whether a cause depended on force for its existence.' S. Athanasius declared and the event proved, that Arianism was so dependent. When Emperors ceased to persecute, Arianism ceased to be; it had no life in itself. Again, all cruel persecution, or long continued, or on a large scale, was wrong, as arguing an absence' of moral and rational grounds in the cause' so maintained. Again, there was an evident impropriety' in ecclesiastical functionaries using secular weapons, as there would be in their engaging in a secular pursuit, or forming secular connections; whereas the soldier might as suitably, and should as dutifully, defend religion with the sword, as the scholar with his pen. And further there was an abhorrence of cruelty natural to us, which it was a duty to cherish and maintain. All this being considered, there is no inconsistency in S. Athanasius denouncing persecution, and in Theodosius decreeing that the heretical teachers, who usurped the sacred titles of Bishops or Presbyters,' should be exposed to the heavy penalties of exile and confiscation.' Gibbon, Hist. ch. 27. For a list of passages from the Fathers on the subject, vid. Limborch on the Inquisition, vol. 1. Bellarmin. de Laicis, c. 21, 22, and of authors in favour of persecution, vid. Gerhard de Magistr. Polit. p. 741, &c. [But vide supr., Apol. Fug. 23: persecution is a device of the devil;' see also Socr. vii. 3.]

[1736] Matt. xvi. 24.

[1737] John vi. 67.

[1738] Cf. De Syn. 5, note 10.

[1739] 1 Sam. xxii. 18, LXX.

[1740] Apol. Ar. 23.

[1741] 1 Kings xxi. 20.

[1742] A quotation from Homer, Od. xii. 118.

[1743] Matt. xxvii. 24.

[1744] [See above, p. 134, note 8, and ref. there; also Gibbon, ch. xviii. vol. ii. p. 364 sqq.]

[1745] Cf. §60, note 6.

[1746] Prov. xxix. 12.

[1747] Cf. §51.

[1748] Prov. vii. 22, LXX.

[1749] Apol. Const. 27.

[1750] §54.

[1751] [This is certainly false,' see Encyclop. Brit., art. Palmyra, p. 201, note 4.]

[1752] §67, note 8.

[1753] Cf. §3.

[1754] Wisd. ii. 21.

[1755] Cf. Dep. Ar.

[1756] Cf. Ap. Fug. 7.

[1757] Ap. Fug. 6.

[1758] Ib. 7.

[1759] Vid. Hallier, de Ordin. part 2. i. 1, art. 2.

[1760] digunaiois, not digamois. On the latter, vid. Suicer, Thess. in voc. digamia. Tertull. de Monogam.

[1761] Prov. xxviii. 28, LXX.

[1762] An irregularly formed diminutive, or a quasi diminutive from Constantius, as Agathyllus from Agathocles, Heryllus from Heracles, &c. vid. Matth. Gr. Gramm. §102. ed. 1820. [Curtius, §347]

[1763] Ap. Const. 14, supr. §55.

[1764] Dan. vii. 25.

[1765] Constantius died at 45, having openly apostatized for about six years. Julian died at 32, after a reign of a year and a half. vid. supr. §32. vid. also Bellarmin. de Notis Eccl. 17 and 18.

[1766] Vid. de Decr. §32, note 8, Orat. ii. §32, Naz. Orat. 43, 26. Socr. Hist. v. 10, p. 268.

[1767] Ep. Æg. 7.

[1768] Encycl. 2.

[1769] Cf. de Syn. §§1, 8, and Ep. Æg. 7.

[1770] Cf. supr. §56, note 8.

[1771] Epictetus above, p. 226, is called hupokrites, which Montfaucon translated stage-player.' It is a question whether more than actor' is meant by it, alluding to the mockery of an ordination in which he seems to have taken part. Though an Asiatic apparently by birth, he was made Bishop of Civita Vecchia. We hear of him at the conference between Constantius and Liberius. Theod. H. E. ii. 13. Then he assists in the ordination of Felix. Afterwards he made a martyr of S. Ruffinian by making him run before his carriage; and he ends his historical career by taking a chief part among the Arians at Ariminum. vid. Tillem. t. vi. p. 380. &c. Ughell. Ital. t. 10. p. 56.

[1772] The Greek is 'Epikteton tina...neoteron...egapesen, horon, k. t. l. So in the account of the neaniskos, O de 'Iesous emblepsas auto, egapesen auton. Mark x. 21.

[1773] i.e. to keep up the canonical number; and cf. the case of Novatian, in Euseb. H. E. vi. 43. On the custom, vid. Bingh. Antiqu. ii. 11, §4.

[1774] §48, note 5.

[1775] Cf. Tillemont, Mem. t. 6. p. 778. Bolland. Catal. Pontif. ch. 21. p. 390. [Döllinger, Fables respecting the Popes;' D.C.B. ii. 480. Felix figures in the middle ages as the orthodox rival of the Arian' Liberius.]

[1776] Cf. Theod. Hist. ii. 17.

[1777] §§44, 52.

[1778] Cf. Apol. Ar. 58.

[1779] §33.

[1780] Dan. ix. 27.

[1781] 2 Thess. ii. 8.

[1782] Prov. xxiii. 32.

[1783] 2 Thess. ii. 3.

[1784] De Syn. 5, note 10.

[1785] Cf. Tit. i. 13, ii. 2.

[1786] Cf. Ap. Ar. 56.

[1787] Ib. 59, Ep. Æg. 22.

[1788] Cf. Eph. iv. 14

[1789] Ap. Ar. 59, 63.

[1790] Cf. James ii. 7

[1791] Cf. Apol. Ar. 52.

[1792] Ctr. Gal. iv. 19

[1793] Joel ii. 17.

[1794] anomon, Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 8

[1795] de Decr. 1, note 3.

[1796] 1 Cor. xv. 32.

[1797] Histrionum genus, Montf. [The allusion is obscure. Epicrates was a comedian of the 4th. cent. b.c.]

[1798] Apol. Ar. 58.

[1799] Cf. Rom. iv. 20

[1800] Isa. i. 6.

[1801] Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 4.

[1802] Is. lii. 11.

[1803] [A somewhat characteristic phrase of Athanasius.]

[1804] Ps. xliv. 20.

[1805] Ep. Æg. 13 note 1.

[1806] Of the two Protests referred to supr. §48, the first was omitted by the copyists, as being already contained, as Montfaucon seems to say, in the Apology against the Arians; yet if it be the one to which allusion is made in the beginning of the Protest which follows, it is not found there, nor does it appear what document of a.d. 356 could properly have a place in a set of papers which end with a.d. 350.

[1807] Ap. Ar. 73, note.

[1808] i.e. Prætorian.

[1809] Febr. 9.

[1810] Ap. Const. 25; Ap. Fug. 24.

[1811] Friday vid. Encyc. 4, note 9.

[1812] i.e. more than 5,000, Ap. Fug. 24.

[1813] strategou. There were two strategoi or duumvirs at the head of the police force at Alexandria; they are mentioned in the plural in Euseb. vii. 11, where S. Dionysius speaks of their seizing him. vid. Du Cange, Gloss. Græc. in voc.

[1814] strategou. There were two strategoi or duumvirs at the head of the police force at Alexandria; they are mentioned in the plural in Euseb. vii. 11, where S. Dionysius speaks of their seizing him. vid. Du Cange, Gloss. Græc. in voc.

[1815] ton tes taxeos, supr. §61, stratiotou

[1816] Apol. Ar. 38.

[1817] Since the Consuls came into office on the first of January, and were proclaimed in each city, it is strange that the Alexandrians here speak in February as if ignorant of their names. The phrase, however, is found elsewhere. Thus in this very year the Chron. Aceph. dates Jan. 5 as post Consulatum Arbitionis et Loliani.' And in Socr. Hist. ii. 29, in the instance of the year 351, when there were no Consuls, and in 346, when there was a difference on the subject between the Emperors who were eventually themselves Consuls, the first months are dated in like manner from the Consuls of the foregoing year.

[1818] Lollianus.

[1819] Feb. 12, Leap year; see note below, at the end of Introd. to Letters. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

Introduction to Four Discourses Against the Arians.

------------------------

Written Between 356 And 360.

There is no absolutely conclusive evidence as to the date of these Discourses, in fact they would appear from the language of ii. 1 to have been issued at intervals. The best judges, however, are agreed in assigning them to the fruitful period of the third exile.' The Discourses cannot indeed be identified with the lost account of the Arian heresy addressed to certain Egyptian monks (see Introd. to Arian Hist. supra); but the demand for such a treatise may have set Athanasius upon the composition of a more comprehensive refutation of the heresy. It was only at this period (Blasphemy' of Sirmium, 357) that the doctrinal controversy began to emerge from the mass of personalities and intrigues which had encumbered it for the first generation after the great Council; only now that the various parties were beginning to formulate their position; only now that the great mass of Eastern Conservatism' was beginning to see the nature of the issue as between the Nicene doctrine and the essential Arianism of its more resolute opponents. The situation seemed to clear, the time had come for gathering up the issues of the combat and striking a decisive blow. To this situation of affairs the treatise before us exactly corresponds. Characteristic of this period is the anxiety to conciliate and win over the so-called semi-Arians (of the type of Basil of Ancyra) who stumbled at the homoousion, but whose fundamental agreement with Athanasius was daily becoming more clear. Accordingly we find that Athanasius pointedly avoids the famous test word in these Discourses [1820] (with the exception of the fourth: see Orat. i. 20, note 5, 58, note 10: it only occurs i. 9, note 12, but see Orat. iv. 9, 12), and even adopts (not as fully adequate de Syn. 53, but as true so far as it goes), the semi-Arian' formula like in essence' (Or. i. 21, note 8, 20, 26, iii. 26, he does not use the single compound word homoiousios: see further, Introd. to de Synodis). Although, therefore, demonstrative proof is lacking, there is tolerable certainty as to the date of our Discourses. And their purpose is no less manifest: they are a decisive blow of the kind described above, aimed at the very centre of the question, and calculated to sever the abnormal alliance between conservatives who really thought with Athanasius and men like Valens or Eudoxius, whose real convictions, so far as they had any, were Arian. Moreover they gather up all the threads of controversy against Arianism proper, refute its appeal to Scripture, and leave on record for all time the issues of the great doctrinal contest of the fourth century. They have naturally become, as Montfaucon observes, the mine whence subsequent defenders of the Divinity of our Redeemer have drawn their material. There are doubtless arguments which a modern writer would scarcely adopt (e.g. ii. 63, iii. 65 init., &c.), and the repeated labelling of the Arians as madmen (fanatics' in this translation), enemies of Christ, disciples of Satan, &c., &c., is at once tedious and by its very frequency unimpressive (see ii. 43 note 8 for Newman's famous list of animal nicknames). But the serious reader will pass sicco pede over such features, and will appreciate the richness, fulness, and versatility' of the use of Scripture, the steady grasp of certain primary truths, especially of the Divine Unity and of Christ's real or genuine natural and Divine Sonship (i. 15, ii. 2-5, 22, 23, 73, iii. 62), the keen penetration with which Arian objections are analysed (i. 14, 27, 29, ii. 26, iii. 59), Arian imputations disclaimed, Arian statements old and new, the bolder and the more cautious, compared, Arian evasions pointed out, Arian logic traced to its conclusions, and Arianism shewn to be inconsistent, irreverent' (Bright, Introd. p. lxviii.). Above all, we see in these Discourses what strikes us in all the writings of Athanasius from the de Incarnatione to the end, his firm hold of the Soteriological aspect of the question at issue, of its vital importance to the reality of Redemption and Grace, to the reality of the knowledge of God vouchsafed to sinful man in Christ (ii. 69, 70, cf. i. 35, 49, 50, ii. 67, &c., &c). The Theology and Christology of Athanasius is rooted in the idea of Redemption: our fellowship with God, our adoption as sons of God, would be unaccomplished, had not Christ imparted to us what was His Own to give (i. 12, 16, cf. Harnack, Dogmengesch., 2. 205). Among other points of interest we may observe the anticipatory rejection of the later heresies of Macedonius (i. 48, iii. 24), Nestorius (ii. 8 note 3, &c., and the frequent application of theotokos to the B.M.V. iii. 14, 29, &c.), and Eutyches (ii. 10 note 6, &c.), the emphatic vindication of worship as the exclusive prerogative of Divinity (ii. 23, iii. 32, we invoke no creature') and of the unique sinless conception of Christ (iii. 33), lastly the cautious and reasonable discussion (iii. 42 sqq.) of our Saviour's human knowledge.

Although apparently composed at different times (see above) the four Discourses' form a single work. The fourth alone ends with the usual doxology, thus announcing itself as the conclusion of the four-fold treatise. At the same time, the relation of the fourth Discourse to the others is by no means clear. It is largely occupied with a polemic against a heresy at the opposite extreme from Arianism, Monarchianism in one or other of its forms. Newman, in his introductory excursus, expresses the opinion that it consists of a series of fragmentary notes against several heresies, which for some unknown reason came to be incorporated, possibly by Athanasius himself or by his secretaries, in the great anti-Arian Manifesto. Zahn Marcell. pp. 198-208 shews convincingly that the system of Marcellus, either in itself or in its supposed logical consequences, is the main object of criticism all along. If we trace throughout the Discourses the purpose of conciliating the Conservative' and Semi-Arian party, we can well understand that Athanasius may have appended to them a section directed against Monarchianism, which, in the persons of Marcellus and Photinus (whose names, however, are characteristically absent), must have been felt by him to be a legitimate stumbling-block in their path toward peace. At any rate the fourth oration has always been associated with the others as forming part of one work.

There is, however, some confusion in early citations, in mss., and in early editions as to the number of Orations' against the Arians. The confusion is due to the frequent practice of reckoning the Ep. Æg. as the first (or in one or two cases as the fourth; the Basel ms. counts de Incar. c. Ar. as the fifth, and our fourth as the sixth). Montfaucon (Monitum Migne xxvi. p. 10) ascribes this to the arrangement in many mss. by which the Ep. Æg. comes immediately before the Orations.' Being itself directed against the Arians it has come to be labelled logos protos

The title Orations' is consecrated by long use, and cannot be displaced, but it is unfortunate as implying, to our ears, oratorical delivery, for which the Discourses were never meant. The original Greek term (logos) is common to these Discourses with the c. Gentes, de Incarnatione, &c., &c.

A full analysis of these Discourses is given by Bishop Kaye (Council of Nicæa, in Works,' vol. v.); his strictures on Newman's notes are occasionally very just. The Discourses are more concisely analysed by Ceillier (vol. v., pp. 218, sqq.) See also Dorner, Doctr. of Person of Christ, Part I., Div. 3, i. 3. The headings of Newman, prefixed to the chapters,' will supply the place of an analysis for readers of this volume.

The translation which follows is that of Cardinal Newman, published in 1844 (the year before his secession), in the Oxford Library of the Fathers.' The copious and elaborate notes and discussions which accompany it have always been acknowledged to be a masterpiece of their illustrious author. The modern reader sits down to study Athanasius, and rises from his task filled with Newman. Like all the work of Newman included in this volume, translation and notes alike have been touched by the present editor with a reverent and a sparing hand. The translation, which shews great care and fidelity, coupled with remarkable ingenuity and close study of characteristic phrases and idioms, has been, with two main exceptions, but little altered. These exceptions are (1) the substitution throughout of essence' for substance,' (2) an attempt to remedy the most unfortunate, though not unconsidered, confusion of gennetos and genetos under the single rendering generate.' A good rendering for the latter word and its cognates is indeed not easy to find (see above, p. 149); but it was felt impossible, even in deference to so great a name, after the note in Lightfoot's Ignatius, to leave the matter as it stood.

With regard to the notes, the historical matter and the abundant cross references have been thoroughly overhauled and in some cases modified without indication of the change. Moreover, some theological notes of minor importance have been expunged to economise space, while for the same reason, mere references have in many cases been reluctantly substituted for the extensive patristic quotations. The notes to Orat. iv., which are less important theologically, have been very much curtailed. With these exceptions, all doctrinal notes proper have been left exactly as they first appeared, even where they maintain views which appear untenable: any additions or explanations by the present editor are enclosed in square brackets, which also in a very few cases denote additional or corrected references made under Dr. Pusey's authority in the reprint of 1877.

It is necessary to apologise to the reader for the hesitation which has been felt in touching, even to this slight extent, the work of John Henry Newman. The only apology which the editor of this volume cares to offer is for having done the little that seemed absolutely needed.

It may be added that the Cardinal published in 1881 (4th ed., 1888) a free translation' of the first three Discourses, based upon the Oxford translation, but of a totally different kind, amounting to a somewhat highly condensed paraphrase of the original in the luminous English of the Cardinal himself, rather than bound, as the older translation is, to the style of Athanasius. The new rendering includes the de Decretis and the de Synodis; almost all the notes are in a second volume.

The most convenient edition of the Greek text is that of Dr. Bright (Oxford, 1872), with an Introduction on the Life and Writings of Athanasius (rewritten for D.C.B., vol. i., pp. 179 sqq.).

Table of Contents of the Four Discourses.

The following Table of Contents of Orat. i-iii. (the contents of Orat. iv. will be tabulated at the end of Exc. C.) must be supplemented by the fuller headings prefixed to Newman's chapters.'

Orat. i. 1-4. Introductory.

i. 5-7. a. The Arian doctrine as represented in the Thalia.'

i. 8-10. b. Significance of the Controversy.

General Subject of the Discourses: The Sonship of Christ.

i. 11-13. The Divine Sonship: (1) Eternal

i. 14-16. (2) Though real, not like earthly Sonship.

i. 17-21. (3) The true Sonship.

i. 22-29. Objections to the above discussed.

i. 30-34. (4) On the term agenetos

i. 35, 36. (5) On the unchangeableness of the Son.

Orat. i. 37-iii. 58. (6) Discussion of controverted texts.

i. 37-64. Texts bearing on the exaltation of the Son (viz. Phil. ii. 9; Ps. xlv. 7, 8; Heb. i. 4).

(Excursus B. On the Arian formula prin gennethenai ouk en.)

ii. 1-82. b. Texts bearing on the creation' of the Son (viz. Heb. iii. 2; Acts ii. 36; Prov. viii. 22; the latter occupying §§18-82).

iii. 1-25. g. Texts from the Fourth Gospel on the relation of the Son to the Father.

iii. 26-58. d. Texts bearing more directly on the Incarnation (Matt. xxviii. 18; Joh. iii. 35; Mark xiii. 32, Luke ii. 52, human knowledge, &c., of Christ, §§42-53; Matt. xxvi. 39, &c.).

iii. 58-67. (7) The Divine Sonship in relation to the Divine Will. __________________________________________________________________

[1820] Not that he was willing to suppress the term and surrender the Nicene cause, far from it; but he sees the relative importance of things and words. This shews the absurdity of the taunt, that the Nicene theologians fought ferociously over a single iota.' __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

Four Discourses Against the Arians.

Discourse I.

------------------------

Chapter I.--Introduction. Reason for writing; certain persons

Chapter I.--Introduction. Reason for writing; certain persons indifferent about Arianism; Arians not Christians, because sectaries always take the name of their founder.

1. Of all other heresies which have departed from the truth it is acknowledged that they have but devised [1821] a madness, and their irreligiousness has long since become notorious to all men. For that [1822] their authors went out from us, it plainly follows, as the blessed John has written, that they never thought nor now think with us. Wherefore, as saith the Saviour, in that they gather not with us, they scatter with the devil, and keep an eye on those who slumber, that, by this second sowing of their own mortal poison, they may have companions in death. But, whereas one heresy, and that the last, which has now risen as harbinger [1823] of Antichrist, the Arian, as it is called, considering that other heresies, her elder sisters, have been openly proscribed, in her craft and cunning, affects to array herself in Scripture language [1824] , like her father the devil, and is forcing her way back into the Church's paradise,--that with the pretence of Christianity, her smooth sophistry (for reason she has none) may deceive men into wrong thoughts of Christ,--nay, since she has already seduced certain of the foolish, not only to corrupt their ears, but even to take and eat with Eve, till in their ignorance which ensues they think bitter sweet, and admire this loathsome heresy, on this account I have thought it necessary, at your request, to unrip the folds of its breast-plate [1825] ,' and to shew the ill savour of its folly. So while those who are far from it may continue to shun it, those whom it has deceived may repent; and, opening the eyes of their heart, may understand that darkness is not light, nor falsehood truth, nor Arianism good; nay, that those [1826] who call these men Christians are in great and grievous error, as neither having studied Scripture, nor understanding Christianity at all, and the faith which it contains.

2. For what have they discovered in this heresy like to the religious Faith, that they vainly talk as if its supporters said no evil? This in truth is to call even Caiaphas [1827] a Christian, and to reckon the traitor Judas still among the Apostles, and to say that they who asked Barabbas instead of the Saviour did no evil, and to recommend Hymenæus and Alexander as right-minded men, and as if the Apostle slandered them. But neither can a Christian bear to hear this, nor can he consider the man who dared to say it sane in his understanding. For with them for Christ is Arius, as with the Manichees Manichæus; and for Moses and the other saints they have made the discovery of one Sotades [1828] , a man whom even Gentiles laugh at, and of the daughter of Herodias. For of the one has Arius imitated the dissolute and effeminate tone, in writing Thaliæ on his model; and the other he has rivalled in her dance, reeling and frolicking in his blasphemies against the Saviour; till the victims of his heresy lose their wits and go foolish, and change the Name of the Lord of glory into the likeness of the image of corruptible man [1829] ,' and for Christians come to be called Arians, bearing this badge of their irreligion. For let them not excuse themselves; nor retort their disgrace on those who are not as they, calling Christians after the names of their teachers [1830] , that they themselves may appear to have that Name in the same way. Nor let them make a jest of it, when they feel shame at their disgraceful appellation; rather, if they be ashamed, let them hide their faces, or let them recoil from their own irreligion. For never at any time did Christian people take their title from the Bishops among them, but from the Lord, on whom we rest our faith. Thus, though the blessed Apostles have become our teachers, and have ministered the Saviour's Gospel, yet not from them have we our title, but from Christ we are and are named Christians. But for those who derive the faith which they profess from others, good reason is it they should bear their name, whose property they have become [1831] .

3. Yes surely; while all of us are and are called Christians after Christ, Marcion broached a heresy a long time since and was cast out; and those who continued with him who ejected him remained Christians; but those who followed Marcion were called Christians no more, but henceforth Marcionites. Thus Valentinus also, and Basilides, and Manichæus, and Simon Magus, have imparted their own name to their followers; and some are accosted as Valentinians, or as Basilidians, or as Manichees, or as Simonians; and other, Cataphrygians from Phrygia, and from Novatus Novatians. So too Meletius, when ejected by Peter the Bishop and Martyr, called his party no longer Christians, but Meletians [1832] , and so in consequence when Alexander of blessed memory had cast out Arius, those who remained with Alexander, remained Christians; but those who went out with Arius, left the Saviour's Name to us who were with Alexander, and as to them they were hence-forward denominated Arians. Behold then, after Alexander's death too, those who communicate with his successor Athanasius, and those with whom the said Athanasius communicates, are instances of the same rule; none of them bear his name, nor is he named from them, but all in like manner, and as is usual, are called Christians. For though we have a succession of teachers and become their disciples, yet, because we are taught by them the things of Christ, we both are, and are called, Christians all the same. But those who follow the heretics, though they have innumerable successors in their heresy, yet anyhow bear the name of him who devised it. Thus, though Arius be dead, and many of his party have succeeded him, yet those who think with him, as being known from Arius, are called Arians. And, what is a remarkable evidence of this, those of the Greeks who even at this time come into the Church, on giving up the superstition of idols, take the name, not of their catechists, but of the Saviour, and begin to be called Christians instead of Greeks: while those of them who go off to the heretics, and again all who from the Church change to this heresy, abandon Christ's name, and henceforth are called Arians, as no longer holding Christ's faith, but having inherited Arius's madness.

4. How then can they be Christians, who for Christians are Ario-maniacs [1833] ? or how are they of the Catholic Church, who have shaken off the Apostolical faith, and become authors of fresh evils? who, after abandoning the oracles of divine Scripture, call Arius's Thaliæ a new wisdom? and with reason too, for they are announcing a new heresy. And hence a man may marvel, that, whereas many have written many treatises and abundant homilies upon the Old Testament and the New, yet in none of them is a Thalia found; nay nor among the more respectable of the Gentiles, but among those only who sing such strains over their cups, amid cheers and jokes, when men are merry, that the rest may laugh; till this marvellous Arius, taking no grave pattern, and ignorant even of what is respectable, while he stole largely from other heresies, would be original in the ludicrous, with none but Sotades for his rival. For what beseemed him more, when he would dance forth against the Saviour, than to throw his wretched words of irreligion into dissolute and loose metres? that, while a man,' as Wisdom says, is known from the utterance of his word [1834] ,' so from those numbers should be seen the writer's effeminate soul and corruption of thought [1835] . In truth, that crafty one did not escape detection; but, for all his many writhings to and fro, like the serpent, he did but fall into the error of the Pharisees. They, that they might transgress the Law, pretended to be anxious for the words of the Law, and that they might deny the expected and then present Lord, were hypocritical with God's name, and were convicted of blaspheming when they said, Why dost Thou, being a man, make Thyself God,' and sayest, I and the Father are one [1836] ?' And so too, this counterfeit and Sotadean Arius, feigns to speak of God, introducing Scripture language [1837] , but is on all sides recognised as godless [1838] Arius, denying the Son, and reckoning Him among the creatures. __________________________________________________________________

[1821] epinoesasai. 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, epinoesantes, any novel devotion, did they introduce it into the Church, but what from the beginning the Ecclesiastical Tradition declared.' Hist. iii. 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.]

[1822] to gar exelthein...delon an eie, i.e. to and so infr. §43. to de kai proskuneisthai...delon an eie.

[1823] de Syn. 5.

[1824] Vid. infr. §4 fin. That heresies before the Arian appealed to Scripture we learn from Tertullian, de Præscr. 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. Hær. iii. 1 or they professed a gift of prophecy introducing fresh revelations, as Montanists, de Syn. 4, and Manichees, Aug. contr. Faust. xxxii. 6. (2.) The Arians availed themselves of certain texts as objections, argued keenly and plausibly from them, and would not be driven from them. Orat. ii. §18. c. Epiph. Hær. 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. i. §52. vid. also Epiph. Hær. 76. 5 fin. Hence we hear so much of their thrulletai phonai, lexeis, epe, rheta, 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 ano kai kato peripherontes, de Decr. §13. to rh& 208;to tethrullekasi ta pantachou. Orat. 2. §18. to poluthrulleton sophisma, Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 14. ten poluthrulleton dialektiken, Nyssen. contr. Eun. iii. p. 125. ten thrulloumenen apor& 191;oen, Cyril. Dial. iv. p. 505. ten poluthrulleton phonen, Socr. ii. 43.

[1825] Job xli. 13 (v. 4. LXX).

[1826] 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 homoousion. 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. i. 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.' Hær 72. vid. also Philastr. Hær. 91.

[1827] de Decr. §§2, 24, 27.

[1828] de Syn. §1.

[1829] Vid. Hil. de Trin. viii. 28; Rom. i. 25.

[1830] He seems to allude to Catholics being called Athanasians; vid. however next §. Two distinctions are drawn between such a title as applied to Catholics, 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. i. 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 man? is there any leader to us, as to one there is Marcion, to another Manichæus, 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.

[1831] 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. iv. 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. Hær. i. 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. iv. 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. Hær. 42. p. 366. ibid. 70. 15. vid. also Hær. 75. 6 fin. Cyril Cat. xviii. 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.

[1832] Vid. de Syn. 12. [Prolegg. ch. ii. §2.]

[1833] 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.'

[1834] Vid. Ecclus. iv. 24.

[1835] It is very difficult to gain a clear idea of the character of Arius. [Prolegg. ch. ii. §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.?' Hær. 69. 3, cf. ib. §9 for a strange description of Arius attributed to Constantine, also printed in the collections of councils: Hard. i. 457.

[1836] John x. 30.

[1837] §1, note 4.

[1838] 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. iii. 2, that if a man says that the Son is a creature, who is word and Wisdom, and the Expression, and the Radiance, whom whoso seeth seeth the Father,' he falls under the text, Whoso 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 (exo) the Holy Trinity, and atheists' (Serap. iv. 6), because they really do not believe in the God that is, and there is none other but He. Cf. also Serap. i. 30. Eustathius speaks of the Arians as anthropous atheous, who were attempting kratesai tou theiou. ap. Theod. Hist. i. 7. p. 760. Naz. speaks of the heathen polutheos atheia. Orat. 25. 15. and he calls faith and regeneration a denial of atheism, atheias, and a confession of godhead, theotetos,' 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, tes atheou peges.' Orat. 25. 11. Palladius, the Imperial officer, is aner atheos. ibid. 12. __________________________________________________________________

Chapter II.--Extracts from the Thalia of Arius. Arius maintains that

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

5. Now the commencement of Arius's Thalia and flippancy, effeminate in tune and nature, runs thus:--

According to faith of God's elect, God's prudent ones,

Holy children, rightly dividing, God's Holy Spirit receiving,

Have I learned this from the partakers of wisdom,

Accomplished, divinely taught, and wise in all things.

Along their track, have I been walking, with like opinions.

I the very famous, the much suffering for God's glory;

And taught of God, I have acquired wisdom and knowledge.'

And the mockeries which he utters in it, repulsive and most irreligious, are such as these [1839] :--God was not always a Father;' but once God was alone, and not yet a Father, but afterwards He became a Father.' The Son was not always;' for, whereas all things were made out of nothing, and all existing creatures and works were made, so the Word of God Himself was made out of nothing,' and once He was not,' and He was not before His origination,' but He as others had an origin of creation.' For God,' he says, was alone, and the Word as yet was not, nor the Wisdom. Then, wishing to form us, thereupon He made a certain one, and named Him Word and Wisdom and Son, that He might form us by means of Him.' Accordingly, he says that there are two wisdoms, first, the attribute co-existent with God, and next, that in this wisdom the Son was originated, and was only named Wisdom and Word as partaking of it. For Wisdom,' saith he, by the will of the wise God, had its existence in Wisdom.' In like manner, he says, that there is another Word in God besides the Son, and that the Son again, as partaking of it, is named Word and Son according to grace. And this too is an idea proper to their heresy, as shewn in other works of theirs, that there are many powers; one of which is God's own by nature and eternal; but that Christ, on the other hand, is not the true power of God; but, as others, one of the so-called powers, one of which, namely, the locust and the caterpillar [1840] , is called in Scripture, not merely the power, but the great power.' The others are many and are like the Son, and of them David speaks in the Psalms, when he says, The Lord of hosts' or powers [1841] .' And by nature, as all others, so the Word Himself is alterable, and remains good by His own free will, while He chooseth; when, however, He wills, He can alter as we can, as being of an alterable nature. For therefore,' saith he, as foreknowing that He would be good, did God by anticipation bestow on Him this glory, which afterwards, as man, He attained from virtue. Thus in consequence of His works fore-known [1842] , did God bring it to pass that He being such, should come to be.'

6. Moreover he has dared to say, that the Word is not the very God;' though He is called God, yet He is not very God,' but by participation of grace, He, as others, is God only in name.' And, whereas all beings are foreign and different from God in essence, so too is the Word alien and unlike in all things to the Father's essence and propriety,' but belongs to things originated and created, and is one of these. Afterwards, as though he had succeeded to the devil's recklessness, he has stated in his Thalia, that even to the Son the Father is invisible,' and the Word cannot perfectly and exactly either see or know His own Father;' but even what He knows and what He sees, He knows and sees in proportion to His own measure,' as we also know according to our own power. For the Son, too, he says, not only knows not the Father exactly, for He fails in comprehension [1843] , but He knows not even His own essence;'--and that the essences of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, are separate in nature, and estranged, and disconnected, and alien [1844] , and without participation of each other [1845] ;' and, in his own words, utterly unlike from each other in essence and glory, unto infinity.' Thus as to likeness of glory and essence,' he says that the Word is entirely diverse from both the Father and the Holy Ghost. With such words hath the irreligious spoken; maintaining that the Son is distinct by Himself, and in no respect partaker of the Father. These are portions of Arius's fables as they occur in that jocose composition.

7. Who is there that hears all this, nay, the tune of the Thalia, but must hate, and justly hate, this Arius jesting on such matters as on a stage [1846] ? who but must regard him, when he pretends to name God and speak of God, but as the serpent counselling the woman? who, on reading what follows in his work, but must discern in his irreligious doctrine that error, into which by his sophistries the serpent in the sequel seduced the woman? who at such blasphemies is not transported? The heaven,' as the Prophet says, was astonished, and the earth shuddered [1847] ' at the transgression of the Law. But the sun, with greater horror, impatient of the bodily contumelies, which the common Lord of all voluntarily endured for us, turned away, and recalling his rays made that day sunless. And shall not all human kind at Arius's blasphemies be struck speechless, and stop their ears, and shut their eyes, to escape hearing them or seeing their author? Rather, will not the Lord Himself have reason to denounce men so irreligious, nay, so unthankful, in the words which He has already uttered by the prophet Hosea, Woe unto them, for they have fled from Me; destruction upon them, for they have transgressed against Me; though I have redeemed them, yet they have spoken lies against Me [1848] .' And soon after, They imagine mischief against Me; they turn away to nothing [1849] .' For to turn away from the Word of God, which is, and to fashion to themselves one that is not, is to fall to what is nothing. For this was why the Ecumenical [1850] Council, when Arius thus spoke, cast him from the Church, and anathematized him, as impatient of such irreligion. And ever since has Arius's error been reckoned for a heresy more than ordinary, being known as Christ's foe, and harbinger [1851] of Antichrist. Though then so great a condemnation be itself of special weight to make men flee from that irreligious heresy [1852] , as I said above, yet since certain persons called Christian, either in ignorance or pretence, think it, as I then said, little different from the Truth, and call its professors Christians; proceed we to put some questions to them, according to our powers, thereby to expose the unscrupulousness of the heresy. Perhaps, when thus caught, they will be silenced, and flee from it, as from the sight of a serpent. __________________________________________________________________

[1839] de Syn. §15. [where the metre of the Thalia is discussed in a note.]

[1840] de Syn. §18; Joel ii. 25.

[1841] Ps. xxiv. 10.

[1842] de Syn. 26, note 7, de Decr. 6, note 8.

[1843] Vid. de Syn. 15, note 6. katalepsis 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 katalepsis 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 perichoresis, de Syn. 15, anepimiktoi, or to maintain that He was a distinct, and therefore a created, being. On the other hand Scripture asserts that, as the Holy Spirit which is in God, searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God,' so the Son, as being in the bosom of the Father,' alone hath declared Him.' vid. Clement. Strom. v. 12. And thus Athan. speaking of Mark xiii. 32, 'If the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son, and the Father knows the day and the hour, it is plain that the Son too, being in the Father, and knowing the things in the Father, Himself also knows the day and the hour." Orat. iii. 44.

[1844] de Decr. 25, note 2.

[1845] de Syn. 15.

[1846] Ep. Encycl. 6; Epiph. Hær. 73. 1.

[1847] Jer. ii. 12.

[1848] Hos. vii. 13.

[1849] Ib. 15. lxx.

[1850] de Decr. 27, note 1.

[1851] Ib. 3, note 1, §1, note 3.

[1852] And so Vigilius of the heresies about the Incarnation, Etiamsi in erroris eorum destructionem nulli conderentur libri, hoc ipsum solum, quod hæretici sunt pronunciati, orthodoxorum securitati sufficeret. contr. Eutych. i. p. 494. __________________________________________________________________

Chapter III.--The Importance of the Subject. The Arians affect

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

8. If then the use of certain phrases of divine Scripture changes, in their opinion, the blasphemy of the Thalia into reverent language, of course they ought also to deny Christ with the present Jews, when they see how they study the Law and the Prophets; perhaps too they will deny the Law [1853] and the Prophets like Manichees [1854] , because the latter read some portions of the Gospels. If such bewilderment and empty speaking be from ignorance, Scripture will teach them, that the devil, the author of heresies, because of the ill savour which attaches to evil, borrows Scripture language, as a cloak wherewith to sow the ground with his own poison also, and to seduce the simple. Thus he deceived Eve; thus he framed former heresies; thus he persuaded Arius at this time to make a show of speaking against those former ones, that he might introduce his own without observation. And yet, after all, the man of craft did not escape. For being irreligious towards the Word of God, he lost his all at once [1855] , and betrayed to all men his ignorance of other heresies too [1856] ; and having not a particle of truth in his belief, does but pretend to it. For how can he speak truth concerning the Father, who denies the Son, that reveals concerning Him? or how can he be orthodox concerning the Spirit, while he speaks profanely of the Word that supplies the Spirit? and who will trust him concerning the Resurrection, denying, as he does, Christ for us the first-begotten from the dead? and how shall he not err in respect to His incarnate presence, who is simply ignorant of the Son's genuine and true generation from the Father? For thus, the former Jews also, denying the Word, and saying, We have no king but Cæsar [1857] ,' were forthwith stripped of all they had, and forfeited the light of the Lamp, the odour of ointment, knowledge of prophecy, and the Truth itself; till now they understand nothing, but are walking as in darkness. For who was ever yet a hearer of such a doctrine [1858] ? or whence or from whom did the abettors and hirelings [1859] of the heresy gain it? who thus expounded to them when they were at school [1860] ? who told them, Abandon the worship of the creation, and then draw near and worship a creature and a work [1861] ?' But if they themselves own that they have heard it now for the first time, how can they deny that this heresy is foreign, and not from our fathers [1862] ? But what is not from our fathers, but has come to light in this day, how can it be but that of which the blessed Paul [1863] has foretold, that in the latter times some shall depart from the sound faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, in the hypocrisy of liars; cauterized in their own conscience, and turning from the truth [1864] ?'

9. For, behold, we take divine Scripture, and thence discourse with freedom of the religious Faith, and set it up as a light upon its candlestick, saying:--Very Son of the Father, natural and genuine, proper to His essence, Wisdom Only-begotten, and Very and Only Word of God is He; not a creature or work, but an offspring proper to the Father's essence. Wherefore He is very God, existing one [1865] in essence with the very Father; while other beings, to whom He said, I said ye are Gods [1866] ,' had this grace from the Father, only by participation [1867] of the Word, through the Spirit. For He is the expression of the Father's Person, and Light from Light, and Power, and very Image of the Father's essence. For this too the Lord has said, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father [1868] .' And He ever was and is and never was not. For the Father being everlasting, His Word and His Wisdom must be everlasting [1869] . On the other hand, what have these persons to shew us from the infamous Thalia? Or, first of all, let them read it themselves, and copy the tone of the writer; at least the mockery which they will encounter from others may instruct them how low they have fallen; and then let them proceed to explain themselves. For what can they say from it, but that God was not always a Father, but became so afterwards; the Son was not always, for He was not before His generation; He is not from the Father, but He, as others, has come into subsistence out of nothing; He is not proper to the Father's essence, for He is a creature and work?' And Christ is not very God, but He, as others, was made God by participation; the Son has not exact knowledge of the Father, nor does the Word see the Father perfectly; and neither exactly understands nor knows the Father. He is not the very and only Word of the Father, but is in name only called Word and Wisdom, and is called by grace Son and Power. He is not unalterable, as the Father is, but alterable in nature, as the creatures, and He comes short of apprehending the perfect knowledge of the Father.' Wonderful this heresy, not plausible even, but making speculations against Him that is, that He be not, and everywhere putting forward blasphemy for reverent language! Were any one, after inquiring into both sides, to be asked, whether of the two he would follow in faith, or whether of the two spoke fitly of God,--or rather let them say themselves, these abettors of irreligion, what, if a man be asked concerning God (for the Word was God'), it were fit to answer [1870] . For from this one question the whole case on both sides may be determined, what is fitting to say,--He was, or He was not; always, or before His birth; eternal, or from this and from then; true, or by adoption, and from participation and in idea [1871] ; to call Him one of things originated, or to unite Him to the Father; to consider Him unlike the Father in essence, or like and proper to Him; a creature, or Him through whom the creatures were originated; that He is the Father's Word, or that there is another word beside Him, and that by this other He was originated, and by another wisdom; and that He is only named Wisdom and Word, and is become a partaker of this wisdom, and second to it?

10. Which of the two theologies sets forth our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Son of the Father, this which you vomited forth, or that which we have spoken and maintain from the Scriptures? If the Saviour be not God, nor Word, nor Son, you shall have leave to say what you will, and so shall the Gentiles, and the present Jews. But if He be Word of the Father and true Son, and God from God, and over all blessed for ever [1872] ,' is it not becoming to obliterate and blot out those other phrases and that Arian Thalia, as but a pattern of evil, a store of all irreligion, into which, whoso falls, knoweth not that giants perish with her, and reacheth the depths of Hades [1873] ?' This they know themselves, and in their craft they conceal it, not having the courage to speak out, but uttering something else [1874] . For if they speak, a condemnation will follow; and if they be suspected, proofs from Scripture will be cast [1875] at them from every side. Wherefore, in their craft, as children of this world, after feeding their so-called lamp from the wild olive, and fearing lest it should soon be quenched (for it is said, the light of the wicked shall be put out [1876] ,') they hide it under the bushel [1877] of their hypocrisy, and make a different profession, and boast of patronage of friends and authority of Constantius, that what with their hypocrisy and their professions, those who come to them may be kept from seeing how foul their heresy is. Is it not detestable even in this, that it dares not speak out, but is kept hid by its own friends, and fostered as serpents are? for from what sources have they got together these words? or from whom have they received what they venture to say [1878] ? Not any one man can they specify who has supplied it. For 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 till He was made? or who is there, who to the God in whom he has put faith, refuses to give credit, when He says, This is My beloved Son [1879] ,' on the pretence that He is not a Son, but a creature? rather, such madness would rouse an universal indignation. Nor does Scripture afford them any pretext; for it has been often shewn, and it shall be shewn now, that their doctrine is alien to the divine oracles. Therefore, since all that remains is to say that from the devil came their mania (for of such opinions he alone is sower [1880] ), proceed we to resist him--for with him is our real conflict, and they are but instruments;--that, the Lord aiding us, and the enemy, as he is wont, being overcome with arguments, they may be put to shame, when they see him without resource who sowed this heresy in them, and may learn, though late, that, as being Arians, they are not Christians. __________________________________________________________________

[1853] de Syn. 33.

[1854] Faustus, in August. contr. Faust. ii. 1. admits the Gospels (vid. Beausobre Manich. t. i. p. 291, &c.), but denies that they were written by the reputed authors. ibid. xxxii. 2. but nescio quibus Semi-judæis. ibid. xxxiii. 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. xxxii. 6.

[1855] de Decr. 1, note 6.

[1856] [A note on the intimate mutual connexion of all heresies is omitted here.]

[1857] Joh. xix. 15.

[1858] de Decr. 7, note 2.

[1859] dorodokoi, and so kerdos tes philochrematias, infr. §53. He mentions prostasias philon, §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 cædit, 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. ii. 13. And S. Gregory Naz. speaks of philochrusous mallon e philochristous. Orat. 21. 21. On the other hand, Ep. Æg. 22, Athan. contrasts the Arians with the Meletians, as not influenced by secular views. [Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) c. (2).]

[1860] de Syn. §3 and 9.

[1861] Vid. de Decr. 1. note. This consideration, as might be expected, is insisted on by the Fathers. vid. Cyril. Dial. iv. p. 511, &c. v. p. 566. Greg. Naz. 40, 42; Hil. Trin. viii. 28; Ambros. de fid. i. n. 69 and 104.

[1862] Ib. 4, note 8.

[1863] 1 Tim. iv. 1, 2; Tit. i. 14.

[1864] 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. iii. 6. Of the Carpocratians apparently, Iren. Hær. i. 25; Epiph. Hær. 27. 5. Of the Valentinians, Epiph. Hær. 31. 34. Of the Montanists and others, ibid. 48. 8. Of the Saturnilians (according to Huet.) Origen in Matt. xx. 16. Of apostolic heresies, Cyril. Cat. iv. 27. Of Marcionites, Valentinians, and Manichees, Chrysost. de Virg. 5. Of Gnostics and Manichees, Theod. Hær. ii. præf. Of Encratites, ibid. v. fin. Of Eutyches, Ep. Anon. 190 (apud Garner. Diss. v. Theod. p. 901. Pseudo-Justin seems to consider it fulfilled in the Catholics of the fifth century, as being Anti-Pelagians. Quæst. 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.

[1865] [This is the only occurrence of the word homoousios in these three Discourses.]

[1866] Ps. lxxxii. 6.

[1867] de Decr. §14 fin.; de Syn. §51.

[1868] John xiv. 9.

[1869] de Decr. 15, note 6.

[1870] 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.

[1871] kat' epinoian, vid. Orat. ii. §38.

[1872] Rom. ix. 5.

[1873] Prov. ix. 18. LXX.

[1874] de Decr. 6. note 5; de Syn. 32.

[1875] de Decr. 26, note 6.

[1876] Job xviii. 5.

[1877] Ep. Æg. 18.

[1878] §8, note 5.

[1879] Matt. iii. 17.

[1880] de Decr. 2, note 6. __________________________________________________________________

Chapter IV.--That the Son is Eternal and Increate. These attributes,

Chapter IV.--That the Son is Eternal and Increate. These attributes, being the points in dispute, are first proved by direct texts of Scripture. Concerning the eternal power' of God in Rom. i. 20, which is shewn to mean the Son. Remarks on the Arian formula, Once the Son was not,' its supporters not daring to speak of a time when the Son was not.'

11. At his suggestion then ye have maintained and ye think, that there was once when the Son was not;' this is the first cloke of your views of doctrine which has to be stripped off. Say then what was once when the Son was not, O slanderous and irreligious men [1881] ? If ye say the Father, your blasphemy is but greater; for it is impious to say that He was once,' or to signify Him by the word once.' For He is ever, and is now, and as the Son is, so is He, and is Himself He that is, and Father of the Son. But if ye say that the Son was once, when He Himself was not, the answer is foolish and unmeaning. For how could He both be and not be? In this difficulty, you can but answer, that there was a time when the Word was not; for your very adverb once' naturally signifies this. And your other, The Son was not before His generation,' is equivalent to saying, There was once when He was not,' for both the one and the other signify that there is a time before the Word. Whence then this your discovery? Why do ye, as the heathen, rage, and imagine vain phrases against the Lord [1882] and against His Christ?' for no holy Scripture has used such language of the Saviour, but rather always' and eternal' and coexistent always with the Father.' For, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [1883] .' And in the Apocalypse he thus speaks [1884] ; Who is and who was and who is to come.' Now who can rob who is' and who was' of eternity? This too in confutation of the Jews hath Paul written in his Epistle to the Romans, Of whom as concerning the flesh is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever [1885] ;' while silencing the Greeks, he has said, The visible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead [1886] ;' and what the Power of God is, he teaches us elsewhere himself, Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God [1887] .' Surely in these words he does not designate the Father, as ye often whisper one to another, affirming that the Father is His eternal power.' This is not so; for he says not, God Himself is the power,' but His is the power.' Very plain is it to all that His' is not He;' yet not something alien but rather proper to Him. Study too the context and turn to the Lord;' now the Lord is that Spirit [1888] ;'and you will see that it is the Son who is signified.

12. For after making mention of the creation, he naturally speaks of the Framer's Power as seen in it, which Power, I say, is the Word of God, by whom all things have been made. If indeed the creation is sufficient of itself alone, without the Son, to make God known, see that you fall not, from thinking that without the Son it has come to be. But if through the Son it has come to be, and in Him all things consist [1889] ,' it must follow that he who contemplates the creation rightly, is contemplating also the Word who framed it, and through Him begins to apprehend the Father [1890] . And if, as the Saviour also says, No one knoweth the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son shall reveal Him [1891] ,' and if on Philip's asking, Shew us the Father,' He said not, Behold the creation,' but, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father [1892] ,' reasonably doth Paul,--while accusing the Greeks of contemplating the harmony and order of the creation without reflecting on the Framing Word within it (for the creatures witness to their own Framer) so as through the creation to apprehend the true God, and abandon their worship of it,--reasonably hath he said, His Eternal Power and Godhead [1893] ,' thereby signifying the Son. And where the sacred writers say, Who exists before the ages,' and By whom He made the ages [1894] ,' they thereby as clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth [1895] ;' and Susanna said, O Everlasting God [1896] ;' and Baruch wrote, I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,' and shortly after, My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One [1897] ;' yet forasmuch as the Apostle, writing to the Hebrews, says, Who being the radiance of His glory and the Expression of His Person [1898] ;' and David too in the eighty-ninth Psalm, And the brightness of the Lord be upon us,' and, In Thy Light shall we see Light [1899] ,' who has so little sense as to doubt of the eternity of the Son [1900] ? for when did man see light without the brightness of its radiance, that he may say of the Son, There was once, when He was not,' or Before His generation He was not.' And the words addressed to the Son in the hundred and forty-fourth Psalm, Thy kingdom is a kingdom of all ages [1901] ,' forbid any one to imagine any interval at all in which the Word did not exist. For if every interval in the ages is measured, and of all the ages the Word is King and Maker, therefore, whereas no interval at all exists prior to Him [1902] , it were madness to say, There was once when the Everlasting was not,' and From nothing is the Son.' And whereas the Lord Himself says, I am the Truth [1903] ,' not I became the Truth;' but always, I am,--I am the Shepherd,--I am the Light,'--and again, Call ye Me not, Lord and Master? and ye call Me well, for so I am,' who, hearing such language from God, and the Wisdom, and Word of the Father, speaking of Himself, will any longer hesitate about the truth, and not forthwith believe that in the phrase I am,' is signified that the Son is eternal and without beginning?

13. It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son's eternity; it is equally plain from what follows that the Arian phrases He was not,' and before' and when,' are in the same Scriptures predicated of creatures. Moses, for instance, in his account of the generation of our system, says, And every plant of the field, before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground [1904] .' And in Deuteronomy, When the Most High divided to the nations [1905] .' And the Lord said in His own Person, If ye loved Me, ye would rejoice because I said, I go unto the Father, for My Father is greater than I. And now I have told you before it come to pass, that when it is come to pass, ye might believe [1906] .' And concerning the creation He says by Solomon, Or ever the earth was, when there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, was I brought forth [1907] .' And, Before Abraham was, I am [1908] .' And concerning Jeremiah He says, Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee [1909] .' And David in the Psalm says, Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever the earth and the world were made, Thou art, God from everlasting and world without end [1910] .' And in Daniel, Susanna cried out with a loud voice and said, O everlasting God, that knowest the secrets, and knowest all things before they be [1911] .' Thus it appears that the phrases once was not,' and before it came to be,' and when,' and the like, belong to things originate and creatures, which come out of nothing, but are alien to the Word. But if such terms are used in Scripture of things originate, but ever' of the Word, it follows, O ye enemies of God, that the Son did not come out of nothing, nor is in the number of originated things at all, but is the Father's Image and Word eternal, never having not been, but being ever, as the eternal Radiance [1912] of a Light which is eternal. Why imagine then times before the Son? or wherefore blaspheme the Word as after times, by whom even the ages were made? for how did time or age at all subsist when the Word, as you say, had not appeared, through' whom all things have been made and without' whom not one thing was made [1913] ?' Or why, when you mean time, do you not plainly say, a time was when the Word was not?' But while you drop the word time' to deceive the simple, you do not at all conceal your own feeling, nor, even if you did, could you escape discovery. For you still simply mean times, when you say, There was when He was not,' and He was not before His generation.' __________________________________________________________________

[1881] 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. iv. §1. vid. also Orat. iii. §9; Nyssen. contr. Eunom. iii. p. 106; Cyril. Thesaur. 32. p. 312.

[1882] Ps. ii. 1.

[1883] John i. 1.

[1884] Rev. i. 4. tade legei. [On legei, &c., in citations, see Lightf. on Gal. iii. 16, Winer, Gram. §58, 9 g, Grimm-Thayer, s.v. II. 1. e.]

[1885] Rom. ix. 5.

[1886] Ib. i. 20.

[1887] 1 Cor. i. 24. Athan. has so interpreted this text supr. de Decr. 15. It was either a received interpretation, or had been adduced at Nicæa, for Asterius had some years before these Discourses replied to it, vid. de Syn. 18, and Orat. ii. §37.

[1888] 2 Cor. iii. 16, 17. S. Athanasius observes, Serap. i. 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. 70; Basil de Sp. S. n. 32; Pseudo-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 Rom. i. 4, 1 Cor. xv. 45, 1 Tim. iii. 16, Hebr. ix. 14, 1 Pet. iii. 18, John vi. 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. Hær. v. 1. Cypr. Idol Van. 6. Lactant. Instit. iv. 12. vid. also Hilar. Trin. ii. 27; Athan. logos en to pneumati eplatte to soma. Serap. i. 31 fin. en to logo en to pneuma ibid. iii. 6. And more distinctly even as late as S. Maximus, auton anti sporas sullabousa ton logon, kekueke, 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. v. 5, 2, cf. ix. 1. The same use of Spirit' for the Word or Godhead of the Word, is also found in Tatian. adv. Græc. 7. Athenag. Leg. 10. Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 10. Iren. Hær. iv. 36. Tertull. Apol. 23. Lact. Inst. iv. 6, 8. Hilar. Trin. ix. 3, and 14. Eustath. apud Theod. Eran. iii. p. 235. Athan. contr. Apoll. i. 8. Apollinar. ap. Theod. Eran. i. p. 71, and the Apollinarists passim. Greg. Naz. Ep. 101. ad Cledon. p. 85. Ambros. Incarn. 63. Severian. ap. Theod. Eran. ii. p. 167. Vid. Grot. ad Marc. ii. 8; Bull, Def. F. N. i. 2, §5; Coustant. Præf. in Hilar. 57, &c. Montfaucon in Athan. Serap. iv. 19. [see also Tertullian, de Orat. init.]

[1889] Col. i. 17.

[1890] Vid. contr. Gent. 45-47.

[1891] Matt. xi. 27.

[1892] John xiv. 8, 9.

[1893] Rom. i. 20.

[1894] Heb. i. 2.

[1895] Is. xl. 28.

[1896] Hist. Sus. 42.

[1897] Bar. iv. 20, 22.

[1898] Heb. i. 3.

[1899] Ps. xc. 17; xxxvi. 9.

[1900] de Decr. 12, 27.

[1901] Ps. cxlv. 13.

[1902] Vid. de Decr. 18, note 5. The subject is treated at length in Greg. Nyss. contr. Eunom. i. t. 2. Append. p. 93-101. vid. also Ambros. de Fid. i. 8-11. As time measures the material creation, ages' were considered to measure the immaterial, as the duration of Angels. This had been a philosophical distinction, Timæus says eikon esti chronos to agennato chrono, hon aiona potagoreuomes. vid. also Philon. Quod Deus Immut. 6. Euseb. Laud. C. 1 prope fin., p. 501. Naz. Or. 38. 8.

[1903] John xiv. 6; x. 14; viii. 12; xiii. 13

[1904] Gen. ii. 5.

[1905] Deut. xxxii. 8.

[1906] John xiv. 28, 29.

[1907] Prov. viii. 23.

[1908] John viii. 58.

[1909] Jer. i. 5.

[1910] Ps. xc. 2.

[1911] Hist. Sus. 42.

[1912] de Decr. 23, note 4.

[1913] John i. 3. __________________________________________________________________

Chapter V.--Subject Continued. Objection, that the Son's eternity makes

Chapter V.--Subject Continued. Objection, that the Son's eternity makes Him coordinate with the Father, introduces the subject of His Divine Sonship, as a second proof of His eternity. The word Son is introduced in a secondary, but is to be understood in real sense. Since all things partake of the Father in partaking of the Son, He is the whole participation of the Father, that is, He is the Son by nature; for to be wholly participated is to beget.

14. When these points are thus proved, their profaneness goes further. If there never was, when the Son was not,' say they, but He is eternal, and coexists with the Father, you call Him no more the Father's Son, but brother [1914] .' O insensate and contentious! For if we said only that He was eternally with the Father, and not His Son, their pretended scruple would have some plausibility; but if, while we say that He is eternal, we also confess Him to be Son from the Father, how can He that is begotten be considered brother of Him who begets? And if our faith is in Father and Son, what brotherhood is there between them? and how can the Word be called brother of Him whose Word He is? This is not an objection of men really ignorant, for they comprehend how the truth lies; but it is a Jewish pretence, and that from those who, in Solomon's words, through desire separate themselves [1915] ' from the truth. For the Father and the Son were not generated from some pre-existing origin [1916] , that we may account Them brothers, but the Father is the Origin of the Son and begat Him; and the Father is Father, and not born the Son of any; and the Son is Son, and not brother. Further, if He is called the eternal offspring [1917] of the Father, He is rightly so called. For never was the essence of the Father imperfect, that what is proper to it should be added afterwards [1918] ; nor, as man from man, has the Son been begotten, so as to be later than His Father's existence, but He is God's offspring, and as being proper Son of God, who is ever, He exists eternally. For, whereas it is proper to men to beget in time, from the imperfection of their nature [1919] , God's offspring is eternal, for His nature is ever perfect [1920] . If then He is not a Son, but a work made out of nothing, they have but to prove it; and then they are at liberty, as if imagining about a creature, to cry out, There was once when He was not;' for things which are originated were not, and have come to be. But if He is Son, as the Father says, and the Scriptures proclaim, and Son' is nothing else than what is generated from the Father; and what is generated from the Father is His Word, and Wisdom, and Radiance; what is to be said but that, in maintaining Once the Son was not,' they rob God of His Word, like plunderers, and openly predicate of Him that He was once without His proper Word and Wisdom, and that the Light was once without radiance, and the Fountain was once barren and dry [1921] ? For though they pretend alarm at the name of time, because of those who reproach them with it, and say, that He was before times, yet whereas they assign certain intervals, in which they imagine He was not, they are most irreligious still, as equally suggesting times, and imputing to God an absence of Reason [1922] .

15. But if on the other hand, while they acknowledge with us the name of Son,' from an unwillingness to be publicly and generally condemned, they deny that the Son is the proper offspring of the Father's essence, on the ground that this must imply parts and divisions [1923] ; what is this but to deny that He is very Son, and only in name to call Him Son at all? And is it not a grievous error, to have material thoughts about what is immaterial, and because of the weakness of their proper nature to deny what is natural and proper to the Father? It does but remain, that they should deny Him also, because they understand not how God is [1924] , and what the Father is, now that, foolish men, they measure by themselves the Offspring of the Father. And persons in such a state of mind as to consider that there cannot be a Son of God, demand our pity; but they must be interrogated and exposed for the chance of bringing them to their senses. If then, as you say, the Son is from nothing,' and was not before His generation,' He, of course, as well as others, must be called Son and God and Wisdom only by participation; for thus all other creatures consist, and by sanctification are glorified. You have to tell us then, of what He is partaker [1925] . All other things partake of the Spirit, but He, according to you, of what is He partaker? of the Spirit? Nay, rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son, as He Himself says; and it is not reasonable to say that the latter is sanctified by the former. Therefore it is the Father that He partakes; for this only remains to say. But this, which is participated, what is it or whence [1926] ? If it be something external provided by the Father, He will not now be partaker of the Father, but of what is external to Him; and no longer will He be even second after the Father, since He has before Him this other; nor can He be called Son of the Father, but of that, as partaking which He has been called Son and God. And if this be unseemly and irreligious, when the Father says, This is My Beloved Son [1927] ,' and when the Son says that God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not external, but from the essence of the Father. And as to this again, if it be other than the essence of the Son, an equal extravagance will meet us; there being in that case something between this that is from the Father and the essence of the Son, whatever that be [1928] .

16. Such thoughts then being evidently unseemly and untrue, we are driven to say that what is from the essence of the Father, and proper to Him, is entirely the Son; for it is all one to say that God is wholly participated, and that He begets; and what does begetting signify but a Son? And thus of the Son Himself, all things partake according to the grace of the Spirit coming from Him [1929] ; and this shews that the Son Himself partakes of nothing, but what is partaken from the Father, is the Son; for, as partaking of the Son Himself, we are said to partake of God; and this is what Peter said that ye may be partakers in a divine nature [1930] ;' as says too the Apostle, Know ye not, that ye are a temple of God?' and, We are the temple of a living God [1931] .' And beholding the Son, we see the Father; for the thought [1932] and comprehension of the Son, is knowledge concerning the Father, because He is His proper offspring from His essence. And since to be partaken no one of us would ever call affection or division of God's essence (for it has been shewn and acknowledged that God is participated, and to be participated is the same thing as to beget); therefore that which is begotten is neither affection nor division of that blessed essence. Hence it is not incredible that God should have a Son, the Offspring of His own essence; nor do we imply affection or division of God's essence, when we speak of Son' and Offspring;' but rather, as acknowledging the genuine, and true, and Only-begotten of God, so we believe. If then, as we have stated and are shewing, what is the Offspring of the Father's essence be the Son, we cannot hesitate, rather we must be certain, that the same [1933] is the Wisdom and Word of the Father, in and through whom He creates and makes all things; and His Brightness too, in whom He enlightens all things, and is revealed to whom He will; and His Expression and Image also, in whom He is contemplated and known, wherefore He and His Father are one [1934] ,' and whoso looketh on Him looketh on the Father; and the Christ, in whom all things are redeemed, and the new creation wrought afresh. And on the other hand, the Son being such Offspring, it is not fitting, rather it is full of peril, to say, that He is a work out of nothing, or that He was not before His generation. For he who thus speaks of that which is proper to the Father's essence, already blasphemes the Father Himself [1935] ; since he really thinks of Him what he falsely imagines of His offspring. __________________________________________________________________

[1914] 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. ii. 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. 'Anomoios kat' ousian is mentioned infr. §17. As the Arians here object that the First and Second Persons of the Holy Trinity are adelphoi, so did they say the same in the course of the controversy of the Second and Third. vid. Serap. i. 15. iv. 2.

