
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 I 
 
 cc
 
 SELECT TEEATISES 
 
 OF 
 
 ST. ATHANASIUS 
 
 IN CONTEOVEESY WITH THE AEIANS. 
 
 I 
 
 FREELY TRANSLATED 
 BY 
 
 JOHN HENRY CARDINAL NEWMAN. 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
 BEING AN APPENDIX OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 Hontton : 
 PICKERING AND CO. 
 
 1881.
 
 LONDON : 
 
 GILBERT AND KITINGTON, PRINTERS, 
 ST. JOHN'S SQUARE.
 
 Stack 
 Annex 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 INDEX OF ANNOTATIONS ALPHABETICALLY ARKANGED. 
 
 Adam . . . . . . . . ' . . . 1 
 
 Alexander's Encyclical . . . . . s . % . 3 
 
 Angels. . . .. .' .. ... .. . _ ... . 7 
 
 Antichrist * ........ 13 
 
 Apostle .......... 16 
 
 Arius ........... 17 
 
 The Arians. 1. Their Ethical Characteristics ... 21 
 
 2. The Arian Leaders 26 
 
 3. Arian Tenets and Eeasonings ... 34 
 
 4. Historical Course of Arianism . . . 46 
 Asterius . ' . . . . . .. *. .48 
 
 Athanasius . . . 51 
 
 The Vicarious Atonement .. 60 
 
 Catechising . . . .... . .63 
 
 Catholic : the Name and the Claim 65 
 
 Chameleons . . , .. .. . ' . . . .71 
 
 The Coinherence . ... . , . 72 
 
 Cursus Publicus .......... 80 
 
 Definitions 82 
 
 Deification ........ 88 
 
 Economical Language ........ 91 
 
 Ecumenical .......... 96 
 
 Eusebius 97 
 
 The Father Almighty . . 107 
 
 Flesh 120 
 
 Use of Force in Religion ....... 123 
 
 A 2
 
 IV INDEX OF ANNOTATIONS ALPHABETICALLY ARRANGED. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Freedom of our Moral Nature 127 
 
 Grace of God 136 
 
 Hand 142 
 
 Heresies .......... 143 
 
 Heretics .......... 150 
 
 Hieracas .......... 155 
 
 Homousion, Homceusion . . ". ... . . 155 
 
 Hypocrisy, Hypocrites . . . . . . . 156 
 
 Hypostasis . . . . . - ." . . 158 
 
 Idolatry of Arianism ... . . . . . 159 
 
 Ignorance assumed economically by our Lord . . . 161 
 
 Illustrations . . . . . ." . . . 173 
 
 Image . . . . . . . . . . . 178 
 
 Imperial Titles and Honours ...... 184 
 
 The Incarnation. 1. Considered in its purpose . . . 187 
 
 2. Considered in itself .... 191 
 
 The Divine In-Dwelling '....... . . 193 
 
 Marcellus 196 
 
 The Blessed Mary. 1. Mary Ever- Virgin .... 204 
 
 2. Mary Theotocos .... 210 
 
 Mediation 216 
 
 Meletius 222 
 
 The Two Natures \ .." . . . . . 223 
 
 The Nicene Tests . .... . . . . 226 
 
 Omnipresence of God . . . . . . . . 235 
 
 Paul of Samosata .. . , . , . . . 237 
 
 Personal Acts and Offices of our Lord 240 
 
 Philosophy . . 243 
 
 Priesthood of Christ . . . . . . . . 245 
 
 Private Judgment . ... . . . . . 247 
 
 The Rule of Faith 250 
 
 Sahellius . . . . ... . . . 254 
 
 Sanctification ....... ,257 
 
 Scripture. 1. Canon 260 
 
 2. Authority 261 
 
 3. Passages 266 
 
 Semi-Arians 282 
 
 Son of God 287 
 
 Special Characteristics of our Lord's Manhood . . . 293 
 
 Spirit of God . 394 
 
 Theognostus ...... 310
 
 INDEX OF ANNOTATIONS ALPHABETICALLY ARRANGED. V 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Tradition 311 
 
 The Holy Trinity in Unity 315 
 
 Unity of the Incarnate Son 326 
 
 Vapour 330 
 
 Two Wills in Christ 331 
 
 Wisdom 334 
 
 The Word . 337 
 
 The 'AyevvrjTov, or Ingenerate ...... 347 
 
 'Aeiyevvfs .......... 350 
 
 "AOeos, ddeorrjs ......... 354 
 
 Alaiv v . ......... 358 
 
 . . . . . . . 360 
 
 . . .362 
 
 'A\oyia, "AXoyos ......... 364 
 
 "Avdpwnos .......... 366 
 
 'Avridovis T>V iStco/^arcoi/ . . . . . . ' 367 
 
 The curapaXXaKTov ..... ... 370 
 
 'ATravyaa-fjia .......... 374 
 
 'Arroppoij .......... 375 
 
 'Apfiofiavlrai . . . . . . 377 
 
 'Apx?7 . . .'.. . . . . . . 380 
 
 "ArpeTrros .......... 383 
 
 EOV\TI, Kara f3ov\r](Tiv ........ 385 
 
 Tevvrjfj,a .......... 396 
 
 The TevrjTov, TfvvrjTov ........ 398 
 
 ^ijfjLiovpybs . . . . . . . 400 
 
 AtajSoAiKos 402 
 
 El8os 403 
 
 'Ej/8i'a0eroff, vid. Word. 
 
 "~EvcrapKos Trapovcria ........ 405 
 
 ....... 405 
 
 ....... 406 
 
 407 
 
 . . 409 
 
 410 
 
 evepyeta ........ 412 
 
 ....... 415
 
 VI INDEX OF ANNOTATIONS ALPHABETICALLY ARRANGED. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Qeorrjs 416 
 
 QfOTOKOS .......... 419 
 
 KaraTreracr/ia ......... 420 
 
 Kvpioy, Kvpias ......... 422 
 
 Ao-yos ........... 423 
 
 MfTovcria .......... 424 
 
 Mt'a <pv<ris . . . ' . . . . . . . 426 
 
 Moi/ap^ta .......... 429 
 
 Mowyei/^s .......... 430 
 
 The "Ojiotoi/ 432 
 
 OfjLoovcrios .......... 438 
 
 'Ovo/xara .......... 443 
 
 "Opyavov . . . . . . . . . . . 450 
 
 'Opdos 452 
 
 QiHria, oj> .......... 454 
 
 f ' . . . .457 
 
 458 
 
 458 
 
 ......... 459 
 
 'Pfvo-ros 463 
 
 ......... 464 
 
 466 
 
 The TeXfiov 469 
 
 Tpta's ., 473 
 
 ......... 475 
 
 ......... 476 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 THE words from Boethius (infr. p. 325), there translated " in 
 Him which They are," are in the original, (p. 273 Ed. Lugd. and 
 p. 1122 Ed. Basil.) " in eo quod ipsse sunt," that is, rather, " in That 
 which They are."
 
 ANNOTATIONS 
 ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE FOREGOING TREATISES 
 
 ALPHABETICALLY ARRANGED.
 
 ANNOTATIONS 
 
 ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE TREATISES CONTAINED IN 
 VOLUME I. 
 
 ADAM. 
 
 THOUGH the Fathers, in accordance with Scripture, 
 hold that Adam was created sinless, they also hold 
 that he could not have persevered in his state of 
 innocence and uprightness without a special grace, 
 which he lost upon his fall, and which is regained for 
 us, (and that in far greater measure,) by our Lord's 
 sufferings and merits. 
 
 H" The Catholic doctrine is, that Adam innocent was 
 mortal, yet in fact would not have died ; that he had 
 no principle of eternal life within his body naturally, 
 but was sustained continually by divine power till 
 such time as immortality should have been given him. 
 Vid. Incarn. 4. "If God accorded to the garments 
 and shoes of the Israelites/' says S. Augustine, "that 
 they should not wear out during so many years, how is 
 it strange that to man obedient by His power should 
 be accorded, that, whereas his body was animal and 
 mortal, it was so constituted as to become aged without 
 decay, and at such time as God willed might pass 
 without the intervention of death from mortality to 
 
 VOL. n. B
 
 Z ADAM. 
 
 immortality ? For as the flesh itself, which we now 
 bear, is not therefore invulnerable, because it may be 
 preserved from wounding, so Adam's was not therefore 
 not mortal, because he was not bound to die. Such a habit 
 even of their present animal and mortal body I suppose 
 was granted also to them who have been translated 
 hence without death ; for Enoch and Elias too have 
 through so long a time been preserved from the decay 
 of age." De Pecc. Mer. i. 3. Adam's body, he says 
 elsewhere, was " mortale quia poterat mori, immortale 
 quia poterat non mori ;" and he goes on to say that 
 immortality was given him " de ligno vitae, non de 
 constitutione naturae/' Gen. ad Lit. vi. 36. This 
 doctrine came into the controversy with Baius, and 
 Pope S. Pius Y. condemned the assertion, " Immortalitas 
 primi hominis non erat gratiae beneficium, sed naturalis 
 conditio." 
 
 Then, as to his soul, S. Augustine says, " An aid 
 was [given to the first Adam], but a more powerful 
 grace is given, to the Second. The first is that by which 
 a man has justice if he will ; the second does more, for 
 by it he also wills, and wills so strongly, and loves so 
 ardently, as to overcome the will of the flesh lusting 
 contrariwise to the will of the spirit," &c. De Corr. et 
 Grat. 31. And S. Cyril, "Our forefather Adam seems 
 to have gained wisdom, not in time, as we, but appears 
 perfect in understanding from the very first moment of 
 his formation, preserving in himself the illumination, 
 given him by nature from God, as yet untroubled and 
 pure, and leaving the dignity of his nature unpractised 
 on," &c. In Joan. p. 75.
 
 ALEXANDER. 
 
 ALEXANDER'S ENCYCLICAL. 
 Vid. supr. vol. i. p. 1, Prefatory Notice. 
 
 I HERE set down the internal evidence in favour of this 
 Letter having been written by Athanasius. 
 
 A long letter on Arius and his tenets, addressed 
 by Alexander to his namesake at Constantinople, has 
 been preserved for us by Theodoret, and we can com- 
 pare the Encyclical on the one hand with this Letter, 
 and with the acknowledged writings of Athanasius on 
 the other, and thereby determine for ourselves whether 
 the Encyclical does not resemble in style what Athanasius 
 has written, and is not unlike the style of Theodoret's 
 Alexander. Athanasius is a great writer, simple in his 
 diction, clear, unstudied, direct, vigorous, elastic, and 
 above all characteristic ; but Alexander writes with 
 an effort, and is elaborate and exquisite in his vocabu- 
 lary and structure of sentences. 
 
 Thus, the Encyclical before us, after S. Athanasius's 
 manner in treating of sacred subjects, has hardly one 
 scientific term ; its words, when not Arius's own, are for 
 the most part from Scripture, such as Xoyo?, <7o<f>ta, 
 fiovoyevrjs, elfcoiv, airavyaa-fjua, just as they are found in 
 Athanasius's controversial Treatises ; whereas, in Alex- 
 ander's letter in Theodoret, phrases are found, certainly 
 not from Scripture, perhaps of Alexandrian theology, 
 
 B 2
 
 4 ALEXANDER. 
 
 perhaps peculiar to the writer, for instance, a 
 7rpajfj,ara 8vo' 6 vios -rrjv Kara 7rdv.Ta o^OLutr^ra avrov 
 6/c <j>vcre(i)<; d7ro/ia6/Aei/09* 81 ecrbirrpov d/cr)\t,$(OTOV Kal 
 e/JL^i/xov Oeias el/cows' ^lecfLrevovcra fyvcris fjbovoyevij?' ra<? 
 rrj uTTOcrracrei 8vo fyvcreis. And, instead of the ovaia of 
 the Father, of the Son, of the Word, which is one of the 
 few, as well as familiar, scientific terms of Athanasius 
 (Orat. i. 45, ii. 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 18, 22, 47, 56), and 
 which the Encyclical uses too, we read in the Letter of 
 Alexander, preserved by Theodoret, uTroo-rao-t?, and that 
 again and again ; e.g., rrjv ISLorpoTrov avrov v 
 n}? i/7rocrTacre&)? avrov aTrepiepyacrrov' vewrepav 
 v7ro<7Ta<7e&)<? <yevecrtv' 17 rov novwyevovs 
 uTToo-racrt?* TY]V TOV Xoyov vTToa-raaiv, phrases quite out 
 of keeping with the style of the Encyclical. Nor is it 
 only in the expression of theological ideas that the 
 style of the Letter in Theodoret differs from the style of 
 the Encyclical ; thus, when the latter speaks of (frdopea? 
 TU>V "i]rv%(i)v } the former uses the compound (f)6opoTroi6s. 
 Such, too, are rj <pi\ap^o<; Kal (j)i\dpyvpos 
 
 <f>t,\60eo<; cra$>r)veia' dvocriovpyiaf 
 <f)\r)vd<f>(ov p,v6wv. It is very difficult to suppose that 
 the same man wrote this Letter to the Bishop of Con- 
 stantinople and the Encyclical which is the subject of 
 this note. 
 
 On the other hand, that Athanasius wrote the latter 
 becomes almost certain when, in addition to what has 
 been observed above, in the Prefatory Notice, the 
 following coincidence of words and phrases is con-
 
 ALEXANDER. 
 
 sidered, on comparing the Encyclical with Athana- 
 sius's acknowledged writings : 
 
 Encyclical, ap Socr. 
 Hist. i. 6. (Oxf. Ed. 1844.) 
 
 1. p. 6, 1. 2, e 
 
 1 John ii. 19. 
 
 2. ibid, oVSpej Trapdvo- 
 
 fJLOl. 
 
 3. ibid. 1. 4, e^rfkOov 
 
 8i8(io~KovTes oVo- 
 crra(r/aj/,7rp68po/ioi> 
 
 TOV 'AlTt^ptCTTOV. 
 
 4. ibid, /cat f@ov\6p.r]v 
 
 p.ev criwrrfi . . . 
 fTTf^ri 8e, &C. 
 
 5. ibid. 1. 6, pvrroxrr}. 
 
 6. ibid. TO.S duods. 
 
 7. ibid, dxtpatiav. 
 
 8. ibid. 1. 14, prjpdria. 
 
 9. ibid. 1.15,/ca/coi'otai'. 
 
 10. ibid. 1. 22, &c. The 
 
 enumeration of 
 Arius's tenets 
 
 11. p. 7, 1. 1, dvaivxvv- 
 
 TOVVTff. 
 
 12. ibid. 1. 7, TI'S yap 
 
 fjKovcre, &c. 
 
 13. ibid. 1. 8, evifTai. 
 
 Athan. Opp. (Ed. Benedict. Paris.) 
 
 1. atpfcns vvv e(\0ovcra, Orat. i. 1. 
 
 2. 7ra.pdvop.oi, &c. Orat. iii. 2 ; Ep. 
 
 Mg. 16 ; Hist. Ar. 71, 75, 79. 
 
 3. vvv ff\dovo-a, TrpoSpo/xor TOV '7 
 
 y, Orat. i. 7. 
 
 4. This form of apology, introductory 
 
 to the treatment of a subject, is 
 usual with Athan., e.g. Orat. i. 
 23, init., ii. 1, init., iii. 1, init.\ 
 Apol. c. Ar. 1, init.; Deer. 5; 
 Serap. i. 1 and 16, ii. 1, init., iii. 1, 
 init., iv. 8; Mon. 2; Epict. 3 fin.; 
 Max. 1 ; Apoll. i. 1, init. 
 
 5. Orat. i. 10; Deer. 2 ; Hist. Ar. 
 
 3 ; Ep. JEg. 11. 
 
 6. Orat. i. 7 and 35 ; Hist. Ar. 56 ; 
 
 Ep. Mg. 13. 
 
 7. Orat. i. 8, ii. 34, iii. 16 ; Syn. 20, 
 
 32, and 45 ; Ap. c. Ar. 1; Ep. Mg. 
 18 ; Epict. 1 ; Adelph. 2. 
 
 8. Orat. i. 10; Deer. 8 and 18; 
 
 Sent. Dion. 23. 
 
 9. Deer. 1 ; Hist. Ar. 75. 
 
 10. runs with Orat. i. 5; Deer. 6 ; 
 
 Ep. JEg. 12, more closely than with 
 the Letter to Constantinople. 
 
 11. Deer. 20. 
 
 12. Vid. similar form in Orat. i. 8 ; 
 
 Ep. jEg. 7; Epict. 2; Ap. c. Ar. 
 85 ; Hist, Ar. 46, 73, 74, &c. 
 
 13. Orat. i. 35 and 42, ii. 34, 73, and 
 
 80, iii. 30, 48 ; Deer. 22.
 
 ALEXANDER. 
 
 Encyclical, ap. Socr. 
 Hist. i. 6. (Oxf. Ed. 1844.) 
 
 14. p. 8, 1.27. The apo- 
 
 logy here made for 
 the use of Mai. 
 iii. 6, is 
 
 15. p. 8, 1. 12. The text 
 
 1 Tim. iv. 1 in 
 this place, is 
 
 Athan. Opp. (Ed. Benedict. Paris.) 
 
 14. almost verbatim with that found in 
 Orat. i. 36. 
 
 15. applied to Arians by Athan. also 
 Orat. i. 8. By whom besides ?
 
 ANGELS. 
 
 ANGELS. 
 
 ANGELS were actually worshipped, in the proper sense 
 of the word, by Gnostics and other heretics, who even 
 ascribed to them a creative power ; and certainly, to 
 consider them the source of any good to man, and 
 the acceptable channel intrinsically of approaching 
 God, in derogation of our Lord's sole mediation, is 
 idolatry. However, their presence in and about the 
 Church, and with all of us individually, is an inestim- 
 able blessing, never to be slighted or forgotten ; for, as 
 by our prayers and our kind deeds we can serve each 
 other, so Angels, but in a far higher way, serve us, and 
 are channels of grace to us, as the Sacraments are. All 
 this would doubtless have been maintained by Athana- 
 sius had there been occasion for saying it. For 
 instance, in commenting on Psalm 49, Deus Deorum, 
 he says so in substance : 
 
 " ' He shall summon the heaven from above/ When 
 the Saviour manifested Himself, He kindled in us the 
 light of true religious knowledge ; He converted that 
 which had wandered ; He bound up that which was 
 ailing; as being the Good Shepherd, He chased away 
 the wild beasts from the sheepfold ; He gave His people 
 sanctification of the Spirit, and the protection of Angelic 
 Powers, and He set those over them through the whole 
 world who should be holy mystagogues. ' He will
 
 8 ANGELS. 
 
 summon/ He says, ' the Angels who are in heaven and 
 the men on earth chosen for the Apostolate, to judge 
 His people/ . . . That with those mystagogues and their 
 disciples Angels co-operate, Paul makes clear when he 
 says, Heb. i. 14," &c., &c. 
 
 ^[ If it be asked why, such being his substantial teach- 
 ing, his language in particular passages of his Orations 
 tends to discourage such cultus Angelorum as the Church 
 has since his time sanctioned, I answer first that he is 
 led by his subject to contrast the Angelic creation with 
 our Lord the Creator ; and thus, while extolling Him as 
 Supreme, he comes to speak with disparagement of 
 those who were no more than works of His hands. And 
 secondly, the idolatrous honour paid to Angels by the 
 heretical bodies at that time made unadvisable, or 
 created a prepossession against, what in itself was 
 allowable. Moreover, the Church, as divinely guided, 
 has not formulated her doctrines all at once, but has 
 taken in hand, first one, and then another. As to S. 
 Athanasius, if he seemingly disparages the Angels, it 
 is in order to exalt our Lord. He is arguing against 
 the Arians somewhat in this manner : " You yourselves 
 allow that the Son is the Creator, and, as such, the 
 object of worship ; but, if He be the Creator, how can 
 He bo a creature ? how can He be only a higher kind 
 of Angel, if it was He who created Angels ? If so, He 
 must have created Himself. Why, it is the very 
 enormity of the Gnostics, that they ascribe creative 
 power and pay divine honours to Angels ; now are you 
 not as bad as they ? " Athanasius does not touch the 
 question whether, as Angels and Saints according to
 
 ANGELS. 9 
 
 him are (improprie] gods, (vid. next paragraph) , so in a 
 corresponding sense worship may (improprie] be paid 
 to them. 
 
 If "The sacred writer, with us in view, says, ' God, 
 who is like unto Thee ? ' and though he calls those 
 creatures who are partakers (/nero^ou?) of the Word 
 gods, still those who partake are not the same as, or 
 like, Him who is partaken. For works are made, and 
 make nothing," ad Afros 7. " Not one of things which 
 come- to-be is an efficient cause," TTOLIJTIKOV CUTIOV, Orat. 
 ii. 21 ; ibid. 2, iii. 14, andcontr. Gent. 9 init. " Our 
 reason rejects the idea that the Creator should be a 
 creature, for creation is by the Creator." Hil. Trin. xii. 5. 
 TTCO? Swarm TO KTi%6fj,evov Krl^eiv ; rj TTCO? 6 Krlfov icri- 
 Zerai ; Athau. ad Afros, 4 fin. Vid. also Scrap, i. 24, 
 6, iii. 4. 
 
 ^f As to Angels, vid. August, de Civ. Dei xii. 24 ; de 
 Trin. iii. 13 18 ; Damasc. F. O. ii. 3 ; Cyril in Julian, 
 ii. p. 62. "For neither would the Angels," says 
 Athan., Orat. ii. 21, " since they too are creatures, 
 be able to frame, though Yalentinus, 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." 
 The Gnostics who attributed creation to Angels are 
 alluded to in Orat. iii 12; Epiph. Haer. 52, 53, 
 62, &c. ; Theodor. Haer. i. 1 and 3. They considered 
 the Angels consubstantial with our Lord, as the 
 Manichees after them, seemingly from holding the 
 doctrine of emanation. Vid. Bull. D. F. N. ii. 1, 2, and
 
 10 ANGELS. 
 
 Beausobre, Manich. iii. 8. " If, from S. Paul saying 
 better than the Angels, they should therefore insist 
 that his 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 repeat- 
 ing 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." Orat. i. 56. 
 
 ^f As to the sins incident to created natures, all 
 creatures, says Athanasius, depend for their abidance 
 in good upon the Word, and without Him have no 
 stay. Thus, ad Afros 7, after, as in Orat. i. 49, 
 speaking of ayyeXwv pev irapa^dvrwv, TOV e 'ASa/z, 
 irapaKovaavTos, he says, " no one would deny that 
 things which are made are open to change (Cyril, in 
 Joan. v. 2), and since the Angels and Adam trans- 
 gressed, and all showed their need of the grace of the 
 Word, what is thus mutable cannot be like to the im- 
 mutable God, nor the creature to the Creator.''' On the 
 subject of the sins of Angels, vid. Huet. Origen. ii. 5 ; 
 Petav. Dogm. t. iii. p. 73 ; Dissert. Bened. in Cyr. 
 Hier. iii. 5 ; Nat. Alex. Hist. ^v. i. Dissert. 7. 
 
 f| So far Athanasius says nothing which the Church 
 has not taught up to this day ; but he goes further. 
 
 " No one/' he says, Orat. iii. 12, " would pray 
 to receive aught from ' God and the Angels,' or from 
 any other creature, nor would he say * May God and 
 the Angel give thee.'" Vid. Basil de Sp. S. c. 13 
 (t. ii. p. 585). "There were men," says Chrysostom
 
 ANGELS. 11 
 
 on Col. ii., " who said, We ought not to have access 
 to God through Christ, but through Angels, for the 
 former is beyond our power. Hence the Apostle 
 everywhere insists on his teaching concerning Christ, 
 'through the blood of the Cross,'" &c. And Theo- 
 doret 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 more 
 than human/' Origen contr. Cels. v. 4, 5. Vid. also 
 for similar statements Voss. de Idolatr. i. 9. These 
 extracts are here made in illustration of the particular 
 passage of Athan. to which they are appended, not as if 
 they contain the whole doctrine of Origen, Theodoret, 
 or S. Chrysostom, on the cultm Angelorum. Of course 
 they are not inconsistent with such texts as 1 Tim. v. 21. 
 ^f Elsewhere Athan. says that " the Angel who deli- 
 vered Jacob from all evil," from whom he asked a 
 blessing, was not a created Angel, but the Angel of 
 great Counsel, the Word of God Himself, Orat. iii. 12 ; 
 but he says shortly afterwards that the Angel that 
 appeared to Moses in the Bush " was not the God of 
 Abraham, but what was seen was an Angel, and in the 
 Angel God spoke," 14 ; vid. Bened. edit. Monitum in 
 Hilar. Trin. lib. iv. Thus Athan. does not differ from 
 Augustine, as noted infr. Art. Scripture Passages, No. i.
 
 12 ANGELS. 
 
 ^J As to the word " worship/' as denoting the cult us 
 Angelorum, worship is a very wide terra, and has 
 obviously more senses than one. Thus we read in one 
 passage of Scripture that " all the congregation . . . 
 worshipped the Lord, and the king" [David]. S.Augus- 
 tine, as S. Athanasius, Orat. ii. 23, makes the character- 
 istic of divine worship to consist in sacrifice. " No one 
 would venture to say that sacrifice was due to any but 
 God. Many are the things taken from divine worship 
 and transferred to human honours, either through ex- 
 cessive humility, or mischievous adulation ; yet without 
 giving us the notion that those to whom they were 
 transferred were not men. And these are said to be 
 honoured and venerated ; or were worshipped, if much 
 is heaped upon them ; but who ever thought that sacri- 
 fice was to be offered, except to Him whom the sacrificer 
 knew or thought or pretended to be God ? " August. 
 de Civ. Dei, x. 4. " Whereas you have called so many 
 dead men gods, why are ye indignant with us, who do 
 but honour, not deify the martyrs, as being God's 
 martyrs and loving servants ? . . . That they even 
 offered libations to the dead, ye certainly know, who 
 venture on the use of them by night contrary to the 
 laws. . . . But we, men, assign neither sacrifices nor 
 even libations to the martyrs, but we honour them as 
 men divine and divinely beloved/' Theodor. contr. 
 Gent. viii. pp. 908 910. It is observable that incense 
 was burnt before the Imperial Statues, vid. art. Im- 
 perial Titles. Nebuchadnezzar offered an oblation to 
 Daniel, after the interpretation of his dream.
 
 ANTICHRIST. 13 
 
 ANTICHRIST. 
 
 As the early Christians, in obedience to our Lord's 
 words, were ever looking out for His second coming, 
 and for the signs of it, they associated it with every 
 prominent disturbance, external or internal, which 
 interfered with the peace of the Church ; with every 
 successive persecution, heretical outbreak, or schism 
 which befell it. In this, too, they were only following 
 the guidance of our Lord and His Apostles, who told 
 them that " great tribulation/' " false prophets," dis- 
 union, and "apostasy," and at length "Antichrist/' 
 should be His forerunners. Also, they recollected 
 S. John's words, "Omnis Spiritus qui solvit Jesum, 
 ex Deo non est, et hie est Antichristus de quo audistis, 
 quoniam venit/' &c. Hence " forerunner of Antichrist " 
 was the received epithet employed by them to designate 
 the successive calamities and threatenings of evil, which 
 one after another spread over the face of the orbis 
 terrarum. 
 