[1915] Prov. xviii. 1.

[1916] Vid. de Syn. §51.

[1917] In other words, by the Divine gennesis 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. i. 4. p. 749, and Eunomius argues that, if the Son is co-eternal with the Father, the Father was never such in act, energos, but was argos.' Cyril. Thesaur. v. p. 41. S. Cyril answers that works,' erga, are made exothen, 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 energei& 139; pater. Dial. 2. p. 458. (vid. supr. p. 65. note m). Victorinus in like manner, says, that God is potentia et actione Deus sed in æterna, Adv. Ar. i. p. 202; and he quotes S. Alexander, speaking apparently in answer to Arius, of a semper generans generatio. And Arius scoffs at aeigennes and agennetogenes. Theod. Hist. i. 4. p. 749. And Origen had said, ho soter aei gennatai. ap. Routh. Reliq. t. 4. p. 304 and S. Dionysius calls Him the Radiance, anarchon kai aeigenes. Sent. Dion 15. S. Augustine too says, Semper gignit Pater, et semper nascitur Filius. Ep. 238. n. 4. Petav. de Trin. ii. 5. n. 7, quotes the following passage from Theodorus Abucara, Since the Son's generation does but signify His having His existence from the Father, which He has ever, therefore He is ever begotten. For it became Him, who is properly (kurios) 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, telos, and is perfect, teleion.' Opusc 26.

[1918] de Decr. 22, note 9.

[1919] Infr. §26 fin., and de Decr. 12, note 2.

[1920] Vid. supr. note 4. A similar passage is found in Cyril. Thesaur. v. p. 42, Dial. ii. fin. This was retorting the objection; the Arians said, How can God be ever perfect, who added to Himself a Son?' Athan. answers, How can the Son not be eternal, since God is ever perfect?' vid. Greg. Nyssen, contr. Eunom. Append. p. 142. Cyril. Thesaur. x. p. 78. As to the Son's perfection, Aetius objects ap. Epiph. Hær. 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 atele proteron, eita teleion, hosper nomos tes hemeteras geneseos, Orat. 20. 9 fin. In like manner, S. Basil argues against Eunomius, that the Son is teleios, because He is the Image, not as if copied, which is a gradual work, but as a charakter, 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. ii. 16 fin.

[1921] de Decr. 12, 15.

[1922] Ib. 22, note 1, infr. §19.

[1923] De Decr. §§10, 11.

[1924] Infr. §23.

[1925] De Syn. §45, 51.

[1926] Nic. Def. 9, note 4.

[1927] Matt. iii. 17.

[1928] 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 homoousion, which was in consequence accused of Sabellianism, but was distinguished from it by the particle homou, 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 agennetos or gennete; which was the objection urged against the Catholics by Aetius, Epiph. Hær. 76. 10. Cf. de Decr. §30, Orat. iii. §36 fin., Expos. Fid. 2. vid. de Syn. 45, note 1. Vera et æterna substantia in se tota permanens, totam se coæternæ 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 naturæ perfectam nativitatem.' Trin. vii. 31.

[1929] De Decr. §31.

[1930] 2 Pet. i. 4.

[1931] 1 Cor. iii. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 16.

[1932] ennoia, vid. de Syn. §48 fin.

[1933] de Decr. 17, 24.

[1934] John x. 30.

[1935] de Decr. 1, note. __________________________________________________________________

Chapter VI.--Subject Continued. Third proof of the Son's eternity, viz.

Chapter VI.--Subject Continued. Third proof of the Son's eternity, viz. from other titles indicative of His coessentiality; as the Creator; One of the Blessed Trinity; as Wisdom; as Word; as Image. If the Son is a perfect Image of the Father, why is He not a Father also? because God, being perfect, is not the origin of a race. Only the Father a Father because the Only Father, only the Son a Son because the Only Son. Men are not really fathers and really sons, but shadows of the True. The Son does not become a Father, because He has received from the Father to be immutable and ever the same.

17. This is of itself a sufficient refutation of the Arian heresy; however, its heterodoxy will appear also from the following:--If God be Maker and Creator, and create His works through the Son, and we cannot regard things which come to be, except as being through the Word, is it not blasphemous, God being Maker, to say, that His Framing Word and His Wisdom once was not? it is the same as saying, that God is not Maker, if He had not His proper Framing Word which is from Him, but that that by which He frames, accrues to Him from without [1936] , and is alien from Him, and unlike in essence. Next, let them tell us this,--or rather learn from it how irreligious they are in saying, Once He was not,' and, He was not before His generation;'--for if the Word is not with the Father from everlasting, the Triad is not everlasting; but a Monad was first, and afterwards by addition it became a Triad; and so as time went on, it seems what we know concerning God grew and took shape [1937] . And further, if the Son is not proper offspring of the Father's essence, but of nothing has come to be, then of nothing the Triad consists, and once there was not a Triad, but a Monad; and a Triad once with deficiency, and then complete; deficient, before the Son was originated, complete when He had come to be; and henceforth a thing originated is reckoned with the Creator, and what once was not has divine worship and glory with Him who was ever [1938] . Nay, what is more serious still, the Triad is discovered to be unlike Itself, consisting of strange and alien natures and essences. And this, in other words, is saying, that the Triad has an originated consistence. What sort of a religion then is this, which is not even like itself, but is in process of completion as time goes on, and is now not thus, and then again thus? For probably it will receive some fresh accession, and so on without limit, since at first and at starting it took its consistence by way of accessions. And so undoubtedly it may decrease on the contrary, for what is added plainly admits of being subtracted.

18. But this is not so: perish the thought; the Triad is not originated; but there is an eternal and one Godhead in a Triad, and there is one Glory of the Holy Triad. And you presume to divide it into different natures; the Father being eternal, yet you say of the Word which is seated by Him, Once He was not;' and, whereas the Son is seated by the Father, yet you think to place Him far from Him. The Triad is Creator and Framer, and you fear not to degrade It to things which are from nothing; you scruple not to equal servile beings to the nobility of the Triad, and to rank the King, the Lord of Sabaoth with subjects [1939] . Cease this confusion of things unassociable, or rather of things which are not with Him who is. Such statements do not glorify and honour the Lord, but the reverse; for he who dishonours the Son, dishonours also the Father. For if the doctrine of God is now perfect in a Triad, and this is the true and only Religion, and this is the good and the truth, it must have been always so, unless the good and the truth be something that came after, and the doctrine of God is completed by additions. I say, it must have been eternally so; but if not eternally, not so at present either, but at present so, as you suppose it was from the beginning,--I mean, not a Triad now. But such heretics no Christian would bear; it belongs to Greeks, to introduce an originated Triad, and to level It with things originate; for these do admit of deficiencies and additions; but the faith of Christians acknowledges the blessed Triad as unalterable and perfect and ever what It was, neither adding to It what is more, nor imputing to It any loss (for both ideas are irreligious), and therefore it dissociates It from all things generated, and it guards as indivisible and worships the unity of the Godhead Itself; and shuns the Arian blasphemies, and confesses and acknowledges that the Son was ever; for He is eternal, as is the Father, of whom He is the Eternal Word,--to which subject let us now return again.

19. If God be, and be called, the Fountain of wisdom and life--as He says by Jeremiah, They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters [1940] ;' and again, A glorious high throne from the beginning, is the place of our sanctuary; O Lord, the Hope of Israel, all that forsake Thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from Me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the Lord, the Fountain of living waters [1941] ;' and in the book of Baruch it is written, Thou hast forsaken the Fountain of wisdom [1942] ,'--this implies that life and wisdom are not foreign to the Essence of the Fountain, but are proper to It, nor were at any time without existence, but were always. Now the Son is all this, who says, I am the Life [1943] ,' and, I Wisdom dwell with prudence [1944] .' Is it not then irreligious to say, Once the Son was not?' for it is all one with saying, Once the Fountain was dry, destitute of Life and Wisdom.' But a fountain it would then cease to be; for what begetteth not from itself, is not a fountain [1945] . What a load of extravagance! for God promises that those who do His will shall be as a fountain which the water fails not, saying by Isaiah the prophet, And the Lord shall satisfy thy soul in drought, and make thy bones fat; and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not [1946] .' And yet these, whereas God is called and is a Fountain of wisdom, dare to insult Him as barren and void of His proper Wisdom. But their doctrine is false; truth witnessing that God is the eternal Fountain of His proper Wisdom; and, if the Fountain be eternal, the Wisdom also must needs be eternal. For in It were all things made, as David says in the Psalm, In Wisdom hast Thou made them all [1947] ;' and Solomon says, The Lord by Wisdom hath formed the earth, by understanding hath He established the heavens [1948] .' And this Wisdom is the Word, and by Him, as John says, all things were made,' and without Him was made not one thing [1949] .' And this Word is Christ; for there is One God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we for Him; and One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him [1950] .' And if all things are through Him, He Himself is not to be reckoned with that all.' For he who dares [1951] to call Him, through whom are things, one of that all,' surely will have like speculations concerning God, from whom are all. But if he shrinks from this as unseemly, and excludes God from that all, it is but consistent that he should also exclude from that all the Only-Begotten Son, as being proper to the Father's essence. And, if He be not one of the all [1952] , it is sin to say concerning Him, He was not,' and He was not before His generation.' Such words may be used of the creatures; but as to the Son, He is such as the Father is, of whose essence He is proper Offspring, Word, and Wisdom [1953] . For this is proper to the Son, as regards the Father, and this shews that the Father is proper to the Son; that we may neither say that God was ever without Word [1954] , nor that the Son was non-existent. For wherefore a Son, if not from Him? or wherefore Word and Wisdom, if not ever proper to Him?

20. When then was God without that which is proper to Him? or how can a man consider that which is proper, as foreign and alien in essence? for other things, according to the nature of things originate, are without likeness in essence with the Maker; but are external to Him, made by the Word at His grace and will, and thus admit of ceasing to be, if it so pleases Him who made them [1955] ; for such is the nature of things originate [1956] . But as to what is proper to the Father's essence (for this we have already found to be the Son), what daring is it in irreligion to say that This comes from nothing,' and that It was not before generation,' but was adventitious [1957] , and can at some time cease to be again? Let a person only dwell upon this thought, and he will discern how the perfection and the plenitude of the Father's essence is impaired by this heresy; however, he will see its unseemliness still more clearly, if he considers that the Son is the Image and Radiance of the Father, and Expression, and Truth. For if, when Light exists, there be withal its Image, viz. Radiance, and, a Subsistence existing, there be of it the entire Expression, and, a Father existing, there be His Truth (viz. the Son); let them consider what depths of irreligion they fall into, who make time the measure of the Image and Form of the Godhead. For if the Son was not before His generation, Truth was not always in God, which it were a sin to say; for, since the Father was, there was ever in Him the Truth, which is the Son, who says, I am the Truth [1958] .' And the Subsistence existing, of course there was forthwith its Expression and Image; for God's Image is not delineated from without [1959] , but God Himself hath begotten it; in which seeing Himself, He has delight, as the Son Himself says, I was His delight [1960] .' When then did the Father not see Himself in His own Image? or when had He not delight, that a man should dare to say, the Image is out of nothing,' and The Father had not delight before the Image was originated?' and how should the Maker and Creator see Himself in a created and originated essence? for such as is the Father, such must be the Image.

21. Proceed we then to consider the attributes of the Father, and we shall come to know whether this Image is really His. The Father is eternal, immortal, powerful, light, King, Sovereign, God, Lord, Creator, and Maker. These attributes must be in the Image, to make it true that he that hath seen' the Son hath seen the Father [1961] .' If the Son be not all this, but, as the Arians consider, originate, and not eternal, this is not a true Image of the Father, unless indeed they give up shame, and go on to say, that the title of Image, given to the Son, is not a token of a similar essence [1962] , but His name [1963] only. But this, on the other hand, O ye enemies of Christ, is not an Image, nor is it an Expression. For what is the likeness of what is out of nothing to Him who brought what was nothing into being? or how can that which is not, be like Him that is, being short of Him in once not being, and in its having its place among things originate? However, such the Arians wishing Him to be, devised for themselves arguments such as this;--If the Son is the Father's offspring and Image, and is like in all things [1964] to the Father, then it necessarily holds that as He is begotten, so He begets, and He too becomes father of a son. And again, he who is begotten from Him, begets in his turn, and so on without limit; for this is to make the Begotten like Him that begat Him.' Authors of blasphemy, verily, are these foes of God! who, sooner than confess that the Son is the Father's Image [1965] , conceive material and earthly ideas concerning the Father Himself, ascribing to Him severings and [1966] effluences and influences. If then God be as man, let Him become also a parent as man, so that His Son should be father of another, and so in succession one from another, till the series they imagine grows into a multitude of gods. But if God be not as man, as He is not, we must not impute to Him the attributes of man. For brutes and men, after a Creator has begun them, are begotten by succession; and the son, having been begotten of a father who was a son, becomes accordingly in his turn a father to a son, in inheriting from his father that by which he himself has come to be. Hence in such instances there is not, properly speaking, either father or son, nor do the father and the son stay in their respective characters, for the son himself becomes a father, being son of his father, but father of his son. But it is not so in the Godhead; for not as man is God; for the Father is not from a father; therefore doth He not beget one who shall become a father; nor is the Son from effluence of the Father, nor is He begotten from a father that was begotten; therefore neither is He begotten so as to beget. Thus it belongs to the Godhead alone, that the Father is properly [1967] father, and the Son properly son, and in Them, and Them only, does it hold that the Father is ever Father and the Son ever Son.

22. Therefore he who asks why the Son is not to beget a son, must inquire why the Father had not a father. But both suppositions are unseemly and full of impiety. For as the Father is ever Father and never could become Son, so the Son is ever Son and never could become Father. For in this rather is He shewn to be the Father's Expression and Image, remaining what He is and not changing, but thus receiving from the Father to be one and the same. If then the Father change, let the Image change; for so is the Image and Radiance in its relation towards Him who begat It. But if the Father is unalterable, and what He is that He continues, necessarily does the Image also continue what He is, and will not alter. Now He is Son from the Father; therefore He will not become other than is proper to the Father's essence. Idly then have the foolish ones devised this objection also, wishing to separate the Image from the Father, that they might level the Son with things originated. __________________________________________________________________

[1936] de Decr. 25, note 2.

[1937] Vid. Orat. iv. §13.

[1938] §8, note 8.

[1939] De Decr. §31.

[1940] Jer. ii. 13.

[1941] Ib. xvii. 12, 13.

[1942] Bar. iii. 12.

[1943] John xiv. 6.

[1944] Prov. viii. 12.

[1945] Supr. §15.

[1946] Isa. lviii. 11.

[1947] Ps. civ. 24.

[1948] Prov. iii. 19.

[1949] John i. 3. See Westcott's additional note on the passage.]

[1950] 1 Cor. viii. 6.

[1951] Vid. Petav. de Trin. ii. 12, §4.

[1952] De Decr. §30.

[1953] De Decr. §17.

[1954] alogon. Vid. note on de Decr. §§1, 15, where other instances are given from Athan. and Dionysius of Rome; vid. also Orat. iv. 2, 4. Sent. D. 23. Origen, supr. p. 48. Athenag. Leg. 10. Tat. contr. Græc. 5. Theoph. ad. Autol. ii. 10. Hipp. contr. Noet. 10. Nyssen. contr. Eunom. vii. p. 215. viii. pp. 230, 240. Orat, Catech. 1. Naz. Orat. 29. 17 fin. Cyril. Thesaur. xiv. p. 145 (vid. 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. Æg. 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; tes hupostaseos huparchouses, pantos euthus einai dei ton charaktera kai ten eikona tautes, §20. vid. also infr. §31, de Decr. §13, p. 21, §§20, 23, pp. 35, 40. Theod. H. E. i. 3. p. 737.

[1955] 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. iii. §59, &c.

[1956] §29, note.

[1957] De Decr. 22, note 9.

[1958] John xiv. 6.

[1959] 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. Hær. 76. 3. Hilar. Trin. vii. 41 fin. Origen observes that man, on the contrary, is an example of an external or improper image of God. Periarch. i. 2. §6. It might have been more direct to have argued from the name of Image to our Lord's consubstantiality rather than eternity, as, e.g. S. Gregory Naz. He is Image as one in essence, homoousion,...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 homoousion in these Discourses. S. Chrys. on Col. i. 15.

[1960] Prov. viii. 30.

[1961] John xiv. 9.

[1962] homoias ousias. And so §20 init. homoion kat' ousian, and homoios tes ousias, §26. homoios kat' ousian, iii. 26. and homoios kata ten ousian tou patros. Ep. Æg. 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 homoousion (vid. foregoing note), deserves our attention.

[1963] De Decr. §16.

[1964] De Syn. 27 (5) note 1, and infr. §40.

[1965] 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 rheuste, 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 theos ho hui& 232;s, ouk epei hui& 231;s; homoios kai ho pater, ouk epei pater, theos; all' epei ousia toiade, heis esti pater kai ho hui& 232;s theos. Nyssen. t. i. p. 915. vid. Petav. de Deo i. 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 be ever borne 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.

[1966] Ep. Eus. 7, de Decr. 11, note 8.

[1967] kurios, 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, kurios, hold.' ad Serap. i. 16. also ibid. iv. 4 fin. and 6. vid. also kurios, Greg. Naz. Orat. 29. 5. alethos, Orat. 25, 16. ontos, Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 5. p. 215. __________________________________________________________________

Chapter VII.--Objections to the Foregoing Proof. Whether, in the

Chapter VII.--Objections to the Foregoing Proof. Whether, in the generation of the Son, God made One that was already, or One that was not.

22 (continued). Ranking Him among these, according to the teaching of Eusebius, and accounting Him such as the things which come into being through Him, Arius and his fellows revolted from the truth, and used, when they commenced this heresy, to go about with dishonest phrases which they had got together; nay, up to this time some of them [1968] , when they fall in with boys in the market-place, question them, not out of divine Scripture, but thus, as if bursting with the abundance of their heart [1969] ;'--He who is, did He make him who was not, from that which was [not], or him who was? therefore did He make the Son, whereas He was, or whereas He was not [1970] ?' And again, Is the Unoriginate one or two?' and Has He free will, and yet does not alter at His own choice, as being of an alterable nature? for He is not as a stone to remain by Himself unmoveable.' Next they turn to silly women, and address them in turn in this womanish language; Hadst thou a son before bearing? now, as thou hadst not, so neither was the Son of God before His generation.' In such language do the disgraceful men sport and revel, and liken God to men, pretending to be Christians, but changing God's glory into an image made like to corruptible man [1971] .'

23. Words so senseless and dull deserved no answer at all; however, lest their heresy appear to have any foundation, it may be right, though we go out of the way for it, to refute them even here, especially on account of the silly women who are so readily deceived by them. When they thus speak, they should have inquired of an architect, whether he can build without materials; and if he cannot, whether it follows that God could not make the universe without materials [1972] . Or they should have asked every man, whether he can be without place; and if he cannot, whether it follows that God is in place, that so they may be brought to shame even by their audience. Or why is it that, on hearing that God has a Son, they deny Him by the parallel of themselves; whereas, if they hear that He creates and makes, no longer do they object their human ideas? they ought in creation also to entertain the same, and to supply God with materials, and so deny Him to be Creator, till they end in grovelling with Manichees. But if the bare idea of God transcends such thoughts, and, on very first hearing, a man believes and knows that He is in being, not as we are, and yet in being as God, and creates not as man creates, but yet creates as God, it is plain that He begets also not as men beget, but begets as God. For God does not make man His pattern; but rather we men, for that God is properly, and alone truly [1973] , Father of His Son, are also called fathers of our own children; for of Him is every fatherhood in heaven and earth named [1974] .' And their positions, while unscrutinized, have a shew of sense; but if any one scrutinize them by reason, they will be found to incur much derision and mockery.

24. For first of all, as to their first question, which is such as this, how dull and vague it is! they do not explain who it is they ask about, so as to allow of an answer, but they say abstractedly, He who is,' him who is not.' Who then is,' and what are not,' O Arians? or who is,' and who is not?' what are said to be,' what not to be?' for He that is, can make things which are not, and which are, and which were before. For instance, carpenter, and goldsmith, and potter, each, according to his own art, works upon materials previously existing, making what vessels he pleases; and the God of all Himself, having taken the dust of the earth existing and already brought to be, fashions man; that very earth, however, whereas it was not once, He has at one time made by His own Word. If then this is the meaning of their question, the creature on the one hand plainly was not before its origination, and men, on the other, work the existing material; and thus their reasoning is inconsequent, since both what is' becomes, and what is not' becomes, as these instances shew. But if they speak concerning God and His Word, let them complete their question and then ask, Was the God, who is,' ever without Reason? and, whereas He is Light, was He ray-less? or was He always Father of the Word? Or again in this manner. Has the Father who is' made the Word who is not,' or has He ever with Him His Word, as the proper offspring of His substance? This will shew them that they do but presume and venture on sophisms about God and Him who is from Him. Who indeed can bear to hear them say that God was ever without Reason? this is what they fall into a second time, though endeavouring in vain to escape it and to hide it with their sophisms. Nay, one would fain not hear them disputing at all, that God was not always Father, but became so afterwards (which is necessary for their fantasy, that His Word once was not), considering the number of the proofs already adduced against them; while John besides says, The Word was [1975] ,' and Paul again writes, Who being the brightness of His glory [1976] ,' and, Who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen [1977] .'

25. They had best have been silent; but since it is otherwise, it remains to meet their shameless question with a bold retort [1978] . Perhaps on seeing the counter absurdities which beset themselves, they may cease to fight against the truth. After many prayers [1979] then that God would be gracious to us, thus we might ask them in turn; God who is, has He so become, whereas He was not? or is He also before His coming into being? whereas He is, did He make Himself, or is He of nothing, and being nothing before, did He suddenly appear Himself? Unseemly is such an enquiry, both unseemly and very blasphemous, yet parallel with theirs; for the answer they make abounds in irreligion. But if it be blasphemous and utterly irreligious thus to inquire about God, it will be blasphemous too to make the like inquiries about His Word. However, by way of exposing a question so senseless and so dull, it is necessary to answer thus:--whereas God is, He was eternally; since then the Father is ever, His Radiance ever is, which is His Word. And again, God who is, hath from Himself His Word who also is; and neither hath the Word been added, whereas He was not before, nor was the Father once without Reason. For this assault upon the Son makes the blasphemy recoil upon the Father; as if He devised for Himself a Wisdom, and Word, and Son from without [1980] ; for whichever of these titles you use, you denote the offspring from the Father, as has been said. So that this their objection does not hold; and naturally; for denying the Logos they in consequence ask questions which are illogical. As then if a person saw the sun, and then inquired concerning its radiance, and said, Did that which is make that which was, or that which was not,' he would be held not to reason sensibly, but to be utterly mazed, because he fancied what is from the Light to be external to it, and was raising questions, when and where and whether it were made; in like manner, thus to speculate concerning the Son and the Father and thus to inquire, is far greater madness, for it is to conceive of the Word of the Father as external to Him, and to idly call the natural offspring a work, with the avowal, He was not before His generation.' Nay, let them over and above take this answer to their question;--The Father who was, made the Son who was, for the Word was made flesh [1981] ;' and, whereas He was Son of God, He made Him in consummation of the ages also Son of Man, unless forsooth, after the Samosatene, they affirm that He did not even exist at all, till He became man.

26. This is sufficient from us in answer to their first question. And now on your part, O Arians, remembering your own words, tell us whether He who was needed one who was not for the framing of the universe, or one who was? You said that He made for Himself His Son out of nothing, as an instrument whereby to make the universe. Which then is superior, that which needs or that which supplies the need? or does not each supply the deficiency of the other? You rather prove the weakness of the Maker, if He had not power of Himself to make the universe, but provided for Himself an instrument from without [1982] , as carpenter might do or shipwright, unable to work anything without adze and saw! Can anything be more irreligious? yet why should one dwell on its heinousness, when enough has gone before to shew that their doctrine is a mere fantasy? __________________________________________________________________

[1968] 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, di' entuchias gunaikarion atakton ha epatesan, and of the busy and indecent gadding about of the younger, ek tou peritrochazein pasan aguian asemnos. ap. Theod. H. E. i. 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, and he defines that the Son is out of nothing.' t. 2. p. 898.

[1969] Matt. xii. 34.

[1970] This objection is found in Alex. Ep. Encycl. 2. ho on theos ton me onta ek tou me ontos. Again, onta gegenneke e ouk onta. Greg. Orat. 29. 9. who answers it. Pseudo-Basil. contr. Eunom. iv. p. 281. 2. Basil calls the question poluthrulleton, contr. Eunom. ii. 14. It will be seen to be but the Arian formula of He was not before His generation,' in another shape; being but this, that the very fact of His being begotten or a Son, implies a 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 en prin gennethe, vid. Excursus B. at the end of this Discourse.

[1971] Rom. i. 23, and §2.

[1972] De Decr. § 11, esp. note 6.

[1973] De Decr. 31, note 5

[1974] Eph. iii. 15.

[1975] John i. 1.

[1976] Heb. i. 3.

[1977] Rom. ix. 5.

[1978] Vid. Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 17.

[1979] This cautious and reverent way of speaking is a characteristic of S. Athanasius, ad Serap. i. 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. iii. 63, cf. de Decr. 12, note 8, 15, note 6, de Syn. 51, note 4.

[1980] De Decr. 25, note 2.

[1981] John i. 14.

[1982] organon, de Decr. 7, n. 6, de Syn. 27, note 11. This was alleged by Arius, Socr. i. 6. and by Eusebius, Eccles. Theol. i. 8. supr. Ep. Eus., and by the Anomoeans, supr. de Decr. 7, note 1. __________________________________________________________________

Chapter VIII.--Objections Continued. Whether we may decide the question

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

26. (continued). Nor is answer needful to their other very simple and foolish inquiry, which they put to silly women; or none besides that which has been already given, namely, that it is not suitable to measure divine generation by the nature of men. However, that as before they may pass judgment on themselves, it is well to meet them on the same ground, thus:--Plainly, if they inquire of parents concerning their son, let them consider whence is the child which is begotten. For, granting the parent had not a son before his begetting, still, after having him, he had him, not as external or as foreign, but as from himself, and proper to his essence and his exact image, so that the former is beheld in the latter, and the latter is contemplated in the former. If then they assume from human examples that generation implies time, why not from the same infer that it implies the Natural and the Proper [1983] , instead of extracting serpent-like from the earth only what turns to poison? Those who ask of parents, and say, Had you a son before you begot him?' should add, And if you had a son, did you purchase him from without as a house or any other possession?' And then you would be answered, He is not from without, but from myself. For things which are from without are possessions, and pass from one to another; but my son is from me, proper and similar to my essence, not become mine from another, but begotten of me; wherefore I too am wholly in him, while I remain myself what I am [1984] .' For so it is; though the parent be distinct in time, as being man, who himself has come to be in time, yet he too would have had his child ever coexistent with him, but that his nature was a restraint and made it impossible. For Levi too was already in the loins of his great-grandfather, before his own actual generation, or that of his grandfather. When then the man comes to that age at which nature supplies the power, immediately, with nature, unrestrained, he becomes father of the son from himself.

27. Therefore, if on asking parents about children, they get for answer, that children which are by nature are not from without, but from their parents, let them confess in like manner concerning the Word of God, that He is simply from the Father. And if they make a question of the time, let them say what is to restrain God--for it is necessary to prove their irreligion on the very ground on which their scoff is made--let them tell us, what is there to restrain God from being always Father of the Son; for that what is begotten must be from its father is undeniable. Moreover, they will pass judgment on themselves in attributing [1985] such things to God, if, as they questioned women on the subject of time, so they inquire of the sun concerning its radiance, and of the fountain concerning its issue. They will find that these, though an offspring, always exist with those things from which they are. And if parents, such as these, have in common with their children nature and duration, why, if they suppose God inferior to things that come to be [1986] , do they not openly say out their own irreligion? But if they do not dare to say this openly, and the Son is confessed to be, not from without, but a natural offspring from the Father, and that there is nothing which is a restraint to God (for not as man is He, but more than the sun, or rather the God of the sun), it follows that the Word is from Him and is ever co-existent with Him, through whom also the Father caused that all things which were not should be. That then the Son comes not of nothing but is eternal and from the Father, is certain even from the nature of the case; and the question of the heretics to parents exposes their perverseness; for they confess the point of nature, and now have been put to shame on the point of time.

28. As we said above, so now we repeat, that the divine generation must not be compared to the nature of men, nor the Son considered to be part of God, nor the generation to imply any passion whatever; God is not as man; for men beget passibly, having a transitive nature, which waits for periods by reason of its weakness. But with God this cannot be; for He is not composed of parts, but being impassible and simple, He is impassibly and indivisibly Father of the Son. This again is strongly evidenced and proved by divine Scripture. For the Word of God is His Son, and the Son is the Father's Word and Wisdom; and Word and Wisdom is neither creature nor part of Him whose Word He is, nor an offspring passibly begotten. Uniting then the two titles, Scripture speaks of Son,' in order to herald the natural and true offspring of His essence; and, on the other hand, that none may think of the Offspring humanly, while signifying His essence, it also calls Him Word, Wisdom, and Radiance; to teach us that the generation was impassible, and eternal, and worthy of God. [1987] What affection then, or what part of the Father is the Word and the Wisdom and the Radiance? So much may be impressed even on these men of folly; for as they asked women concerning God's Son, so [1988] let them inquire of men concerning the Word, and they will find that the word which they put forth is neither an affection of them nor a part of their mind. But if such be the word of men, who are passible and partitive, why speculate they about passions and parts in the instance of the immaterial and indivisible God, that under pretence of reverence [1989] they may deny the true and natural generation of the Son? Enough was said above to shew that the offspring from God is not an affection; and now it has been shewn in particular that the Word is not begotten according to affection. The same may be said of Wisdom; God is not as man; nor must they here think humanly of Him. For, whereas men are capable of wisdom, God partakes in nothing, but is Himself the Father of His own Wisdom, of which whoso partake are given the name of wise. And this Wisdom too is not a passion, nor a part, but an Offspring proper to the Father. Wherefore He is ever Father, nor is the character of Father adventitious to God, lest He seem alterable; for if it is good that He be Father, but has not ever been Father, then good has not ever been in Him.

29. But, observe, say they, God was always a Maker, nor is the power of framing adventitious to Him; does it follow then, that, because He is the Framer of all, therefore His works also are eternal, and is it wicked to say of them too, that they were not before origination? Senseless are these Arians; for what likeness is there between Son and work, that they should parallel a father's with a maker's function? How is it that, with that difference between offspring and work, which has been shewn, they remain so ill-instructed? Let it be repeated then, that a work is external to the nature, but a son is the proper offspring of the essence; it follows that a work need not have been always, for the workman frames it when he will; but an offspring is not subject to will, but is proper to the essence [1990] . And a man may be and may be called Maker, though the works are not as yet; but father he cannot be called, nor can he be, unless a son exist. And if they curiously inquire why God, though always with the power to make, does not always make (though this also be the presumption of madmen, for who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His Counsellor?' or how shall the thing formed say to' the potter, why didst thou make me thus [1991] ?' however, not to leave even a weak argument unnoticed), they must be told, that although God always had the power to make, yet the things originated had not the power of being eternal [1992] . For they are out of nothing, and therefore were not before their origination; but things which were not before their origination, how could these coexist with the ever-existing God? Wherefore God, looking to what was good for them, then made them all when He saw that, when originated, they were able to abide. And as, though He was able, even from the beginning in the time of Adam, or Noah, or Moses, to send His own Word, yet He sent Him not until the consummation of the ages (for this He saw to be good for the whole creation), so also things originated did He make when He would, and as was good for them. But the Son, not being a work, but proper to the Father's offspring, always is; for, whereas the Father always is, so what is proper to His essence must always be; and this is His Word and His Wisdom. And that creatures should not be in existence, does not disparage the Maker; for He hath the power of framing them, when He wills; but for the offspring not to be ever with the Father, is a disparagement of the perfection of His essence. Wherefore His works were framed, when He would, through His Word; but the Son is ever the proper offspring of the Father's essence. __________________________________________________________________

[1983] 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.

[1984] 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. iii. §5; Ps.-Ath. Dial. i. (Migne xxviii. 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. i. 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. iv. 9.

[1985] [But see Or. iii. 65, note 2.]

[1986] 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.

[1987] 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. i. 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.

[1988] Orat. iii. 67.

[1989] 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. v. 169]. August. contr. Secund. 9, contr. Faust. xi. 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, ho nous hamartetikos esti. de Sect. iv. p. 507. vid. also Greg. Naz. Ep. 101. ad Cledon. p. 89; Athan. in Apoll. i. 2. 14. Epiph. Ancor. 79. 80. Athan., &c., call the Apollinarian doctrine Manichæan in consequence. vid. in Apoll. ii. 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, phusiologein, of my God.' Concil. t. 2. p. 157 [Act. prima conc. Chalc. t. iv. 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. Matt. xvi. 22, 23.

[1990] Vid. Orat. iii. §59, &c.

[1991] Rom. xi. 34; ib. ix. 20.

[1992] 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 onton; 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 ii. §1, where he says, It is proper to creatures and works to have said of them, ex ouk onton and ouk en prin gennethe.' vid. Cyril. Thesaur. 9. p. 67. Dial. ii. p. 460. on the question of being a Creator in posse, vid. supra, Ep. Eus. 11 note 3. __________________________________________________________________

Chapter IX.--Objections Continued. Whether is the Unoriginate one or

Chapter IX.--Objections Continued. Whether is the Unoriginate one or two? Inconsistent in Arians to use an unscriptural word; necessary to define its meaning. Different senses of the word. If it means without Father,' there is but One Unoriginate; if without beginning or creation,' there are two. Inconsistency of Asterius. Unoriginate' a title of God, not in contrast with the Son, but with creatures, as is Almighty,' or Lord of powers.' Father' is the truer title, as not only Scriptural, but implying a Son, and our adoption as sons.

30. These considerations encourage the faithful, and distress the heretical, perceiving, as they do, their heresy overthrown thereby. Moreover, their further question, whether the Unoriginate be one or two [1993] ,' shews how false are their views, how treacherous and full of guile. Not for the Father's honour ask they this, but for the dishonour of the Word. Accordingly, should any one, not aware of their craft, answer, the Unoriginated is one,' forthwith they spirit out their own venom, saying, Therefore the Son is among things originated,' and well have we said, He was not before His generation.' Thus they make any kind of disturbance and confusion, provided they can but separate the Son from the Father, and reckon the Framer of all among His works. Now first they may be convicted on this score, that, while blaming the Nicene Bishops for their use of phrases not in Scripture, though these not injurious, but subversive of their irreligion, they themselves went off upon the same fault, that is, using words not in Scripture [1994] , and those in contumely of the Lord, knowing neither what they say nor whereof they affirm [1995] .' For instance, let them ask the Greeks, who have been their instructors (for it is a word of their invention, not Scripture), and when they have been instructed in its various significations, then they will discover that they cannot even question properly, on the subject which they have undertaken. For they have led me to ascertain [1996] that by unoriginate' is meant what has not yet come to be, but is possible to be, as wood which is not yet become, but is capable of becoming, a vessel; and again what neither has nor ever can come to be, as a triangle quadrangular, and an even number odd. For a triangle neither has nor ever can become quadrangular; nor has even ever, nor can ever, become odd. Moreover, by unoriginate' is meant, what exists, but has not come into being from any, nor having a father at all. Further, Asterius, the unprincipled sophist, the patron too of this heresy, has added in his own treatise, that what is not made, but is ever, is unoriginate [1997] .' They ought then, when they ask the question, to add in what sense they take the word unoriginate,' and then the parties questioned would be able to answer to the point.

31. But if they still are satisfied with merely asking, Is the Unoriginate one or two?' they must be told first of all, as ill-educated men, that many are such and nothing is such, many, which are capable of origination, and nothing, which is not capable, as has been said. But if they ask according as Asterius ruled it, as if what is not a work but was always' were unoriginate, then they must constantly be told that the Son as well as the Father must in this sense be called unoriginate. For He is neither in the number of things originated, nor a work, but has ever been with the Father, as has already been shewn, in spite of their many variations for the sole sake of speaking against the Lord, He is of nothing' and He was not before His generation.' When then, after failing at every turn, they betake themselves to the other sense of the question, existing but not generated of any nor having a father,' we shall tell them that the unoriginate in this sense is only one, namely the Father; and they will gain nothing by their question [1998] . For to say that God is in this sense Unoriginate, does not shew that the Son is a thing originated, it being evident from the above proofs that the Word is such as He is who begat Him. Therefore if God be unoriginate, His Image is not originated, but an Offspring [1999] , which is His Word and His Wisdom. For what likeness has the originated to the unoriginate? (one must not weary of using repetition;) for if they will have it that the one is like the other, so that he who sees the one beholds the other, they are like to say that the Unoriginate is the image of creatures; the end of which is a confusion of the whole subject, an equalling of things originated with the Unoriginate, and a denial of the Unoriginate by measuring Him with the works; and all to reduce the Son into their number.

32. However, I suppose even they will be unwilling to proceed to such lengths, if they follow Asterius the sophist. For he, earnest as he is in his advocacy of the Arian heresy, and maintaining that the Unoriginate is one, runs counter to them in saying, that the Wisdom of God is unoriginate and without beginning also. The following is a passage out of his work [2000] : The Blessed Paul said not that he preached Christ the power of God or the wisdom of God, but, without the article, God's power and God's wisdom [2001] ;' thus preaching that the proper power of God Himself, which is natural to Him and co-existent with Him unoriginatedly, is something besides.' And again, soon after: However, His eternal power and wisdom, which truth argues to be without beginning and unoriginate; this must surely be one.' For though, misunderstanding the Apostle's words, he considered that there were two wisdoms; yet, by speaking still of a wisdom coexistent with Him, he declares that the Unoriginate is not simply one, but that there is another Unoriginate with Him. For what is coexistent, coexists not with itself, but with another. If then they agree with Asterius, let them never ask again, Is the Unoriginate one or two,' or they will have to contest the point with him; if, on the other hand, they differ even from him, let them not rely upon his treatise, lest, biting one another, they be consumed one of another [2002] .' So much on the point of their ignorance; but who can say enough on their crafty character? who but would justly hate them while possessed by such a madness? for when they were no longer allowed to say out of nothing' and He was not before His generation,' they hit upon this word 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;' for in such phrases things originated and creatures are implied.

33. If they have confidence in their own positions, they should stand to them, and not change about so variously [2003] ; but this they will not, from an idea that success is easy, if they do but shelter their heresy under colour of the word unoriginate.' Yet after all, this term is not used in contrast with the Son, clamour as they may, but with things originated; and the like may be found in the words Almighty,' and Lord of the Powers [2004] .' For if we say that the Father has power and mastery over all things by the Word, and the Son rules the Father's kingdom, and has the power of all, as His Word, and as the Image of the Father, it is quite plain that neither here is the Son reckoned among that all, nor is God called Almighty and Lord with reference to Him, but to those things which through the Son come to be, and over which He exercises power and mastery through the Word. And therefore the Unoriginate is specified not by contrast to the Son, but to the things which through the Son come to be. And excellently: since God is not as things originated, but is their Creator and Framer through the Son. And as the word Unoriginate' is specified relatively to things originated, so the word Father' is indicative of the Son. And he who names God Maker and Framer and Unoriginate, regards and apprehends things created and made; and he who calls God Father, thereby conceives and contemplates the Son. And hence one might marvel at the obstinacy which is added to their irreligion, that, whereas the term unoriginate' has the aforesaid good sense, and admits of being used religiously [2005] , they, in their own heresy, bring it forth for the dishonour of the Son, not having read that he who honoureth the Son honoureth the Father, and he who dishonoureth the Son, dishonoureth the Father [2006] . If they had any concern at all [2007] for reverent speaking and the honour due to the Father, it became them rather, and this were better and higher, to acknowledge and call God Father, than to give Him this name. For, in calling God unoriginate, they are, as I said before, calling Him from His works, and as Maker only and Framer, supposing that hence they may signify that the Word is a work after their own pleasure. But that he who calls God Father, signifies Him from the Son being well aware that if there be a Son, of necessity through that Son all things originate were created. And they, when they call Him Unoriginate, name Him only from His works, and know not the Son any more than the Greeks; but he who calls God Father, names Him from the Word; and knowing the Word, he acknowledges Him to be Framer of all, and understands that through Him all things have been made.

34. Therefore it is more pious and more accurate to signify God from the Son and call Him Father, than to name Him from His works only and call Him Unoriginate [2008] . For the latter title, as I have said, does nothing more than signify all the works, individually and collectively, which have come to be at the will of God through the Word; but the title Father has its significance and its bearing only from the Son. And, whereas the Word surpasses things originated, by so much and more doth calling God Father surpass the calling Him Unoriginate. For the latter is unscriptural and suspicious, because it has various senses; so that, when a man is asked concerning it, his mind is carried about to many ideas; but the word Father is simple and scriptural, and more accurate, and only implies the Son. And Unoriginate' is a word of the Greeks, who know not the Son; but Father' has been acknowledged and vouchsafed by our Lord. For He, knowing Himself whose Son He was, said, I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me;' and, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father,' and I and the Father are One [2009] ;' but nowhere is He found to call the Father Unoriginate. Moreover, when He teaches us to pray, He says not, When ye pray, say, O God Unoriginate,' but rather, When ye pray, say, Our Father, which art in heaven [2010] .' And it was His will that the Summary [2011] of our faith should have the same bearing, in bidding us be baptized, not into the name of Unoriginate and originate, nor into the name of Creator and creature, but into the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For with such an initiation we too, being numbered among works, are made sons, and using the name of the Father, acknowledge from that name the Word also in the Father Himself [2012] . A vain thing then is their argument about the term Unoriginate,' as is now proved, and nothing more than a fantasy. __________________________________________________________________

[1993] The word angen[n]eton 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, phaskontes, ou legomen duo ageneta, legousi duo theous. Orat. iii. 16, also ii. 38. Plato used agenneton of the Supreme God [not so; he used ageneton, see note 2 on de Decr. 28]; the Valentinians, Tertull. contr. Val. 7; and Basilides, Epiph. Hær. 31. 10. S. Clement uses it, see de Syn. 47, note 7. [The earlier Arians apparently argued mainly, like Asterius, from agenetos (cf. Epiph. 64. 8), the later (kainoi, Epiph. Hær. 73. 19) Anomoeans rather from agennetos]; viz. that he agennesia is the very ousia of God, not an attribute. So Aetius in Epiph. Hær. 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 agenetos, but genetos, but all geneta 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 tes ousias. This was what the Arians had originally denied hen to agenneton hen de to hup' autou alethos, kai ouk ek tes ousias autou gegonos. Euseb. Nic. ap. Theod. H. E. i. 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, gennema, all' ouk hos hen ton gennematon. [See pp. 149, 169, and the reference there to Lightfoot.]

[1994] De Decr. 18.

[1995] 1 Tim. i. 7.

[1996] De Decr. 28, note 4.

[1997] 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 ageneton, two irrelevant and the third ambiguous; here in Orat. i. (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.

[1998] These two senses of agenneton unbegotten and unmade were afterwards [but see notes on de Decr. 28] expressed by the distinction of nn and n, agenneton and ageneton. vid. Damasc. F. O. i. 8. p. 135. and Le Quien's note.

[1999] §20, note 5.

[2000] De Syn. §18, infr. ii. 37.

[2001] 1 Cor. i. 24.

[2002] Gal. v. 15.

[2003] De Syn. 9, note 2.

[2004] The passage which follows is written with his de Decr. before him. At first he but uses the same topics, but presently he incorporates into this Discourse an actual portion of his former work, with only such 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.

[2005] De Syn. §47.

[2006] John v. 23.

[2007] Here he begins a close transcript of the de Decr. §30, the last sentence, however, of the paragraph being an addition.

[2008] For analogous arguments against the word agenneton, see Basil, contr. Eunom. i. 5. p. 215. Greg. Naz. Orat. 31. 23. Epiph. Hær. 76. p. 941. Greg. Nyss. contr. Eunom. vi. p. 192, &c. Cyril. Dial. ii. Pseudo-Basil. contr. Eunom. iv. p. 283.

[2009] John xiv. 11; xiv. 9; x. 30. These three texts are found together frequently in Athan. particularly in Orat. iii. where he considers the doctrines of the Image' and the perichoresis. vid. Index of Texts, also Epiph. Hær. 64. 9. Basil. Hexaem. ix. fin. Cyr. Thes. xii. p. 111. [add in S. Joan, 168, 847] Potam. Ep. ap. Dacher. t. 3. p. 299. Hil. Trin. vii. 41. et supr.

[2010] Luke xi. 2.

[2011] De Syn. 28, note 5.

[2012] Here ends the extract from the de Decretis. The sentence following is added as a close. __________________________________________________________________

Chapter X.--Objections Continued. How the Word has free will, yet

Chapter X.--Objections Continued. How the Word has free will, yet without being alterable. He is unalterable because the Image of the Father, proved from texts.

35. As to their question whether the Word is alterable [2013] , it is superfluous to examine it; it is enough simply to write down what they say, and so to shew its daring irreligion. How they trifle, appears from the following questions:--Has He free will, or has He not? is He good from choice according to free will, and can He, if He will, alter, being of an alterable nature? or, as wood or stone, has He not His choice free to be moved and incline hither and thither?' It is but agreeable to their heresy thus to speak and think; for, when once they have framed to themselves a God out of nothing and a created Son, of course they also adopt such terms, as being suitable to a creature. However, when in their controversies with Churchmen they hear from them of the real and only Word of the Father, and yet venture thus to speak of Him, does not their doctrine then become the most loathsome that can be found? is it not enough to distract a man on mere hearing, though unable to reply, and to make him stop his ears, from astonishment at the novelty of what he hears them say, which even to mention is to blaspheme? For if the Word be alterable and changing, where will He stay, and what will be the end of His development? how shall the alterable possibly be like the Unalterable? How should he who has seen the alterable, be considered to have seen the Unalterable? At what state must He arrive, for us to be able to behold in Him the Father? for it is plain that not at all times shall we see the Father in the Son, because the Son is ever altering, and is of changing nature. For the Father is unalterable and unchangeable, and is always in the same state and the same; but if, as they hold, the Son is alterable, and not always the same, but of an ever-changing nature, how can such a one be the Father's Image, not having the likeness of His unalterableness [2014] ? how can He be really in the Father, if His purpose is indeterminate? Nay, perhaps, as being alterable, and advancing daily, He is not perfect yet. But away with such madness of the Arians, and let the truth shine out, and shew that they are foolish. For must not He be perfect who is equal to God? and must not He be unalterable, who is one with the Father, and His Son proper to His essence? and the Father's essence being unalterable, unalterable must be also the proper Offspring from it. And if they slanderously impute alteration to the Word, let them learn how much their own reason is in peril; for from the fruit is the tree known. For this is why he who hath seen the Son hath seen the Father; and why the knowledge of the Son is knowledge of the Father.

36. Therefore the Image of the unalterable God must be unchangeable; for Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever [2015] .' And David in the Psalm says of Him, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thine hands. They shall perish, but Thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment. And as a vesture shalt Thou fold them up, and they shall be changed, but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail [2016] .' And the Lord Himself says of Himself through the Prophet, See now that I, even I am He,' and I change not [2017] .' It may be said indeed that what is here signified relates to the Father; yet it suits the Son also to say this, specially because, when made man, He manifests His own identity and unalterableness to such as suppose that by reason of the flesh He is changed and become other than He was. More trustworthy are the saints, or rather the Lord, than the perversity of the irreligious. For Scripture, as in the above-cited passage of the Psalter, signifying under the name of heaven and earth, that the nature of all things originate and created is alterable and changeable, yet excepting the Son from these, shews us thereby that He is no wise a thing originate; nay teaches that He changes everything else, and is Himself not changed, in saying, Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail [2018] .' And with reason; for things originate, being from nothing [2019] , and not being before their origination, because, in truth, they come to be after not being, have a nature which is changeable; but the Son, being from the Father, and proper to His essence, is unchangeable and unalterable as the Father Himself. For it were sin to say that from that essence which is unalterable was begotten an alterable word and a changeable wisdom. For how is He longer the Word, if He be alterable? or can that be Wisdom which is changeable? unless perhaps, as accident in essence [2020] , so they would have it, viz. as in any particular essence, a certain grace and habit of virtue exists accidentally, which is called Word and Son and Wisdom, and admits of being taken from it and added to it. For they have often expressed this sentiment, but it is not the faith of Christians; as not declaring that He is truly Word and Son of God, or that the wisdom intended is true Wisdom. For what alters and changes, and has no stay in one and the same condition, how can that be true? whereas the Lord says, I am the Truth [2021] .' If then the Lord Himself speaks thus concerning Himself, and declares His unalterableness, and the Saints have learned and testify this, nay and our notions of God acknowledge it as religious, whence did these men of irreligion draw this novelty? From their heart as from a seat of corruption did they vomit it forth [2022] . __________________________________________________________________

[2013] treptos, 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. i. 6. p. 11.

[2014] Supr. §22. init.

[2015] Heb. xiii. 8.

[2016] Ps. cii. 26-28

[2017] Deut. xxxii. 39; Mal. iii. 6.

[2018] Heb. i. 12.

[2019] §29, note.

[2020] Nic. Def. 21. note 9.

[2021] John xiv. 6.

[2022] De Syn. §16 fin. __________________________________________________________________

Chapter XI.--Texts Explained; And First, Phil. II. 9, 10 Various texts

Chapter XI.--Texts Explained; And First, Phil. II. 9, 10 Various texts which are alleged against the Catholic doctrine: e.g. Phil. ii. 9, 10. Whether the words Wherefore God hath highly exalted' prove moral probation and advancement. Argued against, first, from the force of the word Son;' which is inconsistent with such an interpretation. Next, the passage examined. Ecclesiastical sense of highly exalted,' and gave,' and wherefore;' viz. as being spoken with reference to our Lord's manhood. Secondary sense; viz. as implying the Word's exaltation' through the resurrection in the same sense in which Scripture speaks of His descent in the Incarnation; how the phrase does not derogate from the nature of the Word.

37. But since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense [2023] , it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to shew that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error. They say then, that the Apostle writes, Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a Name which is above every name; that in the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth [2024] ;' and David, Wherefore God even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows [2025] .' Then they urge, as something acute: If He was exalted and received grace, on a wherefore,' and on a wherefore' He was anointed, He received a reward of His purpose; but having acted from purpose, He is altogether of an alterable nature.' This is what Eusebius [2026] and Arius have dared to say, nay to write; while their partizans do not shrink from conversing about it in full market-place, not seeing how mad an argument they use. For if He received what He had as a reward of His purpose, and would not have had it, unless He had needed it, and had His work to shew for it, then having gained it from virtue and promotion, with reason had He therefore' been called Son and God, without being very Son. For what is from another by nature, is a real offspring, as Isaac was to Abraham, and Joseph to Jacob, and the radiance to the sun; but the so called sons from virtue and grace, have but in place of nature a grace by acquisition, and are something else besides [2027] the gift itself; as the men who have received the Spirit by participation, concerning whom Scripture saith, I begat and exalted children, and they rebelled against Me [2028] .' And of course, since they were not sons by nature, therefore, when they altered, the Spirit was taken away and they were disinherited; and again on their repentance that God who thus at the beginning gave them grace, will receive them, and give light, and call them sons again.

38. But if they say this of the Saviour also, it follows that He is neither very God nor very Son, nor like the Father, nor in any wise has God for a Father of His being according to essence, but of the mere grace given to Him, and for a Creator of His being according to essence, after the similitude of all others. And being such, as they maintain, it will be manifest further that He had not the name Son' from the first, if so be it was the prize of works done and of that very same advance which He made when He became man, and took the form of the servant; but then, when, after becoming obedient unto death,' He was, as the text says, highly exalted,' and received that Name' as a grace, that in the Name of Jesus every knee should bow [2029] .' What then was before this, if then He was exalted, and then began to be worshipped, and then was called Son, when He became man? For He seems Himself not to have promoted the flesh at all, but rather to have been Himself promoted through it, if, according to their perverseness, He was then exalted and called Son, when He became man. What then was before this? One must urge the question on them again, to make it understood what their irreligious doctrine results in [2030] . For if the Lord be God, Son, Word, yet was not all these before He became man, either He was something else beside these, and afterwards became partaker of them for His virtue's sake, as we have said; or they must adopt the alternative (may it return upon their heads!) that He was not before that time, but is wholly man by nature and nothing more. But this is no sentiment of the Church. but of the Samosatene and of the present Jews. Why then, if they think as Jews, are they not circumcised with them too, instead of pretending Christianity, while they are its foes? For if He was not, or was indeed, but afterwards was promoted, how were all things made by Him, or how in Him, were He not perfect, did the Father delight [2031] ? And He, on the other hand, if now promoted, how did He before rejoice in the presence of the Father? And, if He received His worship after dying, how is Abraham seen to worship Him in the tent [2032] , and Moses in the bush? and, as Daniel saw, myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands were ministering unto Him? And if, as they say, He had His promotion now, how did the Son Himself make mention of that His glory before and above the world, when He said, Glorify Thou Me, O Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was [2033] .' If, as they say, He was then exalted, how did He before that bow the heavens and come down;' and again, The Highest gave His thunder [2034] ?' Therefore, if, even before the world was made, the Son had that glory, and was Lord of glory and the Highest, and descended from heaven, and is ever to be worshipped, it follows that He had not promotion from His descent, but rather Himself promoted the things which needed promotion; and if He descended to effect their promotion, therefore He did not receive in reward the name of the Son and God, but rather He Himself has made us sons of the Father, and deified men by becoming Himself man.

39. Therefore He was not man, and then became God, but He was God, and then became man, and that to deify us [2035] . Since, if when He became man, only then He was called Son and God, but before He became man, God called the ancient people sons, and made Moses a god of Pharaoh (and Scripture says of many, God standeth in the congregation of Gods [2036] '), it is plain that He is called Son and God later than they. How then are all things through Him, and He before all? or how is He first-born of the whole creation [2037] ,' if He has others before Him who are called sons and gods? And how is it that those first partakers [2038] do not partake of the Word? This opinion is not true; it is a device of our present Judaizers. For how in that case can any at all know God as their Father? for adoption there could not be apart from the real Son, who says, No one knoweth the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him [2039] .' And how can there be deifying apart from the Word and before Him? yet, saith He to their brethren the Jews, If He called them gods, unto whom the Word of God came [2040] .' And if all that are called sons and gods, whether in earth or in heaven, were adopted and deified through the Word, and the Son Himself is the Word, it is plain that through Him are they all, and He Himself before all, or rather He Himself only is very Son [2041] , and He alone is very God from the very God, not receiving these prerogatives as a reward for His virtue, nor being another beside them, but being all these by nature and according to essence. For He is Offspring of the Father's essence, so that one cannot doubt that after the resemblance of the unalterable Father, the Word also is unalterable.

40. Hitherto we have met their irrational conceits with the true conceptions [2042] implied in the Word Son,' as the Lord Himself has given us. But it will be well next to cite the divine oracles, that the unalterableness of the Son and His unchangeable nature, which is the Father's, as well as their perverseness, may be still more fully proved. The Apostle then, writing to the Philippians, says, Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not a prize to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. And, being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient to death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also highly exalted Him, and gave Him a Name which is above every name; that in the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father [2043] .' Can anything be plainer and more express than this? He was not from a lower state promoted: but rather, existing as God, He took the form of a servant, and in taking it, was not promoted but humbled Himself. Where then is there here any reward of virtue, or what advancement and promotion in humiliation? For if, being God, He became man, and descending from on high He is still said to be exalted, where is He exalted, being God? this withal being plain, that, since God is highest of all, His Word must necessarily be highest also. Where then could He be exalted higher, who is in the Father and like the Father in all things [2044] ? Therefore He is beyond the need of any addition; nor is such as the Arians think Him. For though the Word has descended in order to be exalted, and so it is written, yet what need was there that He should humble Himself, as if to seek that which He had already? And what grace did He receive who is the Giver of grace [2045] ? or how did He receive that Name for worship, who is always worshipped by His Name? Nay, certainly before He became man, the sacred writers invoke Him, Save me, O God, for Thy Name's sake [2046] ;'and again, Some put their trust in chariots, and some in horses, but we will remember the Name of the Lord our God [2047] .' And while He was worshipped by the Patriarchs, concerning the Angels it is written, Let all the Angels of God worship Him [2048] .'

41. And if, as David says in the 71st Psalm, His Name remaineth before the sun, and before the moon, from one generation to another [2049] ,' how did He receive what He had always, even before He now received it? or how is He exalted, being before His exaltation the Most High? or how did He receive the right of being worshipped, who before He now received it, was ever worshipped? It is not a dark saying but a divine mystery [2050] . In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;' but for our sakes afterwards the Word was made flesh [2051] .' And the term in question, highly exalted,' does not signify that the essence of the Word was exalted, for He was ever and is equal to God [2052] ,' but the exaltation is of the manhood. Accordingly this is not said before the Word became flesh; that it might be plain that humbled' and exalted' are spoken of His human nature; for where there is humble estate, there too may be exaltation; and if because of His taking flesh humbled' is written, it is clear that highly exalted' is also said because of it. For of this was man's nature in want, because of the humble estate of the flesh and of death. Since then the Word, being the Image of the Father and immortal, took the form of the servant, and as man underwent for us death in His flesh, that thereby He might offer Himself for us through death to the Father; therefore also, as man, He is said because of us and for us to be highly exalted, that as by His death we all died in Christ, so again in the Christ Himself we might be highly exalted, being raised from the dead, and ascending into heaven, whither the forerunner Jesus is for us entered, not into the figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us [2053] .' But if now for us the Christ is entered into heaven itself, though He was even before and always Lord and Framer of the heavens, for us therefore is that present exaltation written. And as He Himself, who sanctifies all, says also that He sanctifies Himself to the Father for our sakes, not that the Word may become holy, but that He Himself may in Himself sanctify all of us, in like manner we must take the present phrase, He highly exalted Him,' not that He Himself should be exalted, for He is the highest, but that He may become righteousness for us [2054] , and we may be exalted in Him, and that we may enter the gates of heaven, which He has also opened for us, the forerunners saying, Lift up your gates, O ye rulers, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in [2055] .' For here also not on Him were shut the gates, as being Lord and Maker of all, but because of us is this too written, to whom the door of paradise was shut. And therefore in a human relation, because of the flesh which He bore, it is said of Him, Lift up your gates,' and shall come in,' as if a man were entering; but in a divine relation on the other hand it is said of Him, since the Word was God,' that He is the Lord' and the King of Glory.' Such our exaltation the Spirit foreannounced in the eighty-ninth Psalm, saying, And in Thy righteousness shall they be exalted, for Thou art the glory of their strength [2056] .' And if the Son be Righteousness, then He is not exalted as being Himself in need, but it is we who are exalted in that Righteousness, which is He [2057] .

42. And so too the words gave Him' are not written because of the Word Himself; for even before He became man He was worshipped, as we have said, by the Angels and the whole creation in virtue of being proper to the Father; but because of us and for us this too is written of Him. For as Christ died and was exalted as man, so, as man, is He said to take what, as God, He ever had, that even such a grant of grace might reach to us. For the Word was not impaired in receiving a body, that He should seek to receive a grace, but rather He deified that which He put on, and more than that, gave' it graciously to the race of man. For as He was ever worshipped as being the Word and existing in the form of God, so being what He ever was, though become man and called Jesus, He none the less has the whole creation under foot, and bending their knees to Him in this Name, and confessing that the Word's becoming flesh, and undergoing death in flesh, has not happened against the glory of His Godhead, but to the glory of God the Father.' For it is the Father's glory that man, made and then lost, should be found again; and, when dead, that he should be made alive, and should become God's temple. For whereas the powers in heaven, both Angels and Archangels, were ever worshipping the Lord, as they are now worshipping Him in the Name of Jesus, this is our grace and high exaltation, that even when He became man, the Son of God is worshipped, and the heavenly powers will not be astonished at seeing all of us, who are of one body with Him [2058] , introduced into their realms. And this had not been, unless He who existed in the form of God had taken on Him a servant's form, and had humbled Himself, yielding His body to come unto death.