 ^[ Thus we have found S. Athanasius calling Arianism 
 " the forerunner of Antichrist," Syn. 5, TrpoSpopos, 
 praecursor ; vid. also Orat. i. 1 and 7 ; Ap. c. Ar. fin.; 
 Hist. Ar. 77; Cyr. Cat. xv. 9; Basil. Ep. 264; Hilar. 
 Aux. 5, no distinction being carefully drawn between 
 the apostasy and the Antichrist. Constantius is called 
 Antichrist by Athau. Hist. Arian. 67 ; his acts are the 
 TTpoolfj,iov KOI TrapaaKevr) of Antichrist, Hist. Arian. 70,
 
 14 ANTICHRIST. 
 
 fin., 71 and 80. Constantius is the image, ei/eo>!/, of 
 Antichrist, 74 and 80, and shows the likeness, o/Ww/ia, 
 of the malignity of Antichrist, 75. Vid. also 77. 
 " Let Christ be expected, for Antichrist is in posses- 
 sion." Hilar. contr. Const, init., also 5. Speaking of 
 Auxentius, the Arian Bishop of Milan, he says, " Of 
 one thing I warn you, beware of Antichrist ; it is ill 
 that . . . your veneration for God's Church lies in 
 houses and edifices. ... Is there any doubt that Anti- 
 christ is to sit in these ? Mountains, and woods, and 
 lakes, and prisons, and pits are to me more safe/' &c. 
 Contr. Auxent. 12. Lucifer calls Constantius " praecursor 
 Autichristi," p. 89 ; possessed with the spirit of Antichrist, 
 p. 2J 9; friend of Antichrist, p. 259. Vid. also Basil, Ep. 
 264. Again, S. Jerome, writing against Jovinian, 
 says that he who teaches that there are no differences 
 of rewards is Antichrist, ii. 21. S. Leo, alluding to 
 1 John iv. 10, calls Nestorius and Eutyches, " Antichristi 
 prsecursores," Ep. 75, p. 1 022 ; again, Antichrist is who- 
 ever withstood what the Church has once settled, with 
 an allusion to opposition to the see of S. Peter, Ep. 
 156, c. 2. Anastasius speaks of the ten horns of Mo- 
 nophysitism, Hodeg. 8 and 24; and calls Severus 
 Antichrist, for usurping the judicial powers of the 
 Church, ibid. p. 92. Vid. also Greg. I. Ep. vii. 33. 
 
 ^| The great passage of S. Paul about the airo<Tra<7ia, 
 1 Tim. iv. 1, 2, is taken to apply to the Arians in Orat. 
 i. 8, cf. ad ^gypt. 20, 21 ; but the Fathers more 
 commonly refer it to the Oriental sects of the early 
 centuries, who fulfilled one or other of those con- 
 ditions which it specifies. It is predicated of the
 
 ANTICHRIST. 15 
 
 Marcionists by Clement, Strom, iii. 6. Of the Valen- 
 tinians, Epiph. Haer. 31. 34. Of the Montanists and 
 others, ibid. 48. 8. Of the Saturnilians (according 
 to Huet), Origen in Matt. xiv. 16. Of apostolic 
 heretics, Cyril. Cat. iv. 27. Of Marcionites, Valen- 
 tinians, and Manichees, Chrysost. de Virg. 5. Of 
 Gnostics and Manichees, Theod. Haer. ii. praef. Of 
 Encratites, ibid. v. fin. Of Eutyches, Ep. Anon. 190 
 (apud Garner. Diss. v. Theod. p. 901). Pseudo-Justin 
 seeins to consider it fulfilled in the Catholics of the 
 fifth century, as being Anti-pelagians. Quaest. 22 ; 
 vid. Bened. note in loc. Besides Athanasius, no early 
 author by whom it is referred to the Ariaris, occurs 
 to the writer of this, except S. Alexander's Letter ap. 
 Socr. i. 6 ; and, if he may hazard the conjecture, there 
 is much in that letter like Athan.'s own writing. Vid. 
 supr. art. Alexander.
 
 1 6 APOSTLE. 
 
 APOSTLE. 
 
 " THE Apostle " is the usual title of S. Paul in 
 antiquity, as " the Philosopher " at a later date is appro- 
 priated to Aristotle. " When ' the Apostle ' is men- 
 tioned," says S. Augustine, " if it is not specified which, 
 Paul only is understood, because he is more celebrated 
 from the number of his Epistles, and laboured more 
 abundantly than all the rest/' ad Bonifac. iii. 3. E.g. 
 " And this is what Peter has said, ' that ye may be 
 partakers in a divine nature ; ' as says also the Apostle, 
 ' know ye not that ye are the Temple of God/ " &c. Orat. 
 i. 16. Vid. also Enc. supr. vol. i. p. 7 (t. i. p. 315, ed 
 Ben. 3) ; Deer. 15 and 17. "The Apostle himself, 
 the Doctor of the Gentiles," Syn. 28 and 39. " John 
 saying and the Apostle," Orat. i. 47. 
 
 However, S. Peter also is called the Apostle, Orat. i. 
 47.
 
 ARIUS. 17 
 
 ARIUS. 
 
 IT is very difficult to gain a clear idea of the cha- 
 racter of Arius. Athanasius speaks as if his theological 
 song, or Thalia, was but a token of his personal laxity ; 
 and certainly the mere fact of his having written it seems 
 incompatible with any remarkable seriousness and 
 strictness. " He drew up his heresy on paper/' Athan. 
 says, " and imitating, as if on a festive occasion (&><? ev 
 6a\ia) no grave writer, but the Egyptian Sotades, in 
 the character of his music, he writes at great length/' 
 &c. De Syn. 15 (Arim. n. 19). Again, Orat. i. 25 
 (Disc. n. 2 5), he calls him the Sotadean Arius; and 
 speaks of the " dissolute manners," and " the effeminate 
 tone," and the "jests** of the Thalia; a poem which, 
 he says shortly before, " is not even found among the 
 more respectable Greeks, but among those only who 
 sing songs over their wine, with noise and revel." Vid. 
 also de Sent. D. 6. Constantino also, after the "Ape? 
 "Apete, proceeds, eTrtcr^erw Se ere 17 yovv ' A<j)poBlrr}^ 6fj,t\ia. 
 Epiph. Haer. 69. 9 fin. Socrates too says that " the 
 character of the book was gross and dissolute." Hist, 
 i. 9. The Arian Philostorgius tells us that "Arius wrote 
 songs for the sea, and for the mill, and for the road, and 
 set them to suitable music," Hist. ii. 2. It is remark- 
 able that Athanasius should say the Egyptian Sotades, 
 as again in Sent. D. 6. There were two Poets of the 
 VOL. n. c
 
 18 ARITJS. 
 
 name; one a writer of the Middle Comedy, Athen. 
 Deipn. vii. 11 ; but the other, who is here spoken of, 
 was a native of Maronea in Crete, according to Suidas 
 (in voc.), under the successors of Alexander, Athen. 
 xiv. 4. He wrote in Ionic metre, which was of infamous 
 name from the subjects to which he and others applied 
 it. Yid. Suid. ibid. Some read " Sotadicos " for So- 
 craticos/' Juv. Satir. ii. 10. Vid. also .Martial, 
 Ep. ii. 86. The characteristic of the metre was the 
 recurrence of the same cadence, which virtually 
 destroyed the division into verses, Turneb. in Quinct. 
 i. 8, and thus gave the composition that lax and 
 slovenly air to which Athanasius alludes. Horace's 
 Ode, " Miserarum est neque amori/' &c., is a specimen of 
 this metre, and some have called it Sotadic ; but Bentley 
 shows in loc. that Sotades wrote in the Ionic a majore, 
 and that his verse had somewhat more of system than 
 is found in the Ode of Horace. Athenaeus implies that 
 all Ionic metres were called Sotadic, or that Sotades 
 wrote in various Ionic metres. The Church adopted 
 the Doric music, and forbade the Ionic and Lydian. 
 The name " Thalia " commonly belonged to convivial 
 songs ; Martial contrasts the " lasciva Thalia " with 
 " carmina sanctiora/'Epigr. vii. 17. Vid. Thaliarchus, 
 "the master of the feast," Horat. Od. i. 9. This would 
 be the more offensive among Christians in Athan/s day, 
 in proportion to the keener sensibilities of the South, 
 and the more definite ideas which music seems to have 
 conveyed to their minds ; and more especially in a case 
 where the metre Arius employed had obtained so 
 shocking a reputation, and was associated in the minds
 
 ARIUS. 19 
 
 of Christians with the deeds of darkness, in the midst 
 of which in those heathen times the Church lived and 
 bore her witness. 
 
 Such is Athan/s report, but Constantino and Epi- 
 phanius speak of Arius in very different terms, yet each in 
 his own way, as the following extracts show. It is pos- 
 sible that Constantino is only declaiming, for his whole 
 invective is like a school exercise or fancy composition. 
 Constantine too had not seen Arius at the time of this 
 invective, which was prior to the Nicene Council, and 
 his account of him is inconsistent with itself, for he 
 also uses the very strong and broad language about 
 Arius quoted above. " Look then," he says, " look all 
 men, what words of lament he is now professing, being 
 held with the bite of the serpent ; how his veins and 
 flesh are possessed with poison, and are in a ferment of 
 severe pain ; how his whole body is wasted, and is all 
 withered and sad and pale and shaking, and fearfully 
 emaciated. How hateful to see, how filthy is his mass 
 of hair, how he is half dead all over, with failing eyes, 
 and bloodless countenance, and woe- begone ! so that 
 all these things combining in him at once, frenzy, 
 madness, and folly, for the continuance of the com- 
 plaint, have made thee wild and savage. But not 
 having any sense what bad plight he is in, he cries 
 out, ' I am transported with delight, and I leap and 
 skip for joy, and I fly : ' and again, with boyish im- 
 petuosity, ( Be it so/ he says, ' we are lost.' y Harduin. 
 Cone. t. i. p. 457. Perhaps this strange account may 
 be taken to illustrate the words " mania " and " Ario- 
 maniacs." S. Alexander too speaks of Arius's melan- 
 
 c 2
 
 20 ARIUS. 
 
 cholic temperament, 
 Kvrj<;. Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 741. S. Basil also speaks 
 of the Eunomians as et<? \a/j,7rpav ^eXa^^oXiav trape- 
 ve-)(6evra^. Contr. Eun. ii. 24. Elsewhere he speaks of 
 the Pneumatomachisls as worse than /u,eXa7^oX<ui'Te?. 
 De Sp. S. 41. 
 
 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 a wily serpent, captivating to every guileless 
 heart by that same crafty bearing. For ever habited 
 in cloak 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 pro- 
 fessed virginity ? " Haer. 69. 3. Arius is here said to 
 have been tall ; Athanasius, on the other hand, would 
 appear to have been short, if we may so interpret 
 Julian's indignant description of him, pijSe avrjp, aX>C 
 avQpwrriaKos euTeA.r/?, " not even a man, but a common 
 little fellow." Ep. 51. Yet S. Gregory Nazianzen 
 speaks of him as "high in prowess and humble in 
 spirit, mild, meek, full of sympathy, pleasant in speech, 
 more pleasant in manners, angelical in person, more 
 angelical in mind, serene in his rebukes, instructive in 
 his praises," &c. &c. Orat. 21. 9. There is no proof 
 that S. Gregory had ever seen him.
 
 THE ARIANS. 21 
 
 THE ARIANS. 
 
 1. Their Ethical Characteristics. 
 
 WHEN we consider how grave and reverent was the 
 temper of the Ante-Nicene Church, how it concealed 
 its sacred mysteries from the world at large, how 
 writers such as Tertullian make the absence of such a 
 strict discipline the very mark of heresy, and that a 
 vulgar ostentation and profaneness was the prominent 
 charge brought against the heretic Paul of Samosata, 
 Bishop of Antioch, we need not a more ready evidence 
 or note against the Arian party than our finding that 
 the ethical character, which is in history so intimately 
 associated with Paul and the heretics generally of the 
 first three centuries, is the badge of Arianism also. 
 
 1. Athan. in various passages of his Theological 
 Treatises refers to it, and it is one of the reasons why 
 he speaks so familiarly of their " madness." " What 
 pressed on us so much," he says of the Councils of 
 Seleucia and Ariminum, "was that the whole world 
 should be thrown into confusion, and those who then 
 bore the profession of ecclesiastics should run about far 
 and near, seeking forsooth how best to learn to believe 
 in our Lord Jesus Christ. Certainly, if they were 
 believers already, they would not have been seeking, 
 as though they were not. And to the catechumens, 
 this was no small scandal ; but to the heathen, it was
 
 22 THE ARIANS. 
 
 something more than common, and even furnished 
 broad merriment, that Christians, as if waking out of 
 sleep at this time of day, should be making out how 
 they were to believe concerning Christ, while their 
 professed clergy, though claiming deference from their 
 flocks, as teachers, were unbelievers on their own show- 
 ing, in that they were seeking what they had not." 
 Syn. 2. ' 
 
 The heathen Ammianus supports this complaint in 
 the well-known passage which tells of " the troops of 
 Bishops hurrying to and fro at the public expense/' 
 and " the Synods, in their efforts to bring over the 
 religion everywhere to their side, being the ruin of the 
 posting establishments." Hist. xxi. 16. Again, " The 
 spectacle proceeded to that pitch of indecency," says 
 Eusebius, "that at length, in the very midst of the 
 theatres of the unbelievers, the solemn matters of 
 divine teaching were subjected to the basest mockery." 
 In Vit. Const, ii. 61. 
 
 Also Athan., after speaking of the Arian tenet that 
 our Lord was once on His trial and might have fallen, 
 says, " This is what they do not shrink from conversing 
 about in full market." Orat. i. 37. And again, "When 
 they commenced this heresy, they used to go about with 
 dishonest crafty phrases which they had got together ; 
 nay, up to this time some of them, when they fall in 
 with boys in the market-place, question them, not out 
 of divine Scripture, but thus, as if bursting out with 
 the abundance of their heart: 'He who is, did He, 
 from Him who is, make him who was not, or him who 
 was?'" Orat. i. 22.
 
 THE ARIANS. 23 
 
 Alexander speaks of the interference, even by legal 
 process, in its behalf against himself, of disobedient wo- 
 men, Si ei>TV%ia? >yvvat,KapLu>v araKrwv a r/Trdrricrav, and 
 of the busy and indecent gadding about of the younger, 
 e/c rov TTZpiTpoya^tiv iraaav dyviav da-pevws. Ap. Theod. 
 Hist. 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. Gre- 
 gory Nazienzen speaks of these women as " Jezebels in 
 as thick a crop as hemlock in a field." Orat. 35. 3. 
 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 Constan- 
 tinople, 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 In generate ; inquire the price of 
 bread, he answers, Greater is the Father, and the Sou 
 is subject; say that a bath would suit you, and he
 
 24 THE AKIANS. 
 
 defines that the Son is out of nothing." t. 2, p. 898. 
 (de Deitate Fil. &c.) 
 
 Arius set the example of all this in his Thalia; 
 Leontius,Eudoxius, and Aetius, in various ways, followed 
 it faithfully. 
 
 2. Another characteristic of the Arian party was 
 their changeableness, insincerity, and want of prin- 
 ciple (vid. Chameleons}. This was owing to their fear 
 of the Emperor and of the Christian populations, which 
 hindered them speaking out ; also, to the difficulty of 
 keeping their body together in opinion, and the neces- 
 sity they were in to deceive one party and to please 
 another, if they were to maintain their hold upon the 
 Church. Athanasius observes on their reluctance to 
 speak out, challenging them to present "the heresy 
 naked," de Sent. Dionys. 2, init. " No one," he says 
 elsewhere, " puts a light under a bushel ; let them show 
 the world their heresy naked." Ad Ep. Mg. 18. Vid. 
 ibid. 10. In like manner, Basil says that though 
 Arius was, in faith, really like Eunomius (contr. Eunom. 
 i. 4) , Aetius his master was the first to teach openly 
 (<ai/fjO<w<?) that the Father's substance was unlike, 
 ai/6/ioto?, the Son's. Ibid. i. 1. Epiphanius too, Haer. 
 76, p. 949, seems to say that the elder Arian s held 
 the divine generation in a sense in which Aetius did 
 not ; that is, they were not boldly consistent and definite 
 as he was. Athan. de Decret. & 7, enumerates some of 
 
 d * 
 
 the attempts of the Arians to find some theory short of 
 orthodoxy, yet short of that extreme heresy, on the 
 other hand, which they felt ashamed to avow. 
 
 The Treatise De Synodis, above translated, supplies
 
 THE ARIAKS. 25 
 
 abundant proof of their artifices and shuffling. (Yid. 
 art. Hypocrites.} 
 
 3. Cruelty, as in the instance of George of Cappadocia 
 and Macedonius of Constantinople, is another charge 
 which falls heavily on both Arians and Semi-Arians. 
 
 " In no long time/' Athan. says, anticipating their 
 known practice, de Decret. 2, " they will be turning 
 to outrage." As to the Council of Tyre, A.D. 335, he 
 asks, Apol. contr. Arian. 8, " How venture they to 
 call that a Council in which a Count presided, and an 
 executioner was present, and a registrar [or jailer] 
 introduced us instead of the deacons of the Church ? " 
 Vid. also 10 and 45 ; Orat. ii. 43 ; Ep. Encycl. 5. 
 Against employing violence in religious matters, vid. 
 Hist. Arian. 33, 67. (Hil. ad Const, i. 2.) On the 
 other hand, he observes, that at Nicaea, "it was not 
 necessity which drove the judges to " their decision, 
 " but all vindicated the Truth from deliberate purpose." 
 Ad Ep. Mg. 13. 
 
 4. They who did not scruple to use force were 
 consistent in their use of bribes also. S. Athanasius 
 speaks of them as ScopoSo/coi, and of the /eepSo? T?}? 
 
 which influenced them, and of the 
 (f>L\c0v. Orat. i. 8, 10, and 53 ; also 
 ii. 43. 
 
 And so S. Hilary speaks of the exemptions from 
 taxes which Constantius granted the Clergy as a bribe 
 to Arianize : " You concede taxes as Caasar, thereby to 
 invite Christians to a denial; you remit what is your 
 own, that we may lose what is God's," contr. Const. 
 10. Again, he speaks of Constantius as " hostem
 
 26 
 
 THE ARIANS. 
 
 blandientem, qui non dorsa csedit, sed ventrem palpat, 
 non proscribit ad vitam, sed ditat in mortem, non caput 
 gladio desecat, sed animam auro occidit." Ibid. 5. 
 Vid. Coustant. in loc. Liberius says the same, Tbeod. 
 Hist. ii. 13. And S. Gregory Naz. speaks of <j>i\o- 
 Xpvaovs /zaXXov rj fyiko^piaTovs. Orat. 21. 21. It 
 is true that, Ep. -3g. 22, Athan. contrasts the 
 Arians with the Meletians in this respect, as if, unlike 
 the latter, the Arians were not influenced by secular 
 views. But there were, as was natural, two classes of 
 men in the heretical party; the fanatical class who 
 began the heresy and were its real life, such as Arius, 
 and afterwards the Anomoeans, in whom misbelief was 
 a " mania ; " and the Eusebians, who cared little for a 
 theory of doctrine or consistency of profession, com- 
 pared with their own aggrandizement. With these 
 must be included numbers who conformed to Arianism 
 lest they should suffer temporal loss. 
 
 Athan. says, that after Eusebius (Nicomed.) had taken 
 up the patronage of the heresy, " he made no progress 
 till he had gained the Court," Hist. Arian. 66, showing 
 that it was an act of external power by which Arianism 
 grew, not an inward movement in the Church, which 
 indeed loudly protested against the Emperor's proceed- 
 ing, &c. (Yid. Catholic Church.} 
 
 2. The Arian Leaders. 
 
 Arius himself refers his heresy to the teaching of 
 Lucian, a presbyter of Antioch (Theod. Hist. i. 4 and
 
 THE ARIAXS. 27 
 
 5), who seems to have been the head of a theological 
 party, and a friend of Paulus the heretical Bishop, and 
 out of communion during the time of three Bishops who 
 followed. Eusebius of Nicomedia, who seems to have 
 held the Arian tenets to their full extent, is claimed by 
 Arius as his "fellow-Lucianist." Pronounced Arians also 
 were the Lucianists Leontius and Eudoxius. Asterius, 
 another of his pupils, did not go further than Semi- 
 Arianism, without perhaps perfect consistency ; nor did 
 Lucian himself, if the Creed of the Dedication (A.D. 341) 
 conies from him, as many critics have held. He died a 
 martyr's death. (Yid. supr. vol. i. p. 96, Syn. 23, 
 and notes.) 
 
 Asterius is the foremost writer on the Arian side, on 
 its start. He was by profession a sophist ; he lapsed 
 and sacrificed, as Athan. tells us, in the persecution of 
 Maximian. His work in defence of the heresy was 
 answered by Marcellus of Ancyra, to whom Eusebius of 
 Caesarea in turn replied. Athan. quotes or refers to it 
 frequently in the treatises translated supr. Vid. Deer. 
 8, 20 ; Syn. 18 -20 ; Orat. i. 30, 31 ; ii. 24. fin., 
 28, 37, 40 ; iii. 2, 60, (according to Bened. Ed., and 
 according to this translation ; Nicen. 13, 28 ; Arim. 23 
 and 24 ; Disc. 47, 58, 60, 135, 139, 151, 155, 226.) 
 He and Eusebius of Csesarea seem to be Semi- Arians 
 of the same level. 
 
 We must be on our guard against confusing the one 
 Eusebius with the other. He of Nicomedia was an 
 Arian, a man of the world, the head of the Arian 
 party ; he of Caesarea was the historian, to whom we 
 are so much indebted, learned, moderate, liberal, the
 
 28 THE ARIANS. 
 
 private friend of Constantino, a Semi-Arian. (Yid. 
 infr., art. Semi-Arianism, and Ensebius.} 
 
 The leading Arians at the time of the Nicene Council, 
 besides Eusebius Nicom., were Narcissus, Patrophilus, 
 Maris, Paulinus, Theodotus, Athanasius of Nazarba, 
 and George (Syn. 17). 
 
 Most of these original Arians were attacked in the 
 work of Marcellus which Eusebius (Caesar.) answers. 
 " Now he replies to Asterius," says Eusebius, " now to 
 the great Eusebius," [of Nicomedia,] "and then he 
 turns upon that man of God, that indeed thrice blessed 
 person, Paulinus (of Tyre). Then he goes to war with 
 Origen. . . Next he marches out against Narcissus, 
 and pursues the other Eusebius," i. e. himself. " In 
 a word, he counts for nothing all the Ecclesiastical 
 Fathers, being satisfied with no one but himself." 
 Contr. Marc. i. 4. Vid. art. Marcellus. There is little 
 to be said of Maris and Theodotus. Nazarba is more 
 commonly called Anazarbus, and is in Cilicia. 
 
 As is observed elsewhere, there were three parties 
 among the Arians from the first : the Arians proper, 
 afterwards called Anomceans ; the Semi-Arian reaction 
 from them ; and the Court party, called Eusebians or 
 Acacians, from their leaders, Eusebius of Nicomedia 
 and Acacius of Csesarea, which sometimes sided with 
 the Semi-Arians, sometimes with the Arians proper, 
 sometimes attempted a compromise of Scripture terms. 
 The six named by Athanasius as the chief movers in 
 the Bipartite Council of Seleucia and Ariminum, were 
 Ursacius, Valens, Germinius, Aeacius, Eudoxius, and 
 Patrophilus. He numbers also among the Bishops at
 
 THE ARIANS. 29 
 
 Ariminum, Auxentius, Demophilus, and Caius. And at 
 Seleucia, Uraniu?, Leontius, Theodotus, Evagrius, and 
 George. Eusebius of Nicomedia was a kinsman of the 
 Imperial family and tutor to Julian. He was, as has 
 been already said, a fellow-disciple with Arius of Lucian. 
 He was Bishop, first of Berytus, then of Nicomedia, 
 and at length of Constantinople. He received Arius 
 with open arms, on his expulsion from the Alexandrian 
 Church, put himself at the head of his followers, cor- 
 rected their polemical language, and used his great 
 influence with Constantine and Coiistantius to secure 
 the triumph of the heresy. He died about the year 
 3i3, and was succeeded in the political leadership of 
 the Eusebians by Acacius and Yalens. 
 
 George, whom Athanasius, Gregory Naz., and So- 
 crates, call a Cappadocian, was born, according to Am- 
 inianus, in Epiphania of Cilicia, at a fuller's mill. He 
 was appointed pork-contractor to the army, Syn. 12, 
 Hist. Arian. 75, Naz. Orat. 21, 16, and, being detected in 
 defrauding the government, he fled to Egypt. Naz. Orat. 
 21. 16. How he became acquainted with the Eusebian 
 party does not appear. Sozomen says he recommended 
 himself to the see of Alexandria instead of A than, by his 
 zeal for Arianism and his TO SpcurTijpiov ; and Gregory 
 calls him the hand of the heresy as Acacius (?) was the 
 tongue. Orat. 21. 21. He made himself so obnoxious 
 to the Alexandrians, that in the reign of Julian he 
 was torn to pieces in a rising of the heathen populace. 
 He had laid capital informations against many persons 
 of the place, and he tried to persuade Constantius that, 
 as the successor of Alexander its founder, he was pro-
 
 30 THE AR1ANS. 
 
 prietor of the soil and had a claim upon the houses 
 built on it. Ammian. xxii. 11. Epiphanius tells us, 
 Haer. 76. 1, that he made a monopoly of the nitre of 
 Egypt, farmed the beds of papyrus, and the salt lakes, 
 and even contrived a profit from the undertakers. His 
 atrocious cruelties to the Catholics are well known. 
 Yet he seems to have collected a choice library of 
 philosophers and poets and Christian writers, which 
 Julian seized on. Vid. Pithaeus in loc. Ammian. ; also 
 Gibbon, ch. 23. 
 
 Acacius was a pupil of Eusebius of Csesarea, and 
 succeeded him in the see of Csesarea in Palestine. He 
 inherited his library, and is ranked by S. Jerome among 
 the most learned commentators on Scripture. Both 
 Sozomen and Philostorgius speak, though in different 
 ways, of his great talents. He seems to have taken up, 
 as his weapon in controversy, the objection that the 
 ofioovcTLov was not a word of Scripture, which is in- 
 directly suggested by Eusebius Caes. in his letter to 
 his people, 8, supr. His formula was the vague ofjuoiov 
 (like), as the Anomoean was avopoiov (unlike), the Semi- 
 Arian O/AOIOIXTIOV (like in substance), and the orthodox 
 6/Jioovaiov (one in substance). However, like most of 
 his party, his changes of opinion were considerable. 
 At one time, after professing the Kara travra O/AOIOV, 
 and even the rrjs avr^ ova-las, Soz. iv. 22, he at length 
 avowed the Anomoean doctrine. Ultimately, after Con- 
 stantius's death, he subscribed the Nicene formula. 
 Vid. "Arians of the Fourth Century," p. 275, 
 4th ed. 
 
 Valens, Bishop of Mursa, and Ursacius, Bishop of
 
 THE ARIA.NS. 31 
 
 Singidon, are generally mentioned together. They 
 were pupils of Arius, and, as such, are called young by 
 Athan. ad Episc. -33g. 7 ; and in Apol. contr. Arian, 
 13, "young in years and mind;" by Hilary ad 
 Const, i. 5, " imperitis et improbis duobus adokscenti- 
 bus ; " and by the Council of Sardica, ap. Hilar. Fragm. 
 ii. 12. They first appear at the Council of Tyre, A. D. 
 335. The Council of Sardica deposed them ; in 349 
 they publicly retracted their charges against Athanasius, 
 who has preserved their letters. Apol. contr. Arian. 58. 
 Valens was the more prominent of the two ; he was a 
 favourite Bishop of Constantius, an extreme Arian in his 
 opinions, and the chief agent at Ariminum in effecting 
 the lapse of the Latin Fathers. 
 
 Germinius was made Bishop of Sirmium by the 
 Eusebians in 351, instead of Photinus, whom they 
 deposed for a kind of Sabellianism. However, in spite 
 of his Arianism, he was obliged in 358 to sign the 
 Semi-Arian formula of Ancyra ; yet he was an active 
 Eusebian again at Ariminum. At a later date he 
 approached very nearly to Catholicism. 
 
 Eudoxius is said to have been a pupil of Lucian, 
 Arius's master, though the dates scarcely admit of it. 
 Eustathius, Catholic Bishop, of Antioch, whom the 
 Eusebians subsequently deposed, refused to admit him 
 into orders. Afterwards he was made Bishop of Ger- 
 manicia in Syria, by his party. He was present at 
 the Council of Antioch in 341, the Dedication, vid. 
 not. supr. vol. i. p. 94, and he carried into the "West, 
 in 345, the fifth Confession, called the Long, fjuaKpcxr- 
 ?, Syn. 26. He afterwards passed in succession
 
 32 THE ARIANS. 
 
 to the sees of Antioch and Constantinople, and baptized 
 the Emperor Yalens into the Arian profession. 
 