43. Behold then what men considered the foolishness of God because of the Cross, has become of all things most honoured. For our resurrection is stored up in it; and no longer Israel alone, but henceforth all the nations, as the Prophet hath foretold, leave their idols and acknowledge the true God, the Father of the Christ. And the illusion of demons is come to nought, and He only who is really God is worshipped in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ [2059] . For the fact that the Lord, even when come in human body and called Jesus, was worshipped and believed to be God's Son, and that through Him the Father was known, shows, as has been said, that not the Word, considered as the Word, received this so great grace, but we. For because of our relationship to His Body we too have become God's temple, and in consequence are made God's sons, so that even in us the Lord is now worshipped, and beholders report, as the Apostle says, that God is in them of a truth [2060] . As also John says in the Gospel, As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become children of God [2061] ;' and in his Epistle he writes, By this we know that He abideth in us by His Spirit which He hath given us [2062] .' And this too is an evidence of His goodness towards us that, while we were exalted because that the Highest Lord is in us, and on our account grace was given to Him, because that the Lord who supplies the grace has become a man like us, He on the other hand, the Saviour, humbled Himself in taking our body of humiliation [2063] ,' and took a servant's form, putting on that flesh which was enslaved to sin [2064] . And He indeed has gained nothing from us for His own promotion: for the Word of God is without want and full; but rather we were promoted from Him; for He is the Light, which lighteneth every man, coming into the world [2065] .' And in vain do the Arians lay stress upon the conjunction wherefore,' because Paul has said, Wherefore, hath God highly exalted Him.' For in saying this he did not imply any prize of virtue, nor promotion from advance [2066] , but the cause why the exaltation was bestowed upon us. And what is this but that He who existed in form of God, the Son of a noble [2067] Father, humbled Himself and became a servant instead of us and in our behalf? For if the Lord had not become man, we had not been redeemed from sins, not raised from the dead, but remaining dead under the earth; not exalted into heaven, but lying in Hades. Because of us then and in our behalf are the words, highly exalted' and given.'

44. This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that, a very ecclesiastical sense [2068] . However, there is another way in which one might remark upon it, giving the same sense in a parallel way; viz. that, though it does not speak of the exaltation of the Word Himself, so far as He is Word [2069] (for He is, as was just now said, most high and like His Father), yet by reason of His becoming man it indicates His resurrection from the dead. For after saying, He hath humbled Himself even unto death,' He immediately added, Wherefore He hath highly exalted Him;' wishing to shew, that, although as man He is said to have died, yet, as being Life, He was exalted on the resurrection; for He who descended, is the same also who rose again [2070] .' He descended in body, and He rose again because He was God Himself in the body. And this again is the reason why according to this meaning he brought in the conjunction Wherefore;' not as a reward of virtue nor of advancement, but to signify the cause why the resurrection took place; and why, while all other men from Adam down to this time have died and remained dead, He only rose in integrity from the dead. The cause is this, which He Himself has already taught us, that, being God, He has become man. For all other men, being merely born of Adam, died, and death reigned over them; but He, the Second Man, is from heaven, for the Word was made flesh [2071] ,' and this Man is said to be from heaven and heavenly [2072] , because the Word descended from heaven; wherefore He was not held under death. For though He humbled Himself, yielding His own Body to come unto death, in that it was capable of death [2073] , yet He was highly exalted from earth, because He was God's Son in a body. Accordingly what is here said, Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him,' answers to Peter's words in the Acts, Whom God raised up, having loosed the bonds of death, because it was not possible that He should be holden of it [2074] .' For as Paul has written, Since being in form of God He became man, and humbled Himself unto death, therefore God also hath highly exalted Him,' so also Peter says, Since, being God, He became man, and signs and wonders proved Him to beholders to be God, therefore it was not possible that He should be holden of death.' To man it was not possible to succeed in this; for death belongs to man; wherefore, the Word, being God, became flesh, that, being put to death in the flesh, He might quicken all men by His own power.

45. But since He Himself is said to be exalted,' and God gave' Him, and the heretics think this a defect [2075] or affection in the essence [2076] of the Word, it becomes necessary to explain how these words are used. He is said to be exalted from the lower parts of the earth, because death is ascribed even to Him. Both events are reckoned His, since it was His Body [2077] , and none other's, that was exalted from the dead and taken up into heaven. And again, the Body being His, and the Word not being external to it, it is natural that when the Body was exalted, He, as man, should, because of the body, be spoken of as exalted. If then He did not become man, let this not be said of Him: but if the Word became flesh, of necessity the resurrection and exaltation, as in the case of a man, must be ascribed to Him, that the death which is ascribed to Him may be a redemption of the sin of men and an abolition of death, and that the resurrection and exaltation may for His sake remain secure for us. In both respects he hath said of Him, God hath highly exalted Him,' and God hath given to Him;' that herein moreover he may show that it is not the Father that hath become flesh, but it is His Word, who has become man, and receives after the manner of men from the Father, and is exalted by Him, as has been said. And it is plain, nor would any one dispute it, that what the Father gives, He gives through. the Son. And it is marvellous and overwhelming verily; for the grace which the Son gives from the Father, that the Son Himself is said to receive; and the exaltation, which the Son bestows from the Father, with that the Son is Himself exalted. For He who is the Son of God, became Himself the Son of Man; and, as Word, He gives from the Father, for all things which the Father does and gives, He does and supplies through Him; and as the Son of Man, He Himself is said after the manner of men to receive what proceeds from Him, because His Body is none other than His, and is a natural recipient of grace, as has been said. For He received it as far as His man's nature [2078] was exalted; which exaltation was its being deified. But such an exaltation the Word Himself always had according to the Father's Godhead and perfection, which was His [2079] . __________________________________________________________________

[2023] Vid. de Syn. 4, note 6. and cf. Tertull. de Præscr. 19. Rufinus H. E. ii. 9. Vincent. Comm. 2. Hippolytus has a passage very much to the same purpose, contr. Noet. 9 fin.

[2024] Phil. ii. 9, 10.

[2025] Ps. xlv. 7.

[2026] Of Nicomedia. vid. Theod. H. E. i. 5.

[2027] §39 end.

[2028] Is. i. 2. LXX.

[2029] Phil. ii. 8.

[2030] 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.

[2031] Prov. viii. 30.

[2032] De Syn. 27 (15).

[2033] John xvii. 5.

[2034] Ps. xviii. 9, 13.

[2035] [De Incar. 54, and note.]

[2036] Ps. lxxxii. 1; Heb. LXX.

[2037] Col. i. 15. vid. infr. ii. §62.

[2038] In this passage Athan. considers that the participation of the Word is deification, as communion with the Son is adoption: also that the old Saints, inasmuch as they are called 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.

[2039] Matt. xi. 27.

[2040] John x. 35.

[2041] p. 157, note 6.

[2042] tais ennoiais chromenoi, pros tas epinoias apentesamen. cf. ouchi epinoia, paranoia de mallon, &c. Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 6. init.

[2043] Phil. ii. 5-11.

[2044] homoios kata panta, de Syn. 21, note 10.

[2045] p. 162, note 3.

[2046] Ps. liv. 1.

[2047] Ib. xx. 7.

[2048] Heb. i. 6.

[2049] Ps. lxxii. 17, 5, LXX.

[2050] Scripture is full of mysteries, but they are mysteries of fact, not of words. Its dark sayings or ænigmata are such, because in the nature of things they cannot be expressed clearly. Hence contrariwise, Orat. ii. §77 fin. he calls Prov. viii. 22. an enigma, with an allusion to Prov. i. 6. Sept. In like manner S. Ambrose says, Mare est scriptura divina, habens in se sensus profundos, et altitudinem propheticorum ænigmatum, &c. Ep. ii. 3. What is commonly called explaining away' Scripture, is this transference of the obscurity from the subject to the words used.

[2051] John i. 1, 14.

[2052] Phil. ii. 6.

[2053] Heb. vi. 20; ix. 24.

[2054] 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 humiliatus, ibi obediens. Ex eo enim nascitur obedientia, ex quo humilitas et in eo desinit,' &c. Ap. Dav. alt. n. 39.

[2055] Ps. xxiv. 7.

[2056] Ps. lxxxix. 17, 18, LXX.

[2057] 1 Cor. i. 30.

[2058] Infr. §43.

[2059] [De Incar. §§46, 51, &c.]

[2060] ontos en humin ho theos. 1 Cor. xiv. 25. Athan. interprets en in not among; as also in 1 John iii. 24, just afterwards. Vid. en emoi. Gal. i. 24. entos humon, Luke xvii. 21, eskenosen en hemin, John i. 14, on which text Hooker says, It pleased not the Word or Wisdom of God to take to itself some one person among men, for then should that one have been advanced which was assumed and no more, but Wisdom, to the end 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.' Eccl. 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.

[2061] John i. 12.

[2062] 1 John iii. 24.

[2063] Phil. iii. 21.

[2064] 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. ii. p. 996. Accordingly, Athan. says elsewhere, Had not sinlessness appeared [cf. Rom. viii. 3, pempsas] "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. i. p. 138. And S. Leo, Non alterius naturæ erat ejus caro quam nostra, nec alio illi quam cæteris hominibus anima est inspirata principio, quæ 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 sanctify 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. iv. 48. On the other hand, S. Athanasius expressly calls it Manichean doctrine to consider ten phusin of the flesh hamartian, kai ou ten praxin. contr. Apoll. i. 12 fin. or phusiken einai ten hamartian. ibid. i. 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 (demiourgos) 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. ii. 6. he speaks of the devil having introduced the law of sin.' vid. also §9.

[2065] John i. 9.

[2066] prokopes internal advance,' Luke ii. 52.

[2067] eugenous

[2068] ekklesiastikos, vid. Serap. iv. 15. contr. Gent. 6. 7. 33.

[2069] Orat. ii. §8.

[2070] Eph. iv. 10, but anastas for anabas.

[2071] John i. 14.

[2072] In Apoll. i. 2.

[2073] 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 pathe against His will akousios; 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. i. 17, and that after the resurrection His body became incorruptible, not according to nature, but by grace. vid. Leont. de Sect. x. p. 530. Anast. Hodeg. c. 23. To express their doctrine of the huperphues 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. ii. p. 105. Leont. contr. Nest. i. p. 967. Pseudo-Athan. Serm. adv. Div. Hær. §8. (t. 2. p. 570.)

[2074] Acts ii. 24.

[2075] elattoma, ad Adelph. 4.

[2076] 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 ousias, 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. ii. §3 (2) a.] Just below we find phusis tou logou, §51 init.

[2077] 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 theotokos, 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.

[2078] ton anthropon.

[2079] ten patriken heautou theoteta, cf. de Syn. 45, note 1. __________________________________________________________________

Chapter XII.--Texts Explained; Secondly, Psalm xlv. 7, 8. Whether the

Chapter XII.--Texts Explained; Secondly, Psalm xlv. 7, 8. Whether the words therefore,' anointed,' &c., imply that the Word has been rewarded. Argued against first from the word fellows' or partakers.' He is anointed with the Spirit in His manhood to sanctify human nature. Therefore the Spirit descended on Him in Jordan, when in the flesh. And He is said to sanctify Himself for us, and give us the glory He has received. The word wherefore' implies His divinity. Thou hast loved righteousness,' &c., do not imply trial or choice.

46. Such an explanation of the Apostle's words confutes the irreligious men; and what the sacred poet says admits also the same orthodox sense, which they misinterpret, but which in the Psalmist is manifestly religious. He says then, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy Kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity, therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows [2080] .' Behold, O ye Arians, and acknowledge even hence the truth. The Singer speaks of us all as fellows' or partakers' of the Lord: but were He one of things which come out of nothing and of things originate, He Himself had been one of those who partake. But, since he hymned Him as the eternal God, saying, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,' and has declared that all other things partake of Him, what conclusion must we draw, but that He is distinct from originated things, and He only the Father's veritable Word, Radiance, and Wisdom, which all things originate partake [2081] , being sanctified by Him in the Spirit [2082] ? And therefore He is here anointed,' not that He may become God, for He was so even before; nor that He may become King, for He had the Kingdom eternally, existing as God's Image, as the sacred Oracle shews; but in our behalf is this written, as before. For the Israelitish kings, upon their being anointed, then became kings, not being so before, as David, as Hezekiah, as Josiah, and the rest; but the Saviour on the contrary, being God, and ever ruling in the Father's Kingdom, and being Himself He that supplies the Holy Ghost, nevertheless is here said to be anointed, that, as before, being said as man to be anointed with the Spirit, He might provide for us men, not only exaltation and resurrection, but the indwelling and intimacy of the Spirit. And signifying this the Lord Himself hath said by His own mouth in the Gospel according to John, I have sent them into the world, and for their sakes do I sanctify Myself, that they may be sanctified in the truth [2083] .' In saying this He has shown that He is not the sanctified, but the Sanctifier; for He is not sanctified by other, but Himself sanctifies Himself, that we may be sanctified in the truth. He who sanctifies Himself is Lord of sanctification. How then does this take place? What does He mean but this? I, being the Father's Word, I give to Myself, when becoming man, the Spirit; and Myself, become man, do I sanctify in Him, that henceforth in Me, who am Truth (for "Thy Word is Truth"), all may be sanctified.'

47. If then for our sake He sanctifies Himself, and does this when He is become man, it is very plain that the Spirit's descent on Him in Jordan was a descent upon us, because of His bearing our body. And it did not take place for promotion to the Word, but again for our sanctification, that we might share His anointing, and of us it might be said, Know ye not that ye are God's Temple, and the Spirit of God dwelleth in you [2084] ?' For when the Lord, as man, was washed in Jordan, it was we who were washed in Him and by Him [2085] . And when He received the Spirit, we it was who by Him were made recipients of It. And moreover for this reason, not as Aaron or David or the rest, was He anointed with oil, but in another way above all His fellows, with the oil of gladness,' which He Himself interprets to be the Spirit, saying by the Prophet, The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because the Lord hath anointed Me [2086] ;' as also the Apostle has said, How God anointed Him with the Holy Ghost. [2087] ' When then were these things spoken of Him but when He came in the flesh and was baptized in Jordan, and the Spirit descended on Him? And indeed the Lord Himself said, The Spirit shall take of Mine;' and I will send Him;' and to His disciples, Receive ye the Holy Ghost [2088] .' And notwithstanding, He who, as the Word and Radiance of the Father, gives to others, now is said to be sanctified, because now He has become man, and the Body that is sanctified is His. From Him then we have begun to receive the unction and the seal, John saying, And ye have an unction from the Holy One;' and the Apostle, And ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise [2089] .' Therefore because of us and for us are these words. What advance then of promotion, and reward of virtue or generally of conduct, is proved from this in our Lord's instance? For if He was not God, and then had become God, if not being King He was preferred to the Kingdom, your reasoning would have had some faint plausibility. But if He is God and the throne of His kingdom is everlasting, in what way could God advance? or what was there wanting to Him who was sitting on His Father's throne? And if, as the Lord Himself has said, the Spirit is His, and takes of His, and He sends It, it is not the Word, considered as the Word and Wisdom, who is anointed with the Spirit which He Himself gives, but the flesh assumed by Him which is anointed in Him and by Him [2090] ; that the sanctification coming to the Lord as man, may come to all men from Him. For not of Itself, saith He, doth the Spirit speak, but the Word is He who gives It to the worthy. For this is like the passage considered above; for as the Apostle has written, Who existing in form of God thought it not a prize to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, and took a servant's form,' so David celebrates the Lord, as the everlasting God and King, but sent to us and assuming our body which is mortal. For this is his meaning in the Psalm, All thy garments [2091] smell of myrrh, aloes, and cassia;' and it is represented by Nicodemus and by Mary's company, when the one came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pounds weight;' and the others [2092] the spices which they had prepared' for the burial of the Lord's body.

48. What advancement then was it to the Immortal to have assumed the mortal? or what promotion is it to the Everlasting to have put on the temporal? what reward can be great to the Everlasting God and King in the bosom of the Father? See ye not, that this too was done and written because of us and for us, that us who are mortal and temporal, the Lord, become man, might make immortal, and bring into the everlasting kingdom of heaven? Blush ye not, speaking lies against the divine oracles? For when our Lord Jesus Christ had been among us, we indeed were promoted, as rescued from sin; but He is the same [2093] ; nor did He alter, when He became man (to repeat what I have said), but, as has been written, The Word of God abideth for ever [2094] .' Surely as, before His becoming man, He, the Word, dispensed to the saints the Spirit as His own [2095] , so also when made man, He sanctifies all by the Spirit and says to His Disciples, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.' And He gave to Moses and the other seventy; and through Him David prayed to the Father, saying, Take not Thy Holy Spirit from me [2096] .' On the other hand, when made man, He said, I will send to you the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth [2097] ;' and He sent Him, He, the Word of God, as being faithful. Therefore Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever [2098] ,' remaining unalterable, and at once gives and receives, giving as God's Word, receiving as man. It is not the Word then, viewed as the Word, that is promoted; for He had all things and has them always; but men, who have in Him and through Him their origin [2099] of receiving them. For, when He is now said to be anointed in a human respect, we it is who in Him are anointed; since also when He is baptized, we it is who in Him are baptized. But on all these things the Saviour throws much light, when He says to the Father, And the glory which Thou gavest Me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as We are one [2100] .' Because of us then He asked for glory, and the words occur, took' and gave' and highly exalted,' that we might take, and to us might be given, and we might be exalted in Him; as also for us He sanctifies Himself, that we might be sanctified in Him [2101] .

49. But if they take advantage of the word wherefore,' as connected with the passage in the Psalm, Wherefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee,' for their own purposes, let these novices in Scripture and masters in irreligion know, that, as before, the word wherefore' does not imply reward of virtue or conduct in the Word, but the reason why He came down to us, and of the Spirit's anointing which took place in Him for our sakes. For He says not, Wherefore He anointed Thee in order to Thy being God or King or Son or Word;' for so He was before and is for ever, as has been shewn; but rather, Since Thou art God and King, therefore Thou wast anointed, since none but Thou couldest unite man to the Holy Ghost, Thou the Image of the Father, in which [2102] we were made in the beginning; for Thine is even the Spirit.' For the nature of things originate could give no warranty for this, Angels having transgressed, and men disobeyed [2103] . Wherefore there was need of God and the Word is God; that those who had become under a curse, He Himself might set free. If then He was of nothing, He would not have been the Christ or Anointed, being one among others and having fellowship as the rest [2104] . But, whereas He is God, as being Son of God, and is everlasting King, and exists as Radiance and Expression [2105] of the Father, therefore fitly is He the expected Christ, whom the Father announces to mankind, by revelation to His holy Prophets; that as through Him we have come to be, so also in Him all men might be redeemed from their sins, and by Him all things might be ruled [2106] . And this is the cause of the anointing which took place in Him, and of the incarnate presence of the Word [2107] , which the Psalmist foreseeing, celebrates, first His Godhead and kingdom, which is the Father's, in these tones, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy Kingdom [2108] ;' then announces His descent to us thus, Wherefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows [2109] .'

50. What is there to wonder at, what to disbelieve, if the Lord who gives the Spirit, is here said Himself to be anointed with the Spirit, at a time when, necessity requiring it, He did not refuse in respect of His manhood to call Himself inferior to the Spirit? For the Jews saying that He cast out devils in Beelzebub, He answered and said to them, for the exposure of their blasphemy, But if I through the Spirit of God cast out demons [2110] .' Behold, the Giver of the Spirit here says that He cast out demons in the Spirit; but this is not said, except because of His flesh. For since man's nature is not equal of itself to casting out demons, but only in power of the Spirit, therefore as man He said, But if I through the Spirit of God cast out demons.' Of course too He signified that the blasphemy offered to the Holy Ghost is greater than that against His humanity, when He said, Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him;' such as were those who said, Is not this the carpenter's son [2111] ?' but they who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, and ascribe the deeds of the Word to the devil, shall have inevitable punishment [2112] . This is what the Lord spoke to the Jews, as man; but to the disciples shewing His Godhead and His majesty, and intimating that He was not inferior but equal to the Spirit, He gave the Spirit and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost,' and I send Him,' and He shall glorify Me,' and Whatsoever He heareth, that He shall speak [2113] .' As then in this place the Lord Himself, the Giver of the Spirit, does not refuse to say that through the Spirit He casts out demons, as man; in like manner He the same, the Giver of the Spirit, refused not to say, The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me [2114] ,' in respect of His having become flesh, as John hath said; that it might be shewn in both these particulars, that we are they who need the Spirit's grace in our sanctification, and again who are unable to cast out demons without the Spirit's power. Through whom then and from whom behoved it that the Spirit should be given but through the Son, whose also the Spirit is? and when were we enabled to receive It, except when the Word became man? and, as the passage of the Apostle shews, that we had not been redeemed and highly exalted, had not He who exists in form of God taken a servant's form, so David also shews, that no otherwise should we have partaken the Spirit and been sanctified, but that the Giver of the Spirit, the Word Himself, hast spoken of Himself as anointed with the Spirit for us. And therefore have we securely received it, He being said to be anointed in the flesh; for the flesh being first sanctified in Him [2115] , and He being said, as man, to have received for its sake, we have the sequel of the Spirit grace, receiving out of His fulness [2116] .'

51. Nor do the words, Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity,' which are added in the Psalm, show, as again you suppose, that the Nature of the Word is alterable, but rather by their very force signify His unalterableness. For since of things originate the nature is alterable, and the one portion had transgressed and the other disobeyed, as has been said, and it is not certain how they will act, but it often happens that he who is now good afterwards alters and becomes different, so that one who was but now righteous, soon is found unrighteous, wherefore there was here also need of one unalterable, that men might have the immutability of the righteousness of the Word as an image and type for virtue [2117] . And this thought commends itself strongly to the right-minded. For since the first man Adam altered, and through sin death came into the world, therefore it became the second Adam to be unalterable; that, should the Serpent again assault, even the Serpent's deceit might be baffled, and, the Lord being unalterable and unchangeable, the Serpent might become powerless in his assault against all. For as when Adam had transgressed, his sin reached unto all men, so, when the Lord had become man and had overthrown the Serpent, that so great strength of His is to extend through all men, so that each of us may say, For we are not ignorant of his devices. [2118] ' Good reason then that the Lord, who ever is in nature unalterable, loving righteousness and hating iniquity, should be anointed and Himself sent, that, He, being and remaining the same [2119] , by taking this alterable flesh, might condemn sin in it [2120] ,' and might secure its freedom, and its ability [2121] henceforth to fulfil the righteousness of the law' in itself, so as to be able to say, But we are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in us [2122] .'

52. Vainly then, here again, O Arians, have ye made this conjecture, and vainly alleged the words of Scripture; for God's Word is unalterable, and is ever in one state, not as it may happen [2123] , but as the Father is; since how is He like the Father, unless He be thus? or how is all that is the Father's the Son's also, if He has not the unalterableness and unchangeableness of the Father [2124] ? Not as being subject to laws [2125] , and biassed to one side, does He love the one and hate the other, lest, if from fear of falling away He chooses the one, we admit that He is alterable otherwise also; but, as being God and the Father's Word, He is a just judge and lover of virtue, or rather its dispenser. Therefore being just and holy by nature, on this account He is said to love righteousness and to hate iniquity; as much as to say, that He loves and chooses the virtuous, and rejects and hates the unrighteous. And divine Scripture says the same of the Father; The Righteous Lord loveth righteousness; Thou hatest all them that work iniquity [2126] ,' and The Lord loveth the gates of Sion, more than all the dwellings of Jacob [2127] ;' and, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated [2128] ;' and in Isaiah there is the voice of God again saying, I the Lord love righteousness, and hate robbery of unrighteousness [2129] .' Let them then expound those former words as these latter; for the former also are written of the Image of God: else, misinterpreting these as those, they will conceive that the Father too is alterable. But since the very hearing others say this is not without peril, we do well to think that God is said to love righteousness and to hate robbery of unrighteousness, not as if biassed to one side, and capable of the contrary, so as to select the latter and not choose the former, for this belongs to things originated, but that, as a judge, He loves and takes to Him the righteous and withdraws from the bad. It follows then to think the same concerning the Image of God also, that He loves and hates no otherwise than thus. For such must be the nature of the Image as is Its Father, though the Arians in their blindness fail to see either that image or any other truth of the divine oracles. For being forced from the conceptions or rather misconceptions [2130] of their own hearts, they fall back upon passages of divine Scripture, and here too from want of understanding, according to their wont, they discern not their meaning; but laying down their own irreligion as a sort of canon of interpretation [2131] , they wrest the whole of the divine oracles into accordance with it. And so on the bare mention of such doctrine, they deserve nothing but the reply, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God [2132] ;' and if they persist in it, they must be put to silence, by the words, Render to' man the things that are' man's, and to God the things that are' God's [2133] . __________________________________________________________________

[2080] Ps. xlv. 7, 8.

[2081] p. 156, note 4.

[2082] It is here said that all things originate' partake the Son and are sanctified' by the Spirit. How a gennesis 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. iv. 9. vid. himself. de Incarn. 11. These offices of the Son and the Spirit are contrasted by S. Basil, in his de Sp. S. ton prostattonta kurion, ton demiourgounta logon, to stereoun pneuma, &c. c. 16. n. 38.

[2083] John xvii. 18, 19, vid. Cyril, Thesaur. 20.

[2084] 1 Cor. iii. 16.

[2085] Pusey on Baptism, 2nd Ed. pp. 275-293.

[2086] Isai. lxi. 1.

[2087] Acts x. 38.

[2088] John xvi. 14, 7; xx. 22.

[2089] 1 John ii. 20; Eph. i. 13.

[2090] Elsewhere Athan. says that our Lord's Godhead was the immediate anointing or chrism of the manhood He assumed, in Apollin. ii. 3, Orat. iv. §36. vid. Origen. Periarch. ii. 6. n. 4. And S. Greg. Naz. still more expressly, and from the same text as Athan. Orat. x. fin. Again, This [the Godhead] is the anointing of the manhood, not sanctifying by an energy as the other Christs [anointed] but by a presence of Him whole who anointed, holou tou chriontos; whence it came to pass that what anointed was called man and what was anointed was made God.' Orat. xxx. 20. Damasc. F. O. iii. 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 Luke iv. 18; Acts x. 38.

[2091] Ps. xlv. 8. Our Lord's manhood is spoken of as a 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. ii. 8. On the Apollinarian abuse of the idea, vid. note in loc.

[2092] John xix. 39; Luke xxiv. 1.

[2093] p. 159, note 8.

[2094] Isai. xl. 8. logos but rhema. LXX.

[2095] §39, note 4.

[2096] Ps. li. 11.

[2097] John xv. 26.

[2098] Heb. xiii. 8.

[2099] The word origin, arche, 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 Matt. lxxxii. 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 (anaphurei heauton hemin), nor merely by faith, but really, has He made us His body.' Again, That we are commingled (anakerasthomen) 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 nostræ cruditate, sanctificavit in æternum 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.' Eccl. Pol. v. 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.

[2100] John xvii. 22.

[2101] Cyril, Thesaur. 20. p. 197.

[2102] §51, note 1.

[2103] angelon men parabanton, anthropon de parakousanton. vid. infr. §51. init. Cf. ad Afr. 7. vid. de Decr. 19, note 3. infr. Orat. ii. iii. Cyril. in Joann. lib. v. 2. On the subject of the sins of Angels, vid. Huet. Origen. ii. 5. §16. Petav. Dogm. t. 3. p. 87. Dissert. Bened. in Cyril. Hier. iii. 5. Natal. Alex. Hist. Æt. i. Diss. 7.

[2104] De Decr. 10, note 4.

[2105] Heb. i. 3.

[2106] 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 l. 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.

[2107] ensarkos parousia. This phrase which has occurred above, §8. is very frequent with Athan. vid. also Cyril. Catech. iii. 11. xii. 15. xiv. 27, 30, Epiph. Hær. 77. 17. The Eutychians avail themselves of it at the Council of Constantinople, vid. Hard. Conc. t. 2. pp. 164, 236.

[2108] Ps. xlv. 6.

[2109] Ib. 7

[2110] Matt. xii. 28.

[2111] Matt. xii. 32; xiii. 55.

[2112] [Cf. Prolegg. ch. iii. §1 (22).].

[2113] John xx. 22; xvi. 13, 14.

[2114] Is. lxi. 1.

[2115] §48, note 7.

[2116] John i. 16.

[2117] 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. v. 2. p. 473; vid. also Thesaur. 20. p. 198. August. de Corr. et Grat. 10-12. Damasc. F. O. iv. 4. But the words of Athan. embrace too many subjects to illustrate distinctly in a note.

[2118] 2 Cor. ii. 11.

[2119] §48, note 1.

[2120] Rom. viii. 3; ib. 4.

[2121] Cf. de Incarn. 7, Orat. ii. 68.

[2122] Rom. viii. 9.

[2123] haplos, ouk haplos horisthe, all' akribos exetasthe. Socr. i. 9. p. 31.

[2124] John xvii. 10, §35, note 2.

[2125] Eunomius said that our Lord was utterly separate from the Father, by natural law,' nomo phuseos; S. Basil observes, as if the God of all had not power over Himself, heautou kurios, but were in bondage under the decrees of necessity.' contr. Eunom. ii. 30.

[2126] Ps. xi. 7; v. 5.

[2127] Ib. lxxxvii. 2.

[2128] Mal. i. 2, 3.

[2129] Is. lxi. 8.

[2130] ennoion mallon de paranoion, vid. §40, note 1.

[2131] 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 existence,' &c. &c., and so the word ageneton.

[2132] Matt. xxii. 29.

[2133] Ib. xxii. 21. __________________________________________________________________

Chapter XIII.--Texts Explained; Thirdly, Hebrews i. 4. Additional texts

Chapter XIII.--Texts Explained; Thirdly, Hebrews i. 4. Additional texts brought as objections; e.g. Heb. i. 4; vii. 22. Whether the word better' implies likeness to the Angels; and made' or become' implies creation. Necessary to consider the circumstances under which Scripture speaks. Difference between better' and greater;' texts in proof. Made' or become' a general word. Contrast in Heb. i. 4, between the Son and the Works in point of nature. The difference of the punishments under the two Covenants shews the difference of the natures of the Son and the Angels. Become' relates not to the nature of the Word, but to His manhood and office and relation towards us. Parallel passages in which the term is applied to the Eternal Father.

53. But it is written, say they, in the Proverbs, The Lord created me the beginning of His ways, for His Works [2134] ;' and in the Epistle to the Hebrews the Apostle says, Being made so much better than the Angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name than they [2135] .' And soon after, Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus, who was faithful to Him that made Him [2136] .' And in the Acts, Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus whom ye have crucified both Lord and Christ [2137] .' These passages they brought forward at every turn, mistaking their sense, under the idea that they proved that the Word of God was a creature and work and one of things originate; and thus they deceive the thoughtless, making the language of Scripture their pretence, but instead of the true sense sowing upon it the poison of their own heresy. For had they known, they would not have been irreligious against the Lord of glory [2138] ,' nor have wrested the good words of Scripture. If then henceforward openly adopting Caiaphas's way, they have determined on judaizing, and are ignorant of the text, that verily God shall dwell upon the earth [2139] , let them not inquire into the Apostolical sayings; for this is not the manner of Jews. But if, mixing themselves up with the godless Manichees [2140] , they deny that the Word was made flesh,' and His Incarnate presence, then let them not bring forward the Proverbs, for this is out of place with the Manichees. But if for preferment-sake, and the lucre of avarice which follows [2141] , and the desire for good repute, they venture not on denying the text, The Word was made flesh,' since so it is written, either let them rightly interpret the words of Scripture, of the embodied presence of the Saviour, or, if they deny their sense, let them deny that the Lord became man at all. For it is unseemly, while confessing that the Word became flesh,' yet to be ashamed at what is written of Him, and on that account to corrupt the sense.

54. For it is written, So much better than the Angels;' let us then first examine this. Now it is right and necessary, as in all divine Scripture, so here, faithfully to expound the time of which the Apostle wrote, and the person [2142] , and the point; lest the reader, from ignorance missing either these or any similar particular, may be wide of the true sense. This understood that inquiring eunuch, when he thus besought Philip, I pray thee, of whom doth the Prophet speak this? of himself, or of some other man [2143] ?' for he feared lest, expounding the lesson unsuitably to the person, he should wander from the right sense. And the disciples, wishing to learn the time of what was foretold, besought the Lord, Tell us,' said they, when shall these things be? and what is the sign of Thy coming [2144] ?' And again, hearing from the Saviour the events of the end, they desired to learn the time of it, that they might be kept from error themselves, and might be able to teach others; as, for instance, when they had learned, they set right the Thessalonians [2145] , who were going wrong. When then one knows properly these points, his understanding of the faith is right and healthy; but if he mistakes any such points, forthwith he falls into heresy. Thus Hymenæus and Alexander and their fellows [2146] were beside the time, when they said that the resurrection had already been; and the Galatians were after the time, in making much of circumcision now. And to miss the person was the lot of the Jews, and is still, who think that of one of themselves is said, Behold, the Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and they shall call his Name Emmanuel, which is being interpreted, God with us [2147] ;' and that, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up to you [2148] ,' is spoken of one of the Prophets; and who, as to the words, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter [2149] ,' instead of learning from Philip, conjecture them spoken of Isaiah or some other of the former Prophets [2150] .

55. (3.) Such has been the state of mind under which Christ's enemies have fallen into their execrable heresy. For had they known the person, and the subject, and the season of the Apostle's words, they would not have expounded of Christ's divinity what belongs to His manhood, nor in their folly have committed so great an act of irreligion. Now this will be readily seen, if one expounds properly the beginning of this lection. For the Apostle says, God who at sundry times and divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son [2151] ;' then again shortly after he says, when He had by Himself purged our sins, He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the Angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name than they [2152] .' It appears then that the Apostle's words make mention of that time, when God spoke unto us by His Son, and when a purging of sins took place. Now when did He speak unto us by His Son, and when did purging of sins take place? and when did He become man? when, but subsequently to the Prophets in the last days? Next, proceeding with his account of the economy in which we were concerned, and speaking of the last times, he is naturally led to observe that not even in the former times was God silent with men, but spoke to them by the Prophets. And, whereas the prophets ministered, and the Law was spoken by Angels, while the Son too came on earth, and that in order to minister, he was forced to add, Become so much better than the Angels,' wishing to shew that, as much as the son excels a servant, so much also the ministry of the Son is better than the ministry of servants. Contrasting then the old ministry and the new, the Apostle deals freely with the Jews, writing and saying, Become so much better than the Angels.' This is why throughout he uses no comparison, such as become greater,' or more honourable,' lest we should think of Him and them as one in kind, but better' is his word, by way of marking the difference of the Son's nature from things originated. And of this we have proof from divine Scripture; David, for instance, saying in the Psalm, One day in Thy courts is better than a thousand [2153] :' and Solomon crying out, Receive my instruction and not silver, and knowledge rather than choice gold. For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it [2154] .' Are not wisdom and stones of the earth different in essence and separate in nature? Are heavenly courts at all akin to earthly houses? Or is there any similarity between things eternal and spiritual, and things temporal and mortal? And this is what Isaiah says, Thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep My sabbaths, and choose the things that please Me, and take hold of My Covenant; even unto them will I give in Mine house, and within My walls, a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off [2155] .' In like manner there is nought akin between the Son and the Angels; so that the word better' is not used to compare but to contrast, because of the difference of His nature from them. And therefore the Apostle also himself, when he interprets the word better,' places its force in nothing short of the Son's excellence over things originated, calling the one Son, the other servants; the one, as a Son with the Father, sitting on the right; and the others, as servants, standing before Him, and being sent, and fulfilling offices.

56. Scripture, in speaking thus, implies, O Arians, not that the Son is originate, but rather other than things originate, and proper to the Father, being in His bosom. (4.) Nor [2156] does even the expression become,' which here occurs, shew that the Son is originate, as ye suppose. If indeed it were simply become' and no more, a case might stand for the Arians; but, whereas they are forestalled with the word Son' throughout the passage, shewing that He is other than things originate, so again not even the word become' occurs absolutely [2157] , but better' is immediately subjoined. For the writer thought the expression immaterial, knowing that in the case of one who was confessedly a genuine Son, to say become' is the same with saying that He had been made, and is, better.' For it matters not even if we speak of what is generate, as become' or made;' but on the contrary, things originate cannot be called generate, God's handiwork as they are, except so far as after their making they partake of the generate Son, and are therefore said to have been generated also, not at all in their own nature, but because of their participation of the Son in the Spirit [2158] . And this again divine Scripture recognises; for it says in the case of things originate, All things came to be through Him, and without Him nothing came to be [2159] ,' and, In wisdom hast Thou made them all [2160] ;' but in the case of sons which are generate, To Job there came to be seven sons and three daughters [2161] ,' and, Abraham was an hundred years old when there came to be to him Isaac his son [2162] ;' and Moses said [2163] , If to any one there come to be sons.' Therefore since the Son is other than things originate, alone the proper offspring of the Father's essence, this plea of the Arians about the word become' is worth nothing.

(5.) If moreover, baffled so far, they should still violently insist that the language is that of comparison, and that comparison in consequence implies oneness of kind, so that the Son is of the nature of Angels, they will in the first place incur the disgrace of rivalling and repeating what Valentinus held, and Carpocrates, and those other heretics, of whom the former said that the Angels were one in kind with the Christ, and Carpocrates that Angels are framers of the world [2164] . Perchance it is under the instruction of these masters that they compare the Word of God with the Angels.

57. Though surely amid such speculations, they will be moved by the sacred poet, saying, Who is he among the gods that shall be like unto the Lord [2165] ,' and, Among the gods there is none like unto Thee, O Lord [2166] .' However, they must be answered, with the chance of their profiting by it, that comparison confessedly does belong to subjects one in kind, not to those which differ. No one, for instance, would compare God with man, or again man with brutes, nor wood with stone, because their natures are unlike; but God is beyond comparison, and man is compared to man, and wood to wood, and stone to stone. Now in such cases we should not speak of better,' but of rather' and more;' thus Joseph was comely rather than his brethren, and Rachel than Leah; star [2167] is not better than star, but is the rather excellent in glory; whereas in bringing together things which differ in kind, then better' is used to mark the difference, as has been said in the case of wisdom and jewels. Had then the Apostle said, by so much has the Son precedence of the Angels,' or by so much greater,' you would have had a plea, as if the Son were compared with the Angels; but, as it is, in saying that He is better,' and differs as far as Son from servants, the Apostle shews that He is other than the Angels in nature.

(6.) Moreover by saying that He it is who has laid the foundation of all things [2168] ,' he shews that He is other than all things originate. But if He be other and different in essence from their nature, what comparison of His essence can [2169] there be, or what likeness to them? though, even if they have any such thoughts, Paul shall refute them, who speaks to the very point, For unto which of the Angels said He at any time, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee? And of the Angels He saith, Who maketh His Angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire [2170] .'

58. Observe here, the word made' belongs to things originate, and he calls them things made; but to the Son he speaks not of making, nor of becoming, but of eternity and kingship, and a Framer's office, exclaiming, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever;' and, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Thine hands; they shall perish, but Thou remainest.' From which words even they, were they but willing, might perceive that the Framer is other than things framed, the former God, the latter things originate, made out of nothing. For what has been said, They shall perish,' is said, not as if the creation were destined for destruction, but to express the nature of things originate by the issue to which they tend [2171] . For things which admit of perishing, though through the grace [2172] of their Maker they perish not, yet have come out of nothing, and themselves witness that they once were not. And on this account, since their nature is such, it is said of the Son, Thou remainest,' to shew His eternity; for not having the capacity of perishing, as things originate have, but having eternal duration, it is foreign to Him to have it said, He was not before His generation,' but proper to Him to be always, and to endure together with the Father. And though the Apostle had not thus written in his Epistle to the Hebrews, still his other Epistles, and the whole of Scripture, would certainly forbid their entertaining such notions concerning the Word. But since he has here expressly written it, and, as has been above shewn, the Son is Offspring of the Father's essence, and He is Framer, and other things are framed by Him, and He is the Radiance and Word and Image and Wisdom of the Father, and things originate stand and serve in their place below the Triad, therefore the Son is different in kind and different in essence from things originate, and on the contrary is proper to the Father's essence and one in nature with it [2173] . And hence it is that the Son too says not, My Father is better than I [2174] ,' lest we should conceive Him to be foreign to His Nature, but greater,' not indeed in greatness, nor in time, but because of His generation from the Father Himself [2175] , nay, in saying greater' He again shows that He is proper to His essence.

59. (7). And the Apostle's own reason for saying, so much better than the Angels,' was not any wish in the first instance to compare the essence [2176] of the Word to things originate (for He cannot be compared, rather they are incommeasurable), but regarding the Word's visitation in the flesh, and the Economy which He then sustained, he wished to show that He was not like those who had gone before Him; so that, as much as He excelled in nature those who were sent afore by Him, by so much also the grace which came from and through Him was better than the ministry through Angels [2177] . For it is the function of servants, to demand the fruits and no more; but of the Son and Master to forgive the debts and to transfer the vineyard.

(8.) Certainly what the Apostle proceeds to say shews the excellence of the Son over things originate; Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by Angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him [2178] .' But if the Son were in the number of things originate, He was not better than they, nor did disobedience involve increase of punishment because of Him; any more than in the Ministry of Angels there was not, according to each Angel, greater or less guilt in the transgressors, but the Law was one, and one was its vengeance on transgressors. But, whereas the Word is not in the number of originate things, but is Son of the Father, therefore, as He Himself is better and His acts better and transcendent, so also the punishment is worse. Let them contemplate then the grace which is through the Son, and let them acknowledge the witness which He gives even from His works, that He is other than things originated, and alone the very Son in the Father and the Father in Him. And the Law [2179] was spoken by Angels, and perfected no one [2180] , needing the visitation of the Word, as Paul hath said; but that visitation has perfected the work of the Father. And then, from Adam unto Moses death reigned [2181] ; but the presence of the Word abolished death [2182] . And no longer in Adam are we all dying [2183] ; but in Christ we are all reviving. And then, from Dan to Beersheba was the Law proclaimed, and in Judæa only was God known; but now, unto all the earth has gone forth their voice, and all the earth has been filled with the knowledge of God [2184] , and the disciples have made disciples of all the nations [2185] , and now is fulfilled what is written, They shall be all taught of God [2186] .' And then what was revealed was but a type; but now the truth has been manifested. And this again the Apostle himself describes afterwards more clearly, saying, By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament;' and again, But now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.' And, For the Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did.' And again he says, It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these [2187] .' Both in the verse before us, then, and throughout, does he ascribe the word better' to the Lord, who is better and other than originated things. For better is the sacrifice through Him, better the hope in Him; and also the promises through Him, not merely as great compared with small, but the one differing from the other in nature, because He who conducts this economy, is better' than things originated.

60. (9.) Moreover the words He is become surety' denote the pledge in our behalf which He has provided. For as, being the Word,' He became flesh [2188] ' and become' we ascribe to the flesh, for it is originated and created, so do we here the expression He is become,' expounding it according to a second sense, viz. because He has become man. And let these contentious men know, that they fail in this their perverse purpose; let them know that Paul does not signify that His essence [2189] has become, knowing, as he did, that He is Son and Wisdom and Radiance and Image of the Father; but here too he refers the word become' to the ministry of that covenant, in which death which once ruled is abolished. Since here also the ministry through Him has become better, in that what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh [2190] ,' ridding it of the trespass, in which, being continually held captive, it admitted not the Divine mind. And having rendered the flesh capable of the Word, He made us walk, no longer according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit, and say again and again, But we are not in the flesh but in the Spirit,' and, For the Son of God came into the world, not to judge the world, but to redeem all men, and that the world might be saved through Him [2191] .' Formerly the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but now the Word has taken on Himself the judgment, and having suffered in the body for all, has bestowed salvation to all [2192] . With a view to this has John exclaimed, The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ [2193] .' Better is grace than the Law, and truth than the shadow.

61. (10.) Better' then, as has been said, could not have been brought to pass by any other than the Son, who sits on the right hand of the Father. And what does this denote but the Son's genuineness, and that the Godhead of the Father is the same as the Son's [2194] ? For in that the Son reigns in His Father's kingdom, is seated upon the same throne as the Father, and is contemplated in the Father's Godhead, therefore is the Word God, and whoso beholds the Son, beholds the Father; and thus there is one God. Sitting then on the right, yet He does not place His Father on the left [2195] ; but whatever is right [2196] and precious in the Father, that also the Son has, and says, All things that the Father hath are Mine [2197] .' Wherefore also the Son, though sitting on the right, also sees the Father on the right, though it be as become man that He says, I saw the Lord always before My face, for He is on My right hand, therefore I shall not fall [2198] .' This shews moreover that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son; for the Father being on the right, the Son is on the right; and while the Son sits on the right of the Father, the Father is in the Son. And the Angels indeed minister ascending and descending; but concerning the Son he saith, And let all the Angels of God worship Him [2199] .' And when Angels minister, they say, I am sent unto thee,' and, The Lord has commanded;' but the Son, though He say in human fashion, I am sent [2200] ,' and comes to finish the work and to minister, nevertheless says, as being Word and Image, I am in the Father, and the Father in Me;' and, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father;' and, The Father that abideth in Me, He doeth the works [2201] ;' for what we behold in that Image are the Father's works.

(11.) What has been already said ought to shame those persons who are fighting against the very truth; however, if, because it is written, become better,' they refuse to understand become,' as used of the Son, as has been and is [2202] ;' or again as referring to the better covenant having come to be [2203] , as we have said, but consider from this expression that the Word is called originate, let them hear the same again in a concise form, since they have forgotten what has been said.

62. If the Son be in the number of the Angels, then let the word become' apply to Him as to them, and let Him not differ at all from them in nature; but be they either sons with Him, or be He an Angel with them; sit they one and all together on the right hand of the Father, or be the Son standing with them all as a ministering Spirit, sent forth to minister Himself as they are. But if on the other hand Paul distinguishes the Son from things originate, saying, To which of the Angels said He at any time, Thou art My Son?' and the one frames heaven and earth, but they are made by Him; and He sitteth with the Father, but they stand by ministering, who does not see that he has not used the word become' of the essence of the Word, but of the ministration come through Him? For as, being the Word,' He became flesh,' so when become man, He became by so much better in His ministry, than the ministry which came by the Angels, as Son excels servants and Framer things framed. Let them cease therefore to take the word become' of the substance of the Son, for He is not one of originated things; and let them acknowledge that it is indicative of His ministry and the Economy which came to pass.

(12.) But how He became better in His ministry, being better in nature than things originate, appears from what has been said before, which, I consider, is sufficient in itself to put them to shame. But if they carry on the contest, it will be proper upon their rash daring to close with them, and to oppose to them those similar expressions which are used concerning the Father Himself. This may serve to shame them to refrain their tongue from evil, or may teach them the depth of their folly. Now it is written, Become my strong rock and house of defence, that Thou mayest save me [2204] .' And again, The Lord became a defence for the oppressed [2205] ,' and the like which are found in divine Scripture. If then they apply these passages to the Son, which perhaps is nearest to the truth, then let them acknowledge that the sacred writers ask Him, as not being originate, to become to them a strong rock and house of defence;' and for the future let them understand become,' and He made,' and He created,' of His incarnate presence. For then did He become a strong rock and house of defence,' when He bore our sins in His own body upon the tree, and said, Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest [2206] .'

63. But if they refer these passages to the Father, will they, when it is here also written, Become' and He became,' venture so far as to affirm that God is originate? Yea, they will dare, as they thus argue concerning His Word; for the course of their argument carries them on to conjecture the same things concerning the Father, as they devise concerning His Word. But far be such a notion ever from the thoughts of all the faithful! for neither is the Son in the number of things originated, nor do the words of Scripture in question, Become,' and He became,' denote beginning of being, but that succour which was given to the needy. For God is always, and one and the same; but men have come to be afterwards through the Word, when the Father Himself willed it; and God is invisible and inaccessible to originated things, and especially to men upon earth. When then men in infirmity invoke Him, when in persecution they ask help, when under injuries they pray, then the Invisible, being a lover of man, shines forth upon them with His beneficence, which He exercises through and in His proper Word. And forthwith the divine manifestation is made to every one according to his need, and is made to the weak health, and to the persecuted a refuge' and house of defence;' and to the injured He says, While thou speakest I will say, Here I am [2207] .' Whatever defence then comes to each through the Son, that each says that God has come to be to himself, since succour comes from God Himself through the Word. Moreover the usage of men recognises this, and every one will confess its propriety. Often succour comes from man to man; one has undertaken toil for the injured, as Abraham for Lot; and another has opened his home to the persecuted, as Obadiah to the sons of the prophets; and another has entertained a stranger, as Lot the Angels; and another has supplied the needy, as Job those who begged of him. And then, should one and the other of these benefited persons say, Such a one became an assistance to me,' and another and to me a refuge,' and to another a supply,' yet in so saying would not be speaking of the original becoming or of the essence of their benefactors, but of the beneficence coming to themselves from them; so also when the saints say concerning God, He became' and become Thou,' they do not denote any original becoming, for God is without beginning and unoriginate, but the salvation which is made to be unto men from Him.

64. This being so understood, it is parallel also respecting the Son, that whatever, and however often, is said, such as, He became' and become,' should ever have the same sense: so that as, when we hear the words in question, become better than the Angels' and He became,' we should not conceive any original becoming of the Word, nor in any way fancy from such terms that He is originate; but should understand Paul's words of His ministry and Economy when He became man. For when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us [2208] ' and came to minister and to grant salvation to all, then He became to us salvation, and became life, and became propitiation; then His economy in our behalf became much better than the Angels, and He became the Way and became the Resurrection. And as the words Become my strong rock' do not denote that the essence of God Himself became, but His lovingkindness, as has been said, so also here the having become better than the Angels,' and, He became,' and, by so much is Jesus become a better surety,' do not signify that the essence of the Word is originate (perish the thought!), but the beneficence which towards us came to be through His becoming Man; unthankful though the heretics be, and obstinate in behalf of their irreligion. __________________________________________________________________

[2134] Prov. viii. 22. vid. Orat. ii. §§19-72.

[2135] Heb. i. 4; iii. 1.

[2136] Vid. Orat. ii. §§2-11.

[2137] Acts ii. 36. vid. Orat. ii. §§11-18.

[2138] 1 Cor. ii. 8.

[2139] Zech. ii. 10; vid. 1 Kings viii. 27; Bar. iii. 37

[2140] Vid. the same contrast, de Syn. §33; supr. §8; Orat. iv. §23.

[2141] §8, note 6.

[2142] De Decr. 14, note 2.

[2143] Acts viii. 34.

[2144] Matt. xxiv. 3.

[2145] Vid. 1 Thess. iv. 13; 2 Thess. ii. 1, &c.

[2146] 2 Tim. ii. 17, 18; 1 Tim. i. 20.

[2147] Is. vii. 14; Matt. i. 23.

[2148] Deut. xviii. 15.

[2149] Is. liii. 7.

[2150] 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. Hær. iv. 33. Tertull. in Jud. 9, Cyprian. Testim. in Jud. ii. 13, Euseb. Dem. iii. 2, &c. [cf. Driver and Neubauer Jewish commentaries on Is. lii. and Is. liii. and Introduction to English Translation of these pp. xxxvii. sq.]

[2151] Heb. i. 1, 2.

[2152] Ib. 3, 4.

[2153] Ps. lxxxiv. 10.

[2154] Prov. viii. 10, 11.

[2155] Is. lvi. 4, 5.

[2156] 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 sunkritikos 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 epidemia is introduced in (7) and (8) parousia being the more common word; epidemia occurs Orat. ii. §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).

[2157] apolelumenos. vid. also Orat. ii. 54. 62. iii. 22. Basil. contr. Eunom. i. p. 244. Cyril. Thesaur. 25, p. 236. dialelumenos. Orat. iv. 1.

[2158] [The note, referred to above, p. 169, in which Newman defends the treatment of geneton and genneton as synonymous, while yet admitting that they are expressly distinguished by Ath. in the text, is omitted for lack of space.]

[2159] John i. 3.

[2160] Ps. civ. 24.

[2161] Job i. 2.

[2162] Gen. xxi. 5.

[2163] Cf. Deut. xxi. 15.

[2164] 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 homogenes, not homoousios which was usual with them (vid. Bull. D. F. N. ii. 1, §2) as with the Manichees after them, Beausobre, Manich. iii. 8.

[2165] Ps. lxxxix. 7.

[2166] Ib. lxxxvi. 8.

[2167] Orat. ii. §20.

[2168] Heb. i. 10.

[2169] De Syn. 45, note 9.

[2170] Heb. i. 7.

[2171] §29, note 10.

[2172] De Decr. 19, note 3.

[2173] Here again is a remarkable avoidance of the word homoousion. He says that the Son is heterogenes kai heteroousios ton geneton, kai tes tou patros ousias idios kai homophues. vid. §§20, 21, notes.

[2174] John xiv. 28.

[2175] Athan. otherwise explains this text, Incarn. contr. Arian. 4. if it be his. This text is thus taken by Basil. contr. Eun. iv. p. 289. Naz. Orat. 30. 7, &c. &c.

[2176] §§60. 62. 64. ii. §18.

[2177] He also applies this text to our Lord's economy and ministry de Sent. D. 11. in Apoll. ii. 15.

[2178] Heb. ii. 1-3.

[2179] 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.]

[2180] Heb. vii. 19.

[2181] Rom. v. 14.

[2182] 2 Tim. i. 10.

[2183] 1 Cor. xv. 22.

[2184] Is. xi. 9; vid. Ps. lxxvi. 1, and xix. 4.

[2185] Matt. xxviii. 19.

[2186] John vi. 45; Is. liv. 13.

[2187] Heb. vii. 22; viii. 6; vii. 19; ix. 23

[2188] John i. 14.

[2189] §45, note.

[2190] Rom. viii. 3.

[2191] John iii. 17.

[2192] 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. i. The Nestorians denied the Atonement, Procl. ad Armen. p. 615. And the Eutychians, Leont. Ep. 28, 5.

[2193] John i. 17.

[2194] De Syn. 45, note 1.

[2195] Cf. August. de Fid. et Symb. 14. Does this passage of Athan.'s shew that the Anthropomorphites were stirring in Egypt already?

[2196] dexion

[2197] John xvi. 15.

[2198] Ps. xvi. 8.

[2199] Heb. i. 6.

[2200] Vid. John xvii. 3; Mark x. 45.

[2201] John xiv. 10, 9.

[2202] Of His divine nature, (4) (8).

[2203] Of His human nature, and (10).

[2204] Ps. xxx. 3.

[2205] Ib. ix. 9.

[2206] Matt. xi. 28.

[2207] Is. lviii. 9.

[2208] John i. 14. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

Excursus B. On §22 (Note 3).

On the Meaning of the Formula prin gennethenai ouk en, 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 heteras hupostaseos e ousias, has been discussed in the Excursus, pp. 77-82; the other, prin gennethenai ouk en, 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 logos endiathetos, or Reason, in the Father, or (as may be speciously represented) a mere attribute; next, as the logos prophorikos, 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,--

Ton de ginomenon archegon kai sumboulon kai ergaten egenna logon, hon logon echon en heauto a& 231;raton te onta to ktizomeno, kosmo, horaton poiei; proteran phonen phthengomenos, kai phos ek photos gennon, proeken te ktisei kurion. contr. Noet. 10.

And S. Theophilus:--

Echon oun ho theos ton heautou logon endiatheton en tois idiois splanchnois, egennesen auton meta tes heautou sophias exereuxamenos pro ton holon...hopote de ethelesen ho theos poiesai hosa ebouleusato, touton ton logon egennese prophorikon, prototokon pases ktiseos. ad Autol. ii. 10-22.

Bishop Bull, Defens. F. N. iii. 5-8, meets this representation by maintaining that the gennesis which S. Hippolytus and other writers spoke of, was but a metaphorical generation, the real and eternal truth being shadowed out by a succession of events in the economy of time, such as is the Resurrection (Acts xiii. 33), nay, the Nativity; and that of these His going forth to create the worlds was one. And he maintains (ibid. iii. 9) that such is the mode of speaking adopted by the Fathers after the Nicene Council as well as before. And then he adds (which is our present point), that it is even alluded to and recognised in the Creed of the Council, which anathematizes those who say that the Son was not before His generation,' i.e. who deny that the Son was before His generation,' which statement accordingly becomes indirectly a Catholic truth.

I am not aware whether any writer has preceded or followed this great authority in this view [2209] . 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 gennethenai ouk en 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, en hote ouk en; (3) therefore He has His subsistence from nothing, ex ouk onton echei ten hupostasin.' H. E. i. 5. The first of these propositions exactly answers to the ouk en prin gennethenai taken enthymematically; and it may be added that when so taken, the three propositions will just answer to the three first formulæ anathematized at Nicæa, two of which are indisputably the same as two of them; viz. hoti en pote dte ouk en; & 234;ti prin gennethenai ouk en; & 234;ti ex ouk onton egeneto. 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, gennethenta eis hui& 231;n, which is explained, de Syn. 16. note 12.

2. Next, it should be observed that the other formulæ 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 ho on ton me onta ek tou ontos e ton onta; and hen to ageneton e 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 treptos 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 ageneton was the later substitute for the original formulæ 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 ageneton was a substitute for the ouk en prin gennethenai, yet surely it is not unfair so to understand him. But it is plain that the ageneton 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 en prin gennethenai. Nay, when the Arians asked, Is the ageneton one or two,' they actually did assume that it was granted by their opponents that the Father only was agenetos; which it was not, if the latter held, nay, if they had sanctioned at Nicæa, as Bull says, that our Lord en prin gennethe; and moreover which they knew and confessed was not granted, if their own formula ouk en prin gennethenai was directed against this statement.

4. Again, it is plain that the ouk en prin gennethenai is used by S. Athanasius as the same objection with ho on ton me onta ek tou ontos, &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 ho on ton me onta, &c., is evidently an argument, and that, grounded on the absurdity of saying ho on ton onta. S. Alexander's Encyclical Letter (vid. Socr. i. 6), compared with Arius's original positions and the Nicene Anathemas as referred to above, is a strong confirmation. In these three documents the formulæ 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 en prin gennethenai, but in S. Alexander's circular, ho on theos ton me onta ek tou me ontos pepoieken. The absence of the ouk en prin, &c., in S. Alexander is certainly remarkable. Moreover the two formulæ are treated as synonymous by Greg. Naz. Orat. 29. 9. Cyril, Thesaur. 4. p. 29 fin., and by Basil as quoted below. But indeed there is an internal correspondence between them, shewing that they have but one meaning. They are really but the same sentence in the active and in the passive voice.

5. A number of scattered passages in Athanasius lead us to the same conclusion. For instance, if the Arian formula had the sense which is here maintained, of being an argument against our Lord's eternity, the Catholic answer would be, He could not be before His generation because His generation is eternal, as being from the Father.' Now this is precisely the language Athanasius uses, when it occurs to him to introduce the words in question. Thus in Orat. ii. §57 he says, The creatures began to come to be (ginesthai); but the Word of God, not having beginning (archen) of being, surely did not begin to be, nor begin to come to be, but was always. And the works have a beginning (archen) 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 to ginesthai), 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 genesthai); 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 en 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 poiethe."' 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 (horisthe), Rom. i. 4), or founding (vid. Prov. viii. 23), He was not; for He was not ingenerate.' Theod., Hist. i. 4. Eusebius of Nicomedia also, in a passage which has already come before us, says distinctly, "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. ii. §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 tes genneseos.' 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 hæc 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 piæ intelligentiæ, 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 æternus est, ibi et nativitatis æternitas est,' n. 21. And he substitutes being always born' for being before birth;' Numquid ante tempora æterna 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 æterna 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 tes genneseos,' contr. Eunom. ii. 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 te a& 187;dioteti tou patros tou monogenous sunapton ten gennesin. §15.

These then being the explanations which the contemporary and next following Fathers give of the Arian formula which was anathematized at Nicæa, 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, arche hodon eis 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,' prototokos pases ktiseos: and he says that He who was monogenes from eternity, became by a sunkatabasis at the creation of the world prototokos. This doctrine Bp. Bull considers declaratory of a going forth, proeleusis, 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 sunkatabasis merely, but that according to Athanasius there was a gennesis or proceeding from the Father, and that the word prototokos marks it. Bull's words are, that Catholici quidam Doctores, qui post exortam controversiam Arianam vixerunt,...illam tou logou....ex Patre progressionem (quod et sunkatabasin, hoc est, condescensionem eorum nonnulli appellarunt), ad condendum hæc universa agnovere; atque ejus etiam progressionis respectu ipsum ton logon a Deo Patre quasi natum fuisse et omnis creaturæ primogenitum in Scripturis dici confessi sunt.' D. F. N. iii. 9. §1. Now I consider that S. Athanasius does not, as this sentence says, understand by primogenitus that our Lord was progressionis respectu 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 sunkatabasis of the Word a birth, as denoted by the term prototokos, is plain from his own avowal in the passage to which Bull refers. Nowhere in the Scriptures,' he says, is He called prototokos tou Theou, first-born of God, nor creature of God, but Only-begotten, Word, Wisdom, have their relation to the Father, and are proper to Him.' ii. 62. Here surely he expressly denies Bull's statement that first-born' means a Deo natus,' born of God.' Such additions as para tou patros, he says, are reserved for monogenes and logos.

He goes on to say what the term prototokos does mean; viz. instead of having any reference to a proeleusis from the Father, it refers solely to the creatures; our Lord is not called prototokos, because His proeleusis is a type of His eternal generation,' but because by that proeleusis 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 gennesis whatever at the era of creation, though figurative; prototokos does but mean monogenes proteuon en te ktisei, or arche tes ktiseos, or prototupon gennema, or monos gennetos en tois genetois; 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 gennesis. Athenagoras says that the Son is the first offspring, proton gennema, 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, logikos on), but that while as regards matter heavy and light were mixed together' (the passage is corrupt here), He went forth, proelthon, 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 prototokos. 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 prototokos 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 gennesis at all in his account of creation, but simply calls the Son proton gennema, i.e. prototupon gennema.

Nor does Tatian approach nearer to the doctrine of a gennesis. He says that at the creation the Word ergon prototokon tou patros ginetai. touton ismen tou kosmou ten archen. ad Græc. 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, sunkatabasis, 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 arche 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, arche, of ways, unto the works, eis 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. __________________________________________________________________

[2209] Waterland expresses the view here taken, and not Bishop Bull's; vol. i. p. 114. Bull's language, on the other hand, is very strong: Sæpe olim, ut verum ingenue fateai, animum meum subiit admiratio, quid effato isto, Filius priusquam nasceretur, non erat,' sibi voluerint Ariani. De nativitate Christi ex beatissima Virgine dictum non esse exponendum constat....Itaque de nativitate Filii loquuntur, quæ 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 sententiæ, qui docerent, Filium quidem paulo ante conditum mundum inexplicabili quodam modo ex Patre progressum fuisse ad constituendum universa, &c. D. F. N. iii. 9. §2. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

Discourse II.

------------------------

Chapter XIV.--Texts explained; Fourthly, Hebrews iii. 2 Introduction;

Chapter XIV.--Texts explained; Fourthly, Hebrews iii. 2 Introduction; the Regula Fidei counter to an Arian sense of the text; which is not supported by the word servant,' nor by made' which occurs in it; (how can the Judge be among the works' which God will bring into judgment?') nor by faithful;' and is confuted by the immediate context, which is about Priesthood; and by the foregoing passage, which explains the word faithful' as meaning trustworthy, as do 1 Pet. iv. fin. and other texts. On the whole made may safely be understood either of the divine generation or the human creation.

1. I did indeed think that enough had been said already against the hollow professors of Arius's madness, whether for their refutation or in the truth's behalf, to insure a cessation and repentance of their evil thoughts and words about the Saviour. They, however, for whatever reason, still do not succumb; but, as swine and dogs wallow [2210] in their own vomit and their own mire, rather invent new expedients for their irreligion. Thus they misunderstand the passage in the Proverbs, The Lord hath created me a beginning of His ways for His works [2211] ,' and the words of the Apostle, Who was faithful to Him that made Him [2212] ,' and straightway argue, that the Son of God is a work and a creature. But although they might have learned from what is said above, had they not utterly lost their power of apprehension, that the Son is not from nothing nor in the number of things originate at all, the Truth witnessing [2213] it (for, being God, He cannot be a work, and it is impious to call Him a creature, and it is of creatures and works that we say, out of nothing,' and it was not before its generation'), yet since, as if dreading to desert their own fiction, they are accustomed to allege the aforesaid passages of divine Scripture, which have a good meaning, but are by them practised on, let us proceed afresh to take up the question of the sense of these, to remind the faithful, and to shew from each of these passages that they have no knowledge at all of Christianity. Were it otherwise, they would not have shut themselves up in the unbelief [2214] of the present Jews [2215] , but would have inquired and learned [2216] that, whereas In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,' in consequence, it was when at the good pleasure of the Father the Word became man, that it was said of Him, as by John, The Word became flesh [2217] ;' so by Peter, He hath made Him Lord and Christ [2218] ';--as by means of Solomon in the Person of the Lord Himself, The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works [2219] ;' so by Paul, Become so much better than the Angels [2220] ;' and again, He emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant [2221] ;' and again, Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Jesus, who was faithful to Him that made Him [2222] .' For all these texts have the same force and meaning, a religious one, declarative of the divinity of the Word, even those of them which speak humanly concerning Him, as having become the Son of man. But, though this distinction is sufficient for their refutation, still, since from a misconception of the Apostle's words (to mention them first), they consider the Word of God to be one of the works, because of its being written, Who was faithful to Him that made Him,' I have thought it needful to silence this further argument of theirs, taking in hand [2223] , as before, their statement.

2. If then He be not a Son, let Him be called a work, and let all that is said of works be said of Him, nor let Him and Him alone be called Son, nor Word, nor Wisdom; neither let God be called Father, but only Framer and Creator of things which by Him come to be; and let the creature be Image and Expression of His framing will, and let Him, as they would have it, be without generative nature, so that there be neither Word, nor Wisdom, no, nor Image, of His proper substance. For if He be not Son [2224] , neither is He Image [2225] . But if there be not a Son, how then say you that God is a Creator? since all things that come to be are through the Word and in Wisdom, and without This nothing can be, whereas you say He hath not That in and through which He makes all things. For if the Divine Essence be not fruitful itself [2226] , but barren, as they hold, as a light that lightens not, and a dry fountain, are they not ashamed to speak of His possessing framing energy? and whereas they deny what is by nature, do they not blush to place before it what is by will [2227] ? But if He frames things that are external to Him and before were not, by willing them to be, and becomes their Maker, much more will He first be Father of an Offspring from His proper Essence. For if they attribute to God the willing about things which are not, why recognise they not that in God which lies above the will? now it is a something that surpasses will, that He should be by nature, and should be Father of His proper Word. If then that which comes first, which is according to nature, did not exist, as they would have it in their folly, how could that which is second come to be, which is according to will? for the Word is first, and then the creation. On the contrary the Word exists, whatever they affirm, those irreligious ones; for through Him did creation come to be, and God, as being Maker, plainly has also His framing Word, not external, but proper to Him;--for this must be repeated. If He has the power of will, and His will is effective, and suffices for the consistence of the things that come to be, and His Word is effective, and a Framer, that Word must surely be the living Will [2228] of the Father, and an essential [2229] energy, and a real Word, in whom all things both consist and are excellently governed. No one can even doubt, that He who disposes is prior to the disposition and the things disposed. And thus, as I said, God's creating is second to His begetting; for Son implies something proper to Him and truly from that blessed and everlasting Essence; but what is from His will, comes into consistence from without, and is framed through His proper Offspring who is from It.

3. As we have shewn then they are guilty of great extravagance who say that the Lord is not Son of God, but a work, and it follows that we all of necessity confess that He is Son. And if He be Son, as indeed He is, and a son is confessed to be not external to his father but from him, let them not question about the terms, as I said before, which the sacred writers use of the Word Himself, viz. not to Him that begat Him,' but to Him that made Him;' for while it is confessed what His nature is, what word is used in such instances need raise no question [2230] . For terms do not disparage His Nature; rather that Nature draws to Itself those terms and changes them. For terms are not prior to essences, but essences are first, and terms second. Wherefore also when the essence is a work or creature, then the words He made,' and He became,' and He created,' are used of it properly, and designate the work. But when the Essence is an Offspring and Son, then He made,' and He became,' and He created,' no longer properly belong to it, nor designate a work; but He made' we use without question for He begat.' Thus fathers often call the sons born of them their servants, yet without denying the genuineness of their nature; and often they affectionately call their own servants children, yet without putting out of sight their purchase of them originally; for they use the one appellation from their authority as being fathers, but in the other they speak from affection. Thus Sara called Abraham lord, though not a servant but a wife; and while to Philemon the master the Apostle joined Onesimus the servant as a brother, Bathsheba, although mother, called her son servant, saying to his father, Thy servant Solomon [2231] ;'--afterwards also Nathan the Prophet came in and repeated her words to David, Solomon thy servant [2232] .' Nor did they mind calling the son a servant, for while David heard it, he recognised the nature,' and while they spoke it, they forgot not the genuineness,' praying that he might be made his father's heir, to whom they gave the name of servant; for to David he was son by nature.

4. As then, when we read this, we interpret it fairly, without accounting Solomon a servant because we hear him so called, but a son natural and genuine, so also, if, concerning the Saviour, who is confessed to be in truth the Son, and to be the Word by nature, the saints say, Who was faithful to Him that made Him,' or if He say of Himself, The Lord created me,' and, I am Thy servant and the Son of Thine handmaid [2233] ,' and the like, let not any on this account deny that He is proper to the Father and from Him; but, as in the case of Solomon and David, let them have a right idea of the Father and the Son. For if, though they hear Solomon called a servant, they acknowledge him to be a son, are they not deserving of many deaths [2234] , who, instead of preserving the same explanation in the instance of the Lord, whenever they hear Offspring,' and Word,' and Wisdom,' forcibly misinterpret and deny the generation, natural and genuine, of the Son from the Father; but on hearing words and terms proper to a work, forthwith drop down to the notion of His being by nature a work, and deny the Word; and this, though it is possible, from His having been made man, to refer all these terms to His humanity? And are they not proved to be an abomination' also unto the Lord,' as having diverse weights [2235] ' with them, and with this estimating those other instances, and with that blaspheming the Lord? But perhaps they grant that the word servant' is used under a certain understanding, but lay stress upon Who made' as some great support of their heresy. But this stay of theirs also is but a broken reed; for if they are aware of the style of Scripture, they must at once give sentence against [2236] themselves. For as Solomon, though a son, is called a servant, so, to repeat what was said above, although parents call the sons springing from themselves made' and created' and becoming,' for all this they do not deny their nature. Thus Hezekiah, as it is written in Isaiah, said in his prayer, From this day I will make children, who shall declare Thy righteousness, O God of my salvation [2237] .' He then said, I will make;' but the Prophet in that very book and the Fourth of Kings, thus speaks, And the sons who shall come forth of thee [2238] .' He uses then make' for beget,' and he calls them who were to spring from him, made,' and no one questions whether the term has reference to a natural offspring. Again, Eve on bearing Cain said, I have gotten a man from the Lord [2239] ;' thus she too used gotten' for brought forth.' For, first she saw the child, yet next she said, I have gotten.' Nor would any one consider, because of I have gotten,' that Cain was purchased from without, instead of being born of her. Again, the Patriarch Jacob said to Joseph, And now thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, which became thine in Egypt, before I came unto thee into Egypt, are mine [2240] .' And Scripture says about Job, And there came to him seven sons and three daughters [2241] .' As Moses too has said in the Law, If sons become to any one,' and If he make a son [2242] .' Here again they speak of those who are begotten, as become' and made,' knowing that, while they are acknowledged to be sons, we need not make a question of they became,' or I have gotten,' or I made [2243] .' For nature and truth draw the meaning to themselves.

5. This being so [2244] , when persons ask whether the Lord is a creature or work, it is proper to ask of them this first, whether He is Son and Word and Wisdom. For if this is shewn, the surmise about work and creation falls to the ground at once and is ended. For a work could never be Son and Word; nor could the Son be a work. And again, this being the state of the case, the proof is plain to all, that the phrase, To Him who made Him' does not serve their heresy, but rather condemns it. For it has been shewn that the expression He made' is applied in divine Scripture even to children genuine and natural; whence, the Lord being proved to be the Father's Son naturally and genuinely, and Word, and Wisdom, though He made' be used concerning Him, or He became,' this is not said of Him as if a work, but the saints make no question about using the expression,--for instance in the case of Solomon, and Hezekiah's children. For though the fathers had begotten them from themselves, still it is written, I have made,' and I have gotten,' and He became.' Therefore God's enemies, in spite of their repeated allegation of such phrases [2245] , ought now, though late in the day, after what has been said, to disown their irreligious thoughts, and think of the Lord as of a true Son, Word, and Wisdom of the Father, not a work, not a creature. For if the Son be a creature, by what word then and by what wisdom was He made Himself [2246] ? for all the works were made through the Word and the Wisdom, as it is written, In wisdom hast Thou made them all,' and, All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made [2247] .' But if it be He who is the Word and the Wisdom, by which all things come to be, it follows that He is not in the number of works, nor in short of things originate, but the Offspring of the Father.

6. For consider how grave an error it is, to call God's Word a work. Solomon says in one place in Ecclesiastes, that God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil [2248] .' If then the Word be a work, do you mean that He as well as others will be brought into judgment? and what room is there for judgment, when the Judge is on trial? who will give to the just their blessing, who to the unworthy their punishment, the Lord, as you must suppose, standing on trial with the rest? by what law shall He, the Lawgiver, Himself be judged? These things are proper to the works, to be on trial, to be blessed and to be punished by the Son. Now then fear the Judge, and let Solomon's words convince you. For if God shall bring the works one and all into judgment, but the Son is not in the number of things put on trial, but rather is Himself the Judge of works one and all, is not the proof clearer than the sun, that the Son is not a work but the Father's Word, in whom all the works both come to be and come into judgment? Further, if the expression, Who was faithful,' is a difficulty to them, from the thought that faithful' is used of Him as of others, as if He exercises faith and so receives the reward of faith, they must proceed at this rate to find fault with Moses for saying, God faithful and true [2249] ,' and with St. Paul for writing, God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able [2250] .' But when the saints spoke thus, they were not thinking of God in a human way, but they acknowledged two senses of the word faithful' in Scripture, first believing,' then trustworthy,' of which the former belongs to man, the latter to God. Thus Abraham was faithful, because He believed God's word; and God faithful, for, as David says in the Psalm, The Lord is faithful in all His words [2251] ,' or is trustworthy, and cannot lie. Again, If any faithful woman have widows [2252] ,' she is so called for her right faith; but, It is a faithful saying [2253] ,' because what He hath spoken has a claim on our faith, for it is true, and is not otherwise. Accordingly the words, Who is faithful to Him that made Him,' implies no parallel with others, nor means that by having faith He became well-pleasing; but that, being Son of the True God, He too is faithful, and ought to be believed in all He says and does, Himself remaining unalterable and not changed [2254] in His human Economy and fleshly presence.

7. Thus then we may meet these men who are shameless, and from the single expression He made,' may shew that they err in thinking that the Word of God is a work. But further, since the drift also of the context is orthodox, shewing the time and the relation to which this expression points, I ought to shew from it also how the heretics lack reason; viz. by considering, as we have done above, the occasion when it was used and for what purpose. Now the Apostle is not discussing things before the creation when he thus speaks, but when the Word became flesh;' for thus it is written, Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession Jesus, who was faithful to Him that made Him.' Now when became He Apostle,' but when He put on our flesh? and when became He High Priest of our profession,' but when, after offering Himself for us, He raised His Body from the dead, and, as now, Himself brings near and offers to the Father those who in faith approach Him, redeeming all, and for all propitiating God? Not then as wishing to signify the Essence of the Word nor His natural generation from the Father, did the Apostle say, Who was faithful to Him that made Him'--(perish the thought! for the Word is not made, but makes)--but as signifying His descent to mankind and High-priesthood which did become'--as one may easily see from the account given of the Law and of Aaron. I mean, Aaron was not born a high-priest, but a man; and in process of time, when God willed, he became a high-priest; yet became so, not simply, nor as betokened by his ordinary garments, but putting over them the ephod, the breastplate [2255] , the robe, which the women wrought at God's command, and going in them into the holy place, he offered the sacrifice for the people; and in them, as it were, mediated between the vision of God and the sacrifices of men. Thus then the Lord also, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;' but when the Father willed that ransoms should be paid for all and to all, grace should be given, then truly the Word, as Aaron his robe, so did He take earthly flesh, having Mary for the Mother of His Body as if virgin earth [2256] , that, as a High Priest, having He as others an offering, He might offer Himself to the Father, and cleanse us all from sins in His own blood, and might rise from the dead.

8. For what happened of old was a shadow of this; and what the Saviour did on His coming, this Aaron shadowed out according to the Law. As then Aaron was the same and did not change by putting on the high-priestly dress [2257] , but remaining the same was only robed, so that, had any one seen him offering, and had said, Lo, Aaron has this day become high-priest,' he had not implied that he then had been born man, for man he was even before he became high-priest, but that he had been made high-priest in his ministry, on putting on the garments made and prepared for the high-priesthood; in the same way it is possible in the Lord's instance also to understand aright, that He did not become other than Himself on taking the flesh, but, being the same as before, He was robed in it; and the expressions He became' and He was made,' must not be understood as if the Word, considered as the Word [2258] , were made, but that the Word, being Framer of all, afterwards [2259] was made High Priest, by putting on a body which was originate and made, and such as He can offer for us; wherefore He is said to be made. If then indeed the Lord did not become man [2260] , that is a point for the Arians to battle; but if the Word became flesh,' what ought to have been said concerning Him when become man, but Who was faithful to Him that made Him?' for as it is proper to the Word to have it said of Him, In the beginning was the Word,' so it is proper to man to become' and to be made.' Who then, on seeing the Lord as a man walking about, and yet appearing to be God from His works, would not have asked, Who made Him man? and who again, on such a question, would not have answered, that the Father made Him man, and sent Him to us as High Priest? And this meaning, and time, and character, the Apostle himself, the writer of the words, Who is faithful to Him that made Him,' will best make plain to us, if we attend to what goes before them. For there is one train of thought, and the lection is all about One and the Same. He writes then in the Epistle to the Hebrews thus; Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily He took not on Him the nature of Angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted. Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Jesus; who was faithful to Him that made Him [2261] .'

9. Who can read this whole passage without condemning the Arians, and admiring the blessed Apostle, who has spoken well? for when was Christ made,' when became He Apostle,' except when, like us, He took part in flesh and blood?' And when became He a merciful and faithful High Priest,' except when in all things He was made like unto His brethren?' And then was He made like,' when He became man, having put upon Him our flesh. Wherefore Paul was writing concerning the Word's human Economy, when he said, Who was faithful to Him that made Him,' and not concerning His Essence. Have not therefore any more the madness to say that the Word of God is a work; whereas He is Son by nature Only-begotten, and then had brethren,' when He took on Him flesh like ours; which moreover, by Himself offering Himself, He was named and became merciful and faithful,'--merciful, because in mercy to us He offered Himself for us, and faithful, not as sharing faith with us, nor as having faith in any one as we have, but as deserving to receive faith in all He says and does, and as offering a faithful sacrifice, one which remains and does not come to nought. For those which were offered according to the Law, had not this faithfulness, passing away with the day and needing a further cleansing; but the Saviour's sacrifice, taking place once, has perfected everything, and is become faithful as remaining for ever. And Aaron had successors, and in a word the priesthood under the Law exchanged its first ministers as time and death went on; but the Lord having a high priesthood without transition and without succession, has become a faithful High Priest,' as continuing for ever; and faithful too by promise, that He may hear [2262] and not mislead those who come to Him. This may be also learned from the Epistle of the great Peter, who says, Let them that suffer according to the will of God, commit their souls to a faithful Creator [2263] .' For He is faithful as not changing, but abiding ever, and rendering what He has promised.

10. Now the so-called gods of the Greeks, unworthy the name, are faithful neither in their essence nor in their promises; for the same are not everywhere, nay, the local deities come to nought in course of time, and undergo a natural dissolution; wherefore the Word cries out against them, that faith is not strong in them,' but they are waters that fail,' and there is no faith in them.' But the God of all, being one really and indeed and true, is faithful, who is ever the same, and says, See now, that I, even I am He,' and I change not [2264] ;' and therefore His Son is faithful,' being ever the same and unchanging, deceiving neither in His essence nor in His promise;--as again says the Apostle writing to the Thessalonians, Faithful is He who calleth you, who also will do it [2265] ;' for in doing what He promises, He is faithful to His words.' And he thus writes to the Hebrews as to the word's meaning unchangeable;' If we believe not, yet He abideth faithful; He cannot deny Himself [2266] .' Therefore reasonably the Apostle, discoursing concerning the bodily presence of the Word, says, an Apostle and faithful to Him that made Him,' shewing us that, even when made man, Jesus Christ' is the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever [2267] ' is unchangeable. And as the Apostle makes mention in his Epistle of His being made man when mentioning His High Priesthood, so too he kept no long silence about His Godhead, but rather mentions it forthwith, furnishing to us a safeguard on every side, and most of all when he speaks of His humility, that we may forthwith know His loftiness and His majesty which is the Father's. For instance, he says, Moses as a servant, but Christ as a Son [2268] ;' and the former faithful in his house,' and the latter over the house,' as having Himself built it, and being its Lord and Framer, and as God sanctifying it. For Moses, a man by nature, became faithful, in believing God who spoke to Him by His Word; but [2269] the Word was not as one of things originate in a body, nor as creature in creature, but as God in flesh [2270] , and Framer of all and Builder in that which was built by Him. And men are clothed in flesh in order to be and to subsist; but the Word of God was made man in order to sanctify the flesh, and, though He was Lord, was in the form of a servant; for the whole creature is the Word's servant, which by Him came to be, and was made.

11. Hence it holds that the Apostle's expression, He made,' does not prove that the Word is made, but that body, which He took like ours; and in consequence He is called our brother, as having become man. But if it has been shewn, that, even though the word made' be referred to the Very Word, it is used for begat,' what further perverse expedient will they be able to fall upon, now that the present discussion has cleared up the word in every point of view, and shewn that the Son is not a work, but in Essence indeed the Father's offspring, while in the Economy, according to the good pleasure [2271] of the Father, He was on our behalf made, and consists as man? For this reason then it is said by the Apostle, Who was faithful to Him that made Him;' and in the Proverbs, even creation is spoken of. For so long as we are confessing that He became man, there is no question about saying, as was observed before, whether He became,' or He has been made,' or created,' or formed,' or servant,' or son of an handmaid,' or son of man,' or was constituted,' or took His journey,' or bridegroom,' or brother's son,' or brother.' All these terms happen to be proper to man's constitution; and such as these do not designate the Essence of the Word, but that He has become man. __________________________________________________________________

[2210] kuliomenoi, Orat. iii. 16.

[2211] Prov. viii. 22. Cf. i. 53 and infr. 19-72.

[2212] Heb. iii. 2.

[2213] Vid. infr. note on 35.

[2214] Cf. Rom. xi. 32

[2215] ton nun 'Ioudaion, means literally the Jews of this day,' as here and Orat. i. 8. 10. 38. Orat. ii. 1. b. iii. 28. c. But elsewhere this and similar phrases as distinctly mean the Arians, being used in contrast to the Jews. Their likeness to the Jews is drawn out, Orat. iii. 27. de Decr. i.

[2216] erotontes emanthanon; and so mathon edidasken, Orat. iii. 9. de Decr. 7. supr. p. 13, note a.

[2217] John i. 14.

[2218] Acts ii. 36.

[2219] Prov. viii. 22.

[2220] Heb. i. 4.

[2221] Phil. ii. 7.

[2222] Heb. iii. 1, 2; Sent. D. 11.

[2223] By laubanontes par' auton to lemma, accepting the proposition they offer,' he means that he is engaged in going through certain texts brought against the Catholic view, instead of bringing his own proofs, vid. Orat. i. 37. Yet after all it is commonly his way, as here, to start with some general exposition of the Catholic doctrine which the Arian sense of the text in question opposes, and thus to create a prejudice or proof against the latter. vid. Orat. i. 10. 38. 40. init. 53. d. ii. 5. 12. init. 32-34. 35. 44. init. which refers to the whole discussion, 18-43. 73. 77. iii. 18. init. 36. init. 42. 54. 51. init. &c. On the other hand he makes the ecclesiastical sense the rule of interpretation, touto [to skopo, the general drift of Scripture doctrine] hosper kanoni chresamenoi prosechomen te anagnosei tes theopneustou graphes, iii. 28. fin. This illustrates what he means when he says that certain texts have a good,' pious,' orthodox' sense, i.e. they can be interpreted (in spite, if so be, of appearances) in harmony with the Regula Fidei. vid. infr. §43, note; also notes on 35. and iii. 58.

[2224] §22, note.

[2225] i.e. in any true sense of the word image;' or, so that He may be accounted the aparallaktos eikon of the Father, vid. de Syn. 23, note 1. The ancient Fathers consider, that the Divine Sonship is the very consequence (so to speak) of the necessity that exists, that One who is Infinite Perfection should subsist again in a Perfect Image of Himself, which is the doctrine to which Athan. goes on to allude, and the idea of which (he says) is prior to that of creation. A redundatio in imaginem is synonymous with a generatio Filii. Cf. Thomassin, de Trin. 19. 1.

[2226] For karpogonos he ousia, de Decr. 15. n. 9. gennetikos, Orat. iii. 66. iv. 4. fin. agonos. i. 14. fin. Sent. Dion. 15. 19. he phusike gonimotes, Damasc. F. O. i. 8. p. 133. akarpos, Cyr. Thes. p. 45. Epiph. Hær. 65 p. 609. b. Vid. the gennesis and the ktisis contrasted together Orat. i. 29. de Decr. 11. n. 6, de Syn. 51, n. 4. The doctrine in the text is shortly expressed, infr. Orat. iv. 4 fin. ei agonos kai anenergetos

[2227] Orat. iii. 59, &c.

[2228] Orat. iii. 63. c.

[2229] enousios, infr. 28.

[2230] §1, note 13.

[2231] 1 Kings i. 19.

[2232] ver. 26.

[2233] Ps. cxvi. 16.

[2234] pollakis apololenai dikaioi, vid. infr. §28.

[2235] Prov. xx. 23.

[2236] Apol. c. Ar. 36.

[2237] Is. xxxviii. 19, LXX.

[2238] 2 Kings xx. 18; Is. xxxix. 7.

[2239] Gen. iv. 1, and infr. 44. note on Qanâ.

[2240] Gen. xlviii. 5, LXX.

[2241] Job i. 2, LXX.

[2242] Cf. Deut. xxi. 15; vid. Lev. xxv. 21, LXX.

[2243] Serap. ii. 6. b.

[2244] That is, while the style of Scripture justifies us in thus interpreting the word made,' doctrinal truth obliges us to do so. He considers the Regula Fidei the principle of interpretation, and accordingly he goes on at once to apply it. vid. supr. §1, note 13.

[2245] lexeidia, Orat. iii. 59. a Sent. D. 4. c.

[2246] Orat. iii. 62 init. infr. §22, note.

[2247] Ps. civ. 24; John i. 3.

[2248] Eccles. xii. 14.

[2249] Combines Greek of Deut. xxxii. 4 and Ex. xxxiv. 6; cf. Rev. iii. 14.

[2250] 1 Cor. x. 13.

[2251] Ps. cxlv. 14. LXX.

[2252] 1 Tim. v. 16.

[2253] Tit. iii. 8, &c.

[2254] atreptos kai me alloioumenos; vid. supr. de Decr. 14. it was the tendency of Arianism to consider that in the Incarnation some such change actually was undergone by the Word, as they had from the first maintained in the abstract was possible; that whereas He was in nature treptos, He was in fact alloioumenos. This was implied in the doctrine that His superhuman nature supplied the place of a soul in His manhood. Hence the semi-Arian Sirmian Creed anathematizes those who said, ton logon tropen hupomemenekota, vid. De Syn. 27. 12). This doctrine connected them with the Apollinarian and Eutychian Schools, to the former of which Athan. compares them, contr. Apoll. i. 12. while, as opposing the latter, Theodoret entities his first Dialogue Atreptos

[2255] Exod. xxix. 5.

[2256] anergastou ges is an allusion to Adam's formation from the ground; and so Irenæus, Hær. iii. 21. fin. and many later fathers.

[2257] This is one of those distinct and luminous protests by anticipation against Nestorianism, which in consequence may be abused to the purpose of the opposite heresy. Such expressions as peritithemenos ten estheta, ekalupteto, endusamenos soma, were familiar with the Apollinarians, against whom S. Athanasius is, if possible, even more decided. Theodoret objects Hær. v. 11. p. 422. to the word prokalumma, as applied to our Lord's manhood, as implying that He had no soul; vid. also Naz. Ep. 102. fin. (ed. 1840). In Naz. Ep. 101. p. 90. parapetasma is used to denote an Apollinarian idea. Such expressions were taken to imply that Christ was not in nature man, only in some sense human; not a substance, but an appearance; yet pseudo-Athan. contr. Sabell. Greg. 4. has parapepetasmenen and kalumma, ibid. init. S. Cyril. Hieros. katapetasma, Catech. xii. 26. xiii. 32. after Hebr. x. 20. and Athan. ad Adelph. 5. e. Theodor. parapetasma, Eran. i. p. 22. and prokalumma, ibid. p. 23. and adv. Gent. vi. p. 877. and stole, Eran. 1. c. S. Leo has caro Christi velamen, Ep. 59. p. 979. vid. also Serm. 22. p. 70. Serm. 25. p. 84.

[2258] he logos esti. cf. i. 43. Orat. ii. 74. e. iii. 38 init. 39. b. 41 init. 45 init. 52. b. iv. 23. f.

[2259] The Arians considered that our Lord's Priesthood preceded His Incarnation, and belonged to His Divine Nature, and was in consequence the token of an inferior divinity. The notice of it therefore in this text did but confirm them in their interpretation of the words made, &c. For the Arians, vid. Epiph. Hær. 69, 37. Eusebius too had distinctly declared, Qui videbatur, erat agnus Dei; qui occultabatur sacerdos Dei. advers. Sabell. i. p. 2. b. vid. also Demonst. i. 10. p. 38. iv. 16. p. 193. v. 3. p. 223. contr. Marc. pp. 8 and 9. 66. 74. 95. Even S. Cyril of Jerusalem makes a similar admission, Catech. x. 14. Nay S. Ambrose calls the Word, plenum justitiæ sacerdotalis, de fug. sæc. 3. 14. S. Clement Alex. before them speaks once or twice of the logos archiereus, e.g. Strom. ii. 9 fin. and Philo still earlier uses similar language, de Profug. p. 466. (whom S. Ambrose follows), de Somniis p. 597. vid. Thomassin. de Incarn. x. 9. Nestorius on the other hand maintained that the Man Christ Jesus was the Priest, relying on the text which has given rise to this note; Cyril, adv. Nest. p. 64. and Augustine and Fulgentius may be taken to countenance him, de Consens. and Evang. i. 6. ad Thrasim. iii. 30. The Catholic doctrine is, that the Divine Word is Priest in and according to His manhood. vid. the parallel use of prototokos, infr. 62-64. As He is called Prophet and even Apostle for His humanity,' says S. Cyril Alex. so also Priest.' Glaph. ii. p. 58. and so Epiph. loc. cit. Thomassin loc. cit. makes a distinction between a divine Priesthood or Mediatorship, such as the Word may be said to sustain between the Father and all creatures, and an earthly one for the sake of sinners. vid. also Huet Origenian. ii. 3. §4, 5. For the history of the controversy among Protestants as to the Nature to which His Mediatorship belongs, vid. Petav. Incarn. xii. 3. 4. [Herzog-Plitt Art. Stancar.]

[2260] [One of the few passages in which Ath. glances at the Arian Christology. A long note is omitted here on the subject of Or. i. 8, note 3.]

[2261] Heb. ii. 14-18; iii. 2.

[2262] Or, answer, vid. infr. iii. 27.

[2263] 1 Pet. iv. 19.

[2264] Vid. Jer. ix. 3. and xv. 18; Deut. xxxii. 20, LXX.; ib. xxxii. 39; Mal. iii. 6.

[2265] 1 Thess. v. 24.

[2266] 2 Tim. ii. 13.

[2267] Heb. xiii. 8.

[2268] Heb. iii. 5, 6.

[2269] Here is a protest beforehand against the Monophysite doctrine, but such anticipations of various heresies are too frequent, as we proceed, to require or bear notice.

[2270] theos en sarki, vid. logos en s. iii. 54. a. th. en somati, ii. 12. c. 15. a. l. en som. Sent. D. 8 fin.

[2271] kat' eudokian Orat.iii. 64. init. __________________________________________________________________

Chapter XV.--Texts explained; Fifthly, Acts ii. 36. The Regula Fidei

Chapter XV.--Texts explained; Fifthly, Acts ii. 36. The Regula Fidei must be observed; madeapplies to our Lord's manhood; and to His manifestation; and to His office relative to us; and is relative to the Jews. Parallel instance in Gen. xxvii. 29, 37. The context contradicts the Arian interpretation.

11 (continued). The same is the meaning of the passage in the Acts which they also allege, that in which Peter says, that He hath made both Lord and Christ that same Jesus whom ye have crucified.' For here too it is not written, He made for Himself a Son,' or He made Himself a Word,' that they should have such notions. If then it has not escaped their memory, that they speak concerning the Son of God, let them make search whether it is anywhere written, God made Himself a Son,' or He created for Himself a Word;' or again, whether it is anywhere written in plain terms, The Word is a work or creation;' and then let them proceed to make their case, the insensate men, that here too they may receive their answer. But if they can produce nothing of the kind, and only catch at such stray expressions as He made' and He has been made,' I fear lest, from hearing, In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth,' and He made the sun and the moon,' and He made the sea,' they should come in time to call the Word the heaven, and the Light which took place on the first day, and the earth, and each particular thing that has been made, so as to end in resembling the Stoics, as they are called, the one drawing out their God into all things [2272] , the other ranking God's Word with each work in particular; which they have well nigh done already, saying that He is one of His works.

12. But here they must have the same answer as before, and first be told that the Word is a Son, as has been said above [2273] , and not a work, and that such terms are not to be understood of His Godhead, but the reason and manner of them investigated. To persons who so inquire, the human Economy will plainly present itself, which He undertook for our sake. For Peter, after saying, He hath made Lord and Christ,' straightway added, this Jesus whom ye crucified;' which makes it plain to any one, even, if so be, to them, provided they attend to the context, that not the Essence of the Word, but He according to His manhood is said to have been made. For what was crucified but the body? and how could be signified what was bodily in the Word, except by saying He made?' Especially has that phrase, He made,' a meaning consistent with orthodoxy; in that he has not said, as I observed before, He made Him Word,' but He made Him Lord,' nor that in general terms [2274] , but towards' us, and in the midst of' us, as much as to say, He manifested Him.' And this Peter himself, when he began this primary teaching, carefully [2275] expressed, when he said to them, Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man manifested of God towards you by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves know [2276] .' Consequently the term which he uses in the end, made', this He has explained in the beginning by manifested,' for by the signs and wonders which the Lord did, He was manifested to be not merely man, but God in a body and Lord also, the Christ. Such also is the passage in the Gospel according to John, Therefore the more did the Jews persecute Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but said also that God was His own Father, making Himself equal with God [2277] .' For the Lord did not then fashion Himself to be God, nor indeed is a made God conceivable, but He manifested it by the works, saying, Though ye believe not Me, believe My works, that ye may know that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me [2278] .' Thus then the Father has made' Him Lord and King in the midst of us, and towards us who were once disobedient; and it is plain that He who is now displayed as Lord and King, does not then begin to be King and Lord, but begins to shew His Lordship, and to extend it even over the disobedient.

13. If then they suppose that the Saviour was not Lord and King, even before He became man and endured the Cross, but then began to be Lord, let them know that they are openly reviving the statements of the Samosatene. But if, as we have quoted and declared above, He is Lord and King everlasting, seeing that Abraham worships Him as Lord, and Moses says, Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven [2279] ;' and David in the Psalms, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand [2280] ;' and, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy Kingdom [2281] ;' and, Thy Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom [2282] ;' it is plain that even before He became man, He was King and Lord everlasting, being Image and Word of the Father. And the Word being everlasting Lord and King, it is very plain again that Peter said not that the Essence of the Son was made, but spoke of His Lordship over us, which became' when He became man, and, redeeming all by the Cross, became Lord of all and King. But if they continue the argument on the ground of its being written, He made,' not willing that He made' should be taken in the sense of He manifested,' either from want of apprehension, or from their Christ-opposing purpose, let them attend to another sound exposition of Peter's words. For he who becomes Lord of others, comes into the possession of beings already in existence; but if the Lord is Framer of all and everlasting King, and when He became man, then gained possession of us, here too is a way in which Peter's language evidently does not signify that the Essence of the Word is a work, but the after-subjection of all things, and the Saviour's Lordship which came to be over all. And this coincides with what we said before [2283] ; for as we then introduced the words, Become my God and defence,' and the Lord became a refuge for the oppressed [2284] ,' and it stood to reason that these expressions do not shew that God is originate, but that His beneficence becomes' towards each individual, the same sense has the expression of Peter also.

14. For the Son of God indeed, being Himself the Word, is Lord of all; but we once were subject from the first to the slavery of corruption and the curse of the Law, then by degrees fashioning for ourselves things that were not, we served, as says the blessed Apostle, them which by nature are no Gods [2285] ,' and, ignorant of the true God, we preferred things that were not to the truth; but afterwards, as the ancient people when oppressed in Egypt groaned, so, when we too had the Law engrafted [2286] ' in us, and according to the unutterable sighings [2287] of the Spirit made our intercession, O Lord our God, take possession of us [2288] ,' then, as He became for a house of refuge' and a God and defence,' so also He became our Lord. Nor did He then begin to be, but we began to have Him for our Lord. For upon this, God being good and Father of the Lord, in pity, and desiring to be known by all, makes His own Son put on Him a human body and become man, and be called Jesus, that in this body offering Himself for all, He might deliver all from false worship and corruption, and might Himself become of all Lord and King. His becoming therefore in this way Lord and King, this it is that Peter means by, He hath made Him Lord,' and hath sent Christ;' as much as to say, that the Father in making Him man (for to be made belongs to man), did not simply make Him man, but has made Him in order to His being Lord of all men, and to His hallowing all through the Anointing. For though the Word existing in the form of God took a servant's form, yet the assumption of the flesh did not make a servant [2289] of the Word, who was by nature Lord; but rather, not only was it that emancipation of all humanity which takes place by the Word, but that very Word who was by nature Lord, and was then made man, hath by means of a servant's form been made Lord of all and Christ, that is, in order to hallow all by the Spirit. And as God, when becoming a God and defence,' and saying, I will be a God to them,' does not then become God more than before, nor then begins to become God, but, what He ever is, that He then becomes to those who need Him, when it pleaseth Him, so Christ also being by nature Lord and King everlasting, does not become Lord more than He was at the time He is sent forth, nor then begins to be Lord and King, but what He is ever, that He then is made according to the flesh; and, having redeemed all, He becomes thereby again Lord of quick and dead. For Him henceforth do all things serve, and this is David's meaning in the Psalm, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool [2290] .' For it was fitting that the redemption should take place through none other than Him who is the Lord by nature, lest, though created by the Son, we should name another Lord, and fall into the Arian and Greek folly, serving the creature beyond the all-creating God [2291] .

15. This, at least according to my nothingness, is the meaning of this passage; moreover, a true and a good meaning have these words of Peter as regards the Jews. For Jews, astray from the truth, expect indeed the Christ as coming, but do not reckon that He undergoes a passion, saying what they understand not; We know that, when the Christ cometh, He abideth for ever, and how sayest Thou, that He must be lifted up [2292] ?' Next they suppose Him, not the Word coming in flesh, but a mere man, as were all the kings. The Lord then, admonishing Cleopas and the other, taught them that the Christ must first suffer; and the rest of the Jews that God was come among them, saying, If He called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God [2293] ?'

16. Peter then, having learned this from the Saviour, in both points set the Jews right, saying, "O Jews, the divine Scriptures announce that Christ cometh, and you consider Him a mere man as one of David's descendants, whereas what is written of Him shews Him to be not such as you say, but rather announces Him as Lord and God, and immortal, and dispenser of life. For Moses has said, Ye shall see your Life hanging before your eyes [2294] .' And David in the hundred and ninth Psalm, The Lord said unto My Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool [2295] ;' and in the fifteenth, Thou shalt not leave my soul in hades, neither shalt Thou suffer Thy Holy One to see corruption [2296] .' Now that these passages have not David for their scope he himself witnesses, avowing that He who was coming was His own Lord. Nay you yourselves know that He is dead, and His remains are with you. That the Christ then must be such as the Scriptures say, you will plainly confess yourselves. For those announcements come from God, and in them falsehood cannot be. If then ye can state that such a one has come before, and can prove him God from the signs and wonders which he did, ye have reason for maintaining the contest, but if ye are not able to prove His coming, but are expecting such an one still, recognise the true season from Daniel, for his words relate to the present time. But if this present season be that which was of old, afore-announced, and ye have seen what has taken place among us, be sure that this Jesus, whom ye crucified, this is the expected Christ. For David and all the Prophets died, and the sepulchres of all are with you, but that Resurrection which has now taken place, has shewn that the scope of these passages is Jesus. For the crucifixion is denoted by Ye shall see your Life hanging,' and the wound in the side by the spear answers to He was led as a sheep to the slaughter [2297] ,' and the resurrection, nay more, the rising of the ancient dead from out their sepulchres (for these most of you have seen), this is, Thou shalt not leave My soul in hades,' and He swallowed up death in strength [2298] ,' and again, God will wipe away.' For the signs which actually took place shew that He who was in a body was God, and also the Life and Lord of death. For it became the Christ, when giving life to others, Himself not to be detained by death; but this could not have happened, had He, as you suppose, been a mere man. But in truth He is the Son of God, for men are all subject to death. Let no one therefore doubt, but the whole house of Israel know assuredly that this Jesus, whom ye saw in shape a man, doing signs and such works, as no one ever yet had done, is Himself the Christ and Lord of all. For though made man, and called Jesus, as we said before, He received no loss by that human passion, but rather, in being made man, He is manifested as Lord of quick and dead. For since, as the Apostle said, in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe [2299] .' And so, since we men would not acknowledge God through His Word, nor serve the Word of God our natural Master, it pleased God to shew in man His own Lordship, and so to draw all men to Himself. But to do this by a mere man beseemed not [2300] ; lest, having man for our Lord, we should become worshippers of man [2301] . Therefore the Word Himself became flesh, and the Father called His Name Jesus, and so made' Him Lord and Christ, as much as to say, He made Him to rule and to reign;' that while in the Name of Jesus, whom ye crucified, every knee bows, we may acknowledge as Lord and King both the Son and through Him the Father."

17. The Jews then, most of them [2302] , hearing this, came to themselves and forthwith acknowledged the Christ, as it is written in the Acts. But, the Ario-maniacs on the contrary choose to remain Jews, and to contend with Peter; so let us proceed to place before them some parallel phrases; perhaps it may have some effect upon them, to find what the usage is of divine Scripture. Now that Christ is everlasting Lord and King, has become plain by what has gone before, nor is there a man to doubt about it; for being Son of God, He must be like Him [2303] , and being like, He is certainly both Lord and King, for He says Himself, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father.' On the other hand, that Peter's mere words, He hath made Him both Lord and Christ,' do not imply the Son to be a creature, may be seen from Isaac's blessing, though this illustration is but a faint one for our subject. Now he said to Jacob, Become thou lord over thy brother;' and to Esau, Behold, I have made him thy lord [2304] .' Now though the word made' had implied Jacob's essence and the coming into being, even then it would not be right in them as much as to imagine the same of the Word of God, for the Son of God is no creature as Jacob was; besides, they might inquire and so rid themselves of that extravagance. But if they do not understand it of his essence nor of his coming into being, though Jacob was by nature creature and work, is not their madness worse than the Devil's [2305] , if what they dare not ascribe in consequence of a like phrase even to things by nature originate, that they attach to the Son of God, saying that He is a creature? For Isaac said Become' and I have made,' signifying neither the coming into being nor the essence of Jacob (for after thirty years and more from his birth he said this); but his authority over his brother, which came to pass subsequently.

18. Much more then did Peter say this without meaning that the Essence of the Word was a work; for he knew Him to be God's Son, confessing, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God [2306] ;' but he meant His Kingdom and Lordship which was formed and came to be according to grace, and was relatively to us. For while saying this, he was not silent about the Son of God's everlasting Godhead which is the Father's; but He had said already, that He had poured the Spirit on us; now to give the Spirit with authority, is not in the power of creature or work, but the Spirit is God's Gift [2307] . For the creatures are hallowed by the Holy Spirit; but the Son, in that He is not hallowed by the Spirit, but on the contrary Himself the Giver of it to all [2308] , is therefore no creature, but true Son of the Father. And yet He who gives the Spirit, the same is said also to be made; that is, to be made among us Lord because of His manhood, while giving the Spirit because He is God's Word. For He ever was and is, as Son, so also Lord and Sovereign of all, being like in all things [2309] to the Father, and having all that is the Father's [2310] as He Himself has said [2311] . __________________________________________________________________

[2272] Brucker de Zenon. §7. n. 14.

[2273] §1, note 13.

[2274] haplos.

[2275] meta paratereseos. vid. infr. 44. e. 59. b. 71. e. Orat. iii. 52. b.

[2276] Acts ii. 22.

[2277] John v. 16, 18.

[2278] John x. 38. not to the letter.

[2279] Gen. xix. 24.

[2280] Ps. cx. 1.

[2281] Ps. xlv. 6.

[2282] Ps. cxlv. 13.

[2283] §62, cf. Serm. Maj. de Fid. 1.

[2284] Ps. lxxi. 3. stony rock, E. V. Ps. ix. 9. dejence.

[2285] Gal. iv. 8.

[2286] James i. 21.

[2287] Rom. viii. 26.

[2288] Is. xxvi. 13. LXX.

[2289] ouk edoulon ton logon; though, as he said supr. §10, the Word became a servant, as far as He was man. He says the same thing Ep. Æg 17. So say Naz. Orat. 32. 18. Nyssen. ad Simpl. (t. 2. p. 471.) Cyril. Alex. adv. Theodor. p. 223. Hilar. de Trin. xi. Ambros. 1. Epp. 46, 3.

[2290] Ps. cx. 1.

[2291] Vid. Rom. i. 25. and so both text and application very frequently, e.g. Ep. Æg. 4. e. 13. c. Vid. supr. i. 8, note 8, infr. iii. 16. note

[2292] John xii. 34, not to the letter.

[2293] John x. 36.

[2294] Deut. xxviii. 66. Vid. [de Incar. 35. The text is frequently thus explained by the Fathers].

[2295] Ps. cx. 1.

[2296] Ps. xvi. 10.

[2297] Is. liii. 7.

[2298] Is. xxv. 8.

[2299] 1 Cor. i. 21.

[2300] In the text the Mediatorial Lordship is made an office of God the Word; still, not as God, but as man. Cf. Augustine, Trin. i. 27. 28. In like manner the Priesthood is the office of God in the form of man, supr. 8, note 4. And so again none but the Eternal Son could be prototokos, yet He is so called when sent as Creator and as incarnate. infr. 64.

[2301] Infr. iii. 32 fin.

[2302] hoi pleistoi. [An exaggeration, cf. Rom. xi. 7, &c.]

[2303] §22, note.

[2304] Gen. xxvii. 29, 37.

[2305] Alluding to the temptation.

[2306] Matt. xvi. 16.

[2307] theou doron. And so more distinctly S. Basil, doron tou theou to pneuma. de Sp. S. 57, and more frequently the later Latins, as in the Hymn, Altissimi Donum Dei;' and the earlier, e.g. Hil. de Trin. ii. 29. and August. Trin. xv. 29. v. 15, Petav. Trin. vii. 13, §20.

[2308] Supr. ch. xii.

[2309] homoios kata panta. vid. infr. §22, note 4.

[2310] Vid. infr. note on Orat. iii. 1.

[2311] Vid. John xvi. 15 __________________________________________________________________

Chapter XVI.--Introductory to Proverbs viii. 22, that the Son is not a

Chapter XVI.--Introductory to Proverbs viii. 22, that the Son is not a Creature. Arian formula, a creature but not as one of the creatures; but each creature is unlike all other creatures; and no creature can create. The Word then differs from all creatures in that in which they, though otherwise differing, all agree together, as creatures; viz. in being an efficient cause; in being the one medium or instrumental agent in creation; moreover in being the revealer of the Father; and in being the object of worship.

18. (continued). Now in the next place let us consider the passage in the Proverbs, The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works [2312] ;' although in shewing that the Word is no work, it has been also shewn that He is no creature. For it is the same to say work or creature, so that the proof that He is no work is a proof also that He is no creature. Whereas one may marvel at these men, thus devising excuses to be irreligious, and nothing daunted at the refutations which meet them upon every point. For first they set about deceiving the simple by their questions, [2313] Did He who is make from that which was not one that was not or one that was [2314] ?' and, Had you a son before begetting him [2315] ?' And when this had been proved worthless, next they invented the question, Is the Unoriginate one or two [2316] ?' Then, when in this they had been confuted, straightway they formed another, Has He free-will and an alterable nature [2317] ?' But being forced to give up this, next they set about saying, Being made so much better than the Angels [2318] ;' and when the truth exposed this pretence, now again, collecting them all together, they think to recommend their heresy by work' and creature [2319] .' For they mean those very things over again, and are true to their own perverseness, putting into various shapes and turning to and fro the same errors, if so be to deceive some by that variousness. Although then abundant proof has been given above of this their reckless expedient, yet, since they make all places sound with this passage from the Proverbs, and to many who are ignorant of the faith of Christians, seem to say somewhat, it is necessary to examine separately, He created' as well as Who was faithful to Him that made Him [2320] ;' that, as in all others, so in this text also, they may be proved to have got no further than a fantasy.

19. And first let us see the answers, which they returned to Alexander of blessed memory, in the outset, while their heresy was in course of formation. They wrote thus: He is a creature, but not as one of the creatures; a work, but not as one of the works; an offspring, but not as one of the offsprings [2321] .' Let every one consider the profligacy and craft of this heresy; for knowing the bitterness of its own malignity, it makes an effort to trick itself out with fair words, and says, what indeed it means, that He is a creature, yet thinks to be able to screen itself by adding, but not as one of the creatures.' However, in thus writing, they rather convict themselves of irreligion; for if, in your opinion, He is simply a creature, why add the pretence [2322] , but not as one of the creatures?' And if He is simply a work, how not as one of the works?' In which we may see the poison of the heresy. For by saying, offspring, but not as one of the offsprings,' they reckon many sons, and one of these they pronounce to be the Lord; so that according to them He is no more Only begotten, but one out of many brethren, and is called [2323] offspring and son. What use then is this pretence of saying that He is a creature and not a creature? for though ye shall say, Not as one of the creatures,' I will prove this sophism of yours to be foolish. For still ye pronounce Him to be one of the creatures; and whatever a man might say of the other creatures, such ye hold concerning the Son, ye truly fools and blind [2324] .' For is any one of the creatures just what another is [2325] , that ye should predicate this of the Son as some prerogative [2326] ? And all the visible creation was made in six days:--in the first, the light which He called day; in the second the firmament; in the third, gathering together the waters, He bared the dry land, and brought out the various fruits that are in it; and in the fourth, He made the sun and the moon and all the host of the stars; and on the fifth, He created the race of living things in the sea, and of birds in the air; and on the sixth, He made the quadrupeds on the earth, and at length man. And the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made [2327] ;' and neither the light is as the night, nor the sun as the moon; nor the irrational as rational man; nor the Angels as the Thrones, nor the Thrones as the Authorities, yet they are all creatures, but each of the things made according to its kind exists and remains in its own essence, as it was made.

20. Let the Word then be excepted from the works, and as Creator be restored to the Father, and be confessed to be Son by nature; or if simply He be a creature, then let Him be assigned the same condition as the rest one with another, and let them as well as He be said every one of them to be a creature but not as one of the creatures, offspring or work, but not as one of the works or offsprings.' For ye say that an offspring is the same as a work, writing generated or made [2328] .' For though the Son excel the rest on a comparison, still a creature He is nevertheless, as they are; since in those which are by nature creatures one may find some excelling others. Star, for instance, differs from star in glory, and the rest have all of them their mutual differences when compared together; yet it follows not for all this that some are lords, and others servants to the superior, nor that some are efficient causes [2329] , others by them come into being, but all have a nature which comes to be and is created, confessing in their own selves their Framer: as David says in the Psalms, The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handy work [2330] ;' and as Zorobabel the wise says, All the earth calleth upon the Truth, and the heaven blesseth it: all works shake and tremble at it [2331] .' But if the whole earth hymns the Framer and the Truth, and blesses, and fears it, and its Framer is the Word, and He Himself says, I am the Truth [2332] ,' it follows that the Word is not a creature, but alone proper to the Father, in whom all things are disposed, and He is celebrated by all, as Framer; for I was by Him disposing [2333] ;' and My Father worketh hitherto, and I work [2334] .' And the word hitherto' shews His eternal existence in the Father as the Word; for it is proper to the Word to work the Father's works and not to be external to Him.

21. But if what the Father worketh, that the Son worketh also [2335] , and what the Son createth, that is the creation of the Father, and yet the Son be the Father's work or creature, then either He will work His own self, and will be His own creator (since what the Father worketh is the Son's work also), which is absurd and impossible; or, in that He creates and worketh the things of the Father, He Himself is not a work nor a creature; for else being Himself an efficient cause [2336] , He may cause that to be in the case of things caused, which He Himself has become, or rather He may have no power to cause at all.

For how, if, as you hold, He is come of nothing, is He able to frame things that are nothing into being? or if He, a creature, withal frames a creature, the same will be conceivable in the case of every creature, viz. the power to frame others. And if this pleases you, what is the need of the Word, seeing that things inferior can be brought to be by things superior? or at all events, every thing that is brought to be could have heard in the beginning God's words, Become' and be made,' and so would have been framed. But this is not so written, nor could it be. For none of things which are brought to be is an efficient cause, but all things were made through the Word: who would not have wrought all things, were He Himself in the number of the creatures. For neither would the Angels be able to frame, since they too are creatures, though Valentinus, and Marcion, and Basilides think so, and you are their copyists; nor will the sun, as being a creature, ever make what is not into what is; nor will man fashion man, nor stone devise stone, nor wood give growth to wood. But God is He who fashions man in the womb, and fixes the mountains, and makes wood grow; whereas man, as being capable of science, puts together and arranges that material, and works things that are, as he has learned; and is satisfied if they are but brought to be, and being conscious of what his nature is, if he needs aught, knows to ask [2337] it of God.

22. If then God also wrought and compounded out of materials, this indeed is a gentile thought, according to which God is an artificer and not a Maker, but yet even in that case let the Word work the materials, at the bidding and in the service of God [2338] . But if He calls into existence things which existed not by His proper Word, then the Word is not in the number of things non-existing and called; or we have to seek another Word [2339] , through whom He too was called; for by the Word the things which were not have come to be. And if through Him He creates and makes, He is not Himself of things created and made; but rather He is the Word of the Creator God and is known from the Father's works which He Himself worketh, to be in the Father and the Father in Him,' and He that hath seen Him hath seen the Father [2340] ,' because the Son's Essence is proper to the Father, and He in all points like Him [2341] . How then does He create through Him, unless it be His Word and His Wisdom? and how can He be Word and Wisdom, unless He be the proper offspring of His Essence [2342] , and did not come to be, as others, out of nothing? And whereas all things are from nothing, and are creatures, and the Son, as they say, is one of the creatures too and of things which once were not, how does He alone reveal the Father, and none else but He know the Father? For could He, a work, possibly know the Father, then must the Father be also known by all according to the proportion of the measures of each: for all of them are works as He is. But if it be impossible for things originate either to see or to know, for the sight and the knowledge of Him surpasses all (since God Himself says, No one shall see My face and live [2343] '), yet the Son has declared, No one knoweth the Father, save the Son [2344] ,' therefore the Word is different from all things originate, in that He alone knows and alone sees the Father, as He says, Not that any one hath seen the Father, save He that is from the Father,' and no one knoweth the Father save the Son [2345] ,' though Arius think otherwise. How then did He alone know, except that He alone was proper to Him? and how proper, if He were a creature, and not a true Son from Him? (For one must not mind saying often the same thing for religion's sake.) Therefore it is irreligious to think that the Son is one of all things; and blasphemous and unmeaning to call Him a creature, but not as one of the creatures, and a work, but not as one of the works, an offspring, but not as one of the offsprings;' for how not as one of these, if, as they say, He was not before His generation [2346] ? for it is proper to the creatures and works not to be before their origination, and to subsist out of nothing, even though they excel other creatures in glory; for this difference of one with another will be found in all creatures, which appears in those which are visible [2347] .

23. Moreover if, as the heretics hold, the Son were creature or work, but not as one of the creatures, because of His excelling them in glory, it were natural that Scripture should describe and display Him by a comparison in His favour with the other works; for instance, that it should say that He is greater than Archangels, and more honourable than the Thrones, and both brighter than sun and moon, and greater than the heavens. But he is not in fact thus referred to; but the Father shews Him to be His own proper and only Son, saying, Thou art My Son,' and This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. [2348] ' Accordingly the Angels ministered unto Him, as being one beyond themselves; and they worship Him, not as being greater in glory, but as being some one beyond all the creatures, and beyond themselves, and alone the Father's proper Son according to essence [2349] . For if He was worshipped as excelling them in glory, each of things subservient ought to worship what excels itself. But this is not the case [2350] ; for creature does not worship creature, but servant Lord, and creature God. Thus Peter the Apostle hinders Cornelius who would worship him, saying, I myself also am a man [2351] .' And an Angel, when John would worship him in the Apocalypse, hinders him, saying, See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the Prophets, and of them that keep the sayings of this book: worship God [2352] .' Therefore to God alone appertains worship, and this the very Angels know, that though they excel other beings in glory, yet they are all creatures and not to be worshipped [2353] , but worship the Lord. Thus Manoah, the father of Samson, wishing to offer sacrifice to the Angel, was thereupon hindered by him, saying, Offer not to me, but to God [2354] .' On the other hand, the Lord is worshipped even by the Angels; for it is written, Let all the Angels of God worship Him [2355] ;' and by all the Gentiles, as Isaiah says, The labour of Egypt and merchandize of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thy servants;' and then, they shall fall down unto thee, and shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee, and there is none else, there is no God [2356] .' And He accepts His disciples' worship, and certifies them who He is, saying, Call ye Me not Lord and Master? and ye say well, for so I am.' And when Thomas said to Him, My Lord and my God [2357] ,' He allows his words, or rather accepts him instead of hindering him. For He is, as the other Prophets declare, and David says in the Psalm, the Lord of hosts, the Lord of Sabaoth,' which is interpreted, the Lord of Armies,' and God True and Almighty, though the Arians burst [2358] at the tidings.

24. But He had not been thus worshipped, nor been thus spoken of, were He a creature merely. But now since He is not a creature, but the proper offspring of the Essence of that God who is worshipped, and His Son by nature, therefore He is worshipped and is believed to be God, and is Lord of armies, and in authority, and Almighty, as the Father is; for He has said Himself, All things that the Father hath, are Mine [2359] .' For it is proper to the Son, to have the things of the Father, and to be such that the Father is seen in Him, and that through Him all things were made, and that the salvation of all comes to pass and consists in Him. __________________________________________________________________

[2312] Prov. viii. 22. [This text, which had been immemorially applied to the Logos (supr. p. 168, note 7), and which in the false rendering of the LXX. strongly favoured the Arian side], is presently explained at greater length than any other of the texts he handles, forming the chief subject of the Oration henceforth, after an introduction which extends down to 44.

[2313] From the methodical manner in which the successive portions of his foregoing Oration are here referred to, it would almost seem as if he were answering in course some Arian work. vid. also supr. Orat. i. 37, 53. infr. Orat. iii. 26. He does not seem to be tracing the controversy historically.

[2314] Supr. ch. vii.

[2315] Ch. viii.

[2316] Ch. ix.

[2317] Ch. x.

[2318] Ch. xiii.

[2319] Ch. xiv. and xv.

[2320] Ch. xiv. Heb. iii. 2

[2321] Vid. Arius's letter, de Syn. 16. This was the sophism by means of which Valens succeeded with the Fathers of Arminium. vid. S. Jerome in Luciferian. 18. vid. also in Eusebius, supr. Ep. Eus. 6.

[2322] De Syn. 32.

[2323] huion chrematizein. The question between Catholics and Arians was whether our Lord was a true Son, or only called Son. Since they whisper something about Word and Wisdom as only names of the Son, &c.' onomata monon, supr. i. 26, note 1, and de Decr. 16, note 10. And so the title of Image is not a token of a similar substance, but His name only,' supr. i. 21, and so infr. 38. where tois onomasi is synonymous with kat' epinoian, as Sent. D. 22. f. a. Vid. also 39. Orat. iii. 11. 18. not named Son, but ever Son,' iv. 24. fin. Ep. Æg. 16. We call Him so, and mean truly what we say; they say it, but do not confess it.' Chrysost. in Act. Hom. 33. 4. vid. also nothois hosper onomasi, Cyril. de Trin. ii. p. 418. Non hæc nuda nomina, Ambros. de Fid. i. 17. Yet, since the Sabellians equally failed here, also considering the Sonship as only a notion or title, vid. Orat. iv. 2. (where in contrast, The Father is Father, and the Son Son,' vid. supr. p. 319, note 1.) 12. 23. 25. the word real' was used as against them, and in opposition to anupostatos logos by the Arians, and in consequence failed as a test of orthodox teaching; e.g. by Arius, supr. p. 97. by Euseb. in Marc. pp. 19, d. 35, b. 161, c. by Asterius, infr. 37. by Palladius and Secundus in the Council of Aquileia ap. Ambros. Opp. t. 2. p. 791. (ed. Bened.) by Maximinus ap. August. contr. Max. i. 6.