 Patrophilus was one of the original Arian party, and 
 took share in all their principal acts, but there is no- 
 thing very distinctive in his history. Sozomen assigns 
 to the above six Bishops, of whom he was one, the 
 scheme of dividing the Council into two, Hist. iv. 16; 
 Valens undertaking to manage the Latins, Acacius the 
 Greeks. 
 
 There were two Arian Bishops of Milan of the name 
 of Auxentius, but little is known of them besides. S. 
 Hilary wrote against the elder ; the other came into 
 collision with S. Ambrose. Demophilus, Bishop of 
 Berea, was one of those who carried the long Confession 
 into the West, though Athan. only mentions Eudoxius, 
 Martyrius, and Macedonius, Syn. 26. He was after- 
 wards claimed by Aetius, as agreeing with him. Of 
 Caius, an^Illyrian Bishop, nothing is known except that 
 he sided throughout with the Arian party. 
 
 Euzoius was one of the Arian Bishops of Antioch, 
 and baptized Constantius before his death. He had 
 been excommunicated with Arius in Egypt and at 
 Nicaea, and was restored with him to the Church at the 
 Council of Jerusalem. He succeeded at Antioch S. 
 Meletius. who, on being placed in that see by the Arians, 
 professed orthodoxy, and was forthwith banished by 
 them. 
 
 The Leaders of the Semi-Arians, if they are on the 
 rise of the heresy to be called a party, were in the first 
 instance Asterius and Eusebius of Caesarea, of whom I 
 have already spoken, and shall speak again. Semi-
 
 THE ARIANS. 33 
 
 Arianism was at first a shelter and evasion for pure 
 Arianism, or at a later date it was a reaction from the 
 Anomcean enormities. The leading Semi-Arians of the 
 later date were Basil, Mark, Eustathius, Eleusius, 
 Meletius, and Macedonius. Basil, who is considered 
 their head, wrote against Marcellus, and was placed by 
 the Arians in his see ; he has little place in history till 
 the date of the Council of Sardica, which deposed him. 
 Constantius, however, stood his friend till the beginning 
 of the year 360, when Acacius supplanted him in the 
 Imperial favour, and he was banished into Illyricum. 
 This was a month or two later than the date at which 
 Athan. wrote his first draught or edition of his De Syno- 
 dis. He was condemned upon charges of tyranny and 
 the like, but Theodoret speaks highly of his correctness 
 of life, and Sozomen of his learning and eloquence. 
 Vid. Theod. Hist. ii. 20 ; Soz. ii. 33. A very little 
 conscientiousness, or even decency of manners, would 
 put a man in strong relief with the great Arian party 
 which surrounded the Court, and a very great deal 
 would not have been enough to secure him against their 
 unscrupulous slanders. Athan. reckons him among 
 those who " are not far from accepting even the phrase, 
 ' One in substance/ in what he has written concerning 
 the faith," vid. Syn. 41. A favourable account of 
 him will be found in " The Arians/' &c., ed. 4, p. 300, 
 &c., which vid. also for a notice of the others. Of 
 Macedonius little is known except his cruelties. " The 
 Arians/' p. 311. 
 
 The AnomoBans, with whose history this work is 
 scarcely concerned, had for their leaders Aetius and 
 
 VOL. ii. D
 
 34 THE ARIANS. 
 
 Eunomius. Of these Aetius was the first to carry out 
 Arianism in its pure logical form, as Eunomius was 
 its principal apologist. He was born in humble life, 
 and was at first a practitioner in medicine. After a 
 time he became a pupil of the Arian Paulinus ; then 
 the guest of Athanasius of Nazarba ; then the pupil of 
 Leontius of Antioch, who ordained him deacon, and 
 afterwards deposed him. This was in 350. In 351 he 
 seems to have held a dispute with Basil of Ancyra, at 
 Sirmium, as did Photinus ; in the beginning of 360 he 
 was formally condemned in that Council of Constan- 
 tinople which confirmed the Creed of Ariminum, and 
 just before Eudoxius had been obliged to anathematize 
 his confession of faith. This was at the time Athan. 
 wrote the De Syn. 
 
 3. Arian Tenets and Reasonings. 
 
 f The Arians refused to our Lord the name of God, 
 except in the sense in which they called Him Word 
 and Wisdom, not as denoting His nature and essence, 
 but as epithets really belonging to God alone or to His 
 attributes, though out of grace or by privilege trans- 
 ferred by Him in an improper sense to the creature. 
 In this sense the Son could claim to be called God, 
 but in no other. 
 
 ^J The main argument of the Arians was that our Lord 
 was a Son, and therefore was not eternal, but of a 
 substance which had a beginning. With this Arius 
 started in his dispute with Alexander. " Arius, a man 
 not without dialectic skill, thinking that the Bishop
 
 
 THE ARIANS. 30 
 
 was introducing the doctrine of Sabellius the Libyan, 
 out of contention fell off into the opinion diametrically 
 opposite, .... and he says, ' If the Father begot the 
 Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence; 
 and from this it is plain that once the Son was not ; 
 and it follows of necessity that He had His subsistence 
 out of nothing." 1 Socr. i. 5. Accordingly, Athanasius 
 says (in substance) early in his Deer., "Having argued 
 with them as to the meaning of their own selected term, 
 ' Son/ let us go on to others, which on their very face 
 make for us, such as Word, Wisdom, &c." 
 
 *fi In what sense then was " Son " to be predicated of 
 the Divine Nature ? The Catholics said that the essen- 
 tial meaning of the word was consubstantiality with the 
 Father, whereas the point of posteriority to the Father 
 depended on a condition, time, which could not exist in 
 the instance of God. 
 
 ^[ But the Arians persisted, maintaining that a son 
 has his origin of existence from his father ; what 
 has an origin, has a beginning ; what has a beginning 
 is not from eternity ; what is not from eternity is not 
 God ; forgetting, first that origination and beginning 
 are not convertible terms, and that the idea of a begin- 
 ning is not bound up with the idea of an origin ; and 
 secondly, that a sou not only has his origin of existence 
 from his father, but also his nature, and all that is 
 proper to his nature. 
 
 ^[ The Arians went on to maintain that to suppose a 
 true Son, was to think of God irreverently, as imply- 
 ing division, change, &c. The Catholics replied that 
 the notion of materiality was quite as foreign from 
 
 D 2
 
 36 THE ARIANS. 
 
 the Divine Essence as time, and as a Divine Sonship 
 could be eternal, in like manner it implied neither 
 composition nor development, av ft/Befit) /to<?, r rrept,/3o\.r) or 
 
 51 The Arians, moreover, argued in behalf of their 
 characteristic tenet from the inferiority necessarily 
 involved in the very idea of a Son. But since He was 
 distinct from His Father, and inferior, He was not God ; 
 and, if not God, then created, even though a Son. Son- 
 ship was a mere quality or characteristic bestowed upon 
 a creature. The Catholics, in answer, denied that a son 
 was in his nature inferior to his father ; just the reverse ; 
 and the question here simply was about our Lord's 
 nature, whether it was divine, whether He was of one, 
 of the same, nature with the Father. 
 
 51 Though the Arians would not allow to Catholics 
 that our Lord was Son by nature, and maintained that the 
 word implied a beginning of existence, they were unwilling 
 to say that He was Son merely in the sense in which we 
 are sons, though, as Athan. contends, they necessarily 
 tended to this conclusion, as soon as they receded from 
 the Catholic view. Thus Arius said that He was a 
 creature, "but not as one of the creatures." Orat. 
 ii. 19. Valens at Ariminum said the same. Jerom. 
 adv. Lucifer. 18. Hilary says, that, not daring directly 
 to deny that He was God, the Arians merely asked 
 " whether He was a Son." De Trin. viii. 3. 
 
 If If once they could be allowed to deny our Lord's 
 proper divinity, they cared not what high titles they 
 heaped upon Him in order to cloke over their heresy, 
 and to calm the indignation and alarm which it roused ;
 
 THE ARIANS. 37 
 
 nay, in the case of many of the Semi-Arians, to hide 
 the logical consequences of their misbelief from them- 
 selves. They did not like to call our Lord barely a 
 creature ; certainly the political party did not, who 
 had to carry the Emperor with them, and, if possible, 
 the laity. Any how, in their preaching He was the 
 first of creatures ; more than a creature, because a son, 
 though they could not say what was meant by a son, 
 as distinct from a creature : and so far they did in fact 
 confess a mystery ; that is, the Semi-Arians, such as 
 Eusebius, as shown in a passage quoted in art. Son; 
 though Arius and Arians proper, and the Anomceans, 
 who spoke out, and had no fear of the Imperial Court, 
 avowed their belief that our Lord, like other creatures, 
 was capable of falling. However, as represented by 
 their Councils and Creeds, they readily called Him " a 
 creature not as other creatures, an offspring not as other 
 offsprings/' the primeval and sole work of God, the 
 Creator, and created in order to create, the one Mediator, 
 the one Priest, God of the world, Image of the Most 
 Perfect, the Mystical Word and Wisdom of the 
 Highest, and, as expressive of all this, the Only 
 begotten. 
 
 ^f " What use is it," says Athan., " to pretend that He 
 is a creature and not a creature ? for though ye shall say, 
 Not as ' one of the creatures,' I will prove this sophism 
 of yours to be a poor one. For still ye pronounce Him 
 to be one of the creatures ; and whatever a man might 
 say of the other creatures, such ye hold concerning the 
 Son. For is any one of the creatures just what another 
 is, that ye should predicate this of the Son as some
 
 38 THE ARIANS. 
 
 prerogative ?" Orat. ii. 19. And so S. Ambrose, " Quae 
 enim creatura non sicut alia creatura non est ? Homo non 
 ut Angelus, terra non lit coslum." De Fid. i. n. 130 ; 
 and a similar passage in Nyss. contr. Eun. iii. p. ] 32, 3. 
 
 ^[ 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." ovopara povov, 
 Deer. 16. " The title of Image too is not a token of a 
 similar substance, but tlianame only/' Orat. i. 21 ; and 
 so ii. 38, where rots ovopacn, is synonymous with KUT 
 eTTivoiav, as Sent. D. 22, vid. also ibid. 39; Orat. 
 iii. 11, 18; "not named Son, but ever Son/' iv. 
 24, fin.; Ep. Mg. 16. "We call Him so, and mean 
 truly what we say ; they say it, but do not confess it." 
 Chrysost. in Act. Horn. 33. 4. Vid. also vodois wcnrep 
 bvona<n, Cyril, de Trin. ii. p. 418. "Non hsec nuda 
 nomina," Ambros. de Fid. i. 17. Yet, though the 
 Arians denied the reality of the Sonship, so it was that 
 since Sabellianism went beyond them, as denying the 
 divine Sonship in any sense, Orat. iv. 2, they were able 
 to profess that they believed that our Lord was " true 
 Son." E.g., this is professed by Arius, Syn. 16; by 
 Euseb. in Marc. pp. 19, 35, 161 ; by Asterius, 
 Orat. ii. 37; by Palladius and Secundianus in the 
 Council of Aquileia ap. Ambros. Opp. t. 2, p. 791 (ed. 
 Bened.) ; by Maximinus ap. August, contr. Max. i. 6. 
 As to their sense of " real," it was no more than the 
 sense in which Athan. uses the word of us, when he 
 says vioTTOiv/jLeQa aX?7$<w<y. 
 
 ^[ When the Nicene controversialists maintained, on
 
 THE ARIANS. 39 
 
 the contrary, that He was "true God" because He was 
 " of true God," as the Creed speaks (vid. art. Son] ; of 
 one nature with God as the offspring of man is of one 
 nature with man, and of one essence as well as of one 
 nature, because God is numerically one, the Arians 
 in answer denied that He was true God by reason of 
 His being true Son. They said that in order to be a true 
 Son it was sufficient to partake of the Father's nature, 
 that is, to have a certain portion of divinity, p.erovaia ; 
 this all holy beings had, and without it they could not 
 be holy ; of this S. Peter speaks ; but, as this partici- 
 pation of the divine nature does not make holy beings 
 who possess it God, neither is the Son God, though 
 He be Son Kvpta)<$ Kai akrjO&s. And it must be granted 
 that the words KvpLws and d\r)6co$ are applied by the 
 Fathers themselves to the sonship conveyed in the 
 gifts of regeneration and sanctification. (Arts. Father 
 and Grace.) 
 
 ^[ The Catholics would reply that it was not a question 
 of the use of terms : any how, to have a /Aeroucria of 
 divinity, as creatures have, is not to have the divine 
 ovala, as our Lord has. No /^erovaia is a proper 
 gennesis. "When God is wholly partaken, this/' says 
 Athanasius, and we may add, this only, " is equivalent 
 to saying He begets." In this sense Augustine says, 
 " ' As the Father has life in Himself, so hath He given 
 also to the Son to have life in Himself/ not by partici- 
 pating, but in Himself. For we men have not life in our- 
 selves, but in our God. But that Father, who has life 
 in Himself, begat a Son such, as to have life in 
 Himself, not to become partaker of life, but to be
 
 40 THE ARIANS. 
 
 Himself life ; and of that life to make us partakers." 
 Serin. 127, de Verb. Evang. 9. It was plain, then, that, 
 though the Arians professed to accept the word " Son " 
 in its first and true sense, they did not understand it in 
 its literal fulness, but in only a portion or aspect of its 
 true sense, that is, figuratively. 
 