[2324] Matt. xxiii. 19.

[2325] And so S. Ambrose, Quæ enim creatura non sicut alia creatura non est? Homo non ut Angelus, terra non ut coelum. de Fid. i. n. 130, and a similar passage in Nyss. contr. Eun. iii. p. 132, 3.

[2326] exaireton. vid. infr. Orat. iii. 3. init. iv. 28. init. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. pp. 47. b. 73. b. 89. b. 124. a. 129. c. Theodor. H. E. p. 732. Nyss. contr. Eunom. iii. p. 133. a. Epiph. Hær. 76. p. 970. Cyril. Thes. p. 160.

[2327] Rom. i. 20.

[2328] gennethenta e poiethenta; as if they were synonymous; in opposition to which the Nicene Creed says, gennethenta e poiethenta. In like manner Arius in his letter to Eusebius uses the words, prin gennethe etoi ktisthe, e oristhe, e themeliothe, Theodor. H. E. p. 750. And to Alexander, achronos gennetheis kai pro ai& 240;non ktistheis kai themeliotheis; de Syn. 16. And Eusebius to Paulinus, ktiston kai themelioton kai genneton Theod. p. 752. The different words profess to be Scriptural, and to explain each other; created' being in Prov. viii. 22. made' in the passages considered in the last two chapters, appointed' or declared' in Rom. i. 4. and founded' or established' in Prov. viii. 23. which is discussed infr. 22, &c. vid. also 52.

[2329] 21, note 2.

[2330] Ps. xix. 1.

[2331] 1 Esdr. iv. 36.

[2332] John xiv. 6.

[2333] Prov. viii. 30, LXX.

[2334] John v. 17.

[2335] Orat. iii. 11. note.

[2336] poietikon aition, also, infr. 27. and Orat. iii. 14. and contr. Gent. 9 init. No creature can create, vid. e.g. about Angels, August. de Civ. Dei xii. 24. de Trin. iii. 13-18. Damasc. F. O. ii. 3. Cyril in Julian, ii. p. 62. Our reason rejects the idea that the Creator should be a creature, for creation is by the Creator.' Hil. Trin. xii. 5. pos dunatai to ktizomenon ktizein; e pos ho ktizon ktizetai; Athan. ad Afros. 4 fin. Vid. also Serap. i. 24, 6. iii. 4, e. The Gnostics who attributed creation to Angels are alluded to infr. Orat. iii. 12. Epiph. Hær. 52. 53, 163, &c. Theodor. Hær. i. 1 and 3.

[2337] De Decr. 11.

[2338] prostattomenos kai hupourgon. It is not quite clear that Athan. accepts these words in his own person, as has been assumed de Decr. 9. note 2, de Syn. 27 (3). Vid. de Decr. 7. and infr. 24. and 31, which, as far as they go, are against the use of the word. Also S. Basil objects to hupourgos contr. Eunom. ii. 21. and S. Cyril in Joan. p. 48. though S. Basil speaks of ton prostattonta kurion. i. 46, note 3. and S. Cyril of the Son's hupotage, Thesaur. p. 255. Vid. ministering, huperetounta, to the Father of all.' Just. Tryph. p. 72. The Word become minister, huperetes, of the Creator,' Origen Hom. in Joan. p. 61. also Constit. Ap. viii. 12. but Pseudo-Athan. objects to hupereton, de Comm. Essent. 30. and Athan. apparently, infr. 28. Again, Whom did He order, præcepit?' Iren. Hær. iii. 8. n. 3. The Father bids, entelletai (allusion to Ps. xxxiii. 9. vid. infr. 31), the Word accomplishes....He who commands, keleuon, is the Father, He who obeys, hupakouon, the Son....The Father willed, ethelesen, the Son did it.' Hippol. contr. Noet. 14. on which Fabricius's note. S. Hilary speaks of the Son as subditus per obedientiæ obsequelam.' de Syn. 51. Vid. below, on §31. In note 8 there the principle is laid down for the use of these expressions. [Supr. p. 87, note 2.]

[2339] Cf. Ep. Æg. 14. vid. also supr. p. 155. and Orat. iii. 2. 64. Aug. in Joan. Tract. i. 11. Vid. a parallel argument with reference to the Holy Spirit. Serap. i. 25. b.

[2340] Vid. John xiv. 9, 10.

[2341] ten kata panta homoioteta: vid. parallel instances, de Syn. 26 (5) note 1, which add, homoios kata panta, Orat. i. 40. kata panta kai en pasi, Ep. Æg. 17, c. tou patros homoios, Orat. ii. 17. Orat. iii. 20, a. not homoios, as the Church preaches, but hos autoi thelousi' (vid. p. 289, note 4), also de Syn. 53, note 9.

[2342] As Sonship is implied in Image' (supr. §2, note 2), so it is implied in Word' and Wisdom.' Orat. iv. 15. Orat. iii. 29 init. de Decr. 17. And still more pointedly, Orat. iv. 24 fin. vid. also supr. i. 28, note 5. And so Image is implied in Sonship: being Son of God He must be like Him,' supr. 17. And so Image' is implied in Word;' en te idi& 139; eikoni, hetis estin ho logos autou, infr. 82, d. also 34, c. On the contrary, the very root of heretical error was the denial that these titles implied each other, vid. supr. 27, de Decr. 17, 24, notes.

[2343] Vid. Ex. xxxiii. 20.

[2344] Matt. xi. 27.

[2345] John vi. 46, not to the letter.

[2346] Vid. supr. 1. and Exc. B.

[2347] Greek text dislocated.

[2348] Ps. ii. 7; Matt. iii. 17.

[2349] De Decr. 10.

[2350] Vid. Orat. iii. 12.

[2351] Acts x. 26.

[2352] Rev. xxii. 9.

[2353] [A note, to the effect that worship' is an ambiguous term, is omitted here.]

[2354] Vid. Judg. xiii. 16.

[2355] Heb. i. 6.

[2356] Is. xlv. 14.

[2357] John xiii. 13; xx. 28.

[2358] diar& 191;egnuosin heautous; also ad Adelph. 8. and vid. supr. note on de Decr. 17. vid. also diar& 191;egnuontai, de Syn. 54, kai diar& 191;agoien, Marcell. ap. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p. 116. also p. 40 trizosi tous odontos, de Fug. 26. init. trizetosan, ad Adelph. 8. Hist. Ar. 68. fin. and literally 72. a. koptousin heautous. In illud Omnia 5.

[2359] John xvi. 15. __________________________________________________________________

Chapter XVII.--Introduction to Proverbs viii. 22 continued. Absurdity

Chapter XVII.--Introduction to Proverbs viii. 22 continued. Absurdity of supposing a Son or Word created in order to the creation of other creatures; as to the creation being unable to bear God's immediate hand, God condescends to the lowest. Moreover, if the Son a creature, He too could not bear God's hand, and an infinite series of media will be necessary. Objected, that, as Moses who led out the Israelites was a man, so our Lord; but Moses was not the Agent in creation:--again, that unity is found in created ministrations, but all such ministrations are defective and dependent:--again, that He learned to create, yet could God's Wisdom need teaching? and why should He learn, if the Father worketh hitherto? If the Son was created to create us, He is for our sake, not we for His.

24 (continued). And here it were well to ask them also this question [2360] , for a still clearer refutation of their heresy;--Wherefore, when all things are creatures, and all are brought into consistence from nothing, and the Son Himself, according to you, is creature and work, and once was not, wherefore has He made all things through Him' alone, and without Him was made not one thing [2361] ?' or why is it, when all things' are spoken of, that no one thinks the Son is signified in the number, but only things originate; whereas when Scripture speaks of the Word, it does not understand Him as being in the number of all,' but places Him with the Father, as Him in whom Providence and salvation for all' are wrought and effected by the Father, though all things surely might at the same command have come to be, at which He was brought into being by God alone? For God is not wearied by commanding [2362] , nor is His strength unequal to the making of all things, that He should alone create the only Son [2363] , and need His ministry and aid for the framing of the rest. For He lets nothing stand over, which He wills to be done; but He willed only [2364] , and all things subsisted, and no one hath resisted His will [2365] .' Why then were not all things brought into being by God alone at that same command, at which the Son came into being? Or let them tell us, why did all things through Him come to be, who was Himself but originate? How void of reason! however, they say concerning Him, that God willing to create originate nature, when He saw that it could not endure the untempered hand of the Father, and to be created by Him, makes and creates first and alone one only, and calls Him Son and Word, that, through Him as a medium, all things might thereupon be brought to be [2366] .' This they not only have said, but they have dared to put it into writing, namely, Eusebius, Arius, and Asterius who sacrificed [2367] .

25. Is not this a full proof of that irreligion, with which they have drugged themselves with much madness, till they blush not to be intoxicate against the truth? For if they shall assign the toil of making all things as the reason why God made the Son only, the whole creation will cry out against them as saying unworthy things of God; and Isaiah too who has said in Scripture, The Everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary: there is no searching of His understanding [2368] .' And if God made the Son alone, as not deigning to make the rest, but committed them to the Son as an assistant, this on the other hand is unworthy of God, for in Him there is no pride. Nay the Lord reproves the thought, when He says, Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?' and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father which is in heaven.' And again, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them; are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought, can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: and yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore if God so clothe the grass of the field which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall He not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith [2369] ?' If then it be not unworthy of God to exercise His Providence, even down to things so small, a hair of the head, and a sparrow, and the grass of the field, also it was not unworthy of Him to make them. For what things are the subjects of His Providence, of those He is Maker through His proper Word. Nay a worse absurdity lies before the men who thus speak; for they distinguish [2370] between the creatures and the framing; and consider the latter the work of the Father, the creatures the work of the Son; whereas either all things must be brought to be by the Father with the Son, or if all that is originate comes to be through the Son, we must not call Him one of the originated things.

26. Next, their folly may be exposed thus:--if even the Word be of originated nature, how, whereas this nature is too feeble to be God's own handywork, could He alone of all endure to be made by the unoriginate and unmitigated Essence of God, as ye say? for it follows either that, if He could endure it, all could endure it, or, it being endurable by none, it was not endurable by the Word, for you say that He is one of originate things. And again, if because originate nature could not endure to be God's own handywork, there arose need of a mediator [2371] , it must follow, that, the Word being originate and a creature, there is need of medium in His framing also, since He too is of that originate nature which endures not to be made of God, but needs a medium. But if some being as a medium be found for Him, then again a fresh mediator is needed for that second, and thus tracing back and following out, we shall invent a vast crowd of accumulating mediators; and thus it will be impossible that the creation should subsist, as ever wanting a mediator, and that medium not coming into being without another mediator; for all of them will be of that originate nature which endures not to be made of God alone, as ye say. How abundant is that folly, which obliges them to hold that what has already come into being, admits not of coming! Or perhaps they opine that they have not even come to be, as still seeking their mediator; for, on the ground of their so irreligious and futile notion [2372] , what is would not have subsistence, for want of the medium.

27. But again they allege this:--Behold, through Moses too did He lead the people from Egypt, and through him He gave the Law, yet he was a man; so that it is possible for like to be brought into being by like.' They should veil their face when they say this, to save their much shame. For Moses was not sent to frame the world, nor to call into being things which were not, or to fashion men like himself, but only to be the minister of words to the people, and to King Pharaoh. And this is a very different thing, for to minister is of things originate as of servants, but to frame and to create is of God alone, and of His proper Word and His Wisdom. Wherefore, in the matter of framing, we shall find none but God's Word; for all things are made in Wisdom,' and without the Word was made not one thing.' But as regards ministrations there are, not one only, but man out of their whole number, whomever the Lord will send. For there are many Archangels, many Thrones, and Authorities, and Dominions, thousands of thousands, and myriads of myriads, standing before Him [2373] , ministering and ready to be sent. And many Prophets, and twelve Apostles, and Paul. And Moses himself was not alone, but Aaron with him, and next other seventy were filled with the Holy Ghost. And Moses was succeeded by Joshua the son of Nun, and he by the Judges, and they not by one, but by a number of Kings. If then the Son were a creature and one of things originate, there must have been many such sons, that God might have many such ministers, just as there is a multitude of those others. But if this is not to be seen, but while the creatures are many, the Word is one, any one will collect from this, that the Son differs from all, and is not on a level with the creatures, but proper to the Father. Hence there are not many Words, but one only Word of the one Father, and one Image of the one God [2374] . But behold,' they say, there is one sun only [2375] , and one earth.' Let them maintain, senseless as they are, that there is one water and one fire, and then they may be told that everything that is brought to be, is one in its own essence; but for the ministry and service committed to it, by itself it is not adequate nor sufficient alone. For God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven, to give light upon the earth and to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years.' And then he says, And God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night [2376] .'

28. Behold there are many lights, and not the sun only, nor the moon only, but each is one in essence, and yet the service of all is one and common; and what each lacks, is supplied by the other, and the office of lighting is performed by all [2377] . Thus the sun has authority to shine throughout the day and no more; and the moon through the night; and the stars together with them accomplish the seasons and years, and become for signs, each according to the need that calls for it. Thus too the earth is not for all things, but for the fruits only, and to be a ground to tread on for the living things that inhabit it. And the firmament is to divide between waters and waters, and to be a place to set the stars in. So also fire and water, with other things, have been brought into being to be the constituent parts of bodies; and in short no one thing is alone, but all things that are made, as if members of each other, make up as it were one body, namely, the world. If then they thus conceive of the Son, let all men throw stones [2378] at them, considering the Word to be a part of this universe, and a part insufficient without the rest for the service committed to Him. But if this be manifestly irreligious, let them acknowledge that the Word is not in the number of things originate, but the sole and proper Word of the Father, and their Framer. But,' say they, though He is a creature and of things originate; yet as from a master and artificer has He [2379] learned to frame, and thus ministered [2380] to God who taught Him.' For thus the Sophist Asterius, on the strength of having learned to deny the Lord, has dared to write, not observing the absurdity which follows. For if framing be a thing to be taught, let them beware lest they say that God Himself be a Framer not by nature but by science, so as to admit of His losing the power. Besides, if the Wisdom of God attained to frame by teaching, how is He still Wisdom, when He needs to learn? and what was He before He learned? For it was not Wisdom, if it needed teaching; it was surely but some empty thing, and not essential Wisdom [2381] , but from advancement it had the name of Wisdom, and will be only so long Wisdom as it can keep what it has learned. For what has accrued not by any nature, but from learning, admits of being one time unlearned. But to speak thus of the Word of God, is not the part of Christians but of Greeks.

29. For if the power of framing accrues to anyone from teaching, these insensate men are ascribing jealousy and weakness [2382] to God;--jealousy, in that He has not taught many how to frame, so that there may be around Him, as Archangels and Angels many, so framers many; and weakness, in that He could not make by Himself, but needed a fellow-worker, or under-worker; and that, though it has been already shewn that created nature admits of being made by God alone, since they consider the Son to be of such a nature and so made. But God is deficient in nothing: perish the thought! for He has said Himself, I am full [2383] .' Nor did the Word become Framer of all from teaching; but being the Image and Wisdom of the Father, He does the things of the Father. Nor hath He made the Son for the making of things created; for behold, though the Son exists, still [2384] the Father is seen to work, as the Lord Himself says, My Father worketh hitherto and I work [2385] .' If however, as you say, the Son came into being for the purpose of making the things after Him, and yet the Father is seen to work even after the Son, you must hold even in this light the making of such a Son to be superfluous. Besides, why, when He would create us, does He seek for a mediator at all, as if His will did not suffice to constitute whatever seemed good to Him? Yet the Scriptures say, He hath done whatsoever pleased Him [2386] ,' and Who hath resisted His will [2387] ?' And if His mere will [2388] is sufficient for the framing of all things, you make the office of a mediator superfluous; for your instance of Moses, and the sun and the moon has been shewn not to hold. And here again is an argument to silence you. You say that God, willing the creation of originated nature, and deliberating concerning it, designs and creates the Son, that through Him He may frame us; now, if so, consider how great an irreligion [2389] you have dared to utter.

30. First, the Son appears rather to have been for us brought to be, than we for Him; for we were not created for Him, but He is made for us [2390] ; so that He owes thanks to us, not we to Him, as the woman to the man. For the man,' says Scripture, was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man.' Therefore, as the man is the image and glory of God, and the woman the glory of the man [2391] ,' so we are made God's image and to His glory; but the Son is our image, and exists for our glory. And we were brought into being that we might be; but God's Word was made, as you must hold, not that He might be [2392] ; but as an instrument [2393] for our need, so that not we from Him, but He is constituted from our need. Are not men who even conceive such thoughts, more than insensate? For if for us the Word was made, He has not precedence [2394] of us with God; for He did not take counsel about us having Him within Him, but having us in Himself, counselled, as they say, concerning His own Word. But if so, perchance the Father had not even a will for the Son at all; for not as having a will for Him, did He create Him, but with a will for us, He formed Him for our sake; for He designed Him after designing us; so that, according to these irreligious men, henceforth the Son, who was made as an instrument, is superfluous, now that they are made for whom He was created. But if the Son alone was made by God alone, because He could endure it, but we, because we could not, were made by the Word, why does He not first take counsel about the Word, who could endure His making, instead of taking counsel about us? or why does He not make more of Him who was strong, than of us who were weak? or why making Him first, does He not counsel about Him first? or why counselling about us first, does He not make us first, His will being sufficient for the constitution of all things? But He creates Him first, yet counsels first about us; and He wills us before the Mediator; and when He wills to create us, and counsels about us, He calls us creatures; but Him, whom He frames for us, He calls Son and proper Heir. But we, for whose sake He made Him, ought rather to be called sons; or certainly He, who is His Son, is rather the object of His previous thoughts and of His will, for whom He makes all us. Such the sickness, such the vomit [2395] of the heretics. __________________________________________________________________

[2360] These sections 24-26 are very similar to de Decr. 7, 8, yet not in wording or order, as is the case with other passages.

[2361] John i. 3.

[2362] De Decr. 7.

[2363] monos monon, also infr. 30. this phrase is synonymous with not as one of the creatures,' vid. monos hupo monou, supr. p. 12. also p. 75. note 6. vid. monos, de Syn. 26, fin. note 2, though that term is somewhat otherwise explained by S. Greg. Naz. monos ouch hos ta somata, Orat. 25, 16. Eunomius understood by monogenes, not monos gennetheis but para monou. It should be observed, however, that this is a sense in which some of the Greek Fathers understand the term, thus contrasting generation with procession. vid. Petav. Trin. vii. 11. §3.

[2364] §§29, 31.

[2365] Rom. ix. 19.

[2366] Vid. de Decr. §8. supr. p. 2. also Cyril. Thesaur. pp. 150, 241. de Trin. p. 523. Basil contr. Eunom. ii. 21. vid. also infr. 29. Orat. iv. 11, 12.

[2367] De Decr. 8.

[2368] Is. xl. 28.

[2369] Matt. x. 29; vi. 25-30

[2370] diairousin, as supr. de Decr. 7.

[2371] Vid. ib. 8. vid. also a similar argument in Epiphanius Hær. 76. p. 951. but the arguments of Ath. in these Orations are so generally adopted by the succeeding Fathers, that it is impossible and needless to enumerate the instances of agreement.

[2372] And so de Decr. 8.

[2373] i. 62. and Ambros. de Fid. iii. 106.

[2374] §36, note 4.

[2375] Vid. Euseb. Demon. iv. 5 fin.

[2376] Gen. i. 14-18

[2377] §48.

[2378] §4, note 2.

[2379] Cyril. in Joan. p. 47, c.

[2380] §22, note 1.

[2381] ousiodes sophia. vid. Orat. iv. 1.

[2382] i. 27.

[2383] Is. i. 11.

[2384] vid. p. 315, note 6. Serap. ii. 2. fin.

[2385] John v. 17.

[2386] Ps. cxv. 3.

[2387] Rom. ix. 19.

[2388] §24, note 5.

[2389] Notes on §58, and de Decr. 1.

[2390] Vid. Orat. iv. 11.

[2391] 1 Cor. xi. 7, 9.

[2392] Cf. infr. ch. 20.

[2393] organon, supr. i. 26, n. 5.

[2394] protos hemon, §63, note.

[2395] emetoi kai nautiai` nautiai sea-sickness; Epictetus, in a somewhat similar sense, There is great danger of pouring forth straightway, what one has not digested.' Enchirid. 46. __________________________________________________________________

Chapter XVIII.--Introduction to Proverbs viii. 22 continued. Contrast

Chapter XVIII.--Introduction to Proverbs viii. 22 continued. Contrast between the Father's operations immediately and naturally in the Son, instrumentally by the creatures; Scripture terms illustrative of this. Explanation of these illustrations; which should be interpreted by the doctrine of the Church; perverse sense put on them by the Arians, refuted. Mystery of Divine Generation. Contrast between God's Word and man's word drawn out at length. Asterius betrayed into holding two Unoriginates; his inconsistency. Baptism how by the Son as well as by the Father. On the Baptism of heretics. Why Arian worse than other heresies.

31. But the sentiment of Truth [2396] in this matter must not be hidden, but must have high utterance. For the Word of God was not made for us, but rather we for Him, and in Him all things were created [2397] .' Nor for that we were weak, was He strong and made by the Father alone, that He might frame us by means of Him as an instrument; perish the thought! it is not so. For though it had seemed good to God not to make things originate, still had the Word been no less with God, and the Father in Him. At the same time, things originate could not without the Word be brought to be; hence they were made through Him,--and reasonably. For since the Word is the Son of God by nature proper to His essence, and is from Him, and in Him [2398] , as He said Himself, the creatures could not have come to be, except through Him. For as the light enlightens all things by its radiance, and without its radiance nothing would be illuminated, so also the Father, as by a hand [2399] , in the Word wrought all things, and without Him makes nothing. For instance, God said, as Moses relates, Let there be light,' and Let the waters be gathered together,' and let the dry land appear,' and Let Us make man [2400] ;' as also Holy David in the Psalm, He spake and they were made; He commanded and they were created [2401] .' And He spoke [2402] , not that, as in the case of men, some under-worker might hear, and learning the will of Him who spoke might go away and do it; for this is what is proper to creatures, but it is unseemly so to think or speak of the Word. For the Word of God is Framer and Maker, and He is the Father's Will [2403] . Hence it is that divine Scripture says not that one heard and answered, as to the manner or nature of the things which He wished made; but God only said, Let it become,' and he adds, And it became;' for what He thought good and counselled, that forthwith the Word began to do and to finish. For when God commands others, whether the Angels, or converses with Moses, or commands Abraham, then the hearer answers; and the one says, Whereby shall I know [2404] ?' and the other, Send some one else [2405] ;' and again, If they ask me, what is His Name, what shall I say to them [2406] ?' and the Angel said to Zacharias, Thus saith the Lord [2407] ;' and he asked the Lord, O Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou not have mercy on Jerusalem?' and waits to hear good words and comfortable. For each of these has the Mediator [2408] Word, and the Wisdom of God which makes known the will of the Father. But when that Word Himself works and creates, then there is no questioning and answer, for the Father is in Him and the Word in the Father; but it suffices to will, and the work is done; so that the word He said' is a token of the will for our sake, and It was so,' denotes the work which is done through the Word and the Wisdom, in which Wisdom also is the Will of the Father. And God said' is explained in the Word,' for, he says, Thou hast made all things in Wisdom;' and By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made fast;' and There is one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him [2409] .'

32. It is plain from this that the Arians are not fighting with us about their heresy; but while they pretend us, their real fight is against the Godhead Itself. For if the voice were ours which says, This it My Son [2410] ,' small were our complaint of them; but if it is the Father's voice, and the disciples heard it, and the Son too says of Himself, Before all the mountains He begat me [2411] ,' are they not fighting against God, as the giants [2412] in story, having their tongue, as the Psalmist says, a sharp sword [2413] for irreligion? For they neither feared the voice of the Father, nor reverenced the Saviour's words, nor trusted the Saints, one of whom writes, Who being the Brightness of His glory and the Expression of His subsistence,' and Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God [2414] ;' and another says in the Psalm, With Thee is the well of life, and in Thy Light shall we see light,' and Thou madest all things in Wisdom [2415] ;' and the Prophets say, And the Word of the Lord came to me [2416] ;' and John, In the beginning was the Word;' and Luke, As they delivered them unto us which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word [2417] ;' and as David again says, He sent His Word and healed them [2418] .' All these passages proscribe in every light the Arian heresy, and signify the eternity of the Word, and that He is not foreign but proper to the Father's Essence. For when saw any one light without radiance? or who dares to say that the expression can be different from the subsistence? or has not a man himself lost his mind [2419] who even entertains the thought that God was ever without Reason and without Wisdom? For such illustrations and such images has Scripture proposed, that, considering the inability of human nature to comprehend God, we might be able to form ideas even from these however poorly and dimly, and as far as is attainable [2420] . And as the creation contains abundant matter for the knowledge of the being of a God and a Providence (for by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionably the Maker of them is seen [2421] '), and we learn from them without asking for voices, but hearing the Scriptures we believe, and surveying the very order and the harmony of all things, we acknowledge that He is Maker and Lord and God of all, and apprehend His marvellous Providence and governance over all things; so in like manner about the Son's Godhead, what has been above said is sufficient, and it becomes superfluous, or rather it is very mad to dispute about it, or to ask in an heretical way, How can the Son be from eternity? or how can He be from the Father's Essence, yet not a part? since what is said to be of another, is a part of him; and what is divided, is not whole.

33. These are the evil sophistries of the heterodox; yet, though we have already shewn their shallowness, the exact sense of these passages themselves and the force of these illustrations will serve to shew the baseless nature of their loathsome tenet. For we see that reason is ever, and is from him and proper to his essence, whose reason it is, and does not admit a before and an after. So again we see that the radiance from the sun is proper to it, and the sun's essence is not divided or impaired; but its essence is whole and its radiance perfect and whole [2422] , yet without impairing the essence of light, but as a true offspring from it. We understand in like manner that the Son is begotten not from without but from the Father, and while the Father remains whole, the Expression of His Subsistence is ever, and preserves the Father's likeness and unvarying Image, so that he who sees Him, sees in Him the Subsistence too, of which He is the Expression. And from the operation of the Expression we understand the true Godhead of the Subsistence, as the Saviour Himself teaches when He says, The Father who dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works [2423] ' which I do; and I and the Father are one,' and I in the Father and the Father in Me [2424] .' Therefore let this Christ--opposing heresy attempt first to divide [2425] the examples found in things originate, and say, Once the sun was without his radiance,' or, Radiance is not proper to the essence of light,' or It is indeed proper, but it is a part of light by division; and then let it divide Reason, and pronounce that it is foreign to mind, or that once it was not, or that it was not proper to its essence, or that it is by division a part of mind.' And so of His Expression and the Light and the Power, let it do violence to these as in the case of Reason and Radiance; and instead let it imagine what it will [2426] . But if such extravagance be impossible for them, are they not greatly beside themselves, presumptuously intruding into what is higher than things originate and their own nature, and essaying impossibilities [2427] ?

34. For if in the case of these originate and irrational things offsprings are found which are not parts of the essences from which they are, nor subsist with passion, nor impair the essences of their originals, are they not mad again in seeking and conjecturing parts and passions in the instance of the immaterial and true God, and ascribing divisions to Him who is beyond passion and change, thereby to perplex the ears of the simple [2428] and to pervert them from the Truth? for who hears of a son but conceives of that which is proper to the father's essence? who heard, in his first catechising [2429] , that God has a Son and has made all things by His proper Word, but understood it in that sense in which we now mean it? who on the rise of this odious heresy of the Arians, was not at once startled at what he heard, as strange [2430] , and a second sowing, besides that Word which had been sown from the beginning? For what is sown in every soul from the beginning is that God has a Son, the Word, the Wisdom, the Power, that is, His Image and Radiance; from which it at once follows that He is always; that He is from the Father; that He is like; that He is the eternal offspring of His essence; and there is no idea involved in these of creature or work. But when the man who is an enemy, while men slept, made a second sowing [2431] , of He is a creature,' and There was once when He was not,' and How can it be?' thenceforth the wicked heresy of Christ's enemies rose as tares, and forthwith, as bereft of every right thought, they meddle [2432] like robbers, and venture to say, How can the Son always exist with the Father?' for men come of men and are sons, after a time; and the father is thirty years old, when the son begins to be, being begotten; and in short of every son of man, it is true that he was not before his generation. And again they whisper, How can the Son be Word, or the Word be God's Image? for the word of men is composed of syllables [2433] , and only signifies the speaker's will, and then is over [2434] and is lost.'

35. They then afresh, as if forgetting the proofs which have been already urged against them, pierce themselves through [2435] ' with these bonds of irreligion, and thus argue. But the word of truth [2436] confutes them as follows:--if they were disputing concerning any man, then let them exercise reason in this human way, both concerning His Word and His Son; but if of God who created man, no longer let them entertain human thoughts, but others which are above human nature. For such as he that begets, such of necessity is the offspring; and such as is the Word's Father, such must be also His Word. Now man, begotten in time, in time [2437] also himself begets the child; and whereas from nothing he came to be, therefore his word [2438] also is over and continues not. But God is not as man, as Scripture has said; but is existing and is ever; therefore also His Word is existing [2439] and is everlastingly with the Father, as radiance of light. And man's word is composed of syllables, and neither lives nor operates anything, but is only significant of the speaker's intention, and does but go forth and go by, no more to appear, since it was not at all before it was spoken; wherefore the word of man neither lives nor operates anything, nor in short is man. And this happens to it, as I said before, because man who begets it, has his nature out of nothing. But God's Word is not merely pronounced, as one may say, nor a sound of accents, nor by His Son is meant His command [2440] ; but as radiance of light, so is He perfect offspring from perfect [2441] . Hence He is God also, as being God's Image; for the Word was God [2442] ' says Scripture. And man's words avail not for operation; hence man works not by means of words but of hands, for they have being, and man's word subsists not. But the Word of God,' as the Apostle says, is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight; but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. [2443] ' He is then Framer of all, and without Him was made not one thing [2444] ,' nor can anything be made without Him.

36. Nor must we ask why the Word of God is not such as our word, considering God is not such as we, as has been before said; nor again is it right to seek how the word is from God, or how He is God's radiance, or how God begets, and what is the manner of His begetting [2445] . For a man must be beside himself to venture on such points; since a thing ineffable and proper to God's nature, and known to Him alone and to the Son, this he demands to be explained in words. It is all one as if they sought where God is, and how God is, and of what nature the Father is. But as to ask such questions is irreligious, and argues an ignorance of God, so it is not holy to venture such questions concerning the generation of the Son of God, nor to measure God and His Wisdom by our own nature and infirmity. Nor is a person at liberty on that account to swerve in his thoughts from the truth, nor, if any one is perplexed in such inquiries, ought he to disbelieve what is written. For it is better in perplexity to be silent and believe, than to disbelieve on account of the perplexity: for he who is perplexed may in some way obtain mercy [2446] , because, though he has questioned, he has yet kept quiet; but when a man is led by his perplexity into forming for himself doctrines which beseem not, and utters what is unworthy of God, such daring recurs a sentence without mercy. For in such perplexities divine Scripture is able to afford him some relief, so as to take rightly what is written, and to dwell upon our word as an illustration; that as it is proper to us and is from us, and not a work external to us, so also God's Word is proper to Him and from Him, and is not a work; and yet is not like the word of man, or else we must suppose God to be man. For observe, many and various are men's words which pass away day by day; because those that come before others continue not, but vanish. Now this happens because their authors are men, and have seasons which pass away, and ideas which are successive; and what strikes them first and second, that they utter; so that they have many words, and yet after them all nothing at all remaining; for the speaker ceases, and his word forthwith is spent. But God's Word is one and the same, and, as it is written, The Word of God endureth for ever [2447] ,' not changed, not before or after other, but existing the same always. For it was fitting, whereas God is One, that His Image should be One also, and His Word One and One His Wisdom [2448] .

37. Wherefore I am in wonder how, whereas God is One, these men introduce, after their private notions, many images and wisdoms and words [2449] , and say that the Father's proper and natural Word is other than the Son, by whom He even made the Son [2450] and that He who is really Son is but notionally [2451] called Word, as vine, and way, and door, and tree of life; and that He is called Wisdom also in name, the proper and true Wisdom of the Father, which coexist ingenerately [2452] with Him, being other than the Son, by which He even made the Son, and named Him Wisdom as partaking of it. This they have not confined to words, but Arius composed in his Thalia, and the Sophist Asterius wrote, what we have stated above, as follows: Blessed Paul said not that he preached Christ, the Power of God or the Wisdom of God,' but without the addition of the article, God's power' and God's wisdom [2453] ,' thus preaching that the proper Power of God Himself which is natural to Him, and co-existent in Him ingenerately, is something besides, generative indeed of Christ, and creative of the whole world, concerning which he teaches in his Epistle to the Romans thus,--The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead [2454] .' For as no one would say that the Godhead there mentioned was Christ, but the Father Himself, so, as I think, His eternal Power and Godhead also is not the Only Begotten Son, but the Father who begat Him [2455] .' And he teaches that there is another power and wisdom of God, manifested through Christ. And shortly after the same Asterius says, However His eternal power and wisdom, which truth argues to be without beginning and ingenerate, the same must surely be one. For there are many wisdoms which are one by one created by Him, of whom Christ is the first-born and only-begotten; all however equally depend on their Possessor. And all the powers are rightly called His who created and uses them:--as the Prophet says that the locust, which came to be a divine punishment of human sins, was called by God Himself not only a power, but a great power; and blessed David in most of the Psalms invites, not the Angels alone, but the Powers to praise God.'

38. Now are they not worthy of all hatred for merely uttering this? for if, as they hold, He is Son, not because He is begotten of the Father and proper to His Essence, but that He is called Word only because of things rational [2456] , and Wisdom because of things gifted with wisdom, and Power because of things gifted with power, surely He must be named a Son because of those who are made sons: and perhaps because there are things existing, He has even His existence [2457] , in our notions only [2458] . And then after all what is He? for He is none of these Himself, if they are but His names [2459] : and He has but a semblance of being, and is decorated with these names from us. Rather this is some recklessness of the devil, or worse, if they are not unwilling that they should truly subsist themselves, but think that God's Word is but in name. Is not this portentous, to say that Wisdom coexists with the Father, yet not to say that this is the Christ, but that there are many created powers and wisdoms, of which one is the Lord whom they go on to compare to the caterpillar and locust? and are they not profligate, who, when they hear us say that the Word coexists with the Father, forthwith murmur out, Are you not speaking of two Unoriginates?' yet in speaking themselves of His Unoriginate Wisdom,' do not see that they have already incurred themselves the charge which they so rashly urge against us [2460] ? Moreover, what folly is there in that thought of theirs, that the Unoriginate Wisdom coexisting with God is God Himself! for what coexists does not coexist with itself, but with some one else, as the Evangelists say of the Lord, that He was together with His disciples; for He was not together with Himself, but with His disciples;--unless indeed they would say that God is of a compound nature, having wisdom a constituent or complement of His Essence, unoriginate as well as Himself [2461] , which moreover they pretend to be the framer of the world, that so they may deprive the Son of the framing of it. For there is nothing they would not maintain, sooner than hold the truth concerning the Lord.

39. For where at all have they found in divine Scripture, or from whom have they heard, that there is another Word and another Wisdom besides this Son, that they should frame to themselves such a doctrine? True, indeed, it is written, Are not My words like fire, and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces [2462] ?' and in the Proverbs, I will make known My words unto you [2463] ;' but these are precepts and commands, which God has spoken to the saints through His proper and only true Word, concerning which the Psalmist said, I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I may keep Thy words [2464] .' Such words accordingly the Saviour signifies to be distinct from Himself, when He says in His own person, The words which I have spoken unto you [2465] .' For certainly such words are not offsprings or sons, nor are there so many words that frame the world, nor so many images of the One God, nor so many who have become men for us, nor as if from many such there were one who has become flesh, as John says; but as being the only Word of God was He preached by John, The Word was made flesh,' and all things were made by Him [2466] .' Wherefore of Him alone, our Lord Jesus Christ, and of His oneness with the Father, are written and set forth the testimonies, both of the Father signifying that the Son is One, and of the saints, aware of this and saying that the Word is One, and that He is Only-Begotten. And His works also are set forth; for all things, visible and invisible, have been brought to be through Him, and without Him was made not one thing [2467] .' But concerning another or any one else they have not a thought, nor frame to themselves words or wisdoms, of which neither name nor deed are signified by Scripture, but are named by these only. For it is their invention and Christ-opposing surmise, and they make the most [2468] of the name of the Word and the Wisdom; and framing to themselves others, they deny the true Word of God, and the real and only Wisdom of the Father, and thereby, miserable men, rival the Manichees. For they too, when they behold the works of God, deny Him the only and true God, and frame to themselves another, whom they can shew neither by work, nor in any testimony drawn from the divine oracles.

40. Therefore, if neither in the divine oracles is found another wisdom besides this Son, nor from the fathers [2469] have we heard of any such, yet they have confessed and written of the Wisdom coexisting with the Father unoriginately, proper to Him, and the Framer of the world, this must be the Son who even according to them is eternally coexistent with the Father. For He is Framer of all, as it is written, In Wisdom hast Thou made them all [2470] .' Nay, Asterius himself, as if forgetting what he wrote before, afterwards, in Caiaphas's [2471] fashion, involuntarily, when urging the Greeks, instead of naming many wisdoms, or the caterpillar, confesses but one, in these words;--God the Word is one, but many are the things rational; and one is the essence and nature of Wisdom, but many are the things wise and beautiful.' And soon afterwards he says again:--Who are they whom they honour with the title of God's children? for they will not say that they too are words, nor maintain that there are many wisdoms. For it is not possible, whereas the Word is one, and Wisdom has been set forth as one, to dispense to the multitude of children the Essence of the Word, and to bestow on them the appellation of Wisdom.' It is not then at all wonderful, that the Arians should battle with the truth, when they have collisions with their own principles and conflict with each other, at one time saying that there are many wisdoms, at another maintaining one; at one time classing wisdom with the caterpillar, at another saying that it coexists with the Father and is proper to Him; now that the Father alone is unoriginate, and then again that His Wisdom and His Power are unoriginate also. And they battle with us for saying that the Word of God is ever, yet forget their own doctrines, and say themselves that Wisdom coexists with God unoriginately [2472] . So dizzied [2473] are they in all these matters, denying the true Wisdom, and inventing one which is not, as the Manichees who make to themselves another God, after denying Him that is.

41. But let the other heresies and the Manichees also know that the Father of the Christ is One, and is Lord and Maker of the creation through His proper Word. And let the Ario-maniacs know in particular, that the Word of God is One, being the only Son proper and genuine from His Essence, and having with His Father the oneness of Godhead indivisible, as we said many times, being taught it by the Saviour Himself. Since, were it not so, wherefore through Him does the Father create, and in Him reveal Himself to whom He will, and illuminate them? or why too in the baptismal consecration is the Son named together with the Father? For if they say that the Father is not all-sufficient, then their answer is irreligious [2474] , but if He be, for this it is right to say, what is the need of the Son for framing the worlds, or for the holy laver? For what fellowship is there between creature and Creator? or why is a thing made classed with the Maker in the consecration of all of us? or why, as you hold, is faith in one Creator and in one creature delivered to us? for if it was that we might be joined to the Godhead, what need of the creature? but if that we might be united to the Son a creature, superfluous, according to you, is this naming of the Son in Baptism, for God who made Him a Son is able to make us sons also. Besides, if the Son be a creature, the nature of rational creatures being one, no help will come to creatures from a creature [2475] , since all [2476] need grace from God. We said a few words just now on the fitness that all things should be made by Him; but since the course of the discussion has led us also to mention holy Baptism, it is necessary to state, as I think and believe, that the Son is named with the Father, not as if the Father were not all-sufficient, not without meaning, and by accident; but, since He is God's Word and own Wisdom, and being His Radiance, is ever with the Father, therefore it is impossible, if the Father bestows grace, that He should not give it in the Son, for the Son is in the Father as the radiance in the light. For, not as if in need, but as a Father in His own Wisdom hath God founded the earth, and made all things in the Word which is from Him, and in the Son confirms the Holy Laver. For where the Father is, there is the Son, and where the light, there the radiance; and as what the Father worketh, He worketh through the Son [2477] , and the Lord Himself says, What I see the Father do, that do I also;' so also when baptism is given, whom the Father baptizes, him the Son baptizes; and whom the Son baptizes, he is consecrated in the Holy Ghost [2478] . And again as when the sun shines, one might say that the radiance illuminates, for the light is one and indivisible, nor can be detached, so where the Father is or is named, there plainly is the Son also; and is the Father named in Baptism? then must the Son be named with Him [2479] .

42. Therefore, when He made His promise to the saints, He thus spoke; I and the Father will come, and make Our abode in him;' and again, that, as I and Thou are One, so they may be one in Us.' And the grace given is one, given from the Father in the Son, as Paul writes in every Epistle, Grace unto you, and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ [2480] .' For the light must be with the ray, and the radiance must be contemplated together with its own light. Whence the Jews, as denying the Son as well as they, have not the Father either; for, as having left the Fountain of Wisdom [2481] ,' as Baruch reproaches them, they put from them the Wisdom springing from it, our Lord Jesus Christ (for Christ,' says the Apostle, is God's power and God's wisdom [2482] ),' when they said, We have no king but Cæsar [2483] .' The Jews then have the penal award of their denial; for their city as well as their reasoning came to nought. And these too hazard the fulness of the mystery, I mean Baptism; for if the consecration is given to us into the Name of Father and Son, and they do not confess a true Father, because they deny what is from Him and like His Essence, and deny also the true Son, and name another of their own framing as created out of nothing, is not the rite administered by them altogether empty and unprofitable, making a show, but in reality being no help towards religion? For the Arians do not baptize into Father and Son, but into Creator and creature, and into Maker and work [2484] . And as a creature is other than the Son, so the Baptism, which is supposed to be given by them, is other than the truth, though they pretend to name the Name of the Father and the Son, because of the words of Scripture, For not he who simply says, O Lord,' gives Baptism; but he who with the Name has also the right faith [2485] . On this account therefore our Saviour also did not simply command to baptize, but first says, Teach;' then thus: Baptize into the Name of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost;' that the right faith might follow upon learning, and together with faith might come the consecration of Baptism.

43. There are many other heresies too, which use the words only, but not in a right sense, as I have said, nor with sound faith [2486] , and in consequence the water which they administer is unprofitable, as deficient in piety, so that he who is sprinkled [2487] by them is rather polluted [2488] by irreligion than redeemed. So Gentiles also, though the name of God is on their lips, incur the charge of Atheism [2489] , because they know not the real and very God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. So Manichees and Phrygians [2490] , and the disciples of the Samosatene, though using the Names, nevertheless are heretics, and the Arians follow in the same course, though they read the words of Scripture, and use the Names, yet they too mock those who receive the rite from them, being more irreligious than the other heresies, and advancing beyond them, and making them seem innocent by their own recklessness of speech. For these other heresies lie against the truth in some certain respect, either erring concerning the Lord's Body, as if He did not take flesh of Mary, or as if He has not died at all, nor become man, but only appeared, and was not truly, and seemed to have a body when He had not, and seemed to have the shape of man, as visions in a dream; but the Arians are without disguise irreligious against the Father Himself. For hearing from the Scriptures that His Godhead is represented in the Son as in an image, they blaspheme, saying, that it is a creature, and everywhere concerning that Image, they carry about [2491] with them the phrase, He was not,' as mud in a wallet [2492] , and spit it forth as serpents [2493] their venom. Then, whereas their doctrine is nauseous to all men, forthwith, as a support against its fall, they prop up the heresy with human [2494] patronage, that the simple, at the sight or even by the fear may overlook the mischief of their perversity. Right indeed is it to pity their dupes; well is it to weep over them, for that they sacrifice their own interest for that immediate phantasy which pleasures furnish, and forfeit their future hope. In thinking to be baptized into the name of one who exists not, they will receive nothing; and ranking themselves with a creature, from the creation they will have no help, and believing in one unlike [2495] and foreign to the Father in essence, to the Father they will not be joined, not having His own Son by nature, who is from Him, who is in the Father, and in whom the Father is, as He Himself has said; but being led astray by them, the wretched men henceforth remain destitute and stripped of the Godhead. For this phantasy of earthly goods will not follow them upon their death; nor when they see the Lord whom they have denied, sitting on His Father's throne, and judging quick and dead, will they be able to call to their help any one of those who have now deceived them; for they shall see them also at the judgment-seat, repenting for their deeds of sin and irreligion. __________________________________________________________________

[2396] §35, note 2.

[2397] Col. i. 16.

[2398] De Syn. 42, note 1.

[2399] hos dia cheiros. vid. supr. p. 155, note 6. And so in Orat. iv. 26, a. de Incarn. contr. Arian. 12. a. krataia cheir tou patros. Method. de Creat. ap. Phot. cod. 235. p. 937. Iren. Hær. iv. 20. n. 1. v. 1 fin. and. 5. n. 2. and 6. n. 1. Clement. Protrept. p. 93. (ed. Potter.) Tertull. contr. Hermog. 45. Cypr. Testim. ii. 4. Euseb. in Psalm cviii. 27. Clement. Recogn. viii. 43. Clement. Hom. xvi. 12. Cyril. Alex. frequently, e.g. in Joan. pp. 876, 7. Thesaur. p. 154. Pseudo-Basil. cheir demiourgike, contr. Eunom. v. p. 297. Job. ap. Phot. 222. p. 582. and August. in Joann. 48, 7. though he prefers another use of the word.

[2400] Gen. i. 3, 9, 26.

[2401] Ps. clxviii. 5.

[2402] Vid. de Decr. 9. contr. Gent. 46. Iren. Hær. iii. 8. n. 3. Origen contr. Cels. ii. 9. Tertull. adv. Prax. 12. fin. Patres Antioch. ap. Routh t. 2. p. 468. Prosper in Psalm. 148. (149.) Basil. de Sp. S. n. 20. Hilar. Trin. iv. 16. vid. supr. §22, note. Didym. de Sp. S. 36. August. de Trin. i. 26. On this mystery vid. Petav. Trin. vi. 4.

[2403] boule. And so boulesis presently; and zosa boule, supr. 2. and Orat. iii. 63. fin. and so Cyril Thes. p. 54, who uses it expressly (as it is always used by implication), in contrast to the kata boulesin of the Arians, though Athan. uses kata to boulema, e.g. Orat. iii. 31. where vid. note; autos tou patros thelema. Nyss. contr. Eunom. xii. p. 345. The principle to be observed in the use of such words is this; that we must ever speak of the Father's will, command, &c., and the Son's fulfilment, assent, &c., as one act. vid. notes on Orat. iii. 11 and 15. infr. [Cf. p. 87. note 2.]

[2404] Gen. xv. 8.

[2405] Ex. iv. 13.

[2406] Ib. iii. 13.

[2407] Zech. i. 3, 12.

[2408] §16, note 7.

[2409] Ps. civ. 24; xxxiii. 6; 1 Cor. viii. 6

[2410] Vid. Matt. xvii. 5.

[2411] Prov. viii. 25, LXX.

[2412] tous mutheuomenous gigantas, vid. supr. de Decr. fin. Also hos tous gigantas Orat.iii. 42. In Hist. Arian. 74. he calls Constantius a gigas. The same idea is implied in the word theomachos so frequently applied to Arianism, as in this sentence.

[2413] Ps. lvii. 4.

[2414] Heb. i. 3; 1 Cor. i. 24.

[2415] Ps. xxxvi. 9; civ. 24.

[2416] Jer. ii. 1.

[2417] John i. 1; Luke i. 2.

[2418] Ps. cvii. 20.

[2419] Vid. p. 150, n. 6, also Gent. 40 fin. where what is here, as commonly, applied to the Arians, is, before the rise of Arianism, applied to unbelievers.

[2420] Vid. de Decr. 12, 16, notes i. 26, n. 2, ii. 36, n. 1. de Syn. 41, n. 1. In illud Omnia 3 fin. vid. also 6. Aug. Confess. xiii. 11. And again, Trin. xv. 39. And S. Basil contr. Eunom. ii. 17.

[2421] Wisd. xiii. 5.

[2422] The Second Person in the Holy Trinity is not a quality of attribute or relation, but the One Eternal Substance; not a part of the First Person, but whole or entire God; nor does the generation impair the Father's Substance, which is, antecedently to it, whole and entire God. Thus there are two Persons, in Each Other ineffably, Each being wholly one and the same Divine Substance, yet not being merely separate aspects of the Same, Each being God as absolutely as if there were no other Divine Person but Himself. Such a statement indeed is not only a contradiction in the terms used, but in our ideas, yet not therefore a contradiction in fact; unless indeed any one will say that human words can express in one formula, or human thought embrace in one idea, the unknown and infinite God. Basil. contr. Eun. i. 10. vid. infr. §38, n. 3.

[2423] John xiv. 10.

[2424] John x. 30.

[2425] dielein, vid. §25, note 3.

[2426] Hist. Ar. 52, n. 4.

[2427] In illud. Omn. 6. init.

[2428] Cf. p. 69, notes 7 and 8.

[2429] De Decr. 7, n. 2; De Syn. 3, n. 2; Or. i. 8.

[2430] He here makes the test of the truth of explicit doctrinal statements to lie in their not shocking, or their answering to the religious sense of the Christian.

[2431] Vid. supr. de Decr. 2. n. 6. Tertullian de Carn. Christ. 17. S. Leo, as Athan. makes seed' in the parable apply peculiarly to faith in distinction to obedience. Serm. 69. 5 init.

[2432] periergazontai. This can scarcely be, as Newman suggests, an error of the press for perierchontai. The Latin translates circumire coeperunt.

[2433] Orat. iv. 1.

[2434] pepautai, Orat. iv. 2.

[2435] Vid. 1 Tim. vi. 10.

[2436] ho tes aletheias logos elenchei. This and the like are usual forms of speech with Athan. and others. In some instances the words aletheia, logos, &c., are almost synonymous with the Regula Fidei; vid. para ten aletheian, infr. 36. and Origen de Princ. Præf. 1. and 2.

[2437] Orat. i. 21.

[2438] For this contrast between the Divine Word and the human which is Its shadow, vid. also Orat. iv. 1. circ. fin. Iren. Hær. ii. 13. n. 8. Origen. in Joan. i. p. 25. e. Euseb. Demonstr. v. 5. p. 230. Cyril, Cat. xi. 10. Basil, Hom. xvi. 3. Nyssen contr. Eunom. xii. p. 350. Orat. Cat. i. p. 478. Damasc. F. O. i. 6. August. in Psalm xliv. 5.

[2439] Vid. Serap. i. 28, a.

[2440] §31, n. 7.

[2441] De Syn. 24, n. 9; infr. 36. note.

[2442] John i. 1.

[2443] Heb. iv. 12, 13.

[2444] John i. 3.

[2445] Eusebius has some forcible remarks on this subject. As, he says, we do not know how God can create out of nothing, so we are utterly ignorant of the Divine Generation. It is written, He who believes, not he who knows, has eternal life. The sun's radiance itself is but an earthly image, and gives us no true idea of that which is above all images. Eccl. Theol. i. 12. So has S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 29. 8. vid. also Hippol. in Noet. 16. Cyril, Cat. xi. 11. and 19. and Origen, according to Mosheim, Ante Const. p 619. And instances in Petav. de Trin. v. 6. §2. and 3.

[2446] Cf. August. Ep. 43. init. vid. also de Bapt. contr. Don. iv. 23.

[2447] Vid. Ps. cxix. 89

[2448] Vid. supr. 35. Orat. iv. 1. also presently, He is likeness and image of the sole and true God, being Himself also,' 49. monos en mono, Orat. iii. 21. holos holou eikon. Serap. i. 16, a. The Offspring of the Ingenerate,' says S. Hilary, is One from One, True from True, Living from Living, Perfect from Perfect, Power of Power, Wisdom of Wisdom, Glory of Glory.' de Trin. ii. 8. teleios teleion gegenneken, pneuma pneuma. Epiph. Hær. p. 495. As Light from Light, and Life from Life, and Good from Good; so from Eternal Eternal. Nyss. contr. Eunom. i. p. 164. App.

[2449] polloi logoi, vid. de Decr. 16, n. 4. infr. 39 init. and oud' ek pollon heis, Sent. D. 25. a. also Ep. Æg. 14. c. Origen in Joan. tom. ii. 3. Euseb. Demonstr. v. 5. p. 229 fin. contr. Marc. p. 4 fin. contr. Sabell. init. August. in Joan. Tract. i. 8. also vid. Philo's use of logoi for Angels as commented on by Burton, Bampt. Lect. p. 556. The heathens called Mercury by the name of logos. vid. Benedictine note f. in Justin, Ap. i. 21.

[2450] This was the point in which Arians and [Marcellus] agreed, vid infr. Orat. iv. init. also §§22, 40, and de Decr. 24, n. 9, also Sent D. 25. Ep. Æg. 14 fin. Epiph. Hær. 72. p. 835. b.

[2451] That is, they allowed Him to be really Son,' and argued that He was but notionally Word.' vid. §19, n. 3.

[2452] agennetos, vid. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p. 106. d.

[2453] 1 Cor. i. 24.

[2454] Rom. i. 20.

[2455] Or. i. 11, n. 7.

[2456] logika, vid. Ep. Æg. 13 fin.

[2457] Of course this line of thought consistently followed, leads to a kind of Pantheism; for what is the Supreme Being, according to it, but an ideal standard of perfection, the sum total of all that we see excellent in the world in the highest degree, a creation of our minds, without real objective existence? The true view of our Lord's titles, on the other hand, is that He is That properly and in perfection, of which in measure and degree the creatures partake from and in Him. Vid. supr. de Decr. 17, n. 5.

[2458] kat' epinoian, in idea or notion. This is a phrase of very frequent occurrence, both in Athan. and other writers. We have found it already just above, and de Syn. 15. Or. i. 9, also Orat. iv. 2, 3. de Sent. D. 2, Ep. Æg 12, 13, 14. It denotes our idea or conception of a thing in contrast to the thing itself. Thus, the sun is to a savage a bright circle in the sky; a man is a rational animal,' according to a certain process of abstraction; a herb may be medicine upon one division, food in another; virtue may be called a mean; and faith is to one man an argumentative conclusion, to another a moral peculiarity, good or bad. In like manner, the Almighty is in reality most simple and uncompounded, without parts, passions, attributes, or properties; yet we speak of Him as good or holy, or as angry or pleased, denoting some particular aspect in which our infirmity views, in which also it can view, what is infinite and incomprehensible. That is, He is kat' epinoian holy or merciful, being in reality a Unity which is all mercifulness and also all holiness, not in the way of qualities but as one indivisible perfection; which is too great for us to conceive as It is.

[2459] §19.

[2460] The Anomoean in Max. Dial. i. a. urges against the Catholic that, if the Son exists in the Father, God is compound. Athan. here retorts that Asterius speaks of Wisdom as a really existing thing in the Divine Mind. Vid. next note.

[2461] On this subject vid. Orat. iv. n. 2. Nothing is more remarkable than the confident tone in which Athan. accuses Arians as here, and [Marcellus] in Orat. iv. 2. of considering the Divine Nature as compound, as if the Catholics were in no respect open to such a charge. Nor are they; though in avoiding it, they are led to enunciate the most profound and ineffable mystery. Vid. supr. §33, n. 1. The Father is the One Simple Entire Divine Being, and so is the Son; They do in no sense share divinity between Them; Each is holos Theos. This is not ditheism or tritheism, for they are the same God; nor is it Sabellianism, for They are eternally distinct and substantive Persons; but it is a depth and height beyond our intellect, how what is Two in so full a sense can also in so full a sense be One, or how the Divine Nature does not come under number. vid. notes on Orat. iii. 27 and 36. Thus, being uncompounded in nature,' says Athan. He is Father of One Only Son.' de Decr. 11. In truth the distinction into Persons, as Petavius remarks, avails especially towards the unity and simplicity of God.' vid. de Deo, ii. 4, 8.

[2462] Jer. xxiii. 29.

[2463] Prov. i. 23.

[2464] Ps. cxix. 101.

[2465] Joh. vi. 63.

[2466] John i. 14, 3.

[2467] Cf. Orat. i. 19, note 5.

[2468] katachrontai, vid. supr. p. 154, note 3.

[2469] Ib. note 2.

[2470] Ps. civ. 24.

[2471] Vid. John xi. 50

[2472] Asterius held, 1. that there was an Attribute called Wisdom; 2. that the Son was created by and called after that Attribute; or 1. that Wisdom was ingenerate and eternal, 2. that there were created wisdoms, words, powers many, of which the Son was one.

[2473] skotodiniosi, Orat. iii. 42. init.

[2474] He says that it is contrary to all our notions of religion that Almighty God cannot create, enlighten, address, and unite Himself to His creatures immediately. This seems to be implied in saying that the Son was created for creation, illumination, &c.; whereas in the Catholic view the Son is but that Divine Person who in the Economy of grace is creator, enlightener, &c. God is represented all-perfect but acting according to a certain divine order. This is explained just below. Here the remark is in point about the right and wrong sense of the words commanding,' obeying,' &c. supr. §31, note 7.

[2475] §16, note 7.

[2476] Supr. p. 162, note 3.

[2477] Vid. notes on Orat. iii. 1-15. e.g. and 11 and 15.

[2478] Orat. iii. 15. note.

[2479] Vid. supr. 33, note 1. and notes on iii. 3-6. When the Father is mentioned, His Word is with Him, and the Spirit who is in the Son. And if the Son be named, in the Son is the Father, and the Spirit is not external to the Word.' ad Serap. i. 14. and vid. Hil. Trin. vii. 31. Passages like these are distinct from such as the one quoted from Athan. supr. p. 76, note 3, where it is said that in Father' is implied Son,' i.e. argumentatively as a correlative. vid. Sent. D. 17. de Decr. 19, n. 6. The latter accordingly Eusebius does not scruple to admit in Sabell. i. ap. Sirm. t. i. p. 8, a. Pater statim, ut dictus fuit pater, requirit ista vox filium, &c.;' for here no perichoresis is implied, which is the doctrine of the text, and is not the doctrine of an Arian who considered the Son an instrument. Yet Petavius observes as to the very word perich. that one of its first senses in ecclesiastical writers was this which Arians would not disclaim; its use to express the Catholic doctrine here spoken of was later. vid. de Trin. iv. 16.

[2480] Vid. John xiv. 23, and John xvii. 21; Rom. i. 7, &c.

[2481] Bar. iii. 12.

[2482] 1 Cor. i. 24.

[2483] John xix. 15.

[2484] De Decr. 31; Or. i. 34.

[2485] The prima facie sense of this passage is certainly unfavourable to the validity of heretical baptism; vid. Coust. Pont. Rom. Ep. p. 227. Voss. de Bapt. Disp. 19 and 20. Forbes Instruct. Theol. x. 2, 3, and 12. Hooker's Eccl. Pol. v. 62. §5-11. On Arian Baptism in particular vid. Jablonski's Diss. Opusc. t. iv. p. 113. [And, in violent contrast to Athan., Siricius (bishop of Rome) letter to Himerius, a.d. 385. (Coust. 623.)]

[2486] ten p. hugiainousan. Dep. Ar. 5, note 6.

[2487] rhantizomenon, Bingh. Antiqu. xi. 11. §5.

[2488] Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 76 fin. (ed. Ben.) and Ep. 71 cir. init. Optatus ad Parmen. i. 12.

[2489] atheotetos. vid. supr. de Decr. 1, note 1, Or. i. 4, note 1. Atheist' or rather godless' was the title given by pagans to those who denied, and by the Fathers to those who professed, polytheism. Thus Julian says that Christians preferred atheism to godliness.' vid. Suicer Thes. in voc.

[2490] Montanists.

[2491] peripherousi, §34. n. 5.

[2492] Instead of provisions.

[2493] Cf. Ep. Æg. 19. Hist. Ar. 66. and so Arians are dogs (with allusion to 2 Pet. ii. 22.), de Decr. 4. Hist. Ar. 29. lions, Hist. Ar. 11. wolves, Ap. c. Arian. 49. hares, de Fug. 10. chameleons, de Decr. init. hydras, Orat. iii. 58 fin. eels, Ep. Æg. 7 fin. cuttlefish, Orat. iii. 59. gnats, de Decr. 14 init. Orat. iii. 59. init. beetles, Orat. iii. fin. leeches, Hist. Ar. 65 init. de Fug. 4. [swine, Or. ii. 1.] In many of these instances the allusion is to Scripture. On names given to heretics in general, vid. the Alphabetum bestialitatis hereticæ ex Patrum Symbolis, in the Calvinismus bestiarum religio attributed to Raynaudus and printed in the Apopompæus of his works. Vid. on the principle of such applications infr. Orat. iii. 18.

[2494] Orat. i. 9.

[2495] Orat. iii. 4. note. __________________________________________________________________

Chapter XIX.--Texts explained; Sixthly, Proverbs viii. 22. Proverbs are

Chapter XIX.--Texts explained; Sixthly, Proverbs viii. 22. Proverbs are of a figurative nature, and must be interpreted as such. We must interpret them, and in particular this passage, by the Regula Fidei. He created me' not equivalent to I am a creature.' Wisdom a creature so far forth as Its human body. Again, if He is a creature, it is as a beginning of ways,' an office which, though not an attribute, is a consequence, of a higher and divine nature. And it is for the works,' which implied the works existed, and therefore much more He, before He was created. Also the Lord' not the Father created' Him, which implies the creation was that of a servant.

44. We have gone through thus much before the passage in the Proverbs, resisting the insensate fables which their hearts have invented, that they may know that the Son of God ought not to be called a creature, and may learn lightly to read what admits in truth of a right [2496] explanation. For it is written, The Lord created me a beginning of His ways, for His works [2497] ;' since, however, these are proverbs, and it is expressed in the way of proverbs, we must not expound them nakedly in their first sense, but we must inquire into the person, and thus religiously put the sense on it. For what is said in proverbs, is not said plainly, but is put forth latently [2498] , as the Lord Himself has taught us in the Gospel according to John, saying, These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs, but the time cometh when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but openly [2499] .' Therefore it is necessary to unfold the sense [2500] of what is said, and to seek it as something hidden, and not nakedly to expound as if the meaning were spoken plainly,' lest by a false interpretation we wander from the truth. If then what is written be about Angel, or any other of things originate, as concerning one of us who are works, let it be said, created me;' but if it be the Wisdom of God, in whom all things originate have been framed, that speaks concerning Itself, what ought we to understand but that He created' means nothing contrary to He begat?' Nor, as forgetting that It is Creator and Framer, or ignorant of the difference between the Creator and the creatures, does It number Itself among the creatures; but It signifies a certain sense, as in proverbs, not plainly,' but latent; which It inspired the saints to use in prophecy, while soon after It doth Itself give the meaning of He created' in other but parallel expressions, saying, Wisdom made herself a house [2501] .' Now it is plain that our body is Wisdom's house [2502] , which It took on Itself to become man; hence consistently does John say, The Word was made flesh [2503] ;' and by Solomon Wisdom says of Itself with cautious exactness [2504] , not I am a creature,' but only The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works [2505] ,' yet not created me that I might have being,' nor because I have a creature's beginning and origin.'

45. For in this passage, not as signifying the Essence of His Godhead, nor His own everlasting and genuine generation from the Father, has the Word spoken by Solomon, but on the other hand His manhood and Economy towards us. And, as I said before, He has not said I am a creature,' or I became a creature,' but only He created [2506] .' For the creatures, having a created essence, are originate, and are said to be created, and of course the creature is created: but this mere term He created' does not necessarily signify the essence or the generation, but indicates something else as coming to pass in Him of whom it speaks, and not simply that He who is said to be created, is at once in His Nature and Essence a creature [2507] . And this difference divine Scripture recognises, saying concerning the creatures, The earth is full of Thy creation,' and the creation itself groaneth together and travaileth together [2508] ;' and in the Apocalypse it says, And the third part of the creatures in the sea died which had life;' as also Paul says, Every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving [2509] ;' and in the book of Wisdom it is written, Having ordained man through Thy wisdom, that he should have dominion over the creatures which Thou hast made [2510] .' And these, being creatures, are also said to be created, as we may further hear from the Lord, who says, He who created them, made them male and female [2511] ;' and from Moses in the Song, who writes, Ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee since the day that God created man upon the earth, and from the one side of heaven unto the other [2512] .' And Paul in Colossians, Who is the Image of the Invisible God, the Firstborn of every creature, for in Him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created through Him, and for Him, and He is before all [2513] .'

46. That to be called creatures, then, and to be created belongs to things which have by nature a created essence, these passages are sufficient to remind us, though Scripture is full of the like; on the other hand that the single word He created' does not simply denote the essence and mode of generation, David shews in the Psalm, This shall be written for another generation, and the people that is created shall praise the Lord [2514] ;' and again, Create in me a clean heart, O God [2515] ;' and Paul in Ephesians says, Having abolished the law of commandments contained in ordinances, for to create in Himself of two one new man [2516] ;' and again, Put ye on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness [2517] .' For neither David spoke of any people created in essence, nor prayed to have another heart than that he had, but meant renovation according to God and renewal; nor did Paul signify two persons created in essence in the Lord, nor again did he counsel us to put on any other man; but he called the life according to virtue the man after God,' and by the created' in Christ he meant the two people who are renewed in Him. Such too is the language of the book of Jeremiah; The Lord created a new salvation for a planting, in which salvation men shall walk to and fro [2518] ;' and in thus speaking, he does not mean any essence of a creature, but prophesies of the renewal of salvation among men, which has taken place in Christ for us. Such then being the difference between the creatures' and the single word He created,' if you find anywhere in divine Scripture the Lord called creature,' produce it and fight; but if it is nowhere written that He is a creature, only He Himself says about Himself in the Proverbs, The Lord created me,' shame upon you, both on the ground of the distinction aforesaid and for that the diction is like that of proverbs; and accordingly let He created' be understood, not of His being a creature, but of that human nature which became His, for to this belongs creation. Indeed is it not evidently unfair in you, when David and Paul say He created,' then indeed not to understand it of the essence and the generation, but the renewal; yet, when the Lord says He created' to number His essence with the creatures? and again when Scripture says, Wisdom built her an house, she set it upon seven pillars [2519] ,' to understand house' allegorically, but to take He created' as it stands, and to fasten on it the idea of creature? and neither His being Framer of all has had any weight with you, nor have you feared His being the sole and proper Offspring of the Father, but recklessly, as if you had enlisted against Him, do ye fight, and think less of Him than of men.

47. For the very passage proves that it is only an invention of your own to call the Lord creature. For the Lord, knowing His own Essence to be the Only-begotten Wisdom and Offspring of the Father, and other than things originate and natural creatures, says in love to man, The Lord created me a beginning of His ways,' as if to say, My Father hath prepared for Me a body, and has created Me for men in behalf of their salvation.' For, as when John says, The Word was made flesh [2520] ,' we do not conceive the whole Word Himself to be flesh [2521] , but to have put on flesh and become man, and on hearing, Christ hath become a curse for us,' and He hath made Him sin for us who knew no sin [2522] ,' we do not simply conceive this, that whole Christ has become curse and sin, but that He has taken on Him the curse which lay against us (as the Apostle has said, Has redeemed us from the curse,' and has carried,' as Isaiah has said, our sins,' and as Peter has written, has borne them in the body on the wood [2523] '); so, if it is said in the Proverbs He created,' we must not conceive that the whole Word is in nature a creature, but that He put on the created body [2524] and that God created Him for our sakes, preparing for Him the created body, as it is written, for us, that in Him we might be capable of being renewed and deified. What then deceived you, O senseless, to call the Creator a creature? or whence did you purchase for you this new thought, to parade it [2525] ? For the Proverbs say He created,' but they call not the Son creature, but Offspring; and, according to the distinction in Scripture aforesaid of He created' and creature,' they acknowledge, what is by nature proper to the Son, that He is the Only-begotten Wisdom and Framer of the creatures, and when they say He created,' they say it not in respect of His Essence, but signify that He was becoming a beginning of many ways; so that He created' is in contrast to Offspring,' and His being called the Beginning of ways [2526] ' to His being the Only-begotten Word.

48. For if He is Offspring, how call ye Him creature? for no one says that He begets what He creates, nor calls His proper offspring creatures; and again, if He is Only-begotten, how becomes He beginning of the ways?' for of necessity, if He was created a beginning of all things, He is no longer alone, as having those who came into being after Him. For Reuben, when he became a beginning of the children [2527] , was not only-begotten, but in time indeed first, but in nature and relationship one among those who came after him. Therefore if the Word also is a beginning of the ways,' He must be such as the ways are, and the ways must be such as the Word, though in point of time He be created first of them. For the beginning or initiative of a city is such as the other parts of the city are, and the members too being joined to it, make the city whole and one, as the many members of one body; nor does one part of it make, and another come to be, and is subject to the former, but all the city equally has its government and constitution from its maker. If then the Lord is in such sense created as a beginning' of all things, it would follow that He and all other things together make up the unity of the creation, and He neither differs from all others, though He become the beginning' of all, nor is He Lord of them, though older in point of time; but He has the same manner of framing and the same Lord as the rest. Nay, if He be a creature, as you hold, how can He be created sole and first at all, so as to be beginning of all? when it is plain from what has been said, that among the creatures not any is of a constant [2528] nature and of prior formation, but each has its origination with all the rest, however it may excel others in glory. For as to the separate stars or the great lights, not this appeared first, and that second, but in one day and by the same command, they were all called into being. And such was the original formation of the quadrupeds, and of birds, and fishes, and cattle, and plants; thus too has the race made after God's Image come to be, namely men; for though Adam only was formed out of earth, yet in him was involved the succession of the whole race.

49. And from the visible creation, we clearly discern that His invisible things also, being perceived by the things that are made [2529] ,' are not independent of each other; for it was not first one and then another, but all at once were constituted after their kind. For the Apostle did not number individually, so as to say whether Angel, or Throne, or Dominion, or Authority,' but he mentions together all according to their kind, whether Angels, or Archangels, or Principalities [2530] :' for in this way is the origination of the creatures. If then, as I have said, the Word were creature He must have been brought into being, not first of them, but with all the other Powers, though in glory He excel the rest ever so much. For so we find it to be in their case, that at once they came to be, with neither first nor second, and they differ from each other in glory, some on the right of the throne, some all around, and some on the left, but one and all praising and standing in service before the Lord [2531] . Therefore if the Word be creature He would not be first or beginning of the rest; yet if He be before all, as indeed He is, and is Himself alone First and Son, it does not follow that He is beginning of all things as to His Essence [2532] , for what is the beginning of all is in the number of all. And if He is not such a beginning, then neither is He a creature, but it is very plain that He differs in essence and nature from the creatures, and is other than they, and is Likeness and Image of the sole and true God, being Himself sole also. Hence He is not classed with creatures in Scripture, but David rebukes those who dare even to think of Him as such, saying, Who among the gods is like unto the Lord [2533] ?' and Who is like unto the Lord among the sons of God?' and Baruch, This is our God, and another shall not be reckoned with Him [2534] .' For the One creates, and the rest are created; and the One is the own Word and Wisdom of the Father's Essence, and through this Word things which came to be, which before existed not, were made.

50. Your famous assertion then, that the Son is a creature, is not true, but is your fantasy only; nay Solomon convicts you of having many times slandered him. For he has not called Him creature, but God's Offspring and Wisdom, saying, God in Wisdom established the earth,' and Wisdom built her an house [2535] .' And the very passage in question proves your irreligious spirit; for it is written, The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works.' Therefore if He is before all things, yet says He created me' (not that I might make the works,' but) for the works,' unless He created' relates to something later than Himself, He will seem later than the works, finding them on His creation already in existence before Him, for the sake of which He is also brought into being. And if so, how is He before all things notwithstanding? and how were all things made through Him and consist in Him? for behold, you say that the works consisted before Him, for which He is created and sent. But it is not so; perish the thought! false is the supposition of the heretics. For the Word of God is not creature but Creator; and says in the manner of proverbs, He created me' when He put on created flesh. And something besides may be understood from the passage itself; for, being Son and having God for His Father, for He is His proper Offspring, yet here He names the Father Lord; not that He was servant, but because He took the servant's form. For it became Him, on the one hand being the Word from the Father, to call God Father: for this is proper to son towards father; on the other, having come to finish the work, and taken a servant's form, to name the Father Lord. And this difference He Himself has taught by an apt distinction, saying in the Gospels, I thank Thee, O Father,' and then, Lord of heaven and earth [2536] .' For He calls God His Father, but of the creatures He names Him Lord; as shewing clearly from these words, that, when He put on the creature [2537] , then it was He called the Father Lord. For in the prayer of David the Holy Spirit marks the same distinction, saying in the Psalms, Give Thy strength unto Thy Child, and help the Son of Thine handmaid [2538] .' For the natural and true child of God is one, and the sons of the handmaid, that is, of the nature of things originate, are other. Wherefore the One, as Son, has the Father's might; but the rest are in need of salvation.

51. (But if, because He was called child, they idly talk, let them know that both Isaac was named Abraham's child, and the son of the Shunamite was called young child.) Reasonably then, we being servants, when He became as we, He too calls the Father Lord, as we do; and this He has so done from love to man, that we too, being servants by nature, and receiving the Spirit of the Son, might have confidence to call Him by grace Father, who is by nature our Lord. But as we, in calling the Lord Father, do not deny our servitude by nature (for we are His works, and it is He that hath made us, and not we ourselves [2539] '), so when the Son, on taking the servant's form, says, The Lord created me a beginning of His ways,' let them not deny the eternity of His Godhead, and that in the beginning was the Word,' and all things were made by Him,' and in Him all things were created [2540] .' __________________________________________________________________

[2496] kalos anaginoskein....orthen echon ten dianoian, i.e. the text admits of an interpretation consistent with the analogy of faith, and so met' eusebeias just below. vid. §1. n. 13. Such phrases are frequent in Athan.

[2497] Prov. viii. 22. Athanasius follows the Sept. rendering of the Hebrew Qanâ. by ektise. The Hebrew sense is appealed to by Eusebius, Eccles. Theol. iii. 2, 3. S. Epiphanius, Hær. 69. 25. and S. Jerome in Isai. 26. 13. Cf. Bas. c. Eun. ii. 20, and Greg. Nyss. c. Eun. 1. p. 34.

[2498] This passage of Athan. has been used by many later fathers.

[2499] John xvi. 25.

[2500] Here, as in so many other places, he is explaining what is obscure or latent in Scripture by means of the Regula Fidei. Cf. Vincentius, Commonit. 2. Vid. especially the first sentence of the following paragraph, ti dei noein k.t.l. vid. supr. note 1.

[2501] Prov. ix. 1.

[2502] Ut intra intemerata viscera ædificante sibi Sapientia domum, Verbum caro fieret. Leon. Ep. 31, 2. Didym. de Trin. iii. 3. p. 337. (ed. 1769.) August. Civ. D. xvii. 20. Cyril in Joann. p. 384, 5. Max. Dial. iii. p. 1029. (ap. Theodor. ed. Schutz.) vid. supr. Or. i. 11, note 8. Hence S. Clement. Alex. ho logos heauton genna. Strom. v. 3.

[2503] John i. 14.

[2504] §12, n. 4.

[2505] The passage is in like manner interpreted of our Lord's human nature by Epiph. Hær. 69, 20-25. Basil. Ep. viii. 8. Naz. Orat. 30, 2. Nyss. contr. Eunom. i. p. 34. et al. Cyril. Thesaur. p. 154. Hilar. de Trin. xii. 36-49. Ambros. de Fid. i. 15. August. de Fid. et Symb. 6.

[2506] He seems here to say that it is both true that The Lord created,' and yet that the Son was not created. Creatures alone are created, and He was not a creature. Rather something belonging or relating to Him, something short of His substance or nature, was created. However, it is a question in controversy whether even His Manhood can be called a creature, though many of the Fathers (including Athan. in several places) seem so to call it. On the whole it would appear, (1.) that if creature,' like Son,' be a personal term, He is not a creature; but if it be a word of nature, He is a creature; (2.) that our Lord is a creature in respect to the flesh (vid. infr. 47); (3.) that since the flesh is infinitely beneath His divinity, it is neither natural nor safe to call Him a creature (cf. Thom. Aq. Sum. Th. iii. xvi. 8, non dicimus, quod Æthiops est albus, sed quod est albus secundum dentes') and (4.) that, if the flesh is worshipped, still it is worshipped as in the Person of the Son, not by a separate act of worship. Cf. infr. Letter 60. ad Adelph. 3. Epiph. has imitated this passage, Ancor. 51. introducing the illustration of a king and his robe, &c.

[2507] to legomenon ktizesthai te phusei kai te ousi& 139; ktisma. also infr. 60. Without meaning that the respective terms are synonymous, is it not plain that in a later phraseology this would have been, not simply that He is in His Person a creature,' or that His Person is created?' Athan.'s use of the phrase ousia tou logou has already been noticed, supr. i. 45, and passages from this Oration are given in another connexion, supr. p. 70, note 15. The term is synonymous with the Divine Nature as existing in the Person of the Word. [Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) b.] In the passage in the text the ousia of the Word is contrasted to the ousia of creatures; and it is observable that it is implied that our Lord has not taken on Him a created ousia. He said not, Athan. remarks, I became a creature, for the creatures have a created essence;' he adds that He created' signifies, not essence, but something taking place in Him peri ekeinon, i.e. some adjunct or accident (e.g. notes on de Decr. 22), or as he says supr. §8, envelopment or dress. And infr. §51, he contrasts the ousia and the anthropinon of the Word; as in Orat. i. 41. ousia and he anthropotes; and phusis and sarx, iii. 34. init. and logos and sarx, 38. init. And He speaks of the Son taking on Him the economy,' infr. 76, and of the hupostasis tou logou being one with ho anthropos, iv. 25, c. It is observed, §8, note, how this line of teaching might be wrested to the purposes of the Apollinarian and Eutychian heresies; and, considering Athan.'s most emphatic protests against their errors in his later works, as well as his strong statements in Orat. iii. there is no hazard in this admission. His ordinary use of anthropos for the manhood might quite as plausibly be perverted on the other hand into a defence of Nestorianism. Vid. also the Ed. Ben. on S. Hilary, præf. p. xliii. who uses natura absolutely for our Lord's Divinity, as contrasted to the dispensatio, and divides His titles into naturalia and assumpta.

[2508] Ps. civ. 24. LXX.; Rom. viii. 22.

[2509] Rev. viii. 9; 1 Tim. iv. 4.

[2510] Wisd. ix. 2.

[2511] Matt. xix. 4. (ho ktisas).

[2512] Deut. iv. 32.

[2513] Col. i. 15-17

[2514] Ps. cii. 18. LXX.

[2515] Ps. li. 12.

[2516] Eph. ii. 15.

[2517] Eph. iv. 22; vid. Cyr. Thes. p. 156.

[2518] Jer. xxxi. 22. vid. also supr. p. 85, where he notices that this is the version of the Septuagint, Aquila's being The Lord created a new thing in woman.' Athan. has preserved Aquila's version in three other places, in Psalm xxx. 12; lix. 5; lxv. 18.

[2519] Prov. ix. 1.

[2520] John i. 14.

[2521] §10. n. 6.

[2522] Gal. iii. 13; 2 Cor. v. 21.

[2523] Gal. iii. 13; Is. liii. 4; 1 Pet. ii. 24

[2524] Here he says that, though our Lord's flesh is created or He is created as to the flesh, it is not right to call Him a creature. This is very much what S. Thomas says, as referred to in §45, note 1, in the words of the Schools, that Æthiops, albus secundum dentes, non est albus. But why may not our Lord be so called upon the principle of the communicatio Idiomatum (infr. note on iii. 31.) as He is said to be born of a Virgin, to have suffered, &c.? The reason is this:--birth, passion, &c., confessedly belong to His human nature, without adding according to the flesh;' but creature' not implying humanity, might appear a simple attribute of His Person, if used without limitation. Thus, as S. Thomas adds, though we may not absolutely say Æthiops est albus, we may say crispus est,' or in like manner, calvus est.' Since crispus, or calvus, can but refer to the hair. Still more does this remark apply in the case of Sonship,' which is a personal attribute altogether; as is proved, says Petav. de Incarn. vii. 6 fin. by the instance of Adam, who was in all respects a man like Seth, yet not a son. Accordingly, we may not call our Lord, even according to the manhood, an adopted Son.

[2525] pompeuete, infr. 82.

[2526] archen hodon; and so in Justin's Tryph. 61. The Bened. Ed. in loc. refers to a similar application of the word to our Lord in Tatian contr. Gent. 5. Athenag. Ap. 10. Iren. Hær. iv. 20. n. 3. Origen. in Joan. tom. 1. 39. Tertull. adv. Prax. 6. and Ambros. de Fid. iii. 7.

[2527] arche teknon, Gen. xlix. 3.

[2528] Cf. p. 157, note 7.

[2529] Rom. i. 20.

[2530] Vid. Col. i. 16

[2531] i. 61; ii. 27.

[2532] He says that, though none could be a beginning' of creation, who was a creature, yet still that such a title belongs not to His essence. It is the name of an office which the Eternal Word alone can fill. His Divine Sonship is both superior and necessary to that office of a Beginning.' Hence it is both true (as he says) that if the Word is a creature, He is not a beginning;' and yet that that beginning' is in the number of the creatures.' Though He becomes the beginning,' He is not a beginning as to His essence,' vid. supr. i. 49, and infr. §60. where he says, He who is before all, cannot be a beginning of all, but is other than all,' which implies that the beginning of all is not other than all. vid. §8, note 4, on the Priesthood, and §16, n. 7.

[2533] Ps. lxxxix. 6.

[2534] Bar. iii. 35.

[2535] Vid. Prov. iii. 19; ix. 1.

[2536] Matt. xi. 25.

[2537] to ktiston, i.e. soma, §47.

[2538] Ps. lxxxvi. 16.

[2539] Ps. c. 3.

[2540] John i. 1, 3; Col. i. 16. __________________________________________________________________

Chapter XX.--Texts Explained; Sixthly, Proverbs viii. 22 Continued. Our

Chapter XX.--Texts Explained; Sixthly, Proverbs viii. 22 Continued. Our Lord is said to be created for the works,' i.e. with a particular purpose, which no mere creatures are ever said to be. Parallel of Isai. xlix. 5, &c. When His manhood is spoken of, a reason for it is added; not so when His Divine Nature; Texts in proof.

51 (continued). For the passage in the Proverbs, as I have said before, signifies, not the Essence, but the manhood of the Word; for if He says that He was created for the works,' He shews His intention of signifying, not His Essence, but the Economy which took place for His works,' which comes second to being. For things which are in formation and creation are made specially that they may be and exist [2541] , and next they have to do whatever the Word bids them, as may be seen in the case of all things. For Adam was created, not that He might work, but that first he might be man; for it was after this that he received the command to work. And Noah was created, not because of the ark, but that first he might exist and be a man; for after this he received commandment to prepare the ark. And the like will be found in every case on inquiring into it;--thus the great Moses first was made a man, and next was entrusted with the government of the people. Therefore here too we must suppose the like; for thou seest, that the Word is not created into existence, but, In the beginning was the Word,' and He is afterwards sent for the works' and the Economy towards them. For before the works were made, the Son was ever, nor was there yet need that He should be created; but when the works were created and need arose afterwards of the Economy for their restoration, then it was that the Word took upon Himself this condescension and assimilation to the works; which He has shewn us by the word He created.' And through the Prophet Isaiah willing to signify the like, He says again: And now thus saith the Lord, who formed me from the womb to be His servant, to gather together Jacob unto Him and Israel, I shall be brought together and be glorified before the Lord [2542] .'

52. See here too, He is formed, not into existence, but in order to gather together the tribes, which were in existence before He was formed. For as in the former passage stands He created,' so in this He formed;' and as there for the works,' so here to gather together;' so that in every point of view it appears that He created' and He formed' are said after the Word was.' For as before His forming the tribes existed, for whose sake He was formed, so does it appear that the works exist, for which He was created. And when in the beginning was the Word,' not yet were the works, as I have said before; but when the works were made and the need required, then He created' was said; and as if some son, when the servants were lost, and in the hands of the enemy by their own carelessness, and need was urgent, were sent by his father to succour and recover them, and on setting out were to put over him the like dress [2543] with them, and should fashion himself as they, lest the capturers, recognising him [2544] as the master, should take to flight and prevent his descending to those who were hidden under the earth by them; and then were any one to inquire of him, why he did so, were to make answer, My Father thus formed and prepared me for his works,' while in thus speaking, he neither implies that he is a servant nor one of the works, nor speaks of the beginning of His origination, but of the subsequent charge given him over the works,--in the same way the Lord also, having put over Him our flesh, and being found in fashion as a man,' if He were questioned by those who saw Him thus and marvelled, would say, The Lord created Me the beginning of His ways for His works,' and He formed Me to gather together Israel.' This again the Spirit [2545] foretells in the Psalms, saying, Thou didst set Him over the works of Thine hands [2546] ;' which elsewhere the Lord signified of Himself, I am set as King by Him upon His holy hill of Sion [2547] .' And as, when He shone [2548] in the body upon Sion, He had not His beginning of existence or of reign, but being God's Word and everlasting King, He vouchsafed that His kingdom should shine in a human way in Sion, that redeeming them and us from the sin which reigned in them, He might bring them under His Father's Kingdom, so, on being set for the works,' He is not set for things which did not yet exist, but for such as already were and needed restoration.

53. He created' then and He formed' and He set,' having the same meaning, do not denote the beginning of His being, or of His essence as created, but His beneficent renovation which came to pass for us. Accordingly, though He thus speaks, yet He taught also that He Himself existed before this, when He said, Before Abraham came to be, I am [2549] ;' and when He prepared the heavens, I was present with Him;' and I was with Him disposing things [2550] .' And as He Himself was before Abraham came to be, and Israel had come into being after Abraham, and plainly He exists first and is formed afterwards, and His forming signifies not His beginning of being but His taking manhood, wherein also He collects together the tribes of Israel; so, as being always with the Father,' He Himself is Framer of the creation, and His works are evidently later than Himself, and He created' signifies, not His beginning of being, but the Economy which took place for the works, which He effected in the flesh. For it became Him, being other than the works, nay rather their Framer, to take upon Himself their renovation [2551] , that, whereas He is created for us, all things may be now created in Him. For when He said He created,' He forthwith added the reason, naming the works,' that His creation for the works might signify His becoming man for their renovation. And this is usual with divine Scripture [2552] ; for when it signifies the fleshly origination of the Son, it adds also the cause [2553] for which He became man; but when he speaks or His servants declare anything of His Godhead, all is said in simple diction, and with an absolute sense, and without reason being added. For He is the Father's Radiance; and as the Father is, but not for any reason, neither must we seek the reason of that Radiance. Thus it is written, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [2554] ;' and the wherefore it assigns not [2555] ; but when the Word was made flesh [2556] ,' then it adds the reason why, saying, And dwelt among us.' And again the Apostle saying, Who being in the form of God,' has not introduced the reason, till He took on Him the form of a servant;' for then he continues, He humbled Himself unto death, even the death of the cross [2557] ;' for it was for this that He both became flesh and took the form of a servant.

54. And the Lord Himself has spoken many things in proverbs; but when giving us notices about Himself, He has spoken absolutely [2558] ; I in the Father and the Father in Me,' and I and the Father are one,' and, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father,' and I am the Light of the world,' and, I am the Truth [2559] ;' not setting down in every case the reason, nor the wherefore, lest He should seem second to those things for which He was made. For that reason would needs take precedence of Him, without which not even He Himself had come into being. Paul, for instance, separated an Apostle for the Gospel, which the Lord had promised afore by the Prophets [2560] ,' was thereby made subordinate to the Gospel, of which he was made minister, and John, being chosen to prepare the Lord's way, was made subordinate to the Lord; but the Lord, not being made subordinate to any reason why He should be Word, save only that He is the Father's Offspring and Only-begotten Wisdom, when He becomes man, then assigns the reason why He is about to take flesh. For the need of man preceded His becoming man, apart from which He had not put on flesh [2561] . And what the need was for which He became man, He Himself thus signifies, I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me. And this is the will of Him which hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of My Father, that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on Him may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day [2562] .' And again; I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on Me, should not abide in darkness [2563] .' And again he says; To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth [2564] .' And John has written: For this was manifested the Son of God, that He might destroy the works of the devil [2565] .'

55. To give a witness then, and for our sakes to undergo death, to raise man up and destroy the works of the devil [2566] , the Saviour came, and this is the reason of His incarnate presence. For otherwise a resurrection had not been, unless there had been death; and how had death been, unless He had had a mortal body? This the Apostle, learning from Him, thus sets forth, Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage [2567] .' And, Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead [2568] .' And again, For what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the ordinance of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit [2569] .' And John says, For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved [2570] .' And again, the Saviour has spoken in His own person, For judgment am I come into this world, that they who see not might see, and that they which see might become blind [2571] .' Not for Himself then, but for our salvation, and to abolish death, and to condemn sin, and to give sight to the blind, and to raise up all from the dead, has He come; but if not for Himself, but for us, by consequence not for Himself but for us is He created. But if not for Himself is He created, but for us, then He is not Himself a creature, but, as having put on our flesh, He uses such language. And that this is the sense of the Scriptures, we may learn from the Apostle, who says in Ephesians, Having broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances, to create in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace [2572] .' But if in Him the twain are created, and these are in His body, reasonably then, bearing the twain in Himself, He is as if Himself created; for those who were created in Himself He made one, and He was in them, as they. And thus, the two being created in Him, He may say suitably, The Lord created me.' For as by receiving our infirmities, He is said to be infirm Himself, though not Himself infirm, for He is the Power of God, and He became sin for us and a curse, though not having sinned Himself, but because He Himself bare our sins and our curse, so [2573] , by creating us in Him, let Him say, He created me for the works,' though not Himself a creature.

56. For if, as they hold, the Essence of the Word being of created nature, therefore He says, The Lord created me,' being a creature, He was not created for us; but if He was not created for us, we are not created in Him; and, if not created in Him, we have Him not in ourselves but externally; as, for instance, as receiving instruction from Him as from a teacher [2574] . And it being so with us, sin has not lost its reign over the flesh, being inherent and not cast out of it. But the Apostle opposes such a doctrine a little before, when he says, For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus [2575] ;' and if in Christ we are created, then it is not He who is created, but we in Him; and thus the words He created' are for our sake. For because of our need, the Word, though being Creator, endured words which are used of creatures; which are not proper to Him, as being the Word, but are ours who are created in Him. And as, since the Father is always, so is His Word, and always being, always says I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him [2576] ,' and I am in the Father and the Father in Me [2577] ;' so, when for our need He became man, consistently does He use language, as ourselves, The Lord hath created Me,' that, by His dwelling in the flesh, sin might perfectly be expelled from the flesh, and we might have a free mind [2578] . For what ought He, when made man, to say? In the beginning I was man?' this were neither suitable to Him nor true; and as it beseemed not to say this, so it is natural and proper in the case of man to say, He created' and He made' Him. On this account then the reason of He created' is added, namely, the need of the works; and where the reason is added, surely the reason rightly explains the lection. Thus here, when He says He created,' He sets down the cause, the works;' on the other hand, when He signifies absolutely the generation from the Father, straightway He adds, Before all the hills He begets me [2579] ;' but He does not add the wherefore,' as in the case of He created,' saying, for the works,' but absolutely, He begets me,' as in the text, In the beginning was the Word [2580] .' For, though no works had been created, still the Word' of God was,' and the Word was God.' And His becoming man would not have taken place, had not the need of men become a cause. The Son then is not a creature. __________________________________________________________________

[2541] He says in effect, Before the generation of the works, they were not; but Christ on the contrary' (not, was before His generation,' as Bull's hypothesis, supr. Exc. B. would require, but) is from everlasting,' vid. §57, note.

[2542] Isai. xlix. 5. LXX.

[2543] §7.

[2544] Vid. the well-known passage in S. Ignatius, ad Eph. 19 [and Lightfoot's note].

[2545] Supr. 20.

[2546] Heb. ii. 7.

[2547] Ps. ii. 6. LXX.

[2548] epelampse, vid. of the Holy Spirit, Serap. i. 20, c.

[2549] John viii. 58.

[2550] Prov. viii. 27, 30, LXX.

[2551] p. 335, note 1.

[2552] ethos esti te thei& 139; graphe: and so Orat. iii. 18, b. And tes graphes ethos echouses, ibid. 30, d.

[2553] Vid. Naz. Orat. 30. 2.

[2554] John i. 1.

[2555] Naz. ibid.

[2556] John i. 14.

[2557] Phil. ii. 6-8.

[2558] Infr. 62.

[2559] John xiv. 6, 9, 10; x. 30; viii. 12

[2560] Rom. i. 1, 2.

[2561] It is the general teaching of the Fathers that our Lord would not have been incarnate had not man sinned. [But see Prolegg. ch. iv. §3, c.] Cf. de Incarn. 4. vid. Thomassin. at great length de Incarn. ii. 5-11. also Petav. de Incarn. ii. 17, 7-12. Vasquez. in 3 Thom. Disp. x. 4 and 5.

[2562] John vi. 38-40

[2563] Ib. xii. 46.

[2564] Ib. xviii. 37.

[2565] 1 John iii. 8.

[2566] Two ends of our Lord's Incarnation are here mentioned; that He might die for us, and that He might renew us, answering nearly to those specified in Rom. iv. 25. who was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification.' The general object of His coming, including both of these, is treated of in Incarn. esp. §§4-20. and in the two books against Apollinaris. Vid. supr. §8. §9. Also infr. Orat. iv. 6. And Theodoret, Eran. iii. p. 196, 7. Vigil. Thaps. contr. Eutych. i. p. 496. (B. P. ed. 1624.) and S. Leo speaks of the whole course of redemption, i.e. incarnation, atonement, regeneration, justification, &c., as one sacrament, not drawing the line distinctly between the several agents, elements, or stages in it, but considering it to lie in the intercommunion of Christ's and our persons. Serm. 63. 14. He speaks of His fortifying us against our passions and infirmities, both sacramento susceptionis and exemplo. Serm. 65, 2. and of a duplex remedium cujus aliud in sacramento, aliud in exemplo. Serm. 67, 5. also 69, 5. The tone of his teaching is throughout characteristic of the Fathers, and very like that of S. Athanasius.

[2567] Heb. ii. 14, 15.

[2568] 1 Cor. xv. 21.

[2569] Rom. viii. 3, 4.

[2570] John iii. 17.

[2571] Ib. ix. 39.

[2572] Eph. ii. 14, 15.

[2573] The word autos, Himself,' is all along used, where a later writer would have said His Person;' vid. supr. §45, n. 2; still there is more to be explained in this passage, which, taken in the letter, would speak a language very different from Athan.'s, as if the infirmities or the created nature of the Word were not more real than His imputed sinfulness. (vid. on the other hand infr. iii. 31-35). But nothing is more common in theology than comparisons which are only parallel to a certain point as regards the matter in hand, especially since many doctrines do not admit of exact illustrations. Our Lord's real manhood and imputed sinfulness were alike adjuncts to His Divine Person, which was of an Eternal and Infinite Nature; and therefore His Manhood may be compared to an Attribute, or to an accident, without meaning that it really was either.

[2574] Note on iii. 19.

[2575] Eph. ii. 10.

[2576] Prov. viii. 30.

[2577] John xiv. 10.

[2578] eleutheron to phronema. vid. also beginning of the paragraph, where sanctification is contrasted to teaching. vid. also note on 79, infr. Contr. Apoll. i. 20. fin. ibid. ii. 6. also Orat. iii. 33, where vid. note, and 34. vid. for arche, Orat. i. 48, note 7. Also vid. infr. Orat. iii. 56, a. iv. 33, a. Naz. Epp. ad Cled. 1. and 2. (101, 102. Ed. Ben.) Nyssen. ad Theoph. in Apoll. p. 696. Leo, Serm. 26, 2. Serm. 72, 2. vid. Serm. 22, 2. ut corpus regenerati fiat caro Crucifixi. Serm. 63, 6. Hæc est nativitas nova dum homo nascitur in Deo; in quo homine Deus natus est, carne antiqui seminis suscepta, sine semine antiquo, ut illam novo semine, id est, spiritualiter, reformaret, exclusis antiquitatis sordibus expiatam. Tertull. de Carn. Christ. 17. vid. supr. i. 51, note 5. and note on 64 infr. 65 and 70. and on iii. 34.

[2579] Prov. viii. 25.

[2580] John i. 1. __________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXI.--Texts Explained; Sixthly, Proverbs viii. 22, Continued.

Chapter XXI.--Texts Explained; Sixthly, Proverbs viii. 22, Continued. Our Lord not said in Scripture to be created,' or the works to be begotten.' In the beginning' means in the case of the works from the beginning.' Scripture passages explained. We are made by God first, begotten next; creatures by nature, sons by grace. Christ begotten first, made or created afterwards. Sense of First-born of the dead;' of First-born among many brethren;' of First-born of all creation,' contrasted with Only-begotten.' Further interpretation of beginning of ways,' and for the works.' Why a creature could not redeem; why redemption was necessary at all. Texts which contrast the Word and the works.

57. For had He been a creature, He had not said, He begets me,' for the creatures are from without, and are works of the Maker; but the Offspring is not from without nor a work, but from the Father, and proper to His Essence. Wherefore they are creatures; this God's Word and Only-begotten Son. For instance, Moses did not say of the creation, In the beginning He begat,' nor In the beginning was,' but In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth [2581] .' Nor did David say in the Psalm, Thy hands have "begotten me,"' but made me and fashioned me [2582] ,' everywhere applying the word made' to the creatures. But to the Son contrariwise; for he has not said I made,' but I begat [2583] ,' and He begets me,' and My heart uttered a good Word [2584] .' And in the instance of the creation, In the beginning He made;' but in the instance of the Son, In the beginning was the Word [2585] .' And there is this difference, that the creatures are made upon the beginning, and have a beginning of existence connected with an interval; wherefore also what is said of them, In the beginning He made,' is as much as saying of them, From the beginning He made:'--as the Lord, knowing that which He had made, taught, when He silenced the Pharisees, with the words, He which made them from the beginning, made them male and female [2586] ;' for from some beginning, when they were not yet, were originate things brought into being and created. This too the Holy Spirit has signified in the Psalms, saying, Thou, Lord, at the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth [2587] ;' and again, O think upon Thy congregation which Thou hast purchased from the beginning [2588] ;' now it is plain that what takes place at the beginning, has a beginning of creation, and that from some beginning God purchased His congregation. And that In the beginning He made,' from his saying made,' means began to make,' Moses himself shews by saying, after the completion of all things, And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it He had rested from all His work which God began to make [2589] .' Therefore the creatures began to be made; but the Word of God, not having beginning of being, certainly did not begin to be, nor begin to come to be, but was ever. And the works have their beginning in their making, and their beginning precedes their coming to be; but the Word, not being of things which come to be, rather comes to be Himself the Framer of those which have a beginning. And the being of things originate is measured by their becoming [2590] , and from some beginning does God begin to make them through the Word, that it may be known that they were not before their origination; but the Word has His being, in no other beginning [2591] than the Father, whom [2592] they allow to be without beginning, so that He too exists without beginning in the Father, being His Offspring, not His creature.

58. Thus does divine Scripture recognise the difference between the Offspring and things made, and shew that the Offspring is a Son, not begun from any beginning, but eternal; but that the thing made, as an external work of the Maker, began to come into being. John therefore delivering divine doctrine [2593] about the Son, and knowing the difference of the phrases, said not, In the beginning has become' or been made,' but In the beginning was the Word;' that we might understand Offspring' by was,' and not account of Him by intervals, but believe the Son always and eternally to exist. And with these proofs, how, O Arians, misunderstanding the passage in Deuteronomy, did you venture a fresh act of irreligion [2594] against the Lord, saying that He is a work,' or creature,' or indeed offspring?' for offspring and work you take to mean the same thing; but here too you shall be shewn to be as unlearned as you are irreligious. Your first passage is this, Is not He thy Father that bought thee? did He not make thee and create thee [2595] ?' And shortly after in the same Song he says, God that begat thee thou didst desert, and forgattest God that nourished thee [2596] .' Now the meaning conveyed in these passages is very remarkable; for he says not first He begat,' lest that term should be taken as indiscriminate with He made,' and these men should have a pretence for saying, Moses tells us indeed that God said from the beginning, "Let Us make man [2597] ,"' but he soon after says himself, God that begat thee thou didst desert,' as if the terms were indifferent; for offspring and work are the same. But after the words bought' and made,' he has added last of all begat,' that the sentence might carry its own interpretation; for in the word made' he accurately denotes what belongs to men by nature, to be works and things made; but in the word begat' he shews God's lovingkindness exercised towards men after He had created them. And since they have proved ungrateful upon this, thereupon Moses reproaches them, saying first, Do ye thus requite the Lord?' and then adds, Is not He thy Father that bought thee? Did He not make thee and create thee [2598] ?' And next he says, They sacrificed unto devils, not to God, to gods whom they knew not. New gods and strange came up, whom your fathers knew not; the God that begat thee thou didst desert [2599] .'

59. For God not only created them to be men, but called them to be sons, as having begotten them. For the term begat' is here as elsewhere expressive of a Son, as He says by the Prophet, I begat sons and exalted them;' and generally, when Scripture wishes to signify a son, it does so, not by the term created,' but undoubtedly by that of begat.' And this John seems to say, He gave to them power to become children of God, even to them that believe on His Name; which were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God [2600] .' And here too the cautious distinction [2601] is well kept up, for first he says become,' because they are not called sons by nature but by adoption; then he says were begotten,' because they too had received at any rate the name of son. But the People, as says the Prophet, despised' their Benefactor. But this is God's kindness to man, that of whom He is Maker, of them according to grace He afterwards becomes Father also; becomes, that is, when men, His creatures, receive into their hearts, as the Apostle says, the Spirit of His Son, crying, Abba, Father [2602] .' And these are they who, having received the Word, gained power from Him to become sons of God; for they could not become sons, being by nature creatures, otherwise than by receiving the Spirit of the natural and true Son. Wherefore, that this might be, The Word became flesh,' that He might make man capable of Godhead. This same meaning may be gained also from the Prophet Malachi, who says, Hath not One God created us? Have we not all one Father [2603] ?' for first he puts created,' next Father,' to shew, as the other writers, that from the beginning we were creatures by nature, and God is our Creator through the Word; but afterwards we were made sons, and thenceforward God the Creator becomes our Father also. Therefore Father' is proper to the Son; and not creature,' but Son' is proper to the Father. Accordingly this passage also proves, that we are not sons by nature, but the Son who is in us [2604] ; and again, that God is not our Father by nature, but of that Word in us, in whom and because of whom we cry, Abba, Father [2605] .' And so in like manner, the Father calls them sons in whomsoever He sees His own Son, and says, I begat;' since begetting is significant of a Son, and making is indicative of the works. And thus it is that we are not begotten first, but made; for it is written, Let Us make man [2606] ;' but afterwards, on receiving the grace of the Spirit, we are said thenceforth to be begotten also; just as the great Moses in his Song with an apposite meaning says first He bought,' and afterwards He begat;' lest, hearing He begat,' they might forget their own original nature; but that they might know that from the beginning they are creatures, but when according to grace they are said to be begotten, as sons, still no less than before are men works according to nature.

60. And that creature and offspring are not the same, but differ from each other in nature and the signification of the words, the Lord Himself shews even in the Proverbs. For having said, The Lord created me a beginning of His ways;' He has added, But before all the hills He begat me.' If then the Word were by nature and in His Essence [2607] a creature, and there were no difference between offspring and creature, He would not have added, He begat me,' but had been satisfied with He created,' as if that term implied He begat;' but, as it is, after saying, He created me a beginning of His ways for His works,' He has added, not simply begat me,' but with the connection of the conjunction But,' as guarding thereby the term created,' when he says, But before all the hills He begat me.' For begat me' succeeding in such close connection to created me,' makes the meaning one, and shews that created' is said with an object [2608] , but that begat me' is prior to created me.' For as, if He had said the reverse, The Lord begat me,' and went on, But before the hills He created me,' created' would certainly precede begat,' so having said first created,' and then added But before all the hills He begat me,' He necessarily shews that begat' preceded created.' For in saying, Before all He begat me,' He intimates that He is other than all things; it having been shewn to be true [2609] in an earlier part of this book, that no one creature was made before another, but all things originate subsisted at once together upon one and the same command [2610] . Therefore neither do the words which follow created,' also follow begat me;' but in the case of created' is added beginning of ways,' but of begat me,' He says not, He begat me as a beginning,' but before all He begat me.' But He who is before all is not a beginning of all, but is other than all [2611] ; but if other than all (in which all' the beginning of all is included), it follows that He is other than the creatures; and it becomes a clear point, that the Word, being other than all things and before all, afterwards is created a beginning of the ways for works,' because He became man, that, as the Apostle has said, He who is the Beginning' and First-born from the dead, in all things might have the preeminence [2612] .'

61. Such then being the difference between created' and begat me,' and between beginning of ways' and before all,' God, being first Creator, next, as has been said, becomes Father of men, because of His Word dwelling in them. But in the case of the Word the reverse; for God, being His Father by nature, becomes afterwards both His Creator and Maker, when the Word puts on that flesh which was created and made, and becomes man. For, as men, receiving the Spirit of the Son, become children through Him, so the Word of God, when He Himself puts on the flesh of man, then is said both to be created and to have been made. If then we are by nature sons, then is He by nature creature and work; but if we become sons by adoption and grace, then has the Word also, when in grace towards us He became man, said, The Lord created me.' And in the next place, when He put on a created nature and became like us in body, reasonably was He therefore called both our Brother and First-born [2613] .' For though it was after us [2614] that He was made man for us, and our brother by similitude of body, still He is therefore called and is the First-born' of us, because, all men being lost, according to the transgression of Adam, His flesh before all others was saved and liberated, as being the Word's body [2615] ; and henceforth we, becoming incorporate with It, are saved after Its pattern. For in It the Lord becomes our guide to the Kingdom of Heaven and to His own Father, saying, I am the way' and the door [2616] ,' and through Me all must enter.' Whence also is He said to be First-born from the dead [2617] ,' not that He died before us, for we had died first; but because having undergone death for us and abolished it, He was the first to rise, as man, for our sakes raising His own Body. Henceforth He having risen, we too from Him and because of Him rise in due course from the dead.

62. But if He is also called First-born of the creation [2618] ,' still this is not as if He were levelled to the creatures, and only first of them in point of time (for how should that be, since He is Only-begotten?'), but it is because of the Word's condescension [2619] to the creatures, according to which He has become the Brother' of many.' For the term Only-begotten' is used where there are no brethren, but First-born [2620] ' because of brethren. Accordingly it is nowhere written in the Scriptures, the first-born of God,' nor the creature of God;' but Only-begotten' and Son' and Word' and Wisdom,' refer to Him as proper to the Father [2621] . Thus, We have seen His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father [2622] ;' and God sent His Only-begotten Son [2623] ;' and O Lord, Thy Word endureth for ever [2624] ;' and In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God;' and Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God [2625] ;' and This is My beloved Son;' and Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God [2626] .' But first-born' implied the descent to the creation [2627] ; for of it has He been called first-born; and He created' implies His grace towards the works, for for them is He created. If then He is Only-begotten, as indeed He is, First-born' needs some explanation; but if He be really First-born, then He is not Only-begotten [2628] . For the same cannot be both Only-begotten and First-born, except in different relations;--that is, Only-begotten, because of His generation from the Father, as has been said; and First-born, because of His condescension to the creation and His making the many His brethren. Certainly, those two terms being inconsistent with each other, one should say that the attribute of being Only-begotten has justly the preference in the instance of the Word, in that there is no other Word, or other Wisdom, but He alone is very Son of the Father. Moreover [2629] , as was before [2630] said, not in connection with any reason, but absolutely [2631] it is said of Him, The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father [2632] ;' but the word First-born' has again the creation as a reason in connection with it, which Paul proceeds to say, for in Him all things were created [2633] .' But if all the creatures were created in Him, He is other than the creatures, and is not a creature, but the Creator of the creatures.

63. Not then because He was from the Father was He called First-born,' but because in Him the creation came to be; and as before the creation He was the Son, through whom was the creation, so also before He was called the First-born of the whole creation, not the less was the Word Himself with God and the Word was God. But this also not understanding, these irreligious men go about saying, If He is First-born of all creation, it is plain that He too is one of the creation.' Senseless men! if He is simply First-born [2634] of the whole creation,' then He is other than the whole creation; for he says not, He is First-born above the rest of the creatures,' lest He be reckoned to be as one of the creatures, but it is written, of the whole creation,' that He may appear other than the creation [2635] . Reuben, for instance, is not said to be first-born of all the children of Jacob [2636] , but of Jacob himself and his brethren; lest he should be thought to be some other beside the children of Jacob. Nay, even concerning the Lord Himself the Apostle says not, that He may become First-born of all,' lest He be thought to bear a body other than ours, but among many brethren [2637] ,' because of the likeness of the flesh. If then the Word also were one of the creatures, Scripture would have said of Him also that He was First-born of other creatures; but in fact, the saints saying that He is First-born of the whole creation [2638] ,' the Son of God is plainly shewn to be other than the whole creation and not a creature. For if He is a creature, He will be First-born of Himself. How then is it possible, O Arians, for Him to be before and after Himself? next, if He is a creature, and the whole creation through Him came to be, and in Him consists, how can He both create the creation and be one of the things which consist in Him? Since then such a notion is in itself unseemly, it is proved against them by the truth, that He is called First-born among many brethren' because of the relationship of the flesh, and First-born from the dead,' because the resurrection of the dead is from Him and after Him; and First-born of the whole creation,' because of the Father's love to man, which brought it to pass that in His Word not only all things consist [2639] ,' but the creation itself, of which the Apostle speaks, waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God, shall be delivered' one time from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God [2640] .' Of this creation thus delivered, the Lord will be First-born, both of it and of all those who are made children, that by His being called first, those that come after Him may abide [2641] , as depending on the Word as a beginning [2642] .

64. And I think that the irreligious men themselves will be shamed from such a thought; for if the case stands not as we have said, but they will rule it that He is First-born of the whole creation' as in essence--a creature among creatures, let them reflect that they will be conceiving Him as brother and fellow of the things without reason and life. For of the whole creation these also are parts; and the First-born' must be first indeed in point of time but only thus, and in kind and similitude [2643] must be the same with all. How then can they say this without exceeding all measures of irreligion? or who will endure them, if this is their language? or who can but hate them even imagining such things? For it is evident to all, that neither for Himself, as being a creature, nor as having any connection according to essence with the whole creation, has He been called First-born' of it: but because the Word, when at the beginning He framed the creatures, condescended to things originate, that it might be possible for them to come to be. For they could not have endured His nature, which was untempered splendour, even that of the Father, unless condescending by the Father's love for man He had supported them and taken hold of them and brought them into existence [2644] ; and next, because, by this condescension of the Word, the creation too is made a son [2645] through Him, that He might be in all respects First-born' of it, as has been said, both in creating, and also in being brought for the sake of all into this very world. For so it is written, When He bringeth the First-born into the world, He saith, Let all the Angels of God worship Him [2646] .' Let Christ's enemies hear and tear themselves to pieces, because His coming into the world is what makes Him called First-born' of all; and thus the Son is the Father's Only-begotten,' because He alone is from Him, and He is the First-born of creation,' because of this adoption of all as sons [2647] . And as He is First-born among brethren and rose from the dead the first fruits of them that slept [2648] ;' so, since it became Him in all things to have the preeminence [2649] ,' therefore He is created a beginning of ways,' that we, walking along it and entering through Him who says, I am the Way' and the Door,' and partaking of the knowledge of the Father, may also hear the words, Blessed are the undefiled in the Way,' and Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God [2650] .'

65. And thus since the truth declares that the Word is not by nature a creature, it is fitting now to say, in what sense He is beginning of ways.' For when the first way, which was through Adam, was lost, and in place of paradise we deviated unto death, and heard the words, Dust thou art, and unto dust [2651] shalt thou return,' therefore the Word of God, who loves man, puts on Him created flesh at the Father's will [2652] , that whereas the first man had made it dead through the transgression, He Himself might quicken it in the blood of His own body [2653] , and might open for us a way new and living,' as the Apostle says, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh [2654] ;' which he signifies elsewhere thus, Wherefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; old things are passed away, behold all things are become new [2655] .' But if a new creation has come to pass, some one must be first of this creation; now a man, made of earth only, such as we are become from the transgression, he could not be. For in the first creation, men had become unfaithful, and through them that first creation had been lost; and there was need of some one else to renew the first creation, and preserve the new which had come to be. Therefore from love to man none other than the Lord, the beginning' of the new creation, is created as the Way,' and consistently says, The Lord created me a beginning of ways for His works;' that man might walk no longer according to that first creation, but there being as it were a beginning of a new creation, and with the Christ a beginning of its ways,' we might follow Him henceforth, who says to us, I am the Way:'--as the blessed Apostle teaches in Colossians, saying, He is the Head of the body, the Church, who is the Beginning, the First-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the preeminence.'

66. For if, as has been said, because of the resurrection from the dead He is called a beginning, and then a resurrection took place when He, bearing our flesh, had given Himself to death for us, it is evident that His words, He created me a beginning of ways,' is indicative not of His essence [2656] , but of His bodily presence. For to the body death was proper [2657] ; and in like manner to the bodily presence are the words proper, The Lord created me a beginning of His ways.' For since the Saviour was thus created according to the flesh, and had become a beginning of things new created, and had our first fruits, viz. that human flesh which He took to Himself, therefore after Him, as is fit, is created also the people to come, David saying, Let this be written for another generation, and the people that shall be created shall praise the Lord [2658] .' And again in the twenty-first Psalm, The generation to come shall declare unto the Lord, and they shall declare His righteousness, unto a people that shall be born whom the Lord made [2659] .' For we shall no more hear, In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die [2660] ,' but Where I am, there ye' shall be also;' so that we may say, We are His workmanship, created unto good works [2661] .' And again, since God's work, that is, man, though created perfect, has become wanting through the transgression, and dead by sin, and it was unbecoming that the work of God should remain imperfect (wherefore all the saints were praying concerning this, for instance in the hundred and thirty-seventh Psalm, saying, Lord, Thou shalt requite for me; despise not then the works of Thine hands [2662] '); therefore the perfect [2663] Word of God puts around Him an imperfect body, and is said to be created for the works;' that, paying the debt [2664] in our stead, He might, by Himself, perfect what was wanting to man. Now immortality was wanting to him, and the way to paradise. This then is what the Saviour says, I glorified Thee on the earth, I perfected the work which Thou hast given Me to do [2665] ;' and again, The works which the Father hath given Me to perfect, the same works that I do, bear witness of Me;' but the works [2666] ' He here says that the Father had given Him to perfect, are those for which He is created, saying in the Proverbs, The Lord created me a beginning of His ways, for His works;' for it is all one to say, The Father hath given me the works,' and The Lord created me for the works.'

67. When then received He the works to perfect, O God's enemies? for from this also He created' will be understood. If ye say, At the beginning when He brought them into being out of what was not,' it is an untruth; for they were not yet made; whereas He appears to speak as taking what was already in being. Nor is it pious to refer to the time which preceded the Word's becoming flesh, lest His coming should thereupon seem superfluous, since for the sake of these works that coming took place. Therefore it remains for us to say that when He has become man, then He took the works. For then He perfected them, by healing our wounds and vouchsafing to us the resurrection from the dead. But if, when the Word became flesh, then were given to Him the works, plainly when He became man, then also is He created for the works. Not of His essence then is He created' indicative, as has many times been said, but of His bodily generation. For then, because the works were become imperfect and mutilated from the transgression, He is said in respect to the body to be created; that by perfecting them and making them whole, He might present the Church unto the Father, as the Apostle says, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but holy and without blemish [2667] .' Mankind then is perfected in Him and restored, as it was made at the beginning, nay, with greater grace. For, on rising from the dead, we shall no longer fear death, but shall ever reign in Christ in the heavens. And this has been done, since the own Word of God Himself, who is from the Father, has put on the flesh, and become man. For if, being a creature, He had become man, man had remained just what he was, not joined to God; for how had a work been joined to the Creator by a work [2668] ? or what succour had come from like to like, when one as well as other needed it [2669] ? And how, were the Word a creature, had He power to undo God's sentence, and to remit sin, whereas it is written in the Prophets, that this is God's doing? For who is a God like unto Thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by transgression [2670] ?' For whereas God has said, Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return [2671] ,' men have become mortal; how then could things originate undo sin? but the Lord is He who has undone it, as He says Himself, Unless the Son shall make you free [2672] ;' and the Son, who made free, has shewn in truth that He is no creature, nor one of things originate, but the proper Word and Image of the Father's Essence, who at the beginning sentenced, and alone remitteth sins. For since it is said in the Word, Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return,' suitably through the Word Himself and in Him the freedom and the undoing of the condemnation has come to pass.

68. Yet,' they say, though the Saviour were a creature, God was able to speak the word only and undo the curse.' And so another will tell them in like manner, Without His coming among us at all, God was able just to speak and undo the curse;' but we must consider what was expedient for mankind, and not what simply is possible with God [2673] . He could have destroyed, before the ark of Noah, the then transgressors; but He did it after the ark. He could too, without Moses, have spoken the word only and have brought the people out of Egypt; but it profited to do it through Moses. And God was able without the judges to save His people; but it was profitable for the people that for a season judges should be raised up to them. The Saviour too might have come among us from the beginning, or on His coming might not have been delivered to Pilate; but He came at the fulness of the ages [2674] ,' and when sought for said, I am He [2675] .' For what He does, that is profitable for men, and was not fitting in any other way; and what is profitable and fitting, for that He provides [2676] . Accordingly He came, not that He might be ministered unto, but that He might minister [2677] ,' and might work our salvation. Certainly He was able to speak the Law from heaven, but He saw that it was expedient to men for Him to speak from Sinai; and that He has done, that it might be possible for Moses to go up, and for them hearing the word near them the rather to believe. Moreover, the good reason of what He did may be seen thus; if God had but spoken, because it was in His power, and so the curse had been undone, the power had been shewn of Him who gave the word, but man had become such as Adam was before the transgression, having received grace from without [2678] , and not having it united to the body; (for he was such when he was placed in Paradise) nay, perhaps had become worse, because he had learned to transgress. Such then being his condition, had he been seduced by the serpent, there had been fresh need for God to give command and undo the curse; and thus the need had become interminable [2679] , and men had remained under guilt not less than before, as being enslaved to sin; and, ever sinning, would have ever needed one to pardon them, and had never become free, being in themselves flesh, and ever worsted by the Law because of the infirmity of the flesh.

69. Again, if the Son were a creature, man had remained mortal as before, not being joined to God; for a creature had not joined creatures to God, as seeking itself one to join it [2680] ; nor would a portion of the creation have been the creation's salvation, as needing salvation itself. To provide against this also, He sends His own Son, and He becomes Son of Man, by taking created flesh; that, since all were under sentence of death, He, being other than them all, might Himself for all offer to death His own body; and that henceforth, as if all had died through Him, the word of that sentence might be accomplished (for all died [2681] ' in Christ), and all through Him might thereupon become free from sin and from the curse which came upon it, and might truly abide [2682] for ever, risen from the dead and clothed in immortality and incorruption. For the Word being clothed in the flesh, as has many times been explained, every bite of the serpent began to be utterly staunched from out it; and whatever evil sprung from the motions of the flesh, to be cut away, and with these death also was abolished, the companion of sin, as the Lord Himself says [2683] , The prince of this world cometh, and findeth nothing in Me;' and For this end was He manifested,' as John has written, that He might destroy the works of the devil [2684] .' And these being destroyed from the flesh, we all were thus liberated by the kinship of the flesh, and for the future were joined, even we, to the Word. And being joined to God, no longer do we abide upon earth; but, as He Himself has said, where He is, there shall we be also; and henceforward we shall fear no longer the serpent, for he was brought to nought when he was assailed by the Saviour in the flesh, and heard Him say, Get thee behind Me, Satan [2685] ,' and thus he is cast out of paradise into the eternal fire. Nor shall we have to watch against woman beguiling us, for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the Angels [2686] ;' and in Christ Jesus it shall be a new creation,' and neither male nor female, but all and in all Christ [2687] ;' and where Christ is, what fear, what danger can still happen?

70. But this would not have come to pass, had the Word been a creature; for with a creature, the devil, himself a creature, would have ever continued the battle, and man, being between the two, had been ever in peril of death, having none in whom and through whom he might be joined to God and delivered from all fear. Whence the truth shews us that the Word is not of things originate, but rather Himself their Framer. For therefore did He assume the body originate and human, that having renewed it as its Framer, He might deify it [2688] in Himself, and thus might introduce us all into the kingdom of heaven after His likeness. For man had not been deified if joined to a creature, or unless the Son were very God; nor had man been brought into the Father's presence, unless He had been His natural and true Word who had put on the body. And as we had not been delivered from sin and the curse, unless it had been by nature human flesh, which the Word put on (for we should have had nothing common with what was foreign), so also the man had not been deified, unless the Word who became flesh had been by nature from the Father and true and proper to Him. For therefore the union was of this kind, that He might unite what is man by nature to Him who is in the nature of the Godhead, and his salvation and deification might be sure. Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh [2689] of Mary Ever-Virgin [2690] ; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed. But surely He took true flesh, though Valentinus rave; yea the Word was by nature Very God, though Ario-maniacs rave [2691] ; and in that flesh has come to pass the beginning [2692] of our new creation, He being created man for our sake, and having made for us that new way, as has been said.