 ^[ Hence it stands in the Nicene Creed, " from the 
 Father, that is, from the substance of the Father." Vid. 
 Eusebius's Letter (Deer. App.). According to the received 
 doctrine of the Church, all rational beings, and in one 
 sense all beings whatever, are " from God," over and 
 above the fact of their creation ; and of this truth the 
 Eusebians made use to deny our Lord's proper divinity. 
 Athan. lays down elsewhere that nothing continues in 
 consistence and life, except from a participation of 
 the Word, which is to be considered a gift from Him, 
 additional to that of creation, and separable in idea from 
 it. Vid. art. Grace. Thus he says that "the all-powerful 
 and oil -perfect, Holy Word of the Father, pervading 
 all things, and developing everywhere His power, and 
 illuminating all things visible and invisible, gathers 
 them within Himself and knits them in one, leaving 
 nothing destitute of His power, but quickening and 
 preserving all things and through all, and each by 
 itself, and the whole altogether." Contr. Gent. 42. 
 Again, " God not only made us of nothing, but also 
 vouchsafed to us a life according to God, by the grace of 
 the Word. But men, turning from things eternal to the 
 things of corruption at the devil's counsel, have brought 
 on themselves the corruption of death, who were, as I 
 said, by nature corrupted, but by the grace of the parti-
 
 THE ARIANS. 41 
 
 cipation (/itTouertav) of the Word, would have escaped 
 their natural state, had they remained good." Incarn. 
 5. Man thus considered is, in his first estate, a son of 
 God and born of God, or, to use the term which occurs 
 so frequently in the Arian controversy, in the number, 
 not only of the creatures, but of things generate, yevrjTa. 
 This was the sense in which the Arians said that our 
 Lord was Son of God; whereas, as Athan. says, "things 
 generate, being works (B^^iovpyijfiara,) cannot be called 
 generate, except so far as, after their making, they par- 
 take of the begotten 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." 
 Orat. i. 56. The question then was, as to the distinction 
 of the Son's divine generation over that of holy men ; 
 and the Catholics answered that He was e' ovaCas, from 
 the substance of God; not by participation of grace, 
 not by resemblance, not in any limited sense, but really 
 and simply from Him, and therefore by an internal 
 divine act. Vid. Deer. 22. 
 
 ^[ 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 ; 
 Epiph. Haer. 69. 15. Or rather they took some words 
 of Scripture, and made their own deductions from 
 them ; viz. " Son," " made," " exalted," &c. " Making 
 their private impiety as if a rule, they misinterpret 
 all the divine oracles by it." Orat. i. 52. Vid. 
 also Epiph. Hser. 76. 5, fin. Hence we hear so much 
 of their 6pv\\rjral (fxoval, Xeet9, CTT?;, pvjra, sayings 
 in general circulation, which were commonly founded
 
 42 THE ARIANS. 
 
 on some particular text ; e. g. Orat. i. 22, " amply 
 providing themselves with words of craft, they used to 
 go about, &c." TrepirjpxovTo. Vid. vol. i. p. 29, note. 
 Also avw Kal KCITCO Trepiffrepovres, De Deer. 13 ; 
 T&5 pijrta TeOpvXX.r/Kaai, rd iravra^ov, Orat. ii. 18 ; 
 TO iro\v0pv\Xr)Tov cro<ioyia, Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 
 14 ; rrjv TroXvdpvX^ijrov Bia\KTiicr}v, Nyssen contr. 
 Eun. iii. p. 125 ; Trjv 6pv\\ovp.evr]v diropporiv, Cyril. 
 Dial. iv. p. 505 ; TTJV iroKv6pv\\^rov (pcovrjv, Socr. ii. 43. 
 
 ^[Eusebius's letter to Euphration, mentioned Syn. 
 17, illustrates their sharp and shallow logic " If they 
 coexist, how shall the Father be Father and the Son 
 Son ? or how the One first, the Other second ? and the 
 One ingenerate and the Other generate?" Acta Cone. 
 7, p. 1015, Ed. Yen. 1729. Hence Arius, in his Letter 
 to Eusebius Nic., complains that Alexander says, ael 6 
 0eo9, ael 6 vio<$' a/Lta irarrjp, apa vios. Theod. Hist, 
 i. 4. "'Then their profaneness goes farther/ says 
 Athan ; Orat. i. 14. ' If there never was, when 
 the Son was not/ say they, ' but He is eternal, and co- 
 exists with the Father, call Him no more the Father's 
 Son, but brother.' '' As the Arians here object that the 
 First and Second Persons of the Holy Trinity are d8e\<f>ol, 
 so did they say the same in the course of the controversy 
 of the Second and Third. Vid. Athan. Serap. i. 15; iv. 2. 
 
 ^f " They contend that the Son and the Father are not 
 in such wise One or Like as the Church preaches, but 
 . . . since what the Father wills, the Son wills also, 
 in all respects concordant, . . . therefore it is that He 
 and the Father are one/' Orat. iii. & 10. 
 
 
 
 ^[ " The Arians reply, ' So are the Son and the Father
 
 THE ARIANS. 43 
 
 One, and so is the Father in the Son, and the Son in 
 the Father, as we too may become one in Him.' " Orat. 
 iii 17. 
 
 ^[ In the Arian Creed of Potamius, Bishop of Lisbon, 
 our Lord is said " hominem suscepisse per quern 
 compassus eat," which seems to imply that He had no 
 soul distinct from His Divinity. " Non passibilis Deus 
 Spiritus," answers Phoebadius, " licet in homine suo 
 passus." The Sardican confession also seems to impute 
 this heresy to the Arian s. Yid. supr. vol. i. note, p. 116, 
 and infr. art. Euscbius, fin. 
 
 ^f They did not admit into their theology the notion of 
 mystery. In vain might Catholics urge the ne sutor ultra 
 crepidam. It was useless to urge upon them that they 
 were reasoning about matters upon which they had no 
 experimental knowledge ; that we had no means of 
 determining whether or how a spiritual being, really 
 trine, could be numerically one, and therefore can only 
 reason by means of our conceptions, and as if nothing 
 were a fact which was inconceivable. It is a matter of 
 faith that Father and Son are one, and reason does not 
 therefore contradict it, because experience does not show 
 us how to conceive of it. To us, poor creatures of a day, 
 who are but just now born out of nothing, and have 
 everything to learn even as regards human knowledge, 
 that such truths are incomprehensible to us, is no 
 wonder. 
 
 ^[ The Anomoean Arians, who arose latest and went 
 farthest, had no scruple in answering this considera- 
 tion by denying that God was incomprehensible. Arius 
 indeed says in his Thalia that the Son cannot know
 
 44 THE ARIANS. 
 
 the Father by comprehension, Kara KaraXir^riv : " for 
 that which has origin, to conceive how the TJnoriginate 
 is, is impossible/' Syn. 15 ; but on the other hand the 
 doctrine of the Anomceans, who in most points agreed 
 with Arius, was, that all men could know God as He 
 knows Himself ; according to Socrates, who says, " Not 
 to seem to be slandering, listen to Eunomius himself, 
 what words he dares to use in sophistry concerning God ; 
 they run thus : ' God knows not of His own substance 
 more than we do ; nor is it known to Him more, to us 
 less ; but whatsoever we may know of it, that He too 
 knows ; and what again He, that you will find without 
 any difference in us/ " Hist. iv. 7. 
 
 5[ KaraA/qi/ri? was originally a Stoical word, and even 
 when the act was perfect, it was considered attribu- 
 table only to an imperfect being. For it is used in 
 contrast to the Platonic doctrine of tSeat, 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 prius in sensu/' In this sense it is also used 
 by the Fathers, to mean real and certain knowledge 
 after inquiry, though it is also ascribed to Almighty 
 God. As to the position of Arius, since we are told in 
 Scripture that none " knoweth the things of a man 
 save the spirit of man which is in him," if KardXij-^n^ 
 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, that is, 
 to deny the doctrine of the Trep^coptja-i^, vid. in the 
 Thalia, Syn. 15, the word aveTrLfJUKrot, ; or to maintain 
 that He was a distinct, and therefore a created, being.
 
 THE ARIANS. 45 
 
 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 13, 32, "If the Son is in the Father, and the 
 Father in the Son, and the Father knows the day 
 and the hour, it is plain that the Son too, being in the 
 Father, and knowing the things in the Father, Himself 
 also knows the day and the hour." Orat. iii. 44, vid. 
 also Matt. xi. 27. 
 
 4. Historical Course of Arianism. 
 
 There seems to have been a remarkable anticipation 
 of this heresy in the century before its rise, as is re- 
 corded by its condemnation by Pope Dionysius. Vid. 
 supr. vol. i. pp. 45 47. It seems then to have arisen, and 
 to have incurred his vigilant protest, as the issue of 
 a dangerous opinion, which was looked at with favour 
 in some Catholic quarters, founded apparently upon the 
 Stoic doctrine of the Acryo9 evSidBeros and TrpotyopiKos, 
 viz., that the Divine, Eternal, Personal Word, was born 
 intoSonship for, and not until, the creation of the universe 
 (vid. Orat. 4, and " Theological Tracts ") . The advocates 
 of this opinion doubtless held the eternity a parte ante 
 of the One Word and Son, since they held that He 
 belonged to, and was an offspring of the Divine Nature ; 
 that is, was consubstantial with the Eternal God ; but, by 
 saying that our Lord existed from everlasting, as the 
 Word, not as the Son, they raised the question of the
 
 46 THE ARIANS. 
 
 identity of the Word and the Son, which, if answered 
 negatively, as it was in certain heretical sects, led to 
 the further question whether personality did not more 
 naturally attach to the idea of a Son than to the idea 
 of a Word. And thus we are brought to Arianism. 
 
 ^f When this conclusion was reached by a number of 
 men sufficient in position and influence to constitute a 
 party, the first Ecumenical Council was held in A.D. 325 
 at Nicsea for its condemnation. 
 
 The Nicene Fathers, in the first place, defined the 
 proper divinity of the Son of God, introducing into 
 their creed the formulas e ovaia<; and 6/uoouo-io?, as 
 tests of orthodoxy, and next they anathematized the 
 heretical propositions : and this with the ready adhesion 
 of Constantine. He died in 337. 
 
 ^[ During his later years he had softened towards the 
 Arians, and on his death they gained his son Constan- 
 tius, who tyrannized over Christendom, persecuting the 
 orthodox Bishops, and especially Athanasius, till his 
 immature death in 361. 
 
 ^[ The Arians regained political power on the acces- 
 sion of Valens, in 364, who renewed the persecutions 
 of Constantius. 
 
 If They came to an end, as far as regards any 
 influence on the State, upon the accession of Theo- 
 dosius and the Second Ecumenical Council, 381. 
 
 In the controversies and troubles they occasioned, 
 while the orthodox formulas were, as has been said, the 
 e ov<ria$ and the o^oouo-to?, viz. that our Lord was 
 from and in the Divine Essence, the Semi-Arians 
 maintained the 6/u,oiovcriov, or that He was like the
 
 THE ARIANS. 47 
 
 Divine Essence ; the political and worldly party of 
 Eueebius, Acacius, and Eudoxius, professed vaguely the 
 ofj,oiov Kara Trdvra, or that our Lord was like God in 
 all things ; and the fanatical Anomosans gained their 
 name because they denied any likeness in Him to God 
 at all.
 
 48 ASTERIUS. 
 
 ASTERIUS. 
 
 THIS writer, already noticed in art. Arian Leaders, 
 seems according to Athan. to have been hired to write 
 upon the Arian side, and argued on the hypothesis of 
 Semi-Arianism. He agrees very much in doctrine 
 with Eusebius, and in moderation of language, judging 
 by the extracts which Athan. has preserved. (Vid. also 
 Epiph. Efcer. 72, 6.) 
 
 f[ Like Eusebius, he held (Orat. ii. 24) that the God 
 of all created His Son as an instrument or organ, or 
 uTTou/0705 of creation, by reason of the necessary inca- 
 pacity in the creature, as such, to endure the force 
 and immediate presence of a Divine Hand (vid. art. 
 a/cparo?), which, while It created, would have annihilated. 
 (Euseb. Demonstr. iv. 4; Eccl. Th. i. 8, 13; Prsep. 
 vii. 15; Sabell. p. 9.) 
 
 ^[ But, says Athanasius, it is contrary to all our 
 notions of religion to suppose God is not sufficient for 
 Himself, and cannot create, enlighten, address, and 
 unite Himself to His creatures immediately. "The 
 Word has with His Father the oneness individual of God- 
 head. Else, why does the Father through Him create, 
 and in Him reveal Himself to whom He will, &c. . . . 
 If they say that the Father is not all-sufficient, their 
 answer is impious." Orat. ii. 41. And such an 
 answer seems to be implied in saying that the Son
 
 ASTERIUS. 49 
 
 was created for creation, illumination, &c., &c. ; vid. 
 art. Mediation. 
 
 Tf He considered that our Lord was taught to create, 
 and without teaching could not by His mere nature 
 have acquired the skill. " Though He is a creature, 
 and has been brought into being," Asterius writes, 
 " yet as from Master and Artificer has He learned to 
 frame things, and thus has ministered to God who 
 taught Him," Orat. ii. 28, vid. art. Eusebius, who 
 speaks of the Word in the poetical tone of Platonism. 
 
 ^f Also he distinguishes, after the manner of the 
 Semi-Arians, between the yewr/ritcr) and the BrjfMiovpjt/cr] 
 Svvafiis. Again, the illustration of the Sun (Syn. 
 19) is another point of agreement with Eusebius; 
 vid. Demonstr. iv. 5. 
 
 ^f And he, like Eusebius, is convicted of Arianism 
 beyond mistake, in whatever words he might cloke 
 his heresy, by his rejection of the doctrine of the 
 Trepixwprjcns. ft He is in the Father/' he says, " and the 
 Father again in Him, because neither the word on 
 which He is discoursing is His own but the Father's, 
 nor the works, but the Father's who gave Him the 
 power." Orat. iii. 2. 
 
 He defined the dyevwiiTOs, or " Ingenerate, to mean 
 that which never came into being, but was always " 
 (Orat. i. 30); and then he would argue, that God being 
 ayevvTiTos, and a Son yevwjrfa, our Lord could not be 
 God. 
 
 While, with the other Arinns, he introduced philo- 
 sophical terms into theology, he with them explained 
 away Scripture. They were accustomed to interpret 
 
 VOL. IT. E
 
 50 ASTERTUS. 
 
 our Lord's titles, " Son," " Word," " Power/' by the 
 secondary senses of such terms, as they belong to us, 
 God's children by adoption ; and so Asterius, perhaps 
 flippantly, answered such arguments, as " Christ God's 
 Power and Wisdom," by objecting that the locust was 
 called by the prophet " God's great power." Syn. 19. 
 He argues, in behalf of our Lord's gennesis following 
 upon an act of Divine counsel and will, that we must 
 determine the point by inquiring whether it is more 
 worthy of God to act with deliberation or not. Now 
 the Creator acted with such counsel and will in the 
 work of creation ; therefore so to act is most worthy 
 of Him ; it follows that will should precede the gennesis 
 also. But in that case the Son is posterior to the Father.
 
 ATHA.NASIUS. 51 
 
 ATHANASIUS. 
 
 THIS renowned Father is in ecclesiastical history the 
 special doctor of the sacred truth which Arius denied, 
 bringing it out into shape and system so fully and 
 luminously that he may be said to have exhausted his 
 subject, as far as it lies open to the human intellect. 
 But, besides this, writing as a controversialist, not 
 primarily as a priest and teacher, he accompanies his 
 exposition of doctrine with manifestations of character 
 which are of great interest and value. Here some of 
 the more prominent of these traits shall be set down, as 
 they are seen in various of his Treatises. 
 
 1. The fundamental idea with which he starts in the 
 controversy is a deep sense of the authority of Tradition, 
 which he considers to have a definitive jurisdiction 
 even in the interpretation of Scripture, though at the 
 same time he seems to consider that Scripture, thus 
 interpreted, is a document of final appeal in inquiry 
 and in disputation. Hence, in his view of religion, is 
 the magnitude of the evil which he is combating, and 
 which exists prior to that extreme aggravation of it 
 (about which no Catholic can doubt) involved in the 
 characteristic tenet of Arianism itself. According to 
 him, opposition to the witness of the Church, separation 
 from its communion, private judgment overbearing the 
 authorized catechetical teaching, the fact of a deno- 
 
 E 2
 
 52 ATHANASIL'S. 
 
 rnination, as men now speak, this is a self-condemnation ; 
 and the heretical tenet, whatever it may happen to be, 
 which is its formal life, is a spiritual poison and nothing 
 else ; the sowing of the evil one upon the good seed, in 
 whatever age and place it is found ; and he applies to 
 all separatists the Apostle's words, " They went out from 
 us, for they were not of us." Accordingly, speaking of 
 one Rhetorius, an Egyptian, who, as S. Austin tells 
 us, taught that " all heresies were in the right path 
 and spoke truth," he says that " the irnpiety of such 
 doctrine is frightful to mention." Apoll. i. 6. 
 
 This is the explanation of the fierceness of his 
 language, when speaking of the Arians ; they were 
 simply, as Elymas, " full of all guile and of all deceit, 
 children of the devil, enemies of all justice," deo/^d^oi, 
 by court influence, by violent persecution, by sophistry, 
 seducing, unsettling, perverting, the people of God. 
 
 2. It was not his way to be fierce, as a matter of 
 course, with those who opposed him ; his treatment of 
 the Semi- Arians is a proof of this. Eusebius of 
 Csesarea indeed he did not favour, for he discerned in 
 that eminent man what, alas, was genuine Arianism ; 
 and Eusebius's conduct towards him, and his partisan- 
 ship with the heretics, and his antagonism to the Nicene 
 Council, confirmed his judgment; but with the Semi- 
 Arian body, who rose up against the pure Arians, he was 
 very gentle, considering them, or afr least many of them, 
 of good promise, as the event proved them to be. He 
 calls some of them "brethren" and ayaTrrjrot (Syn. 
 41, 43), as Hilary calls them " Sanctissimi viri," 
 (Syn. 80, vid. art. Semi-Arianiam infr.) Nor is there
 
 ATHAXASIUS. 53 
 
 any violence in his treatment of Marcellus, Apollinaris, 
 Hosius, or Liberiua. Vid. art. 'AXijQela. 
 
 And so in the account he has left us of the death of 
 Arius (de Mort. Ar.), which he considers, and truly, as an 
 awful judgment of God, there is no triumph in his tone, 
 though he held him in holy horror ; not those fierce ex- 
 pressions, which certainly are to be found in the Ora- 
 tions. "I was not at Constantinople," he says, "when 
 he died, but Macarius the Presbyter was, and I heard the 
 account of it from him. Arius had been summoned by 
 the Emperor Constantino, through the interest of the 
 Eusebians, and, when he entered the presence, the 
 Emperor inquired of him, whether he held the faith of 
 the Catholic Church, and he declared upon oath that he 
 held the right faith. . . The Emperor dismissed him 
 saying, ' If thy faith be right, thou hast done well to 
 swear ; but if thy faith be impious, and thou hast 
 sworn, God judge thee according to thy oath.' When 
 he thus came from the presence of the Emperor, the 
 Eusebians, with their accustomed violence, desired to 
 bring him into the Church ; but Alexander the Bishop 
 .... was greatly distressed, and, entering into the 
 Church, he stretched forth his hands to God, aud 
 bewailed himself; and, casting himself upon his face 
 in the chancel, he prayed upon the pavement. Maca- 
 rius also was present and prayed with him, and heard 
 his words. And he sought these two things, saying, 
 ' If Arius is brought to communion to-morrow, let me 
 Thy servant depart, .... but, if Thou wilt spare 
 Thy Church . . . take off Arius, lest the heresy may 
 seem to enter with him ; . .A wonderful and extra-
 
 54 ATHANASIUS. 
 
 ordinary circumstance took place. While the Eusebians 
 threatened, the Bishop prayed ; but Arius, who had 
 great confidence in the Eusebians, and talked very 
 wildly, seized by indisposition withdrew, and suddenly, 
 in the language of Scripture, falling headlong, burst 
 asunder in the midst, and immediately expired as he lay, 
 and was deprived both of communion and of his life 
 together." Then he adds, "Such was the end of 
 Arius; and the Eusebians, overwhelmed with shame, 
 buried their accomplice, while the blessed Alexander, 
 amid the rejoicing of the Church, celebrated the Synaxis 
 with piety and orthodoxy, praying with all the brethren 
 and greatly glorifying God, not as exulting in his 
 death (God forbid), for it is appointed unto all men once 
 to die, but . . . that the Lord Himself judged between 
 the threats of the Eusebians and the prayer of Alexander, 
 and condemned the Arian heresy." 
 
 4. His language, in speaking of Constantius, gives op- 
 portunity for more words. Up to the year 356, Athana- 
 sius had treated Constantius as a member of the Church ; 
 but at that date the Eusebian or Court party aban- 
 doned the Semi-Arians for the Anomoeans. George 
 of Cappadocia was placed as Bishop in Alexandria, 
 Athanasius was driven into the desert, S. Hilary and 
 other Western Bishops were sent into banishment. 
 Hosius was persecuted into signing an Arian confession, 
 and Pope Liberius into communicating with the Arians. 
 Upon this Athanasius changed his tone and considered 
 that he had to deal with an Antichrist. In his Apol. 
 contr. Arian. init. (A.D. 350), ad Ep. ^Eg. 5 (356), 
 and his Apol. ad Constant, passim. (356), he calls the
 
 ATHANASIUS. 55 
 
 Emperor most pious, religious, &c. At the end of the 
 last-mentioned work, 27, the news comes to him, 
 while in exile, of the persecution of the Western 
 Bishops and the measures against himself. He still in 
 the peroration calls Constantius " blessed and divinely 
 favoured Augustus," and urges on him that he is a 
 " Christian Emperor, (f)i\6xpicrTo$." In the works 
 which follow, Apol. de fuga, 26 (357), he calls him 
 an heretic; and Hist. Arian. 45, &c. (358), speaking 
 with indignation of the treatment of Hosius, &c., he 
 calls him "Ahab," " Belshazzar," "Saul," "Anti- 
 christ." The passage at the end of the Apol. contr. 
 Arian., in which he speaks of the " much violence and 
 tyrannical power of Constantius," is an addition of 
 Athan.'s at a later date. Vid. Montfaucon's note on 88, 
 fin. This is worth mentioning, as it shows the unfair- 
 ness of the following passage from Gibbon, ch. xxi. 
 note 116. "As Athanasius dispersed secret invectives 
 against Constantius, see the Epistle to the monks " [i. e. 
 Hist. Arian. ad Monach. A.D. 358], "at the same time 
 that he assured him of his profound respect, we might 
 distrust the professions of the Archbishop, torn. i. 
 p. 677 " [i. e. apparently Apol. ad Const. A.D. 356] . 
 Again, in a later part of the chapter. " In his public 
 Apologies, which he addressed to the Emperor himself, 
 he sometimes affected the praise of moderation ; whilst 
 at the same time in secret and vehement invectives he 
 exposed Constantius as a weak and wicked prince, the 
 executioner of his family, the tyrant of the republic, 
 and the Antichrist of the Church." He offers no proof 
 of this assertion. It may be added that S. Greg. Naz.
 
 56 ATHANASttUS. 
 
 praises Constantius, but it is in contrast to Julian. 
 Orat. 4. 3, and 5. 6. And S. Ambrose, but it is for his 
 enmity to paganism. Ep. i. 18, n. 32. 
 
 5. It is the same prudent, temperate spirit and practical 
 good sense, which leads Athanasius, though the prime 
 champion of the Nicene Homoiision, to be so loth to use 
 that formula, much less abruptly to force it upon his 
 adversaries in the first instance, and to content himself 
 with urging and inculcating our Lord's Divinity in 
 other language and by casual explanations, when pre- 
 judice or party-spirit made it difficult to get a hearing 
 for the terms which the Church had determined. 
 Hence in his Three Orations he hardly names the 
 Homoiision, though the doctrine which it upholds is 
 never out of his thoughts. He accepted the Semi- 
 Arian Homceusion, though he is so often represented by 
 the shallow ignorance of modern times to have waged 
 war with other theologians whose views did not differ 
 from his own except by a single letter. " Those," he 
 says, " who accept everything else that was determined 
 at Nicsea, and quarrel only with the Homoiision, must 
 not be received as enemies, nor do we here attack them 
 as Ariomaniacs, nor as opposers of the Fathers, but we 
 discuss the matter with them, as brothers with brothers, 
 who mean what we 1 mean, and dispute only about the 
 word/' Syn. 41. (Arim. n. 47.) Vid. arts, o/ioio?, 
 Semi-Arians, &c. 
 
 ^f 6. It arises from the same temper of mind that he is 
 so self-distrustful and subdued in his comments on Scrip- 
 ture and his controversial answers; he, the foremost 
 doctor of the Divine Sonship, being the most modest as
 
 ATHANASIUS. 57 
 
 well as the most authoritative of teachers. Thus, 
 
 11 They had best have been silent," i.e. in so sacred a 
 matter, he says, " but since it is otherwise, after 
 many prayers that God would be gracious to us, thus 
 we might ask them in turn," &c., Orat. i. 25. (Disc. 
 n. 39.) " Against their profaneness I wish to urge a 
 further question, bold indeed, but with a religious 
 intent, be propitious, Lord ! " Orat. iii. 63. (Disc. 
 n. 50.) " The unwearied habits of the religious man 
 is to worship the All ( rb trav) in silence, and to hymn 
 God his benefactor with thankful cries .... but 
 since &c., Apoll. i. init. 
 
 1[ And especially in his letter to the Monks, " I 
 thought it needful to represent to your piety what 
 pains the writing of these things has cost me, in order 
 that you may understand thereby how truty the Blessed 
 Apostle has said, 0, the depth, &c., and may kindly bear 
 with a weak man, such as I am by nature. For the 
 more I desired to write and endeavoured to force myself 
 to understand the Divinity of the Word, so much the 
 more did the knowledge thereof withdraw itself from 
 me, and in proportion as I thought that I apprehended 
 it, in so much I perceived myself to fail of doing so. 
 Moreover, I was also unable to express in writing even 
 what I seemed to myself to understand, and that which 
 I wrote was unequal to the imperfect shadow of the 
 truth which existed in my conceptions/' ad Monach. i. 
 Vid. also Serap. i. 15 17, 20 ; ii. init., iv. 8, 14 ; Epict. 
 
 12 fin. ; Max. init. ; Ep. ^g. 11 fin. Once more : " It 
 is not safe for the writings of an individual to be pub- 
 lished, especially if they relate to the highest and chief
 
 58 ATHANASIUS. 
 
 doctrines, lest what is imperfectly expressed, through 
 infirmity or the obscurity of language, do hurt to the 
 reader/' &c. Mort. Ar. 5. 
 
 ^f He set the example of modesty to others. Vid. Basil, 
 in Eunom. ii. 17 ; Didym. Trin. iii. 3, p. 341 ; Ephr. 
 Syr. adv. Haer. Serin. 55 init. (t. 2, p. 557) ; Facund. 
 Tr. Cap. iii. 3 init. 
 
 ^[ 7. And his repetitions of statements in these Trea- 
 tises are not without a place in the evidences of his re- 
 ligious caution. Often indeed they must be accounted 
 purely accidental, arising from forgetfulness, as he 
 wandered or travelled about, what it was that he had 
 written the day before ; often, too, they may have 
 subserved the purpose of catechetical instruction ; but 
 sometimes they would seem to be owing to his anxiety 
 to confine himself to words which had stood the test of 
 time or of readers, or at least were existing forms which 
 he could improve upon or at least reconsider and ap- 
 peal to, as after his time is instanced in S. Leo. 
 
 ^[ 8. As to his acquirements, they were considerable. 
 Gregory only says that he had a knowledge r&v eytcvic- 
 Xlcov, but Sulpitius speaks of him as a jurisconsult (vid. 
 philosophy and ovo-ia) . His earliest works, written when 
 perhaps he was not more than twenty-one, give abun- 
 dant evidence of a liberal education. He had a know- 
 ledge of Homer and Plato, and his early style, though 
 it admits of pruning, is graceful and artistic. I cannot, 
 with Gibbon, talk of its " rude eloquence," though it 
 has not the refined and elaborate elegance of Basil. 
 And Gibbon grants that his writings are " clear, for- 
 cible, and persuasive/' Erasmus seems to prefer him, as
 
 ATHANASIUS. 59 
 
 a writer, to all the Fathers, and certainly, in my own 
 judgment, no one comes near him but Chrysostom and 
 Jerome. " Habebat," says Erasmus, "vere dotem illam, 
 quam Paulus in Episcopo putat esse praecipuam, TO 
 SiSaKTiKov ; adeo dilucidus est, acutus, sobrius, adtentus, 
 breviter omnibus modis ad docendum appositus. Nihil 
 habet durum, quod offenditin Tertulliano, nihil eTriSeite- 
 TIKOV, quod vidimus in Hieronymo, nihil operosum, quod 
 in Hilario, nihil laciniosum, quod est in Augustino, 
 atque etiam Chrysostomo, nihil Isocraticos numeros aut 
 Lysia3 compositionem redolens, quod est in Gregorio 
 Nazianzeno, sed totus est in explicanda re." ap. Mont- 
 faucon, t. 1. p. xxi. ed. Patav. 
 