71. The Word then is neither creature nor work; for creature, thing made, work, are all one; and were He creature and thing made, He would also be work. Accordingly He has not said, He created Me a work,' nor He made Me with the works,' lest He should appear to be in nature and essence [2693] a creature; nor, He created Me to make works,' lest, on the other hand, according to the perverseness of the irreligious, He should seem as an instrument [2694] made for our sake. Nor again has He declared, He created Me before the works,' lest, as He really is before all, as an Offspring, so, if created also before the works, He should give Offspring' and He created' the same meaning. But He has said with exact discrimination [2695] , for the works;' as much as to say, The Father has made Me, into flesh, that I might be man,' which again shews that He is not a work but an offspring. For as he who comes into a house, is not part of the house, but is other than the house, so He who is created for the works, must be by nature other than the works. But if otherwise, as you hold, O Arians, the Word of God be a work, by what [2696] Hand and Wisdom did He Himself come into being? for all things that came to be, came by the Hand and Wisdom of God, who Himself says, My hand hath made all these things [2697] ;' and David says in the Psalm, And Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands [2698] ;' and again, in the hundred and forty-second Psalm, I do remember the time past, I muse upon all Thy works, yea I exercise myself in the works of Thy hands [2699] .' Therefore if by the Hand of God the works are wrought, and it is written that all things were made through the Word,' and without Him was not made one thing [2700] ,' and again, One Lord Jesus, through whom are all things [2701] ,' and in Him all things consist [2702] ,' it is very plain that the Son cannot be a work, but He is the Hand [2703] of God and the Wisdom. This knowing, the martyrs in Babylon, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, arraign the Arian irreligion. For when they say, O all ye works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord,' they recount things in heaven, things on earth, and the whole creation, as works; but the Son they name not. For they say not, Bless, O Word, and praise, O Wisdom;' to shew that all other things are both praising and are works; but the Word is not a work nor of those that praise, but is praised with the Father and worshipped and confessed as God [2704] , being His Word and Wisdom, and of the works the Framer. This too the Spirit has declared in the Psalms with a most apposite distinction, the Word of the Lord is true, and all His works are faithful [2705] ;' as in another Psalm too He says, O Lord, how manifold are Thy works! in Wisdom hast Thou made them all [2706] .'

72. But if the Word were a work, then certainly He as others had been made in Wisdom; nor would Scripture distinguish Him from the works, nor while it named them works, preach Him as Word and own Wisdom of God. But, as it is, distinguishing Him from the works, He shews that Wisdom is Framer of the works, and not a work. This distinction Paul also observes, writing to the Hebrews, The Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, reaching even to the dividing of soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, neither is there any creature hidden before Him, but all things are naked and open unto the eyes of Him with whom is our account [2707] .' For behold he calls things originate creature;' but the Son he recognises as the Word of God, as if He were other than the creatures. And again saying, All things are naked and open to the eyes of Him with whom is our account,' he signifies that He is other than all of them. For hence it is that He judges, but each of all things originate is bound to give account to Him. And so also, when the whole creation is groaning together with us in order to be set free from the bondage of corruption, the Son is thereby shewn to be other than the creatures. For if He were creature, He too would be one of those who groan, and would need one who should bring adoption and deliverance to Himself as well as others. But if the whole creation groans together, for the sake of freedom from the bondage of corruption, whereas the Son is not of those that groan nor of those who need freedom, but He it is who gives sonship and freedom to all, saying to the Jews of His time [2708] , The servant remains not in the house for ever, but the Son remaineth for ever; if then the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed [2709] ;' it is clearer than the light from these considerations also, that the Word of God is not a creature but true Son, and by nature genuine, of the Father. Concerning then The Lord hath created me a beginning of the ways,' this is sufficient, as I think, though in few words, to afford matter to the learned to frame more ample refutations of the Arian heresy. __________________________________________________________________

[2581] Gen. i. 1.

[2582] Ps. cxix. 73.

[2583] Ps. ii. 7.

[2584] Ps. xlv. 1.

[2585] John i. 1.

[2586] Matt. xix. 4.

[2587] Ps. cii. 25.

[2588] Ps. lxxiv. 2.

[2589] Gen. ii. 3.

[2590] Supr. i. 29, n. 10.

[2591] arche, vid. Orat. iv. 1.

[2592] In this passage was from the beginning' is made equivalent with was not before generation,' and both are contrasted with without beginning' or eternal;' vid. the bearing of this on Bishop Bull's explanation of the Nicene Anathema, supr. Exc. B, where this passage is quoted.

[2593] theologon, vid. §71, note.

[2594] The technical sense of eusebeia, asebeia, pietas, impietas, for orthodoxy, heterodoxy,' has been noticed supr. p. 150, and derived from 1 Tim. iii. 16. The word is contrasted ch. iv. 8. with the (perhaps Gnostic) profane and old-wives fables,' and with bodily exercise.'

[2595] Deut. xxxii. 6. LXX.

[2596] Ibid. 18.

[2597] Gen. i. 26.

[2598] Deut. xxxii. 6.

[2599] Ibid. 17.

[2600] John i. 12, 13.

[2601] paratereseos, §12, note.

[2602] De Decr. 31 fin.

[2603] Mal. ii. 10.

[2604] ton en hemin hui& 231;n. vid. also supr. 10. circ. fin. 56. init. and ton en autois oikounta logon. 61. init. Also Orat. i. 50 fin. iii. 23-25. and de Decr. 31 fin. Or. i. 48, note 7, §56, n. 5. infr. notes on 79.

[2605] Gal. iv. 6.

[2606] Gen. i. 26.

[2607] §45, note 2.

[2608] Ch. 20.

[2609] pp. 367, 374.

[2610] §48.

[2611] §6, note 49.

[2612] Col. i. 18.

[2613] Rom. viii. 29. Bishop Bull's hypothesis about the sense of prototokos tes ktiseos has been commented on supr. p. 347. As far as Athan.'s discussion proceeds in this section, it only relates to prototokos of men (i.e. from the dead), and is equivalent to the beginning of ways.'

[2614] Marcellus seems to have argued against Asterius from the same texts (Euseb. in Marc. p. 12), that, since Christ is called first-born from the dead,' though others had been recalled to life before Him, therefore He is called first-born of creation,' not in point of time, but of dignity. vid. Montacut. Not. p. 11. Yet Athan. argues contrariwise. Orat. iv. 29.

[2615] §10. n. 7; Orat. iii. 31. note.

[2616] John xiv. 6; x. 9.

[2617] Rev. i. 5.

[2618] Here again, though speaking of the first-born of creation,' Athan. simply views the phrase as equivalent to first-born of the new creation or "brother" of many;' and so infr. first-born because of the brotherhood He has made with many.'

[2619] Bp. Bull considers sunkatabasis as equivalent to a figurative gennesis, an idea which (vid. supr. p. 346 sq.) seems quite foreign from Athan.'s meaning. In Bull's sense of the word, Athan. could not have said that the senses of Only-begotten and First-born were contrary to each other, Or. i. 28. Sunkatabenai occurs supr. 51 fin. of the Incarnation. What is meant by it will be found infr. 78-81. viz. that our Lord came to implant in the creatures a type and semblance of His Image;' which is just what is here maintained against Bull. The whole passage referred to is a comment on the word sunkatabasis, and begins and ends with an introduction of that word. Vid. also c. Gent. 47.

[2620] Vid. Rom. viii. 29.

[2621] This passage has been urged against Bull supr. Exc. B. All the words (says Athan.) which are proper to the Son, and describe Him fitly, are expressive of what is internal' to the Divine Nature, as Begotten, Word, Wisdom, Glory, Hand, &c., but (as he adds presently) the first-born,' like beginning of ways,' is relative to creation; and therefore cannot denote our Lord's essence or Divine subsistence, but something temporal, an office, character, or the like.

[2622] John i. 14.

[2623] 1 John iv. 9.

[2624] Ps. cxix. 89.

[2625] 1 Cor. i. 24.

[2626] Matt. iii. 17; xvi. 16.

[2627] This passage is imitated by Theodoret. in Coloss. i. 15, but the passages from the Fathers referable to these Orations are too many to enumerate.

[2628] This passage is imitated by Theodoret. in Coloss. i. 15, but the passages from the Fathers referable to these Orations are too many to enumerate.

[2629] We now come to a third and wider sense of prototokos, as found (not in Rom. viii. 29, and Col. i. 18, but) in Col. i. 15, where by creation' Athan. understands all things visible and invisible.' As then for the works' was just now taken to argue that created' was used in a relative and restricted sense, the same is shewn as regards first-born' by the words for in Him all things were created.'

[2630] i. 52.

[2631] apolelumenos; supr. i. 56, note 6, and §§53, 56, and so apolutos Theophylact to express the same distinction in loc. Coloss.

[2632] John i. 18.

[2633] Col. i. 16.

[2634] It would be perhaps better to translate first-born to the creature,' to give Athan.'s idea; tes ktiseos not being a partitive genitive, or prototokos a superlative (though he presently so considers it), but a simple appellative and tes kt. a common genitive of relation, as the king of a country,' the owner of a house.' First-born of creation' is like author, type, life of creation.' Hence S. Paul goes on at once to say, for in Him all things were made,' not simply by and for,' as at the end of the verse; or as Athan. says here, because in Him the creation came to be.' On the distinction of dia and en, referring respectively to the first and second creations, vid. In illud Omn. 2. (Supr. p. 88.)

[2635] To understand this passage, the Greek idiom must be kept in view. Cf. Milton's imitation the fairest of her daughters Eve.' Vid. as regards the very word protos, John i. 15; and supr. §30, note 3, also pleisten e emprosthen 3 Maccab. 7, 21. Accordingly as in the comparative to obviate this exclusion, we put in the word other' (ante alios immanior omnes), so too in the Greek superlative, Socrates is wisest of "other" heathen.' Athanasius then says in this passage, that first-born of creatures' implies that our Lord was not a creature; whereas it is not said of Him first-born of brethren,' lest He should he excluded from men, but first-born "among" brethren,' where among' is equivalent to other.'

[2636] Gen. xlix. 3, LXX. Vid. also contr. Gent. 41 sq. where the text Col. i. 15 is quoted.

[2637] Rom. viii. 29.

[2638] Col. i. 15.

[2639] Ib. i. 17.

[2640] Rom. viii. 19, 21. Thus there are two senses in which our Lord is first-born to the creation;' viz. in its first origin, and in its restoration after man's fall; as he says more clearly in the next section.

[2641] De Decr. 19, n. 3.

[2642] i. 48, n. 7.

[2643] §20.

[2644] He does not here say with Asterius that God could not create man immediately, for the Word is God, but that He did not create him without at the same time infusing a grace or presence from Himself into his created nature to enable it to endure His external plastic hand; in other words, that he was created in Him, not as something external to Him (in spite of the dia supr.63, n. 1. vid. supr. de Decr. 19. 3. and Gent. 47. where the sunkatabasis is spoken of.

[2645] As God created Him, in that He created human nature in Him, so is He first-born, in that human nature is adopted in Him. Leo Serm. 63. 3.

[2646] Heb. i. 6.

[2647] Thus he considers that first-born' is mainly a title, connected with the Incarnation, and also connected with our Lord's office at the creation (vid. parallel of Priesthood, §8, n. 4). In each economy it has the same meaning; it belongs to Him as the type, idea, or rule on which the creature was made or new-made, and the life by which it is sustained. Both economies are mentioned Incarn. 13, 14. Orat. i. 51. iii. 20. infr. 76. init. He came ten tou archetupou plasin anastesasthai heauto contr.Apoll. ii. 5. And so again, he idea hoper logon eirekasi. Clem. Strom. v. 3. idean ideon kai archen lekteon ton prototokon pases ktiseos Origen. contr. Cels. vi. 64. fin. Whatever God was about to make in the creature, was already in the Word, nor would be in the things, were it not in the Word.' August. in Psalm xliv. 5. He elsewhere calls the Son, ars quædam omnipotentis atque sapientis Dei, plena omnium rationum viventium incommutabilium.' de Trin. vi. 11. And so Athan. infr. iii. 9. fin. Eusebius, in commenting on the very passage which Athan. is discussing (Prov. viii. 22), presents a remarkable contrast to these passages, as making the Son, not the idea, but the external minister of the Father's idea. de Eccl. Theol. pp. 164, 5. vid. supr. §31, n. 7.

[2648] 1 Cor. xv. 20.

[2649] Col. i. 18.

[2650] Ps. cxix. 1; Matt. v. 8.

[2651] Gen. iii. 19.

[2652] §31, n. 8.

[2653] Vid. Or. i. §48, 7, i. 51, 5, supr. 56, 5. Irenæus, Hær. iii. 19, n. 1. Cyril. in Joan. lib. ix. cir. fin. This is the doctrine of S. Athanasius and S. Cyril, one may say, passim.

[2654] Heb. x. 20.

[2655] 2 Cor. v. 17.

[2656] §45, n. 2.

[2657] Athanasius here says that our Lord's body was subject to death; and so Incarn. 20, e. also 8, b. 18. init. Orat. iii. 56. And so ton anthropon sathrothenta. Orat. iv. 33. And so S. Leo in his Tome lays down that in the Incarnation, suscepta est ab æternitate mortalitas. Ep. 28. 3. And S. Austin, Utique vulnerabile atque mortale corpus habuit [Christus] contr. Faust. xiv. 2. A Eutychian sect denied this doctrine (the Aphthartodocetæ), and held that our Lord's manhood was naturally indeed corrupt, but became from its union with the Word incorrupt from the moment of conception; and in consequence it held that our Lord did not suffer and die, except by miracle. vid. Leont. c. Nest. ii. (Canis. t. i. pp. 563, 4, 8.) vid. supr. i. 43 and 44, notes; also infr. 76, note. And further, note on iii. 57.

[2658] Ps. cii. 18.

[2659] Ib. xxii. 32.

[2660] Gen. ii. 17.

[2661] John xiv. 3; Eph. ii. 10.

[2662] Ps. cxxxviii. 8.

[2663] Cf. Orat. iv. 11.

[2664] anth' hemon ten opheilen apodidous, and so the Lord's death lutron panton. Incarn. V.D. 25. lutron katharsion. Naz. Orat. 30, 20. fin. also supr. 9, 13, 14, 47, 55, 67. In Illud. Omn. 2 fin.

[2665] John xvii. 4.

[2666] Ib. v. 36.

[2667] Eph. v. 27.

[2668] Vid. de Decr. 10, 2. 4; Or. i. 49, §16, n. 7. Iren. Hær. iii. 20.

[2669] Cf. infr. Orat. iv. 6. vid. also iii. 33 init. August. Trin. xiii. 18. Id. in Psalm 129, n. 12. Leon. Serm. 28, n. 3. Basil. in Psalm 48, n. 4. Cyril. de rect. fid. p. 132. vid. also Procl. Orat. i. p. 63. (ed. 1630.) Vigil. contr. Eutych. v. p. 529, e. Greg. Moral. xxiv. init. Job. ap. Phot. 222. p. 583.

[2670] Mic. vii. 18.

[2671] Gen. iii. 19.

[2672] Vid. John viii. 36.

[2673] Vid. also Incarn. 44. In this statement Athan. is supported by Naz. Orat. 19, 13. Theodor. adv. Gent. vi. p. 876, 7. August. de Trin. xiii. 13. It is denied in a later age by S. Anselm, but S. Thomas and the schoolmen side with the Fathers. vid. Petav. Incarn. ii. 13. However, it will be observed from what follows that Athan. thought the Incarnation still absolutely essential for the renewal of human nature in holiness. Cf. de Incarn. 7. That is, we might have been pardoned, we could not have been new-made, without the Incarnation; and so supr. 67.

[2674] Gal. iv. 4.

[2675] John xviii. 5.

[2676] Was it not in His power, had He wished it, even in a day to bring on the whole rain [of the deluge]? in a day, nay in a moment?' Chrysost. in Gen. Hom. 24, 7. He proceeds to apply this principle to the pardon of sin. On the subject of God's power as contrasted with His acts, Petavius brings together the statements of the Fathers, de Deo, v. 6.

[2677] Vid. Matt. xx. 28

[2678] Athan. here seems to say that Adam in a state of innocence had but an external divine assistance, not an habitual grace; this, however, is contrary to his own statements already referred to, and the general doctrine of the fathers. vid. e.g. Cyril. in Joan. v. 2. August. de Corr. et Grat. 31. vid also infr. §76, note.

[2679] eis apeiron, de Decr. 8.

[2680] De Decr. 10.

[2681] 2 Cor. v. 14.

[2682] diameinosin, §63, n. 8; §73, Gent. 41, Serm. Maj. de Fid. 5.

[2683] John xiv. 30. echei t. rec. heuriskei Ath. et al.

[2684] 1 John iii. 8.

[2685] Matt. xvi. 23.

[2686] Mark xii. 25.

[2687] Gal. vi. 15; iii. 28.

[2688] en heauto theopoiese. supr. p. 65, note 5. vid. also ad Adelph. 4. a. Serap. i. 24, e. and §56, note 5. and iii. 33. De Decr. 14. Orat. i. 42. vid. also Orat. iii. 23. fin. 33. init. 34. fin. 38, b. 39, d. 48. fin. 53. For our becoming theoi vid. Orat. iii. 25. theoi kata charin. Cyr. in Joan. p. 74. theophoroumetha. Orat. iii. 23, c. 41, a. 45 init. christophoroi. ibid. theoumetha. iii. 48 fin. 53. Theodor. H. E. i. p. 846. init.

[2689] §45, n. 2.

[2690] Vid. also Athan. in Luc. (Migne xxvii. 1393 c). This title, which is commonly applied to S. Mary by later writers, is found Epiph. Hær. 78, 5. Didym. Trin. i. 27. p. 84. Rufin. Fid. i. 43. Lepor. ap Cassian. Incarn. i. 5. Leon. Ep. 28, 2. Cæsarius has aeipais. Qu. 20. On the doctrine itself vid. a letter of S. Ambrose and his brethren to Siricius, and the Pope's letter in response. (Coust. Ep. Pont. p. 669-682.) Also Pearson On the Creed, Art. 3. [§§9, 10, p. 267 in Bohn's ed.] He replies to the argument from until' in Matt. i. 25, by referring to Gen. xxviii 15; Deut. xxxiv. 6; 1 Sam. xv. 35; 2 Sam. vi. 23; Matt. xxviii. 20. He might also have referred to Psalm cx. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 25. which are the more remarkable, because they were urged by the school of Marcellus as a proof that our Lord's kingdom would have an end, and are explained by Euseb. Eccl. Theol. iii. 13, 14. Vid. also Cyr. Cat. 15, 29; where the true meaning of until' (which may be transferred to Matt. i. 25), is well brought out. He who is King before He subdued His enemies, how shall He not the rather be King, after He has got the mastery over them?'

[2691] De Syn. 13, n. 4.

[2692] i. 48, n. 7.

[2693] §45, note 2.

[2694] organon, note on iii. 31.

[2695] §12, note.

[2696] §22, n. 2.

[2697] Is. lxvi. 2.

[2698] Ps. cii. 25.

[2699] Ib. cxliii. 5.

[2700] John i. 3.

[2701] 1 Cor. viii. 9.

[2702] Col. i. 17.

[2703] §31, n. 4.

[2704] theologoumenos. vid. de Decr. 31, n. 5. also Incarn. c. Ar. 3. 19, Serap. i. 28. 29. 31. contr. Sab. Greg. and passim ap. Euseb. contr. Marcell. e.g. p. 42, d. 86, a. 99, d. 122, c. 124, b. &c. kuriologein, In Illud. Omn. 6, contr. Sab. Greg. §4, f.

[2705] Ps. xxxiii. 4.

[2706] Ib. civ. 24.

[2707] Heb. iv. 12, 13.

[2708] §1, n. 6.

[2709] John viii. 35, 36. __________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXII.--Texts Explained; Sixthly, the Context of Proverbs viii.

Chapter XXII.--Texts Explained; Sixthly, the Context of Proverbs viii. 22 Vz. 22-30 It is right to interpret this passage by the Regula Fidei. Founded' is used in contrast to superstructure; and it implies, as in the case of stones in building, previous existence. Before the world' signifies the divine intention and purpose. Recurrence to Prov. viii. 22, and application of it to created Wisdom as seen in the works. The Son reveals the Father, first by the works, then by the Incarnation.

But since the heretics, reading the next verse, take a perverse view of that also, because it is written, He founded me before the world [2710] ,' namely, that this is said of the Godhead of the Word and not of His incarnate Presence [2711] , it is necessary, explaining this verse also, to shew their error.

73. It is written, The Lord in Wisdom founded the earth [2712] ;' if then by Wisdom the earth is founded, how can He who founds be founded? nay, this too is said after the manner of proverbs [2713] , and we must in like manner investigate its sense; that we may know that, while by Wisdom the Father frames and founds the earth to be firm and steadfast [2714] , Wisdom Itself is founded for us, that It may become beginning and foundation of our new creation and renewal. Accordingly here as before, He says not, Before the world He hath made me Word or Son,' lest there should be as it were a beginning of His making. For this we must seek before all things, whether He is Son [2715] , and on this point specially search the Scriptures [2716] ;' for this it was, when the Apostles were questioned, that Peter answered, saying, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God [2717] .' This also the father [2718] of the Arian heresy asked as one of his first questions; If Thou be the Son of God [2719] ;' for he knew that this is the truth and the sovereign principle of our faith; and that, if He were Himself the Son, the tyranny of the devil would have its end; but if He were a creature, He too was one of those descended from that Adam whom he deceived, and he had no cause for anxiety. For the same reason the Jews of the day [2720] were angered, because the Lord said that He was Son of God, and that God was His proper Father. For had He called Himself one of the creatures, or said, I am a work,' they had not been startled at the intelligence, nor thought such words blasphemy, knowing, as they did, that even Angels had come among their fathers; but since He called Himself Son, they perceived that such was not the note of a creature, but of Godhead and of the Father's nature [2721] . The Arians then ought, even in imitation of their own father the devil, to take some special pains [2722] on this point; and if He has said, He founded me to be Word or Son,' then to think as they do; but if He has not so spoken, not to invent for themselves what is not.

74. For He says not, Before the world He founded me as Word or Son,' but simply, He founded me,' to shew again, as I have said, that not for His own sake [2723] but for those who are built upon Him does He here also speak, after the way of proverbs. For this knowing, the Apostle also writes, Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ; but let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon [2724] .' And it must be that the foundation should be such as the things built on it, that they may admit of being well compacted together. Being then the Word, He has not, as Word [2725] , any such as Himself, who may be compacted with Him; for He is Only-begotten; but having become man, He has the like of Him, those namely the likeness of whose flesh He has put on. Therefore according to His manhood He is founded, that we, as precious stones, may admit of building upon Him, and may become a temple of the Holy Ghost who dwelleth in us. And as He is a foundation, and we stones built upon Him, so again He is a Vine and we knit to Him as branches,--not according to the Essence of the Godhead; for this surely is impossible; but according to His manhood, for the branches must be like the vine, since we are like Him according to the flesh. Moreover, since the heretics have such human notions, we may suitably confute them with human resemblances contained in the very matter they urge. Thus He saith not, He made me a foundation,' lest He might seem to be made and to have a beginning of being, and they might thence find a shameless occasion of irreligion; but, He founded me.' Now what is founded is founded for the sake of the stones which are raised upon it; it is not a random process, but a stone is first transported from the mountain and set down in the depth of the earth. And while a stone is in the mountain, it is not yet founded; but when need demands, and it is transported, and laid in the depth of the earth, then forthwith if the stone could speak, it would say, He now founded me, who brought me hither from the mountain.' Therefore the Lord also did not when founded take a beginning of existence; for He was the Word before that; but when He put on our body, which He severed and took from Mary, then He says He hath founded me;' as much as to say, Me, being the Word, He hath enveloped in a body of earth.' For so He is founded for our sakes, taking on Him what is ours [2726] , that we, as incorporated and compacted and bound together in Him through the likeness of the flesh, may attain unto a perfect man, and abide [2727] immortal and incorruptible.

75. Nor let the words before the world' and before He made the earth' and before the mountains were settled' disturb any one; for they very well accord with founded' and created;' for here again allusion is made to the Economy according to the flesh. For though the grace which came to us from the Saviour appeared, as the Apostle says, just now, and has come when He sojourned among us; yet this grace had been prepared even before we came into being, nay, before the foundation of the world, and the reason why is kindly and wonderful. It beseemed not that God should counsel concerning us afterwards, lest He should appear ignorant of our fate. The God of all then,--creating us by His own Word, and knowing our destinies better than we, and foreseeing that, being made good [2728] ,' we should in the event be transgressors of the commandment, and be thrust out of paradise for disobedience,--being loving and kind, prepared beforehand in His own Word, by whom also He created us [2729] , the Economy of our salvation; that though by the serpent's deceit we fell from Him, we might not remain quite dead, but having in the Word the redemption and salvation which was afore prepared for us, we might rise again and abide immortal, what time He should have been created for us a beginning of the ways,' and He who was the First-born of creation' should become first-born' of the brethren,' and again should rise first-fruits of the dead.' This Paul the blessed Apostle teaches in his writings; for, as interpreting the words of the Proverbs before the world' and before the earth was,' he thus speaks to Timothy [2730] ; Be partaker of the afflictions of the Gospel according to the power of God, who hath saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and brought to light life [2731] .' And to the Ephesians; Blessed be God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessing in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, according as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself [2732] .'

76. How then has He chosen us, before we came into existence, but that, as he says himself, in Him we were represented [2733] beforehand? and how at all, before men were created, did He predestinate us unto adoption, but that the Son Himself was founded before the world,' taking on Him that economy which was for our sake? or how, as the Apostle goes on to say, have we an inheritance being predestinated,' but that the Lord Himself was founded before the world,' inasmuch as He had a purpose, for our sakes, to take on Him through the flesh all that inheritance of judgment which lay against us, and we henceforth were made sons in Him? and how did we receive it before the world was,' when we were not yet in being, but afterwards in time, but that in Christ was stored the grace which has reached us? Wherefore also in the Judgment, when every one shall receive according to his conduct, He says, Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world [2734] .' How then, or in whom, was it prepared before we came to be, save in the Lord who before the world' was founded for this purpose; that we, as built upon Him, might partake, as well-compacted stones, the life and grace which is from Him? And this took place, as naturally suggests itself to the religious mind, that, as I said, we, rising after our brief death, may be capable of an eternal life, of which we had not been capable [2735] , men as we are, formed of earth, but that before the world' there had been prepared for us in Christ the hope of life and salvation. Therefore reason is there that the Word, on coming into our flesh, and being created in it as a beginning of ways for His works,' is laid as a foundation according as the Father's will [2736] was in Him before the world, as has been said, and before land was, and before the mountains were settled, and before the fountains burst forth; that, though the earth and the mountains and the shapes of visible nature pass away in the fulness of the present age, we on the contrary may not grow old after their pattern, but may be able to live after them, having the spiritual life and blessing which before these things have been prepared for us in the Word Himself according to election. For thus we shall be capable of a life not temporary, but ever afterwards abide [2737] and live in Christ; since even before this our life had been founded and prepared in Christ Jesus.

77. Nor in any other way was it fitting that our life should be founded, but in the Lord who is before the ages, and through whom the ages were brought to be; that, since it was in Him, we too might be able to inherit that everlasting life. For God is good; and being good always, He willed this, as knowing that our weak nature needed the succour and salvation which is from Him. And as a wise architect, proposing to build a house, consults also about repairing it, should it at any time become dilapidated after building, and, as counselling about this, makes preparation and gives to the workmen materials for a repair; and thus the means of the repair are provided before the house; in the same way prior to us is the repair of our salvation founded in Christ, that in Him we might even be new-created. And the will and the purpose were made ready before the world,' but have taken effect when the need required, and the Saviour came among us. For the Lord Himself will stand us in place of all things in the heavens, when He receives us into everlasting life. This then suffices to prove that the Word of God is not a creature, but that the sense of the passage is right [2738] . But since that passage, when scrutinized, has a right sense in every point of view, it may be well to state what it is; perhaps many words may bring these senseless men to shame. Now here I must recur to what has been said before, for what I have to say relates to the same proverb and the same Wisdom. The Word has not called Himself a creature by nature, but has said in proverbs, The Lord created me;' and He plainly indicates a sense not spoken plainly' but latent [2739] , such as we shall be able to find by taking away the veil from the proverb. For who, on hearing from the Framing Wisdom, The Lord created me a beginning of His ways,' does not at once question the meaning, reflecting how that creative Wisdom can be created? who on hearing the Only-begotten Son of God say, that He was created a beginning of ways,' does not investigate the sense, wondering how the Only-begotten Son can become a Beginning of many others? for it is a dark saying [2740] ; but a man of understanding,' says he, shall understand a proverb and the interpretation, the words of the wise and their dark sayings [2741] .'

78. Now the Only-begotten and very Wisdom [2742] of God is Creator and Framer of all things; for in Wisdom hast Thou made them all [2743] ,' he says, and the earth is full of Thy creation.' But that what came into being might not only be, but be good [2744] , it pleased God that His own Wisdom should condescend [2745] to the creatures, so as to introduce an impress and semblance of Its Image on all in common and on each, that what was made might be manifestly wise works and worthy of God [2746] . For as of the Son of God, considered as the Word, our word is an image, so of the same Son considered as Wisdom is the wisdom which is implanted in us an image; in which wisdom we, having the power of knowledge and thought, become recipients of the All-framing Wisdom; and through It we are able to know Its Father. For he who hath the Son,' saith He, hath the Father also;' and he that receiveth Me, receiveth Him that sent Me [2747] .' Such an impress then of Wisdom being created in us, and being in all the works, with reason does the true and framing Wisdom take to Itself what belongs to its own impress, and say, The Lord created me for His works;' for what the wisdom in us says, that the Lord Himself speaks as if it were His own; and, whereas He is not Himself created, being Creator, yet because of the image of Him created in the works [2748] , He says this as if of Himself. And as the Lord Himself has said, He that receiveth you, receiveth Me [2749] ,' because His impress is in us, so, though He be not among the creatures, yet because His image and impress is created in the works, He says, as if in His own person, The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works.' And therefore has this impress of Wisdom in the works been brought into being, that, as I said before, the world might recognise in it its own Creator the Word, and through Him the Father. And this is what Paul said, Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shewed it unto them: for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made [2750] .' But if so, the Word is not a creature in essence [2751] ; but the wisdom which is in us and so called, is spoken of in this passage in the Proverbs.

79. But if this too fails to persuade them, let them tell us themselves, whether there is any wisdom in the creatures or not [2752] ? If not how is it that the Apostle complains, For after that in the Wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God [2753] ?' or how is it if there is no wisdom, that a multitude of wise men [2754] ' are found in Scripture? for a wise man feareth and departeth from evil [2755] ;' and through wisdom is a house builded [2756] ;' and the Preacher says, A man's wisdom maketh his face to shine;' and he blames those who are headstrong thus, Say not thou, what is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire in wisdom concerning this [2757] .' But if, as the Son of Sirach says, He poured her out upon all His works; she is with all flesh according to His gift, and He hath given her to them that love Him [2758] ,' and this outpouring is a note, not of the Essence of the Very [2759] Wisdom and Only-begotten, but of that wisdom which is imaged in the world, how is it incredible that the All-framing and true Wisdom Itself, whose impress is the wisdom and knowledge poured out in the world, should say, as I have already explained, as if of Itself, The Lord created me for His works?' For the wisdom in the world is not creative, but is that which is created in the works, according to which the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handywork [2760] .' This if men have within them [2761] , they will acknowledge the true Wisdom of God; and will know that they are made really [2762] after God's Image. And, as some son of a king, when the father wished to build a city [2763] , might cause his own name to be printed upon each of the works that were rising, both to give security to them of the works remaining, by reason of the show of his name on everything, and also to make them remember him and his father from the name, and having finished the city might be asked concerning it, how it was made, and then would answer, It is made securely, for according to the will of my father, I am imaged in each work, for my name was made in the works;' but saying this, he does not signify that his own essence is created, but the impress of himself by means of his name; in the same manner, to apply the illustration, to those who admire the wisdom in the creatures, the true Wisdom makes answer, The Lord created me for the works,' for my impress is in them; and I have thus condescended for the framing of all things.

80. Moreover, that the Son should be speaking of the impress that is within us as if it were Himself, should not startle any one, considering (for we must not shrink from repetition [2764] ) that, when Saul was persecuting the Church, in which was His impress and image, He said, as if He were Himself under persecution, Saul, why persecutest thou Me [2765] ?' Therefore (as has been said), as, supposing the impress itself of Wisdom which is in the works had said, The Lord created me for the works,' no one would have been startled, so, if He, the True and Framing Wisdom, the Only-begotten Word of God, should use what belongs to His image as about Himself, namely, The Lord created me for the works,' let no one, overlooking the wisdom created in the world and in the works, think that He created' is said of the Substance of the Very [2766] Wisdom, lest, diluting the wine with water [2767] , he be judged a defrauder of the truth. For It is Creative and Framer; but Its impress is created in the works, as the copy of the image. And He says, Beginning of ways,' since such wisdom becomes a sort of beginning. and, as it were, rudiments of the knowledge of God; for a man entering, as it were, upon this way first, and keeping it in the fear of God (as Solomon says [2768] , The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom'), then advancing upwards in his thoughts and perceiving the Framing Wisdom which is in the creation, will perceive in It also Its Father [2769] , as the Lord Himself has said, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father,' and as John writes, He who acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father also [2770] .' And He says, Before the world He founded me [2771] ,' since in Its impress the works remain settled and eternal. Then, lest any, hearing concerning the wisdom thus created in the works, should think the true Wisdom, God's Son, to be by nature a creature, He has found it necessary to add, Before the mountains, and before the earth, and before the waters, and before all hills He begets me,' that in saying, before every creature' (for He includes all the creation under these heads), He may shew that He is not created together with the works according to Essence. For if He was created for the works,' yet is before them, it follows that He is in being before He was created. He is not then a creature by nature and essence, but as He Himself has added, an Offspring. But in what differs a creature from an offspring, and how it is distinct by nature, has been shewn in what has gone before.

81. But since He proceeds to say, When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him [2772] ,' we ought to know that He says not this as if without Wisdom the Father prepared the heaven or the clouds above (for there is no room to doubt that all things are created in Wisdom, and without It was made not even one [2773] thing); but this is what He says, All things took place in Me and through Me, and when there was need that Wisdom should be created in the works, in My Essence indeed I was with the Father, but by a condescension [2774] to things originate, I was disposing over the works My own impress, so that the whole world as being in one body, might not be at variance but in concord with itself.' All those then who with an upright understanding, according to the wisdom given unto them, come to contemplate the creatures, are able to say for themselves, By Thy appointment all things continue [2775] ;' but they who make light of this must be told, Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools;' for that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has revealed it unto them; for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived by the things that are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Because that when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, but served the creature more than the Creator of all, who is blessed for ever. Amen [2776] .' And they will surely be shamed at hearing, For, after that in the wisdom of God (in the mode we have explained above), the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe [2777] .' For no longer, as in the former times, God has willed to be known by an image and shadow of wisdom, that namely which is in the creatures, but He has made the true Wisdom Itself to take flesh, and to become man, and to undergo the death of the cross; that by the faith in Him, henceforth all that believe may obtain salvation. However, it is the same Wisdom of God, which through Its own Image in the creatures (whence also It is said to be created), first manifested Itself, and through Itself Its own Father; and afterwards, being Itself the Word, has become flesh [2778] ,' as John says, and after abolishing death and saving our race, still more revealed Himself and through Him His own Father, saying, Grant unto them that they may know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent [2779] .'

82. Hence the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of Him; for the knowledge of Father through Son and of Son from Father is one and the same, and the Father delights in Him, and in the same joy the Son rejoices in the Father, saying, I was by Him, daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him [2780] .' And this again proves that the Son is not foreign, but proper to the Father's Essence. For behold, not because of us has He come to be, as the irreligious men say, nor is He out of nothing (for not from without did God procure for Himself a cause of rejoicing), but the words denote what is His own and like. When then was it, when the Father rejoiced not? but if He ever rejoiced, He was ever, in whom He rejoiced. And in whom does the Father rejoice, except as seeing Himself in His own Image, which is His Word? And though in sons of men also He had delight, on finishing the world, as it is written in these same Proverbs [2781] , yet this too has a consistent sense. For even thus He had delight, not because joy was added to Him, but again on seeing the works made after His own Image; so that even this rejoicing of God is on account of His Image. And how too has the Son delight, except as seeing Himself in the Father? for this is the same as saying, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father,' and I am in the Father and the Father in Me [2782] .' Vain then is your vaunt as is on all sides shewn, O Christ's enemies, and vainly did ye parade [2783] and circulate everywhere your text, The Lord created me a beginning of His ways,' perverting its sense, and publishing, not Solomon's meaning, but your own comment [2784] . For behold your sense is proved to be but a fantasy; but the passage in the Proverbs, as well as all that is above said, proves that the Son is not a creature in nature and essence, but the proper Offspring of the Father, true Wisdom and Word, by whom all things were made,' and without Him was made not one thing. [2785] ' __________________________________________________________________

[2710] Prov. viii. 23.

[2711] Or. i. 49, n. 2.

[2712] Prov. iii. 19.

[2713] Cf. 44, n. 3.

[2714] §69. 3.

[2715] Serap. ii. 7, 8.

[2716] Vid. supr. pp. 74, 172, and notes. vid. also Serap. i. 32 init. iv. fin. contr. Apoll. i. 6, 8, 9, 11, 22; ii. 8, 9, 13, 14, 17-19. The doctrine of the Church should be proved, not announced (apodeiktikos ouk apophantikos); therefore shew that Scripture thus teaches.' Theod. Eran. p. 199. Ambros. de Incarn. 14. Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de tuo infers. Tertull. Carn. Christ. 7. vid. also 6. Max. dial. v. 29. Heretics in particular professed to be guided by Scripture. Tertull. Præscr. 8. For Gnostics vid. Tertullian's grave sarcasm: Utantur hæretici omnes scripturis ejus, cujus utuntur etiam mundo.' Carn. Christ. 6. For Arians, vid. supr. Or. i. 1, n. 4. And so Marcellus, We consider it unsafe to lay down doctrine concerning things which we have not learned with exactness from the divine Scriptures.' (leg. peri hon para ton). Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p. 177, d. And Macedonians, vid. Leont. de Sect. iv. init. And Monophysites, I have not learned this from Scripture; and I have a great fear of saying what it is silent about.' Theod. Eran. p. 215; also Hilar. ad Const. ii. 9. Hieron. c. Lucif. 27. August. Ep. 120, 13.

[2717] Matt. xvi. 16.

[2718] Ep. Æg. 4. Sent. D. 3. c. infr. 59 init. 67. fin. note infr. on iii. 8.

[2719] Matt. iv. 3.

[2720] §1, n. 6.

[2721] patriken, vid. de Syn. 45, n. 1.

[2722] periergazesthai, vid. iii. 18.

[2723] §60, n. 2.

[2724] 1 Cor. iii. 10, 11; Didym. Trin. iii. 3. p. 341.

[2725] §8, note 3^a.

[2726] Letter 59. 6. Leon. Ep. 28. 3.

[2727] diameinomen, 69, n. 3.

[2728] Gen. i. 31.

[2729] i. 49, n. 10.

[2730] Didym. Trin. iii. 3. p. 342.

[2731] 2 Tim. i. 8-10.

[2732] Eph. i. 3-5.

[2733] Cf. 64, notes 3, 5.

[2734] Matt. xxv. 34.

[2735] The Catholic doctrine seems to be, that Adam innocent was mortal, yet would not in fact have died; that he had no principle of eternal life within him, but was sustained continually by divine power, till such time as immortality should have been given him. vid. Incarn. 4. Cf. Augustine, de pecc. mer. i. 3. Gen. ad lit. vi. 20. Pope Pius V. condemned the assertion of Baius, Immortalitas primi hominis non erat gratiæ beneficium sed naturalis conditio. His decision of course is here referred to only historically.

[2736] Cf. 31. n. 8.

[2737] 74, n. 5.

[2738] §44, n. 1.

[2739] Cf. 73, n. 2. and reff.

[2740] ainigma, supr. i. 41, n. 9.

[2741] Prov. i. 5, 6.

[2742] autosophia vid. infr. note on iv. 2.

[2743] Ps. civ. 24. Sept.

[2744] supr. de Decr. 19, n. 3.

[2745] Cf. 64, notes 2 and 5.

[2746] Didymus argues in favour of interpreting the passage of created wisdom at length, Trin. iii. 3. He says that the context makes this interpretation necessary.

[2747] 1 John ii. 23; Matt. x. 40.

[2748] Athan. here considers wisdom as the image of the Creator in the Universe. He explains it of the Church, de Incarn. contr. Ar. 6. if it be his [but see Prolegg. ch. iii. §1 (36)]; (and so Didym. Trin. iii. 3 fin.) Cf. Jerome, in Eph. iv. 23, 24. Naz. Orat. 30, 2. Epiphanius says, Scripture has nowhere confirmed this passage (Prov. viii. 22), nor has any Apostle referred it to Christ.' (vid. also Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 20.) Hær. 69. pp. 743-745. He proceeds to shew how it may apply to Him.

[2749] Matt. x. 40.

[2750] Rom. i. 19, 20.

[2751] Cf. 45, n. 2.

[2752] Vid. Epiph. Hær. 69.

[2753] 1 Cor. i. 21.

[2754] Vid. Wisd. vi. 24

[2755] Prov. xiv. 16.

[2756] Ib. xxiv.

[2757] Eccles. viii. 1; vii. 10.

[2758] Ecclus. i. 9, 10.

[2759] Cf. 78, n. 1.

[2760] Ps. xix. 1.

[2761] Cf. contr. Gent. 2, 30, 40, &c. vid. also Basil. de Sp. S. n. 19. Cyril. in Joan. p. 75.

[2762] De Decr. 31, n. 5.

[2763] This is drawn out somewhat differently, and very strikingly in contr. Gent. 43. The Word indeed is regarded more as the Governor than the Life of the world, but shortly before he spoke of the Word as the Principle of permanence. 41 fin.

[2764] to auto gar legein ouk okneteon: where Petavius, de Trin. ii. 1. §8. ingeniously but without any authority reads ouk oknei theon. It is quite a peculiarity of Athan. to repeat and to apologize for doing so. The very same words occur supr. 22, c. Orat. iii. 54, a. Serap. i. 19, b. 27, e. Vid. also 2, c. 41, d. 67, a. 69, b. iii. 39 init. vid. especially supr. p. 47, note 6.

[2765] Acts ix. 4.

[2766] Cf. above, 79, n. 8.

[2767] Isa. i. 22. Infr. iii. 35. Ep. Æg. §17. Ambros. de Fid. iii. 65. p. 157. note 4.

[2768] Prov. i. 7, LXX.

[2769] The whole of this passage might be illustrated at great length from the contr. Gent. and the Incarn. V. D. vid. supr. notes on 79. Cf. c. Gent. 34, and Incarn. 11, 41, 42, &c. Vid. also Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 16.

[2770] John xiv. 9; 1 John ii. 23. and so Cyril in Joan. p. 864. vid. Wetstein in loc.

[2771] Vid. Prov. viii. 24-26.

[2772] Ib. viii. 27.

[2773] John i. 3.

[2774] Here again the sunkatabasis has no reference whatever to a figurative gennesis, as Bishop Bull contends, but to His impressing the image of Wisdom on the works, or what He above calls the Son's image, on which account He is prototokos

[2775] Vid. Ps. cxix. 91

[2776] Rom. i. 19-25

[2777] 1 Cor. i. 21.

[2778] John i. 14.

[2779] Vid. ib. xvii. 3.

[2780] Prov. viii. 30.

[2781] Prov. viii. 31.

[2782] John xiv. 9, 10.

[2783] enepompeusate. The ancients said pompeuein "to use bad language," and the coarse language of the procession, pompeia. This arose from the custom of persons in the Bacchanalian cars using bad language towards by-standers, and their retorting it.' Erasm. Adag. p. 1158. He quotes Menander, epi ton hamaxon eisi pompeiai tines sphodra loidoroi.

[2784] dianoian, epinoian, supr. Or. i. 52, n. 7.

[2785] John i. 3. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

Discourse III.

------------------------

Chapter XXIII.--Texts Explained; Seventhly, John xiv. 10 Introduction.

Chapter XXIII.--Texts Explained; Seventhly, John xiv. 10 Introduction. The doctrine of the coinherence. The Father and the Son Each whole and perfect God. They are in Each Other, because their Essence is One and the Same. They are Each Perfect and have One Essence, because the Second Person is the Son of the First. Asterius's evasive explanation of the text under review; refuted. Since the Son has all that the Father has, He is His Image; and the Father is the One God, because the Son is in the Father.

1. The Ario-maniacs, as it appears, having once made up their minds to transgress and revolt from the Truth, are strenuous in appropriating the words of Scripture, When the impious cometh into a depth of evils, he despiseth [2786] ;' for refutation does not stop them, nor perplexity abash them; but, as having a whore's forehead,' they refuse to be ashamed [2787] ' before all men in their irreligion. For whereas the passages which they alleged, The Lord created me [2788] ,' and Made better than the Angels [2789] ,' and First-born [2790] ,' and Faithful to Him that made Him [2791] ' have a right sense [2792] , and inculcate religiousness towards Christ, so it is that these men still, as if bedewed with the serpent's poison, not seeing what they ought to see, nor understanding what they read, as if in vomit from the depth of their irreligious heart, have next proceeded to disparage our Lord's words, I in the Father and the Father in Me [2793] ;' saying, How can the One be contained in the Other and the Other in the One?' or How at all can the Father who is the greater be contained in the Son who is the less?' or What wonder, if the Son is in the Father,' considering it is written even of us, In Him we live and move and have our being [2794] ?' And this state of mind is consistent with their perverseness, who think God to be material, and understand not what is True Father' and True Son,' nor Light Invisible' and Eternal,' and Its Radiance Invisible,' nor Invisible Subsistence,' and Immaterial Expression' and Immaterial Image.' For did they know, they would not dishonour and ridicule the Lord of glory, nor interpreting things immaterial after a material manner, pervert good words. It were sufficient indeed, on hearing only words which are the Lord's, at once to believe, since the faith of simplicity is better than an elaborate process of persuasion; but since they have endeavoured to profane even this passage to their own heresy, it becomes necessary to expose their perverseness and to shew the mind of the truth, at least for the security of the faithful. For when it is said, I in the Father and the Father in Me,' They are not therefore, as these suppose, discharged into Each Other, filling the One the Other, as in the case of empty vessels, so that the Son fills the emptiness of the Father and the Father that of the Son [2795] , and Each of Them by Himself is not complete and perfect (for this is proper to bodies, and therefore the mere assertion of it is full of irreligion), for the Father is full and perfect, and the Son is the Fulness of Godhead. Nor again, as God, by coming into the Saints, strengthens them, thus is He also in the Son. For He is Himself the Father's Power and Wisdom, and by partaking of Him things originate are sanctified in the Spirit; but the Son Himself is not Son by participation, but is the Father's own Offspring [2796] . Nor again is the Son in the Father, in the sense of the passage, In Him we live and move and have our being;' for, He as being from the Fount [2797] of the Father is the Life, in which all things are both quickened and consist; for the Life does not live in life [2798] , else it would not be Life, but rather He gives life to all things.

2. But now let us see what Asterius the Sophist says, the retained pleader [2799] for the heresy. In imitation then of the Jews so far, he writes as follows; It is very plain that He has said, that He is in the Father and the Father again in Him, for this reason, that neither the word on which He was discoursing is, as He says, His own, but the Father's, nor the works belong to Him, but to the Father who gave Him the power.' Now this, if uttered at random by a little child, had been excused from his age; but when one who bears the title of Sophist, and professes universal knowledge [2800] , is the writer, what a serious condemnation does he deserve! And does he not shew himself a stranger to the Apostle [2801] , as being puffed up with persuasive words of wisdom, and thinking thereby to succeed in deceiving, not understanding himself what he says nor whereof he affirms [2802] ? For what the Son has said as proper and suitable to a Son only, who is Word and Wisdom and Image of the Father's Essence, that he levels to all the creatures, and makes common to the Son and to them; and he says, lawless [2803] man, that the Power of the Father receives power, that from this his irreligion it may follow to say that in a son [2804] the Son was made a son, and the Word received a word's authority; and, far from granting that He spoke this as a Son, He ranks Him with all things made as having learned it as they have. For if the Son said, I am in the Father and the Father in Me,' because His discourses were not His own words but the Father's, and so of His works, then,--since David says, I will hear what the Lord God shall say in me [2805] ,' and again Solomon [2806] , My words are spoken by God,' and since Moses was minister of words which were from God, and each of the Prophets spoke not what was his own but what was from God, Thus saith the Lord,' and since the works of the Saints, as they professed, were not their own but God's who gave the power, Elijah for instance and Elisha invoking God that He Himself would raise the dead, and Elisha saying to Naaman, on cleansing him from the leprosy, that thou mayest know that there is a God in Israel [2807] ,' and Samuel too in the days of the harvest praying to God to grant rain, and the Apostles saying that not in their own power they did miracles but in the Lord's grace--it is plain that, according to Asterius such a statement must be common to all, so that each of them is able to say, I in the Father and the Father in me;' and as a consequence that He is no longer one Son of God and Word and Wisdom, but, as others, is only one out of many.

3. But if the Lord said this, His words would not rightly have been, I in the Father and the Father in Me,' but rather, I too am in the Father, and the Father is in Me too,' that He may have nothing of His own and by prerogative [2808] , relatively to the Father, as a Son, but the same grace in common with all. But it is not so, as they think; for not understanding that He is genuine Son from the Father, they belie Him who is such, whom alone it befits to say, I in the Father and the Father in Me.' For the Son is in the Father, as it is allowed us to know, because the whole Being of the Son is proper to the Father's essence [2809] , as radiance from light, and stream from fountain; so that whoso sees the Son, sees what is proper to the Father, and knows that the Son's Being, because from the Father, is therefore in the Father. For the Father is in the Son, since the Son is what is from the Father and proper to Him, as in the radiance the sun, and in the word the thought, and in the stream the fountain: for whoso thus contemplates the Son, contemplates what is proper to the Father's Essence, and knows that the Father is in the Son. For whereas the Form [2810] and Godhead of the Father is the Being of the Son, it follows that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son [2811] .

4. On this account and reasonably, having said before, I and the Father are One,' He added, I in the Father and the Father in Me, [2812] ' by way of shewing the identity [2813] of Godhead and the unity of Essence. For they are one, not [2814] as one thing divided into two parts, and these nothing but one, nor as one thing twice named, so that the Same becomes at one time Father, at another His own Son, for this Sabellius holding was judged an heretic. But They are two, because the Father is Father and is not also Son, and the Son is Son and not also Father [2815] ; but the nature is one; (for the offspring is not unlike [2816] its parent, for it is his image), and all that is the Father's, is the Son's [2817] . Wherefore neither is the Son another God, for He was not procured from without, else were there many, if a godhead be procured foreign from the Father's [2818] ; for if the Son be other, as an Offspring, still He is the Same as God; and He and the Father are one in propriety and peculiarity of nature, and in the identity of the one Godhead, as has been said. For the radiance also is light, not second to the sun, nor a different light, nor from participation of it, but a whole and proper offspring of it. And such an offspring is necessarily one light; and no one would say that they are two lights [2819] , but sun and radiance two, yet one the light from the sun enlightening in its radiance all things. So also the Godhead of the Son is the Father's; whence also it is indivisible; and thus there is one God and none other but He. And so, since they are one, and the Godhead itself one, the same things are said of the Son, which are said of the Father, except His being said to be Father [2820] :--for instance [2821] , that He is God, And the Word was God [2822] ;' Almighty, Thus saith He which was and is and is to come, the Almighty [2823] ;' Lord, One Lord Jesus Christ [2824] ;' that He is Light, I am the Light [2825] ;' that He wipes out sins, that ye may know,' He says, that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins [2826] ;' and so with other attributes. For all things,' says the Son Himself, whatsoever the Father hath, are Mine [2827] ;' and again, And Mine are Thine.'

5. And on hearing the attributes of the Father spoken of a Son, we shall thereby see the Father in the Son; and we shall contemplate the Son in the Father, when what is said of the Son is said of the Father also. And why are the attributes of the Father ascribed to the Son, except that the Son is an Offspring from Him? and why are the Son's attributes proper to the Father, except again because the Son is the proper Offspring of His Essence? And the Son, being the proper Offspring of the Father's Essence, reasonably says that the Father's attributes are His own also; whence suitably and consistently with saying, I and the Father are One,' He adds, that ye may know that I am in the Father and the Father in Me [2828] .' Moreover, He has added this again, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father [2829] ;' and there is one and the same sense in these three [2830] passages. For he who in this sense understands that the Son and the Father are one, knows that He is in the Father and the Father in the Son; for the Godhead of the Son is the Father's, and it is in the Son; and whoso enters into this, is convinced that He that hath seen the Son, hath seen the Father;' for in the Son is contemplated the Father's Godhead. And we may perceive this at once from the illustration of the Emperor's image. For in the image is the shape and form of the Emperor, and in the Emperor is that shape which is in the image. For the likeness of the Emperor in the image is exact [2831] ; so that a person who looks at the image, sees in it the Emperor; and he again who sees the Emperor, recognises that it is he who is in the image [2832] . And from the likeness not differing, to one who after the image wished to view the Emperor, the image might say, I and the Emperor are one; for I am in him, and he in me; and what thou seest in me, that thou beholdest in him, and what thou hast seen in him, that thou holdest in me [2833] .' Accordingly he who worships the image, in it worships the Emperor also; for the image is his form and appearance. Since then the Son too is the Father's Image, it must necessarily be understood that the Godhead and propriety of the Father is the Being of the Son.

6. And this is what is said, Who being in the form of God [2834] ,' and the Father in Me.' Nor is this Form [2835] of the Godhead partial merely, but the fulness of the Father's Godhead is the Being of the Son, and the Son is whole God. Therefore also, being equal to God, He thought it not a prize to be equal to God;' and again since the Godhead and the Form of the Son is none other's than the Father's [2836] , this is what He says, I in the Father.' Thus God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself [2837] ;' for the propriety of the Father's Essence is that Son, in whom the creation was then reconciled with God. Thus what things the Son then wrought are the Father's works, for the Son is the Form of that Godhead of the Father, which wrought the works. And thus he who looks at the Son, sees the Father; for in the Father's Godhead is and is contemplated the Son; and the Father's Form which is in Him shews in Him the Father; and thus the Father is in the Son. And that propriety and Godhead which is from the Father in the Son, shews the Son in the Father, and His inseparability from Him; and whoso hears and beholds that what is said of the Father is also said of the Son, not as accruing to His Essence by grace or participation, but because the very Being of the Son is the proper Offspring of the Father's Essence, will fitly understand the words, as I said before, I in the Father, and the Father in Me;' and I and the Father are One [2838] .' For the Son is such as the Father is, because He has all that is the Father's. Wherefore also is He implied together with the Father. For, a son not being, one cannot say father; whereas when we call God a Maker, we do not of necessity intimate the things which have come to be; for a maker is before his works [2839] . But when we call God Father, at once with the Father we signify the Son's existence. Therefore also he who believes in the Son, believes also in the Father: for he believes in what is proper to the Father's Essence; and thus the faith is one in one God. And he who worships and honours the Son, in the Son worships and honours the Father; for one is the Godhead; and therefore one [2840] the honour and one the worship which is paid to the Father in and through the Son. And he who thus worships, worships one God; for there is one God and none other than He. Accordingly when the Father is called the only God, and we read that there is one God [2841] , and I am,' and beside Me there is no God,' and I the first and I the last [2842] ,' this has a fit meaning. For God is One and Only and First; but this is not said to the denial of the Son [2843] , perish the thought; for He is in that One, and First and Only, as being of that One and Only and First the Only Word and Wisdom and Radiance. And He too is the First, as the Fulness of the Godhead of the First and Only, being whole and full God [2844] . This then is not said on His account, but to deny that there is other such as the Father and His Word. __________________________________________________________________

[2786] Prov. xviii. 3, LXX.

[2787] Jer. iii. 3.

[2788] Supr. ch. xix.

[2789] Ch. xiii.

[2790] Ch. xxi.

[2791] Ch. xiv.

[2792] ii. 44, n. 1.

[2793] John xiv. 10.

[2794] Acts xvii. 28. Vid. supr. ii. 41, note 11. The doctrine of the perichoresis, which this objection introduces, is the test of orthodoxy opposed to Arianism. Cf. de Syn. 15, n. 4. This is seen clearly in the case of Eusebius, whose language approaches to Catholic more nearly than Arians in general. After all his strong assertions, the question recurs, is our Lord a distinct being from God, as we are, or not? he answers in the affirmative, vid. supr. p. 75, n. 7, whereas we believe that He is literally and numerically one with the Father, and therefore His Person dwells in the Father's Person by an ineffable union. And hence the language of Dionysius [of Rome] supr. de Decr. 26. the Holy Ghost must repose and habitate in God,' emphilochorein to theo kai endiaitasthai. And hence the strong figure of S. Jerome (in which he is followed by S. Cyril, Thesaur. p. 51), Filius locus est Patris, sicut et Pater locus est Filii.' in Ezek. iii. 12. So Athan. contrasts the creatures who are en memerismenois topois and the Son. Serap. iii. 4. Cf. even in the Macrostich Creed, language of this character, viz. All the Father embosoming the Son, and all the Son hanging and adhering to the Father, and alone resting on the Father's breast continually.' De Syn. 26 (7), where vid. note 3.

[2795] This is not inconsistent with S. Jerome as quoted in the foregoing note. Athan. merely means that such illustrations cannot be taken literally, as if spoken of natural subjects. The Father is the topos or locus of the Son, because when we contemplate the Son in His fulness as holos theos, we merely view the Father as that Person in whom God the Son is; our mind abstracts His Essence which is the Son for the moment from Him, and regards Him merely as Father. Thus in Illud. Omn. 4, supr. p. 89. It is, however, but an operation of the mind, and not a real emptying of Godhead from the Father, if such words may be used. Father and Son are both the same God, though really and eternally distinct from each other; and Each is full of the Other, that is, their Essence is one and the same. This is insisted on by S. Cyril, in Joan. p. 28. And by S. Hilary, Trin. vii. fin. vid. also iii. 23. Cf. the quotation from S. Anselm made by Petavius, de Trin. iv. 16 fin. [Cf. D.C.B. s.v. Metangismonitae.]

[2796] Vid. de Decr. 10, n. 4, 19, n. 3; Or. i. 15, n. 6. On the other hand Eusebius considers the Son, like a creature, ex autes tes patrikes [not ousias, but] metousias, hosper apo peges, ep' auton procheomenes pleroumenon. Eccl. Theol. i. 2. words which are the more observable, the nearer they approach to the language of Athan. in the text and elsewhere. Vid. infr. by way of contrast, oude kata metousian autou, all' holon idion autou gennema. 4.

[2797] De Decr. 15, n. 9.

[2798] i.e. Son does not live by the gift of life, for He is life, and does but give it, not receive. S. Hilary uses different language with the same meaning, de Trin. ii. 11. Other modes of expression for the same mystery are found infr. 3. also 6 fin. Vid. de Syn. 45, n. 1. and Didymus he patrike theotes. p. 82. and S. Basil, ex hou echei to einai. contr. Eunom. ii. 12 fin. Just above Athan. says that the Son is the fulness of the Godhead.' Thus the Father is the Son's life because the Son is from Him, and the Son the Father's because the Son is in Him. All these are but different ways of signifying the perichoresis

[2799] sunegorou, infr. §60.

[2800] panta ginoskein epangellomenos. Gorgias, according to Cicero de fin. ii. init. was the first who ventured in public to say proballete, give me a question.' This was the epangelma of the Sophists; of which Aristotle speaks. Rhet. ii. 24 fin. Vid. Cressol. Theatr. Rhet. iii. 11.

[2801] 1 Cor. ii. 4.

[2802] 1 Tim. i. 7.

[2803] paranomos. infr. 47, c. Hist. Ar. 71, 75, 79. Ep. Æg. 16, d. Vid. anomos. 2 Thess. ii. 8.

[2804] en hui& 254;, but en to hui& 254;. Ep. Æg. 14 fin. vid. Or. ii. 22, note 2.

[2805] Ps. lxxxv. 8, LXX.

[2806] 1 Kings viii. 59, or x. 24?

[2807] 2 Kings v. 8, 15.

[2808] Or. ii. 19, n. 6.

[2809] Since the Father and the Son are the numerically One God, it is but expressing this in other words to say that the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, for all They have and all They are is common to Each, excepting Their being Father and Son. A perichoresis of Persons is implied in the Unity of Essence. This is the connexion of the two texts so often quoted; the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son,' because the Son and the Father are one.' And the cause of this unity and perichoresis is the Divine gennesis. Thus S. Hilary, Trin. ii. 4. vid. Or. ii. 33, n. 1.

[2810] eidous. Petavius here prefers the reading idiou; theotes and to hidion occur together infr. 6. and 56. eidos occurs Orat. i. 20, a. de Syn. 52. vid. de Syn. 52, n. 6. infr. 6, 16, Ep. Æg. 17, contr. Sabell. Greg. 8, c. 12, vid. infr. §§6, 16, notes.

[2811] In accordance with §1, note 10, Thomassin observes that by the mutual coinherence or indwelling of the Three Blessed Persons is meant not a commingling as of material liquids, nor as of soul with body, nor as the union of our Lord's Godhead and humanity, but it is such that the whole power, life, substance, wisdom, essence, of the Father, should be the very essence, substance, wisdom, life, and power of the Son.' de Trin. xxviii. 1. S. Cyril adopts Athan.'s language to express this doctrine in Joan. p. 105. de Trin. vi. p. 621, in Joan. p. 168. Vid. infr. tautotes ousias, 21. patrike theotes tou huiou, 26. and 41. and de Syn. 45, n. 1. vid. also Damasc. F. O. i. 8. pp. 139, 140.

[2812] John x. 30.

[2813] De Syn. 45, n. 1.

[2814] Infr. Orat. iv. 9.

[2815] Infr. 11.

[2816] anomoion; and so anomoios kata panta. Orat. i. 6. kat' ousian. 17. Orat. ii. 43. tes ousias. infr. 14. vid. anomoiotes. infr. 8, c.

[2817] Cf. in illud. Omn. 4. As the Father is I am (ho on) so His Word is I Am and God over all.' Serap. i. 28, a; ib. ii. 2.

[2818] Cf. i. 6.

[2819] Doctrine of the Una Res, de Syn. 45, n. 1.

[2820] Ib. 49, n. 4.

[2821] Parallel to de Syn. 49.

[2822] John i. 1.

[2823] Rev. i. 8.

[2824] 1 Cor. viii. 6.

[2825] John viii. 12.

[2826] Luke v. 24.

[2827] John xvi. 15; xvii. 10.

[2828] John x. 30, 38; xiv. 10.

[2829] Ib. xiv. 9.

[2830] Here these three texts, which so often occur together, are recognized as three;' so are they by Eusebius Eccl. Theol. iii. 19; and he says that Marcellus and those who Sabellianize with him,' among whom he included Catholics, were in the practice of adducing them, thrullountes; which bears incidental testimony to the fact that the doctrine of the perichoresis was the great criterion between orthodox and Arian. Many instances of the joint use of the three are given supr. i. 34, n. 7. to which may be added Orat. ii. 54 init. iii. 16 fin. 67 fin. iv. 17, a. Serap. ii. 9, c. Serm. Maj. de fid. 29. Cyril. de Trin. p. 554. in Joann. p. 168. Origen Periarch. p. 56. Hil. Trin. ix. 1. Ambros. Hexaem. 6. August. de Cons. Ev. i. 7.

[2831] aparallaktos, de Syn. 23, n. 1.

[2832] Vid. Basil. Hom. contr. Sab. p. 192. The honour paid to the Imperial Statues is well known. Ambros. in Psalm cxviii. x. 25. vid. also Chrysost. Hom. on Statues, passim, fragm. in Act. Conc. vii. (t. 4, p. 89. Hard.) Socr. vi. 18. The Seventh Council speaks of the images sent by the Emperors into provinces instead of their coming in person; Ducange in v. Lauratum. Vid. a description of the imperial statutes and their honours in Gothofred, Cod. Theod. t. 5, pp. 346, 7. and in Philostorg. xii. 12. vid. also Molanus de Imaginibus ed. Paquot, p. 197.

[2833] Athanasius guards against what is defective in this illustration in the next chapter, but independent of such explanation a mistake as to his meaning would be impossible; and the passage affords a good instance of the imperfect and partial character of all illustrations of the Divine Mystery. What it is taken to symbolize is the unity of the Father and Son, for the Image is not a Second Emperor but the same. vid. Sabell. Greg. 6. But no one, who bowed before the Emperor's Statue can be supposed to have really worshipped it; whereas our Lord is the Object of supreme worship, which terminates in Him, as being really one with Him whose Image He is. From the custom of paying honour to the Imperial Statues, the Cultus Imaginum was introduced into the Eastern Church. The Western Church, not having had the civil custom, resisted. vid. Döllinger, Church History, vol. 3. p. 55. E. Tr. The Fathers, e.g. S. Jerome, set themselves against the civil custom, as idolatrous, comparing it to that paid to Nebuchadnezzar's statue. vid. Hieron. in Dan. iii. 18. Incense was burnt before those of the Emperors; as afterwards before the images of the Saints.

[2834] Phil. ii. 6.

[2835] eidos, vid. infr. 16, note.

[2836] Here first the Son's eidos is the eidos of the Father, then the Son is the eidos of the Father's Godhead, and then in the Son is the eidos of the Father. These expressions are equivalent, if Father and Son are, each separately, holos theos. vid. infr. §16, note. S. Greg. Naz. uses the word opisthia (Exod. xxxiii. 23), which forms a contrast to eidos, for the Divine Works. Orat. 28, 3.

[2837] 2 Cor. v. 19.

[2838] John xiv. 10; x. 30.

[2839] Vid. supr. de Decr. 30; Or. i. 33. This is in opposition to the Arians, who said that the title Father implied priority of existence. Athan. says that the title Maker' does, but that the title father' does not. vid. supr. p. 76, n. 3; Or. i. 29, n. 10: ii. 41, n. 11.

[2840] Athan. de Incarn. c. Ar. 19, c. vid. Ambros. de fid. iii. cap. 12, 13. Naz. Orat. 23, 8. Basil. de Sp. S. n. 64.

[2841] Mark xii. 29.

[2842] Ex. iii. 14; Deut. xxxii. 39, LXX.; Is. xliv. 6

[2843] De Decr. 19, n. 6.

[2844] Vid. supr. 1, note 10; ii. 41 fin. also infr. iv. 1. Pseudo-Ath. c. Sab. Greg. 5-12. Naz. Orat. 40, 41. Synes. Hymn. iii. pp. 328, 9. Ambros. de Fid. i. n. 18. August. Ep. 170, 5. vid. Or. ii. 38, n. 6. and infr. note on 36 fin. __________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXIV.--Texts Explained; Eighthly, John xvii. 3. and the Like.

Chapter XXIV.--Texts Explained; Eighthly, John xvii. 3. and the Like. Our Lord's divinity cannot interfere with His Father's prerogatives, as the One God, which were so earnestly upheld by the Son. One' is used in contrast to false gods and idols, not to the Son, through whom the Father spoke. Our Lord adds His Name to the Father's, as included in Him. The Father the First, not as if the Son were not First too, but as Origin.

7. Now that this is the sense of the Prophet is clear and manifest to all; but since the irreligious men, alleging such passages also, dishonour the Lord and reproach us, saying, Behold God is said to be One and Only and First; how say ye that the Son is God? for if He were God, He had not said, "I Alone," nor "God is One [2845] ;"' it is necessary to declare the sense of these phrases in addition, as far as we can, that all may know from this also that the Arians are really contending with God [2846] . If there then is rivalry of the Son towards the Father, then be such words uttered against Him; and if according to what is said to David concerning Adonijah and Absalom [2847] , so also the Father looks upon the Son, then let Him utter and urge such words against Himself, lest He the Son, calling Himself God, make any to revolt from the Father. But if he who knows the Son, on the contrary, knows the Father, the Son Himself revealing Him to him, and in the Word he shall rather see the Father, as has been said, and if the Son on coming, glorified not Himself but the Father, saying to one who came to Him, Why callest thou Me good? none is good save One, that is, God [2848] ;' and to one who asked, what was the great commandment in the Law, answering, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord [2849] ;' and saying to the multitudes, I came down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me [2850] ;' and teaching the disciples, My Father is greater than I,' and He that honoureth Me, honoureth Him that sent Me [2851] ;' if the Son is such towards His own Father, what is the difficulty [2852] , that one must need take such a view of such passages? and on the other hand, if the Son is the Father's Word, who is so wild, besides these Christ-opposers, as to think that God has thus spoken, as traducing and denying His own Word? This is not the mind of Christians; perish the thought; for not with reference to the Son is it thus written, but for the denial of those falsely called gods, invented by men.

8. And this account of the meaning of such passages is satisfactory; for since those who are devoted to gods falsely so called, revolt from the True God, therefore God, being good and careful for mankind, recalling the wanderers, says, I am Only God,' and I Am,' and Besides Me there is no God,' and the like; that He may condemn things which are not, and may convert all men to Himself. And as, supposing in the daytime when the sun was shining, a man were rudely to paint a piece of wood, which had not even the appearance of light, and call that image the cause of light, and if the sun with regard to it were to say, I alone am the light of the day, and there is no other light of the day but I,' he would say this, with regard, not to his own radiance, but to the error arising from the wooden image and the dissimilitude of that vain representation; so it is with I am,' and I am Only God,' and There is none other besides Me,' viz. that He may make men renounce falsely called gods, and that they may recognise Him the true God instead. Indeed when God said this, He said it through His own Word, unless forsooth the modern [2853] Jews add this too, that He has not said this through His Word; but so hath He spoken, though they rave, these followers of the devil [2854] . For the Word of the Lord came to the Prophet, and this was what was heard; nor is there a thing which God says or does, but He says and does it in the Word. Not then with reference to Him is this said, O Christ's enemies, but to things foreign to Him and not from [2855] Him. For according to the aforesaid illustration, if the sun had spoken those words, he would have been setting right the error and have so spoken, not as having his radiance without him, but in the radiance shewing his own light. Therefore not for the denial of the Son, nor with reference to Him, are such passages, but to the overthrow of falsehood. Accordingly God spoke not such words to Adam at the beginning, though His Word was with Him, by whom all things came to be; for there was no need, before idols came in; but when men made insurrection against the truth and named for themselves gods such as they would [2856] , then it was that need arose of such words, for the denial of gods that were not. Nay I would add, that they were said even in anticipation of the folly of these Christ-opposers [2857] , that they might know, that whatsoever god they devise external to the Father's Essence, he is not True God, nor Image and Son of the Only and First.

9. If then the Father be called the only true God, this is said not to the denial of Him who said, I am the Truth [2858] ,' but of those on the other hand who by nature are not true, as the Father and His Word are. And hence the Lord Himself added at once, And Jesus Christ whom Thou didst send [2859] .' Now had He been a creature, He would not have added this, and ranked Himself with His Creator (for what fellowship is there between the True and the not true?); but as it is, by adding Himself to the Father, He has shewn that He is of the Father's nature; and He has given us to know that of the True Father He is True Offspring. And John too, as he had learned [2860] , so he teaches this, writing in his Epistle, And we are in the True, even in His Son Jesus Christ; This is the True God and eternal life [2861] .' And when the Prophet says concerning the creation, That stretcheth forth the heavens alone [2862] ,' and when God says, I only stretch out the heavens,' it is made plain to every one, that in the Only is signified also the Word of the Only, in whom all things were made,' and without whom was made not one thing.' Therefore, if they were made through the Word, and yet He says, I Only,' and together with that Only is understood the Son, through whom the heavens were made, so also then, if it be said, One God,' and I Only,' and I the First,' in that One and Only and First is understood the Word coexisting, as in the Light the Radiance. And this can be understood of no other than the Word alone. For all other things subsisted out of nothing through the Son, and are greatly different in nature; but the Son Himself is natural and true Offspring from the Father; and thus the very passage which these insensates have thought fit to adduce, I the First,' in defence of their heresy, doth rather expose their perverse spirit. For God says, I the First and I the Last;' if then, as though ranked with the things after Him, He is said to be first of them, so that they come next to Him, then certainly you will have shewn that He Himself precedes the works in time only [2863] ; which, to go no further, is extreme irreligion; but if it is in order to prove that He is not from any, nor any before Him, but that He is Origin and Cause of all things, and to destroy the Gentile fables, that He has said I the First,' it is plain also, that when the Son is called First-born, this is done not for the sake of ranking Him with the creation, but to prove the framing and adoption of all things [2864] through the Son. For as the Father is First, so also is He both First [2865] , as Image of the First, and because the First is in Him, and also Offspring from the Father, in whom the whole creation is created and adopted into sonship. __________________________________________________________________

[2845] Deut. xxxii. 39; vi. 4, &c.

[2846] theomachoi. vid. Acts v. 39.

[2847] 2 Sam. xv. 13; 1 Kings i. 11.

[2848] Luke xviii. 19, and vid. Basil. Ep. 236, 1.

[2849] Mark xii. 29.

[2850] John vi. 38; xiv. 28.

[2851] John v. 23, cf. xiii. 20.

[2852] §58, note.

[2853] hoi nun, cf. Or. ii. 1, note 6, and Hist. Ar. 61, fin.

[2854] diabolikoi. vid. supr. p. 187, and de Decr. 5, note 2. vid. also Orat. ii. 38, a. 73, a. 74 init. Ep. Æg. 4 and 6. In the passage before us there seems an allusion to false accusation or lying, which is the proper meaning of the word; diaballon occurs shortly before. And so in Apol. ad Const. when he calls Magnentius diabolos, it is as being a traitor, 7. and soon after he says that his accuser was ton diabolou propon analabon, where the word has no article, and diabeblemai and dieblethen have preceded. vid. also Hist. Ar. 52 fin. And so in Sent. D. his speaking of the Arians' father the devil,' 3, c. is explained 4, b. by tous pateras diaballonton and tes eis ton episkopon diaboles.

[2855] para, vid. §24 end, and John xv. 26

[2856] ohus ethelon, infr. §10, n. 1.

[2857] Who worship one whom they themselves call a creature, vid. supr. Or. i. 8, n. 8, ii. 14, n. 7, 21, n. 2, and below, §16 notes.

[2858] John xiv. 6.

[2859] Ib. xvii. 3.

[2860] mathon edidaxe, de Decr. 7, n. 8; Or. ii. 1, note 6^a.

[2861] 1 John v. 20.

[2862] Isai. xliv. 24.

[2863] He says that in I the first' the question of time does not come in, else creatures would come second' to the Creator, as if His and their duration admitted of a common measure. First' then does not imply succession, but is equivalent to arche; a word which, as Father,' does not imply that the Son is not from eternity.

[2864] ii. 62, n. 2.

[2865] It is no inconsistency to say that the Father is first, and the Son first also, for comparison or number does not enter into mystery. Since Each is holos theos, Each, as contemplated by our finite reason, at the moment of contemplation excludes the Other. Though we say' Three Persons, Person hardly denotes one abstract idea,' certainly not as containing under it three individual subjects, but it is a term' applied to the One God in three ways. It is the doctrine of the Fathers, that, though we use words expressive of a Trinity, yet that God is beyond number, and that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, though eternally distinct from each other, can scarcely be viewed together in common, except as One' substance, as if they could not be generalized into Three Any whatever; and as if it were, strictly speaking, incorrect to speak of a' Person, or otherwise than of the' Person, whether of Father, or of Son, or of Spirit. The question has almost been admitted by S. Austin, whether it is not possible to say that God is One' Person (Trin. vii. 8), for He is wholly and entirely Father, and at the same time wholly and entirely Son, and wholly and entirely Holy Ghost. Some references to the Fathers shall be given on that subject, infr. 36 fin. vid. also supr. §6, n. 11. Meanwhile the doctrine here stated will account for such expressions as God from God,' i.e. the One God (who is the Son) from the One God (who is the Father); vid. supr. de Syn. 52, note 8. Again, he ousia haute tes ousias tes patrikes esti gennema. de Syn. 48, b. Vid. also infr. Orat. iv. 1 and 2. __________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXV.--Texts Explained; Ninthly, John x. 30; xvii. 11, &c. Arian

Chapter XXV.--Texts Explained; Ninthly, John x. 30; xvii. 11, &c. Arian explanation, that the Son is one with the Father in will and judgment; but so are all good men, nay things inanimate; contrast of the Son. Oneness between Them is in nature, because oneness in operation. Angels not objects of prayer, because they do not work together with God, but the Son; texts quoted. Seeing an Angel, is not seeing God. Arians in fact hold two Gods, and tend to Gentile polytheism. Arian explanation that the Father and Son are one as we are one with Christ, is put aside by the Regula Fidei, and shewn invalid by the usage of Scripture in illustrations; the true force of the comparison; force of the terms used. Force of in us;' force of as;' confirmed by S. John. In what sense we are in God' and His sons.'

10. However here too they introduce their private fictions, and contend that the Son and the Father are not in such wise one,' or like,' as the Church preaches, but, as they themselves would have it [2866] . For they say, since what the Father wills, the Son wills also, and is not contrary either in what He thinks or in what He judges, but is in all respects concordant [2867] with Him, declaring doctrines which are the same, and a word consistent and united with the Father's teaching, therefore it is that He and the Father are One; and some of them have dared to write as well as say this [2868] . Now what can be more unseemly or irrational than this? for if therefore the Son and the Father are One and if in this way the Word is like the Father, it follows forthwith [2869] that the Angels [2870] too, and the other beings above us, Powers and Authorities, and Thrones and Dominions, and what we see, Sun and Moon, and the Stars, should be sons also, as the Son; and that it should be said of them too, that they and the Father are one, and that each is God's Image and Word. For what God wills, that will they; and neither in judging nor in doctrine are they discordant, but in all things are obedient to their Maker. For they would not have remained in their own glory, unless, what the Father willed, that they had willed also. He, for instance, who did not remain, but went astray, heard the words, How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning [2871] ?' But if this be so, how is only He Only-begotten Son and Word and Wisdom? or how, whereas so many are like the Father, is He only an Image? for among men too will be found many like the Father, numbers, for instance, of martyrs, and before them the Apostles and Prophets, and again before them the Patriarchs. And many now too keep the Saviour's command, being merciful as their Father which is in heaven [2872] ,' and observing the exhortation, Be ye therefore followers of God as dear children, and walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us [2873] ;' many too have become followers of Paul as he also of Christ [2874] . And yet no one of these is Word or Wisdom or Only-begotten Son or Image; nor did any one of them make bold to say, I and the Father are One,' or, I in the Father, and the Father in Me [2875] ;' but it is said of all of them, Who is like unto Thee among the gods, O Lord? and who shall be likened to the Lord among the sons of Gods [2876] ?' and of Him on the contrary that He only is Image true and natural of the Father. For though we have been made after the Image [2877] , and called both image and glory of God, yet not on our own account still, but for that Image and true Glory of God inhabiting us, which is His Word, who was for us afterwards made flesh, have we this grace of our designation.

11. This their notion then being evidently unseemly and irrational as well as the rest, the likeness and the oneness must be referred to the very Essence of the Son; for unless it be so taken, He will not be shown to have anything beyond things originate, as has been said, nor will He be like the Father, but He will be like the Father's doctrines; and He differs from the Father, in that the Father is Father [2878] , but the doctrines and teaching are the Father's. If then in respect to the doctrines and the teaching the Son is like the Father, then the Father according to them will be Father in name only, and the Son will not be an exact Image, or rather will be seen to have no propriety at all or likeness of the Father; for what likeness or propriety has he who is so utterly different from the Father? for Paul taught like the Saviour, yet was not like Him in essence [2879] .' Having then such notions, they speak falsely; whereas the Son and the Father are one in such wise as has been said, and in such wise is the Son like the Father Himself and from Him, as we may see and understand son to be towards father, and as we may see the radiance towards the sun. Such then being the Son, therefore when the Son works, the Father is the Worker [2880] , and the Son coming to the Saints, the Father is He who cometh in the Son [2881] , as He promised when He said, I and My Father will come, and will make Our abode with him [2882] ;' for in the Image is contemplated the Father, and in the Radiance is the Light. Therefore also, as we said just now, when the Father gives grace and peace, the Son also gives it, as Paul signifies in every Epistle, writing, Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.' For one and the same grace is from the Father in the Son, as the light of the sun and of the radiance is one, and as the sun's illumination is effected through the radiance; and so too when he prays for the Thessalonians, in saying, Now God Himself even our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, may He direct our way unto you [2883] ,' he has guarded the unity of the Father and of the Son. For he has not said, May they direct,' as if a double grace were given from two Sources, This and That, but May He direct,' to shew that the Father gives it through the Son;--at which these irreligious ones will not blush, though they well might.

12. For if there were no unity, nor the Word the own Offspring of the Father's Essence, as the radiance of the light, but the Son were divided in nature from the Father, it were sufficient that the Father alone should give, since none of originate things is a partner with his Maker in His givings; but, as it is, such a mode of giving shews the oneness of the Father and the Son. No one, for instance, would pray to receive from God and the Angels [2884] , or from any other creature, nor would any one say, May God and the Angel give thee;' but from Father and the Son, because of Their oneness and the oneness of Their giving. For through the Son is given what is given; and there is nothing but the Father operates it through the Son; for thus is grace secure to him who receives it. And if the Patriarch Jacob, blessing his grandchildren Ephraim and Manasses, said, God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which delivered me from all evil, bless the lads [2885] ,' yet none of created and natural Angels did he join to God their Creator, nor rejecting God that fed him, did he from Angel ask the blessing on his grandsons; but in saying, Who delivered me from all evil,' he shewed that it was no created Angel, but the Word of God, whom he joined to the Father in his prayer, through whom, whomsoever He will, God doth deliver. For knowing that He is also called the Father's Angel of great Counsel [2886] ,' he said that none other than He was the Giver of blessing, and Deliverer from evil. Nor was it that he desired a blessing for himself from God but for his grandchildren from the Angel, but whom He Himself had besought saying, I will not let Thee go except Thou bless me [2887] ' (for that was God, as he says himself, I have seen God face to face'), Him he prayed to bless also the sons of Joseph. It is proper then to an Angel to minister at the command of God, and often does he go forth to cast out the Amorite, and is sent to guard the people in the way; but these are not his doings, but of God who commanded and sent him, whose also it is to deliver, whom He will deliver. Therefore it was no other than the Lord God Himself whom he had seen, who said to him, And behold I am with thee, to guard thee in all the way whither thou [2888] goest;' and it was no other than God whom he had seen, who kept Laban from his treachery, ordering him not to speak evil words to Jacob; and none other than God did he himself beseech, saying, Rescue me from the hand of my brother Esau, for I fear him [2889] ;' for in conversation too with his wives he said, God hath not suffered Laban to injure me.'

13. Therefore it was none other than God Himself that David too besought concerning his deliverance, When I was in trouble, I called upon the Lord, and He heard me; deliver my soul, O Lord, from lying lips and from a deceitful tongue [2890] .' To Him also giving thanks he spoke the words of the Song in the seventeenth Psalm, in the day in which the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul, saying, I will love Thee, O Lord my strength; the Lord is my strong rock and my defence and deliverer [2891] .' And Paul, after enduring many persecutions, to none other than God gave thanks, saying, Out of them all the Lord delivered me; and He will deliver in Whom we trust [2892] .' And none other than God blessed Abraham and Isaac; and Isaac praying for Jacob, said, May God bless thee and increase thee and multiply thee, and thou shalt be for many companies of nations, and may He give thee the blessing of Abraham my father [2893] .' But if it belong to none other than God to bless and to deliver, and none other was the deliverer of Jacob than the Lord Himself and Him that delivered him the Patriarch besought for his grandsons, evidently none other did he join to God in his prayer, than God's Word, whom therefore he called Angel, because it is He alone who reveals the Father. Which the Apostle also did when he said, Grace unto you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ [2894] .' For thus the blessing was secure, because of the Son's indivisibility from the Father, and for that the grace given by Them is one and the same. For though the Father gives it, through the Son is the gift; and though the Son be said to vouchsafe it, it is the Father who supplies it through and in the Son; for I thank my God,' says the Apostle writing to the Corinthians, always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you in Christ Jesus [2895] .' And this one may see in the instance of light and radiance; for what the light enlightens, that the radiance irradiates; and what the radiance irradiates, from the light is its enlightenment. So also when the Son is beheld, so is the Father, for He is the Father's radiance; and thus the Father and the Son are one.

14. But this is not so with things originate and creatures; for when the Father works, it is not that any Angel works, or any other creature; for none of these is an efficient cause [2896] , but they are of things which come to be; and moreover being separate and divided from the only God, and other in nature, and being works, they can neither work what God works, nor, as I said before, when God gives grace, can they give grace with Him. Nor, on seeing an Angel would a man say that he had seen the Father; for Angels, as it is written, are ministering spirits sent forth to minister [2897] ,' and are heralds of gifts given by Him through the Word to those who receive them. And the Angel on his appearance, himself confesses that he has been sent by his Lord; as Gabriel confessed in the case of Zacharias, and also in the case of Mary, bearer of God [2898] . And he who beholds a vision of Angels, knows that he has seen the Angel and not God. For Zacharias saw an Angel; and Isaiah saw the Lord. Manoah, the father of Samson, saw an Angel; but Moses beheld God. Gideon saw an Angel, but to Abraham appeared God. And neither he who saw God, beheld an Angel, nor he who saw an Angel, considered that he saw God; for greatly, or rather wholly, do things by nature originate differ from God the Creator. But if at any time, when the Angel was seen, he who saw it heard God's voice, as took place at the bush; for the Angel of the Lord was seen in a flame of fire out of the bush, and the Lord called Moses out of the bush, saying, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob [2899] ,' yet was not the Angel the God of Abraham, but in the Angel God spoke. And what was seen was an Angel; but God spoke in him [2900] . For as He spoke to Moses in the pillar of a cloud in the tabernacle, so also God appears and speaks in Angels. So again to the son of Nun He spake by an Angel. But what God speaks, it is very plain He speaks through the Word, and not through another. And the Word, as being not separate from the Father, nor unlike and foreign to the Father's Essence, what He works, those are the Father's works, and His framing of all things is one with His; and what the Son gives, that is the Father's gift. And he who hath seen the Son, knows that, in seeing Him, he has seen, not Angel, nor one merely greater than Angels, nor in short any creature, but the Father Himself. And he who hears the Word, knows that he hears the Father; as he who is irradiated by the radiance, knows that he is enlightened by the sun.

15. For divine Scripture wishing us thus to understand the matter, has given such illustrations, as we have said above, from which we are able both to press the traitorous Jews, and to refute the allegation of Gentiles who maintain and think, on account of the Trinity, that we profess many gods [2901] . For, as the illustration shows, we do not introduce three Origins or three Fathers, as the followers of Marcion and Manichæus; since we have not suggested the image of three suns, but sun and radiance. And one is the light from the sun in the radiance; and so we know of but one origin; and the All-framing Word we profess to have no other manner of godhead, than that of the Only God, because He is born from Him. Rather then will the Ario-maniacs with reason incur the charge of polytheism or else of atheism [2902] , because they idly talk of the Son as external and a creature, and again the Spirit as from nothing. For either they will say that the Word is not God; or saying that He is God [2903] , because it is so written, but not proper to the Father's Essence, they will introduce many because of their difference of kind (unless forsooth they shall dare to say that by participation only, He, as all things else, is called God; though, if this be their sentiment, their irreligion is the same, since they consider the Word as one among all things). But let this never even come into our mind. For there is but one form [2904] of Godhead, which is also in the Word; and one God, the Father, existing by Himself according as He is above all, and appearing in the Son according as He pervades all things, and in the Spirit according as in Him He acts in all things through the Word [2905] . For thus we confess God to be one through the Triad, and we say that it is much more religious than the godhead of the heretics with its many kinds [2906] , and many parts, to entertain a belief of the One Godhead in a Triad.

16. For if it be not so, but the Word is a creature and a work out of nothing, either He is not True God because He is Himself one of the creatures, or if they name Him God from regard for the Scriptures, they must of necessity say that there are two Gods [2907] , one Creator, the other creature, and must serve two Lords, one Unoriginate, and the other originate and a creature; and must have two faiths, one in the True God, and the other in one who is made and fashioned by themselves and called God. And it follows of necessity in so great blindness, that, when they worship the Unoriginate, they renounce the originate, and when they come to the creature, they turn from the Creator. For they cannot see the One in the Other, because their natures and operations are foreign and distinct [2908] . And with such sentiments, they will certainly be going on to more gods, for this will be the essay [2909] of those who revolt from the One God. Wherefore then, when the Arians have these speculations and views, do they not rank themselves with the Gentiles? for they too, as these, worship the creature rather than God the Creator of all [2910] , and though they shrink from the Gentile name, in order to deceive the unskilful, yet they secretly hold a like sentiment with them. For their subtle saying which they are accustomed to urge, We say not two Unoriginates [2911] ,' they plainly say to deceive the simple; for in their very professing We say not two Unoriginates,' they imply two Gods, and these with different natures, one originate and one Unoriginate. And though the Greeks worship one Unoriginate and many originate, but these one Unoriginate and one originate, this is no difference from them; for the God whom they call originate is one out of many, and again the many gods of the Greeks have the same nature with this one, for both he and they are creatures. Unhappy are they, and the more for that their hurt is from thinking against Christ; for they have fallen from the truth, and are greater traitors than the Jews in denying the Christ, and they wallow [2912] with the Gentiles, hateful [2913] as they are to God, worshipping the creature and many deities. For there is One God, and not many, and One is His Word, and not many; for the Word is God, and He alone has the Form [2914] of the Father. Being then such, the Saviour Himself troubled the Jews with these words, The Father Himself which hath sent Me, hath borne witness of Me; ye have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His Form; and ye have not His Word abiding in you; for whom He hath sent, Him ye believe not [2915] .' Suitably has He joined the Word' to the Form,' to shew that the Word of God is Himself Image and Expression and Form of His Father; and that the Jews who did not receive Him who spoke to them, thereby did not receive the Word, which is the Form of God. This too it was that the Patriarch Jacob having seen, received a blessing from Him and the name of Israel instead of Jacob, as divine Scripture witnesses, saying, And as he passed by the Form of God, the Sun rose upon him [2916] .' And This it was who said, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father,' and, I in the Father and the Father in Me,' and, I and the Father are one [2917] ;' for thus God is One, and one the faith in the Father and Son; for, though the Word be God, the Lord our God is one Lord; for the Son is proper to that One, and inseparable according to the propriety and peculiarity of His Essence.

17. The Arians, however, not even thus abashed, reply, Not as you say, but as we will [2918] ;' for, whereas you have overthrown our former expedients, we have invented a new one, and it is this:--So are the Son and the Father One, and so is the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father, as we too may become one in Him. For this is written in the Gospel according to John, and Christ desired it for us in these words, Holy Father, keep through Thine own Name, those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, as We are [2919] .' And shortly after; Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me through their Word; that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me. And the glory which Thou gavest Me I have given them, that they may be one, even as We are one; I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that Thou didst send Me [2920] .' Then, as having found an evasion, these men of craft [2921] add, If, as we become one in the Father, so also He and the Father are one, and thus He too is in the Father, how pretend you from His saying, "I and the Father are One," and "I in the Father and the Father in Me," that He is proper and like [2922] the Father's Essence? for it follows either that we too are proper to the Father's Essence, or He foreign to it, as we are foreign.' Thus they idly babble; but in this their perverseness I see nothing but unreasoning audacity and recklessness from the devil [2923] , since it is saying after his pattern, We will ascend to heaven, we will be like the Most High.' For what is given to man by grace, this they would make equal to the Godhead of the Giver. Thus hearing that men are called sons, they thought themselves equal to the True Son by nature such [2924] . And now again hearing from the Saviour, that they may be one as We are [2925] ,' they deceive themselves, and are arrogant enough to think that they may be such as the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son; not considering the fall of their father the devil [2926] ,' which happened upon such an imagination.

18. If then, as we have many times said, the Word of God is the same with us, and nothing differs from us except in time, let Him be like us, and have the same place with the Father as we have; nor let Him be called Only-begotten, nor Only Word or Wisdom of the Father; but let the same name be of common application to all us who are like Him. For it is right, that they who have one nature, should have their name in common, though they differ from each other in point of time. For Adam was a man, and Paul a man, and he who is now born is a man, and time is not that which alters the nature of the race [2927] . If then the Word also differs from us only in time, then we must be as He. But in truth neither we are Word or Wisdom, nor is He creature or work; else why are we all sprung from one, and He the Only Word? but though it be suitable in them thus to speak, in us at least it is unsuitable to entertain their blasphemies. And yet, needless [2928] though it be to refine upon [2929] these passages, considering their so clear and religious sense, and our own orthodox belief, yet that their irreligion may be shewn here also, come let us shortly, as we have received from the fathers, expose their heterodoxy from the passage. It is a custom [2930] with divine Scripture to take the things of nature as images and illustrations for mankind; and this it does, that from these physical objects the moral impulses of man may be explained; and thus their conduct shewn to be either bad or righteous. For instance, in the case of the bad, as when it charges, Be ye not like to horse and mule which have no understanding [2931] .' Or as when it says, complaining of those who have become such, Man, being in honour, hath no understanding, but is compared unto the beasts that perish.' And again, They were as wanton horses [2932] .' And the Saviour to expose Herod said, Tell that fox [2933] ;' but, on the other hand, charged His disciples, Behold I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves [2934] .' And He said this, not that we may become in nature beasts of burden, or become serpents and doves; for He hath not so made us Himself, and therefore nature does not allow of it; but that we might eschew the irrational motions of the one, and being aware of the wisdom of that other animal, might not be deceived by it, and might take on us the meekness of the dove.

19. Again, taking patterns for man from divine subjects, the Saviour says; Be ye merciful, as your Father which is in heaven is merciful [2935] ;' and, Be ye perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect [2936] .' And He said this too, not that we might become such as the Father; for to become as the Father, is impossible for us creatures, who have been brought to be out of nothing; but as He charged us, Be ye not like to horse,' not lest we should become as draught animals, but that we should not imitate their want of reason, so, not that we might become as God, did He say, Be ye merciful as your Father,' but that looking at His beneficent acts, what we do well, we might do, not for men's sake, but for His sake, so that from Him and not from men we may have the reward. For as, although there be one Son by nature, True and Only-begotten, we too become sons, not as He in nature and truth, but according to the grace of Him that calleth, and though we are men from the earth, are yet called gods [2937] , not as the True God or His Word, but as has pleased God who has given us that grace; so also, as God do we become merciful, not by being made equal to God, nor becoming in nature and truth benefactors (for it is not our gift to benefit but belongs to God), but in order that what has accrued to us from God Himself by grace, these things we may impart to others, without making distinctions, but largely towards all extending our kind service. For only in this way can we anyhow become imitators, and in no other, when we minister to others what comes from Him. And as we put a fair and right [2938] sense upon these texts, such again is the sense of the lection in John. For he does not say, that, as the Son is in the Father, such we must become:--whence could it be? when He is God's Word and Wisdom, and we were fashioned out of the earth, and He is by nature and essence Word and true God (for thus speaks John, We know that the Son of God is come, and He hath given us an understanding to know Him that is true, and we are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ; this is the true God and eternal life [2939] ') and we are made sons through Him by adoption and grace, as partaking of His Spirit (for as many as received Him,' he says, to them gave He power to become children of God, even to them that believe on His Name [2940] '), and therefore also He is the Truth (saying, I am the Truth,' and in His address to His Father, He said, Sanctify them through Thy Truth, Thy Word is Truth [2941] '); but we by imitation [2942] become virtuous [2943] and sons:--therefore not that we might become such as He, did He say that they may be one as We are;' but that as He, being the Word, is in His own Father, so that we too, taking an examplar and looking at Him, might become one towards each other in concord and oneness of spirit, nor be at variance as the Corinthians, but mind the same thing, as those five thousand in the Acts [2944] , who were as one.

20. For it is as sons,' not as the Son; as gods,' not as He Himself; and not as the Father, but merciful as the Father.' And, as has been said, by so becoming one, as the Father and the Son, we shall be such, not as the Father is by nature in the Son and the Son in the Father, but according to our own nature, and as it is possible for us thence to be moulded and to learn how we ought to be one, just as we learned also to be merciful. For like things are naturally one with like; thus all flesh is ranked together in kind [2945] ; but the Word is unlike us and like the Father. And therefore, while He is in nature and truth one with His own Father, we, as being of one kind with each other (for from one were all made, and one is the nature of all men), become one with each other in good disposition [2946] , having as our copy the Son's natural unity with the Father. For as He taught us meekness from Himself, saying, Learn of Me for I am meek and lowly in heart [2947] ,' not that we may become equal to Him, which is impossible, but that looking towards Him, we may remain meek continually, so also here wishing that our good disposition towards each other should be true and firm and indissoluble, from Himself taking the pattern, He says, that they may be one as We are,' whose oneness is indivisible; that is, that they learning from us of that indivisible Nature, may preserve in like manner agreement one with another. And this imitation of natural conditions is especially safe for man, as has been said; for, since they remain and never change, whereas the conduct of men is very changeable, one may look to what is unchangeable by nature, and avoid what is bad and remodel himself on what is best.

21. And for this reason also the words, that they may be one in Us,' have a right sense. If, for instance, it were possible for us to become as the Son in the Father, the words ought to run, that they may be one in Thee,' as the Son is in the Father; but, as it is, He has not said this; but by saying in Us' He has pointed out the distance and difference; that He indeed is alone in the Father alone, as Only Word and Wisdom; but we in the Son, and through Him in the Father. And thus speaking, He meant this only, By Our unity may they also be so one with each other, as We are one in nature and truth; for otherwise they could not be one, except by learning unity in Us.' And that in Us' has this signification, we may learn from Paul, who says, These things I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos, that ye may learn in us not to be puffed up above that is written [2948] .' The words in Us' then, are not in the Father,' as the Son is in Him; but imply an example and image, instead of saying, Let them learn of Us.' For as Paul to the Corinthians, so is the oneness of the Son and the Father a pattern and lesson to all, by which they may learn, looking to that natural unity of the Father and the Son, how they themselves ought to be one in spirit towards each other. Or if it needs to account for the phrase otherwise, the words in Us' may mean the same as saying, that in the power of the Father and the Son they may be one, speaking the same things [2949] ; for without God this is impossible. And this mode of speech also we may find in the divine writings, as In God will we do great acts;' and In God I shall leap over the wall [2950] ;' and In Thee will we tread down our enemies [2951] .' Therefore it is plain, that in the Name of Father and Son we shall be able, becoming one, to hold firm the bond of charity. For, dwelling still on the same thought, the Lord says, And the glory which Thou gavest Me, I have given to them, that they may be one as We are one.' Suitably has He here too said, not, that they may be in Thee as I am,' but as We are;' now he who says as' [2952] , signifies not identity, but an image and example of the matter in hand.

22. The Word then has the real and true identity of nature with the Father; but to us it is given to imitate it, as has been said; for He immediately adds, I in them and Thou in Me; that they may be made perfect in one.' Here at length the Lord asks something greater and more perfect for us; for it is plain that the Word has come to be in us [2953] , for He has put on our body. And Thou Father in Me;' for I am Thy Word, and since Thou art in Me, because I am Thy Word, and I in them because of the body, and because of Thee the salvation of men is perfected in Me, therefore I ask that they also may become one, according to the body that is in Me and according to its perfection; that they too may become perfect, having oneness with It, and having become one in It; that, as if all were carried by Me, all may be one body and one spirit, and may grow up unto a perfect man [2954] .' For we all, partaking of the Same, become one body, having the one Lord in ourselves. The passage then having this meaning, still more plainly is refuted the heterodoxy of Christ's enemies. I repeat it; if He had said simply and absolutely [2955] that they may be one in Thee,' or that they and I may be one in Thee,' God's enemies had had some plea, though a shameless one; but in fact He has not spoken simply, but, As Thou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee, that they may be all one.' Moreover, using the word as,' He signifies those who become distantly as He is in the Father; distantly not in place but in nature; for in place nothing is far from God [2956] , but in nature only all things are far from Him. And, as I said before, whoso uses the particle as' implies, not identity, nor equality, but a pattern of the matter in question, viewed in a certain respect [2957] .

23. Indeed we may learn also from the Saviour Himself, when He says, For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth [2958] .' For Jonah was not as the Saviour, nor did Jonah go down to hades; nor was the whale hades; nor did Jonah, when swallowed up, bring up those who had before been swallowed by the whale, but he alone came forth, when the whale was bidden. Therefore there is no identity nor equality signified in the term as,' but one thing and another; and it shews a certain kind [2959] of parallel in the case of Jonah, on account of the three days. In like manner then we too, when the Lord says as,' neither become as the Son in the Father, nor as the Father is in the Son. For we become one as the Father and the Son in mind and agreement [2960] of spirit, and the Saviour will be as Jonah in the earth; but as the Saviour is not Jonah, nor, as he was swallowed up, so did the Saviour descend into hades, but it is but a parallel, in like manner, if we too become one, as the Son in the Father, we shall not be as the Son, nor equal to Him; for He and we are but parallel. For on this account is the word as' applied to us; since things differing from others in nature, become as they, when viewed in a certain relation [2961] . Wherefore the Son Himself, simply and without any condition is in the Father; for this attribute He has by nature; but for us, to whom it is not natural, there is needed an image and example, that He may say of us, As Thou in Me, and I in Thee.' And when they shall be so perfected,' He says, then the world knows that Thou hast sent Me, for unless I had come and borne this their body, no one of them had been perfected, but one and all had remained corruptible. [2962] Work Thou then in them, O Father, and as Thou hast given to Me to bear this, grant to them Thy Spirit, that they too in It may become one, and may be perfected in Me. For their perfecting shews that Thy Word has sojourned among them; and the world seeing them perfect and full of God [2963] , will believe altogether that Thou hast sent Me, and I have sojourned here. For whence is this their perfecting, but that I, Thy Word, having borne their body, and become man, have perfected the work, which Thou gavest Me, O Father? And the work is perfected, because men, redeemed from sin, no longer remain dead; but being deified [2964] , have in each other, by looking at Me, the bond of charity [2965] .'

24. We then, by way of giving a rude view of the expressions in this passage, have been led into many words, but blessed John will shew from his Epistle the sense of the words, concisely and much more perfectly than we can. And he will both disprove the interpretation of these irreligious men, and will teach how we become in God and God in us; and how again we become One in Him, and how far the Son differs in nature from us, and will stop the Arians from any longer thinking that they shall be as the Son, lest they hear it said to them, Thou art a man and not God,' and Stretch not thyself, being poor, beside a rich man [2966] .' John then thus writes; Hereby know we that we dwell in Him and He in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit [2967] .' Therefore because of the grace of the Spirit which has been given to us, in Him we come to be, and He in us [2968] ; and since it is the Spirit of God, therefore through His becoming in us, reasonably are we, as having the Spirit, considered to be in God, and thus is God in us. Not then as the Son in the Father, so also we become in the Father; for the Son does not merely partake the Spirit, that therefore He too may be in the Father; nor does He receive the Spirit, but rather He supplies It Himself to all; and the Spirit does not unite the Word to the Father [2969] , but rather the Spirit receives from the Word. And the Son is in the Father, as His own Word and Radiance; but we, apart from the Spirit, are strange and distant from God, and by the participation of the Spirit we are knit into the Godhead; so that our being in the Father is not ours, but is the Spirit's which is in us and abides in us, while by the true confession we preserve it in us, John again saying, Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in God [2970] .' What then is our likeness and equality to the Son? rather, are not the Arians confuted on every side? and especially by John, that the Son is in the Father in one way, and we become in Him in another, and that neither we shall ever be as He, nor is the Word as we; except they shall dare, as commonly, so now to say, that the Son also by participation of the Spirit and by improvement of conduct [2971] came to be Himself also in the Father. But here again is an excess of irreligion, even in admitting the thought. For He, as has been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit hath, He hath from [2972] the Word.

25. The Saviour, then, saying of us, As Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they too may be one in Us,' does not signify that we were to have identity with Him; for this was shewn from the instance of Jonah; but it is a request to the Father, as John has written, that the Spirit should be vouchsafed through Him to those who believe, through whom we are found to be in God, and in this respect to be conjoined in Him. For since the Word is in the Father, and the Spirit is given from [2973] the Word, He wills that we should receive the Spirit, that, when we receive It, thus having the Spirit of the Word which is in the Father, we too may be found on account of the Spirit to become One in the Word, and through Him in the Father. And if He say, as we,' this again is only a request that such grace of the Spirit as is given to the disciples may be without failure or revocation [2974] . For what the Word has by nature [2975] , as I said, in the Father, that He wishes to be given to us through the Spirit irrevocably; which the Apostle knowing, said, Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?' for the gifts of God' and grace of His calling are without repentance [2976] .' It is the Spirit then which is in God, and not we viewed in our own selves; and as we are sons and gods [2977] because of the Word in us [2978] , so we shall be in the Son and in the Father, and we shall be accounted to have become one in Son and in Father, because that that Spirit is in us, which is in the Word which is in the Father. When then a man falls from the Spirit for any wickedness, if he repent upon his fall, the grace remains irrevocably to such as are willing [2979] ; otherwise he who has fallen is no longer in God (because that Holy Spirit and Paraclete which is in God has deserted him), but the sinner shall be in him to whom he has subjected himself, as took place in Saul's instance; for the Spirit of God departed from him and an evil spirit was afflicting him [2980] . God's enemies hearing this ought to be henceforth abashed, and no longer to feign themselves equal to God. But they neither understand (for the irreligious,' he saith, does not understand knowledge' [2981] ) nor endure religious words, but find them heavy even to hear. __________________________________________________________________

[2866] hos autoi thelousi. vid. §8, n. 12. not as you say, but as we will.' This is a common phrase with Athan. vid. supr. Or. i. 13, n. 6. and especially Hist. Ar. 52, n. 4. (vid. also Sent. Dion. 4, 14). It is here contrasted to the Church's doctrine, and connected with the word idios; for which de Syn. 3, n. 6; Or. i. 37, n. 1. Vid. also Letter 54. fin. Also contr. Apoll. ii. 5 init. in contrast with the euangelikos horos.

[2867] sumphonos. vid. infr. 23, de Syn. 48, and 53, n. 9. the Arian sumphonia is touched on de Syn. 23, n. 3. Besides Origen, Novatian, the Creed of Lucian, and (if so) S. Hilary, as mentioned in the former of these notes, one' is explained as oneness of will by S. Hippolytus, contr. Noet. 7, where he explains John x. 30. by xvii. 22. like the Arians; and, as might be expected, by Eusebius Eccl. Theol. iii. p. 193. and by Asterius ap. Euseb. contr. Marc. pp. 28, 37. The passages of the Fathers in which this text is adduced are collected by Maldonat. in loc.

[2868] Asterius, §2, init.

[2869] hora. vid. de Syn. 34, n. 4. also Orat. ii. 6, b. iv. 19, c. d. Euseb. contr. Marc. p. 47, b. p. 91, b. Cyril. Dial. p. 456. Thesaur. p. 255 fin.

[2870] This argument is found de Syn. 48. vid. also Cyril. de Trin. i. p. 407.

[2871] Is. xiv. 12.

[2872] Luke vi. 36 (cf. Tisch. in loc.)

[2873] Eph. v. 1, 2.

[2874] 1 Cor. xi. 1.

[2875] John x. 30; xiv. 10.

[2876] Vid. Ps. lxxxvi. 8; lxxxix. 6.

[2877] Aug. de Trin. vii. fin.

[2878] Cf. Serap. i. 16. de Syn. 51. and infr. §19, note. And so S. Cyril, cf. Or. i. 21-24, de Decr. 11, n. 6, Thesaur. p. 133, Naz. Orat. 29, 5. vid. also 23, 6 fin. 25, 16. vid. also the whole of Basil, adv. Eun. ii. 23. One must not say,' he observes, that these names properly and primarily, kurios kai protos belong to men, and are given by us but by a figure katachrestikos (ii. 39, n. 7) to God. For our Lord Jesus Christ, referring us back to the Origin of all and True Cause of beings says, "Call no one your father upon earth, for One is your Father, which is in heaven."' He adds, that if He is properly and not metaphorically even our Father (de Decr. 31, n. 5), much more is He the pater tou kata phusin huiou. Vid. also Euseb. contr. Marc. p. 22, c. Eccl. Theol. i. 12. fin. ii. 6. Marcellus, on the other hand, said that our Lord was kurios logos, not kurios hui& 231;s. ibid. ii. 10 fin. vid. supr. ii. 19, note 3.

[2879] kat' ousian homoios, Or. i. 21, n. 8.

[2880] Supr. §6.

[2881] And so ergazomenou tou patros, ergazesthai kai ton hui& 231;n. In illud Omn. 1, d. Cum luce nobis prodeat, In Patre totus Filius, et totus in Verbo Pater. Hymn. Brev. in fer. 2. Ath. argues from this oneness of operation the oneness of substance. And thus S. Chrysostom on the text under review argues that if the Father and Son are one kata ten dunamin, they are one also in ousia. in Joan. Hom. 61, 2, d. Tertullian in Prax. 22. and S. Epiphanius, Hær. 57. p. 488. seem to say the same on the same text. vid. Lampe in loc. And so S. Athan. trias adiairetos te phusei, kai mia tautes he energeia. Serap. i. 28, f. hen thelema patros kai huiou kai boulema, epei kai he phusis mia. In illud Omn. 5. Various passages of the Fathers to the same effect (e.g. of S. Ambrose, si unius voluntatis et operationis, unius est essentiæ, de Sp. ii. 12. fin. and of S. Basil, on mia energeia, touton kai ousia mia, of Greg. Nyss. and Cyril. Alex.) are brought together in the Lateran Council. Concil. Hard. t. 3, p. 859, &c. The subject is treated at length by Petavius Trin. iv. 15.

[2882] John xiv. 23.

[2883] 1 Thess. iii. 11.

[2884] Vid. Basil de Sp. S. c. 13. Chrysostom on Col. 2. And Theodoret on Col. iii. 17. says, Following this rule, the Synod of Laodicea, with a view to cure this ancient disorder, passed a decree against the praying to Angels, and leaving our Lord Jesus Christ.' All supplication, prayer, intercession, and thanksgiving is to be addressed to the Supreme God, through the High Priest who is above all Angels, the Living Word and God....But angels we may not fitly call upon, since we have not obtained a knowledge of them which is above men.' Origen contr. Cels. v. 4, 5. vid. also for similar statements Voss. de Idololatr. i. 9. The doctrine of the Gnostics, who worshipped Angels, is referred to supr. Orat. i. 56, fin. note 1.

[2885] Gen. xlviii. 15, 16. vid. Serap. i. 14. And on the doctrine vid. de Syn. 27 (15, 16). Infr. §14, he shews that his doctrine, when fully explained, does not differ from S. Augustine, for he says, what was seen was an Angel, but God spoke in him,' i.e. sometimes the Son is called an Angel, but when an Angel was seen, it was not the Son; and if he called himself God, it was not he who spoke, but the Son was the unseen speaker. vid. Benedictine Monitum in Hil. Trin. iv. For passages vid. Tertull. de Præscr. p. 447, note f. Oxf. Transl.

[2886] Is. ix. 6, LXX.

[2887] Gen. xxxii. 26, 30.

[2888] Gen. xxviii. 15, LXX.

[2889] Ib. xxxi. 7; xxxii. 11.

[2890] Ps. cxx. 1, 2.

[2891] Ps. xviii. 1, 2.

[2892] Vid. 2 Tim. iii. 11; 2 Cor. i. 10.

[2893] Gen. xxviii. 3, 4, LXX.

[2894] Rom. i. 7, &c.

[2895] 1 Cor. i. 4.

[2896] Or. ii. 21, n. 2.

[2897] Heb. i. 14.

[2898] tes theotokou Marias. [Prolegg. ch. iv. §5.] vid. also infr. 29, 33. Orat. iv. 32. Incarn. c. Ar. 8, 22. supr. Or. i. 45, n. 3. As to the history of this title, Theodoret, who from his party would rather be disinclined towards it, says that the most ancient (ton palai kai propalai) heralds of the orthodox faith taught to name and believe the Mother of the Lord theotokon, according to the Apostolical tradition.' Hær. iv. 12. And John of Antioch, whose championship of Nestorius and quarrel with S. Cyril are well known, writes to the former. This title no ecclesiastical teacher has put aside; those who have used it are many and eminent, and those who have not used it have not attacked those who used it.' Concil. Eph. part i. c. 25 (Labb.). Socrates Hist. vii. 32. says that Origen, in the first tome of his Comment on the Romans (vid. de la Rue in Rom. lib. i. 5. the original is lost), treated largely of the word; which implies that it was already in use. Interpreting,' he says, how theotokos is used, he discussed the question at length.' Constantine implies the same in a passage which divines, e.g. Pearson (On the Creed, notes on Art. 3.), have not dwelt upon (or rather have apparently overlooked, in arguing from Ephrem. ap. Phot. Cod. 228, p. 776. that the literal phrase Mother of God' originated in S. Leo). [See vol. 1, p. 569 of this Series.]

[2899] Vid. Ex. iii. 2-6.

[2900] §12, note 2.

[2901] Serap. i. 28 fin. Naz. Orat. 23, 8. Basil. Hom. 24 init. Nyssen. Orat. Catech. 3. p. 481.

[2902] Infr. §64. Ep. Æg. 14.

[2903] Infr. §16, notes.

[2904] eidos.

[2905] And so infr. 25, 36 fin. Serap. i. 20, b. vid. also ibid. 28, f. a. 30, a. 31, d. iii. 1, b. 5 init. et fin. Eulogius ap. Phot. cod. p. 865. Damascen. F. O. i. 7. Basil de Sp. S. 47, e. Cyr. Cat. xvi. 4. ibid. 24. Pseudo-Dion. de Div. Nom. i. p. 403. Pseudo-Athan. c. Sab. Greg. 10, e.

[2906] polueidous

[2907] Vid. p. 75, note 7; de Syn. 27 (2), and 50, note 5. The Arians were in the dilemma of holding two gods or worshipping the creature, unless they denied to our Lord both divinity and worship. vid. de Decr. 6, note 5, Or. i. 30, n. 1. But every substance,' says S. Austin, which is not God, is a creature, and which is not a creature, is God.' de Trin. i. 6. And so S. Cyril in Joan. p. 52. vid. also Naz. Orat. 31, 6. Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 31.

[2908] §11, n. 4.

[2909] epicheirema, de Decr. 1, note.

[2910] Vid. supr. ii. 14, n. 7. Petavius gives a large collection of passages, de Trin. ii. 12. §5. from the Fathers in proof of the worship of Our Lord evidencing His Godhead. On the Arians as idolaters vid. supr. Or. i. 8, n. 8. also Ep. Æg. 4, 13. and Adelph. 3 init. Serap. i. 29, d. Theodoret in Rom. i. 25.

[2911] Or. i. 30, n. 1.

[2912] sunkuliontai, vid. Orat. i. 23. ii. 1 init.; Decr. 9 fin.; Gent. 19, c. cf. 2 Pet. ii. 22.

[2913] theostugeis, infr. Letter 54. 1 fin.

[2914] eidos; also in Gen. xxxii. 30, 31. Sept. [a substitute for Heb. face.'] vid. Justin Tryph. 126. and supr. de Syn. 56, n. 6. for the meaning of the word. It was just now used for kind.' Athan. says, de Syn. ubi supr. there is but one form of Godhead;' yet the word is used of the Son as synonymous with image.' It would seem as if there are a certain class of words, all expressive of the One Divine Substance, which admit of more appropriate application either ordinarily or under circumstances, to This or That Divine Person who is also that One Substance. Thus Being' is more descriptive of the Father as the pege theotetos, and He is said to be the Being of the Son;' yet the Son is really the One Supreme Being also. On the other hand the words morphe and eidos [on them see Lightfoot, Philipp. p. 128] are rather descriptive of the Divine Substance in the Person of the Son, and He is called the form of the Father,' yet there is but one Form and Face of Divinity, who is at once Each of Three Persons; while Spirit' is appropriated to the Third Person, though God is a Spirit. Thus again S. Hippolytus says ek [tou patros] dunamis logos, yet shortly before, after mentioning the Two Persons, he adds, dunamin de mian, contr. Noet. 7 and 11. And thus the word Subsistence,' hupostasis, which expresses the One Divine Substance, has been found more appropriate to express that Substance viewed personally. Other words may be used correlatively of either Father or Son; thus the Father is the Life of the Son, the Son the Life of the Father; or, again, the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father. Others in common, as the Father's Godhead is the Son's,' he patrike huiou theotes, as indeed the word ousia itself. Other words on the contrary express the Substance in This or That Person only, as Word,' Image,' &c.

[2915] John v. 37.

[2916] Gen. xxxii. 31, LXX.

[2917] John xiv. 9, 10; x. 30.

[2918] §10, n. 1.

[2919] John xvii. 11.

[2920] Ib. 20-23.

[2921] hoi dolioi. crafty as they are, also infr. 59.

[2922] Or. i. 21, n. 8, cf. infr. §67.

[2923] diaboliken vid. §8, n. 10., cf. Isa. xiv. 14.

[2924] Supr. p. 171, note 5.

[2925] John viii. 44.

[2926] ii. 73, n. 7.

[2927] De Decr. 10; Or. i. 26, n. 1.

[2928] Cf. Hist. Ar. 80, n. 11.

[2929] periergazesthai; vid. Or. ii. 34, n. 5.

[2930] Orat. ii. 53, n. 4; Orat. iv. 33 init.

[2931] Ps. xxxii. 9; xlix. 20.

[2932] Jer. v. 8.

[2933] Luke xiii. 32.

[2934] Matt. x. 16.

[2935] Luke vi. 36.

[2936] Matt. v. 48.

[2937] theoi, §§23 end, 25, and ii. 70, n. 1.

[2938] ii. 44, n. 1.

[2939] 1 John v. 20.

[2940] John i. 12.

[2941] Ib. xiv. 6; xvii. 17.

[2942] kata mimesin. Clem. Alex. Pædag. i. 3. p. 102. ed. Pott. Naz. Ep. 102. p. 95. (Ed. Ben.) Leo in various places, supr. ii. 55, n. 1. Iren. Hær. v. 1. August. Serm. 101, 6. August. Trin. iv. 17. also ix. 21. and Eusebius, kata ten autou mimesin. Eccl. Theol. iii. 19, a. For inward grace as opposed to teaching, vid. supr. Orat. ii. 56, n. 5, and 79, n. 10.

[2943] enaretoi so panaretos Clem. Rom. Ep. i.

[2944] Acts iv. 4, 32.

[2945] Cf. ii. 23, 42.

[2946] diathesei, de Decr. 2, note 5; Ep. ad Mon. (1) init. Hipp. c. Noet. 7.

[2947] Matt. xi. 29.

[2948] 1 Cor. iv. 6.

[2949] Vid. 1 Cor. i. 10

[2950] Ps. lx. 12; xviii. 29.

[2951] Ps. xliv. 5. Vid. Olear. de Styl. N. T. p. 4. (ed. 1702.) [Winer. xlviii. a.]

[2952] This remark which comes in abruptly is pursued presently, vid. §23.

[2953] Cf. de Decr. 31. fin.

[2954] Vid. Eph. iv. 13

[2955] Cf. ii. 62, n. 13.

[2956] Vid. de Decr. 11, n. 5, which is explained by the present passage. When Ath. there says, without all in nature,' he must mean as here, far from all things in nature.' S. Clement loc. cit. gives the same explanation, as there noticed. It is observable that the contr. Sab. Greg. 10 (which the Benedictines consider not Athan.'s) speaks as de Decr. supr. Eusebius says the same thing, de Incorpor. i. init. ap. Sirm. Op. p. 68. vid. S. Ambros. Quomodo creatura in Deo esse potest, &c. de Fid. i. 106. and supr. §1, n. 10.

[2957] Vid. Glass. Phil. Sacr. iii. 5. can. 27. and Dettmars, de Theol. Orig. ap. Lumper. Hist. Patr. t. 10, p. 212. Vid. also supr. ii. 55, n. 8.

[2958] Matt. xii. 40.

[2959] homoioteta pos, and so at the end of 22. kata ti theoroumenon. [A note, discussing certain views of Coplestone, Toplady, and Blanco White, is omitted here.]

[2960] sumphonia, 10, n. 2.

[2961] Cyril in Joan. p. 227, &c.

[2962] Cf. ii. 65, n. 3.

[2963] theophoroumenous. ii. 70, n. 1.

[2964] §19. n. 3.

[2965] sundesmon tes agapes, 21. circ. fin.

[2966] Ez. xxviii. 2; Prov. xxiii. 4, LXX.

[2967] 1 John iv. 13.

[2968] Cf. 22, n. 6.

[2969] [i.e. not by grace] Vid. the end of this section and 25 init. supr. Or. i. 15. also Cyril Hier. Cat. xvi. 24. Epiph. Ancor. 67 init. Cyril in Joan. pp. 929, 930.

[2970] 1 John iv. 15.

[2971] beltiosei praxeos, and so ad Afros. tropon beltiosis. 8. Supr. Or. i. 37, 43. it is rather some external advance.

[2972] §8, note 11.

[2973] ek.

[2974] Cf. ii. 63, n. 8.

[2975] kata phusin, supr. de Decr. 31, n. 5.

[2976] Rom. viii. 35; vid. xi. 29.

[2977] theoi, Or. ii. 70, n. 1.

[2978] Cf. ii. 59, n. 5.

[2979] Cf. Or. i. 37, end.

[2980] 1 Sam. xvi. 14.

[2981] Prov. xxix. 7. noei, Ath. sunesei. __________________________________________________________________