 Photius's praise of Athan/s style and matter is quoted 
 supr. in the Notice prefixed to the Orations.
 
 60 THE VICARIOUS ATONEMENT. 
 
 THE VICARIOUS ATONEMENT. 
 
 ^[ " FORMERLY the world, as guilty, was under judg- 
 ment from the Law ; but now the Word has taken on 
 Himself the judgment, and, having suffered in the 
 body for all, has bestowed salvation on all." Orat. 
 i. 60. 
 
 ^[ " When the Father willed that ransom should be 
 paid for all, and to all grace should be given, then truly 
 the Word . . . did take earthly flesh . . . that, as a 
 high priest . . . He might offer Himself to the Father 
 and cleanse us all from sins in His own blood." Orat. 
 ii. 7. 
 
 *|[ The perfect Word of God puts around Him an 
 imperfect body, and is said to be created for the 
 creatures, that, paying the debt in our stead (avQ 1 rj/Awv 
 rrjv o(f)i\,r)v airoSiSovs) , He might by Himself perfect 
 what was wanting in man. Now immortality was 
 wanting to him, and the way to paradise." Orat. 
 ii. 66. 
 
 ^[ " How, were the Word a creature, had He power 
 to undo God's sentence, and to remit sin ? " Orat. ii. 
 67. Our Lord's death is \vrpov TrdvTtov, Incarn. Y. D. 
 25, et passim ; \vrpov Kadapaiov, Naz. Orat. 30, 20 fin. 
 
 ^[ " Therefore was He made man, that what was as 
 though given to Him, might be transferred to us ; for 
 a mere man had not merited this, nor had the Word
 
 THE VICARIOUS ATONEMENT. 61 
 
 Himself needed it. He was united therefore to us, &c." 
 Orat. iv. 6. Vid. also iii. 33 init. and In Illud 
 Omnia, 2 fin. 
 
 ^[ " There was need He should be both man and God ; 
 for unless He were man, He could not be killed ; unless 
 He were God, He would have been thought, not, un- 
 willing to be what He could, but unable to do what He 
 would." August. Trin. xiii. 18. " Since Israel could 
 become sold under sin, he could not redeem himself 
 from iniquities. He only could redeem, who could not 
 sell Himself, who did no sin ; He is the redeemer from 
 sin." Id. in Psalm. 129, n. 12. " In this common 
 overthrow of all mankind, there was but one remedy, 
 the birth of some son of Adam, a stranger to the 
 original prevarication and innocent, to profit the rest 
 both by his pattern and his merit. Since natural 
 generation hindered this, . . the Lord of David became 
 his Son." Leon. Serin. 28, n. 3. " Seek neither a 
 ' brother ' for thy redemption, but one who surpasses 
 thy nature ; nor a mere ' man,' but a man who is God, 
 Jesus Christ, who alone is able to make propitiation for 
 us all ... One thing has been found sufficient for all 
 men at once, which was given as the price of ransom of 
 our soul, the holy and most precious blood of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, which He poured out for us all." Basil, in 
 Psalm 48, n. 4. " One had not been sufficient instead 
 of all, had it been simply a man ; but if He be under- 
 stood as God made man, and suffering in His own 
 flesh, the whole creation together is small compared to 
 Him, and the death of one fiW.h. is enough for the 
 ransom of all that is under heaven." Cyril, de rect.
 
 62 THE VICARIOUS ATONEMENT. 
 
 fid. p. 132. Vid. also Theod. Eran. iii. pp. 1968, &c. 
 Procl. Orat. i. p. 63 (ed. 1630); Vigil, contr. Eutych. 
 v. 9 fin. 15, &c. ; Greg. Moral, xxiv. init; Job. ap. 
 Phot. 222, p. 583. 
 
 51 Pardon, however, could have been bestowed with- 
 out an Atonement such as our Lord made, though not 
 renovation of nature. Vid. art. Incarnation.
 
 CATECHISING. 63 
 
 CATECHISING. 
 
 ATHANASIUS lays much stress on this practice, as 
 in fact supplying the evidence of Tradition as to the 
 doctrine which Arius blasphemed. 
 
 E.g. " Let them tell us, by what teacher or by what 
 tradition they have derived these notions concerning 
 the Saviour? " de Deer. 13 init. 
 
 " For who was ever yet a hearer of such a doctrine ? 
 or whence or from whom did the abettors and hire- 
 lings of the heresy gain it ? who thus expounded to 
 them when they were at school ? who told them, 
 ' Abandon the worship of the creation, and then draw 
 near and worship a creature and a work ? ' 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 ? 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 has 
 foretold, that in the latter times some shall depart from 
 the sound faith" &c. ? Orat. i. 8. 
 
 " Who is there, who when he heard, upon his first 
 catechisings, that God had a Son, and had made all 
 things in His proper Word, did not so understand it 
 in that sense which we now intend ? who, when the 
 vile Arian heresy began, but at once, on hearing its
 
 64 CATECHISING. 
 
 teachers, was startled, as if they taught strange 
 things ? " Orat. ii. 34. 
 
 1j Hence too Athan.'s phrases paQiav e&'Saoveey, de 
 Deer. 7, Orat. iii. 9, epcoTuvres epdvdavov, Orat. ii. 
 1, after S. Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 3. And so " What Moses 
 taught, that Abraham observed, that Noe and Enoch 
 acknowledged, &c.," de Deer. 5. Vid. art. Rule of 
 Faith.
 
 
 CATHOLIC: THE NAME AND THE CLAIM. 65 
 
 CATHOLIC : THE NAME AND THE CLAIM. 
 
 FOR the adoption into Christianity, and the sense and 
 force, of the word ' ' Catholic/' not a very obvious word, 
 we must refer to the Creed. The Articles of the Creed 
 are brief enunciations and specimens of some, and of 
 the chief, of the great mercies vouchsafed to man in the 
 Gospel. They are truths of pregnant significance, and 
 of direct practical bearing on Christian life and conduct. 
 Such, for instance, obviously is "one Baptism for the 
 remission of sins/' and " the resurrection of the body." 
 Such then must be our profession of " catholicity." And, 
 thus considered, the two, " the Catholic Church " and 
 "the Communion of Saints," certainly suggest an expla- 
 nation of each other ; the one introducing us to our asso- 
 ciates and patrons in heaven, and the other pointing out 
 to us where to find the true teaching and the means of 
 grace on earth. Indeed, what else can be the meaning 
 of insisting on the " One Holy Catholic Apostolic 
 Church ? does it not imply a contrast to other so-called 
 Churches ? Now this plain sense of the Article, this 
 its obvious or rather its only sense, is abundantly con- 
 firmed by such passages of the Fathers as the following, 
 taken in connexion and illustration of each other. 
 
 Thus, to begin with the title "Christian." Orat. i. 2, 3. 
 "Though the blessed Apostles have become our teachers, 
 and have ministered the Saviour's Gospel, yet not from 
 
 VOL. II. F
 
 66 CATHOLIC : THE NAME AND THE CLAIM. 
 
 them have we our title, but from Chris fc 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 be- 
 come." Also, " Let us become His disciples and learn to 
 live according to Christianity; for whoso is called by 
 other name beside 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 blas- 
 phemous 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. " They have a name from the author of 
 that most impious opinion, Simon, being called Simo- 
 nians." Iren. Haer. i. 23. " When men are called 
 Phrygians, or Novatians, or Valentinians, or Mar- 
 cionites, 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 Chris-- 
 tian, 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
 
 CATHOLIC : THE NAME AND THE CLAIM. 67 
 
 to the point, but, if we are so called for being all over 
 the world, what is there bad in this ? " Adamant. 
 Dial. 1, p. 809. " We never heard of Petrines, or 
 Paulines, or Bartholomeans, or Thaddeans, but from 
 the first there was one preaching of all the Apostles, 
 not preaching themselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord. 
 Wherefore also they all gave one name to the Church, 
 not their own, but that of their Lord Jesus Christ, 
 since they began to be called Christians first at 
 Antioch ; which is the sole Catholic Church, having 
 nought else but Christ's, being a Church of Christians, 
 not of Christs, but of Christians; He being one, they 
 from that one being called Christians. After this 
 Church and her preachers, all others are no longer of 
 the same character, making show by their own 
 epithets, Manichseans, and Simonians, and Valentinians, 
 and Ebionites." Epiph. Hser. 42, p. 366. "This is 
 the fearful thing, that they change the name of 
 Christians of the Holy Church, which hath no epithet 
 but the name of Christ alone, and of Christians, to be 
 called by the name of Audius/' &c. Ibid. 70, 15. Yid. 
 also Haer. 75, 6 fin. 
 
 ^| Having thus laid down the principle that the 
 name, given to a religious body, is a providential 
 or divine token, they go on to instance it in 
 the word " Catholic." " Since one might pro- 
 perly and truly say that there is a ' Church of 
 evil doers/ I mean the meetings of the here- 
 tics, the Marcionists, and Manichees, and the rest, 
 the faith hath delivered to thee by way of security 
 the Article, ' And in One Holy Catholic Church/ that 
 
 F 2
 
 68 CATHOLIC : THE NAME AND THE CLAIM. 
 
 thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings ; and ever 
 abide with the Holy Church Catholic, in which thou 
 wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in 
 any city, inquire not simply where the Lord's House 
 is, (for the sects of the profane also make an attempt 
 to call their own dens houses of the Lord,) nor merely 
 where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. 
 For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Body," &c. 
 Cyril Cat. xviii. 26. "Were I by chance to enter a 
 populous city, I should in this day find Marcionites, 
 Apollinarians, Cataphrygians, Novatians, and other 
 such, who called themselves Christian ; by what sur- 
 name should I recognize the congregation of my own 
 people, were it not called Catholic ? . . . . Certainly 
 that word ' Catholic ' is not borrowed from man, which 
 has survived through so many ages, nor as the sound 
 of Marcion or Apelles or Montanus, nor takes heretics 
 for its authors . . 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 Anti- 
 christ." Jerom. adv. Lucif. fin. 
 
 Tf Athan. seems to allude, Orat. i. 2, to Catholics 
 being called Athanasians ; supr., vol. i. p. 155, fin. 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 Homoiisians, not 
 other heretics call them so. But ye not only by Catholics
 
 CATHOLIC : THE NAME AND THE CLAIM. 69 
 
 but also &?/ 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 Homoiisians, as Dona- 
 tists 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 
 Manichaeus, to another Arius, to another some other 
 author of heresy ? for if we too have the name of any, 
 still it is not those who began a heresy, but our 
 superiors and governors of the Church. We have not 
 * teachers upon earth/ " &c. in Act. Ap. Horn. 33 fin. 
 
 ^[ Athan. says, that after Eusebius had taken up the 
 patronage of the heresy, he made no progress till he 
 had gained the Court, Hist. Arian. 66, showing that it 
 was an act of external power by which Arianism grew, 
 not an inward movement in the Church, which indeed 
 loudly protested against the Emperor's proceeding. 
 " If Bishops are to judge," he says, 52 supr., 
 " what has the Emperor to do with this matter ? if the 
 Emperor is to threaten, what need of men styled 
 Bishops ? where in the world was such a thing heard 
 of? where had the Church's judgment its force from 
 the Emperor, or his sentence was at all recognized ? " 
 Vid. art. Heretics. 
 
 " Many Councils have been before this, many judg- 
 ments of the Church, but neither the Fathers ever argued
 
 70 CATHOLIC : THE NAME AND THE CLAIM. 
 
 with the Emperor about them, nor the Emperor meddled 
 with the concerns of the Church. Paul the Apostle had 
 friends of Caesar's household, and in his Epistle he saluted 
 the Philippians in their name; but he took them not to 
 him as partners in his judgments. But now a new 
 spectacle, and this the discovery of the Arian heresy," 
 &c. 52. Again, "In what then is he behind Anti- 
 christ ? what more will he do when he comes ? or 
 rather, on his coming will he not find the way pre- 
 pared for him by Constantius unto his deceiving 
 without effort ? for he is claiming to transfer causes to 
 the court instead of the Churches, and presides at them 
 in person/* Hist. Arian. 76. And so also Hosius to 
 Constantius, " Cease, I charge thee, and remember that 
 thou art a mortal man. Fear the day of judgment ; 
 keep thyself clear against it. Interfere not with 
 things ecclesiastical, nor be the man to charge us in 
 a matter of the kind ; rather learn thou thyself from 
 us. God has put into thy hand the kingdom ; to us 
 He hath entrusted the things of the Church, and as 
 he who is traitorous to thy rule speaks against God 
 who has thus ordained, so fear thou, lest drawing to 
 thyself the things of the Church, thou fallest beneath 
 a great accusation. " ap. Athan. ibid. 44.
 
 CHAMELEONS. 71 
 
 CHAMELEONS. 
 
 THE Arians were ever shifting their ground or 
 changing their professions, in order to gain either the 
 favour of the State, or of local bishops, or of popula- 
 tions, or to perplex their opponents. Hence Athan. calls 
 them chameleons, as varying their colours according 
 to their company, Deer. 1, and Alexander, Socr. i. 6. 
 Cyril, however, compares them to " the leopard which 
 cannot change his spots/' Dial. ii. init. ; vid. also Naz. 
 Orat. 28, 2. Athan. says, " When confuted, they 
 are confused, and when questioned, they hesitate ; and 
 then they lose shame and betake themselves to eva- 
 sions." Deer. 1. "What wonder that they fight 
 against their fathers, when they fight against them- 
 selves ? " Syn. 37. " 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/' &c. Orat. ii. 40. He says, ./Eg. Ep. 
 6, that they treated creeds as yearly covenants, and as 
 State Edicts, Syn. 3, 4. He calls also the Meletians 
 chameleons, Hist. Ar. 79; indeed the Church alone 
 and her children are secure from change.
 
 72 THE COINHERE3CE. 
 
 THE COINHERENCE, 
 
 eircumincessio or coinherence of the 
 Divine Three with each other, is the test at once 
 against Arianism and Tritheism. Arius denies it 
 in his Thalia, avewi/MtKrol eavrols al uTrocrrao'et?. 
 It is the point of doctrine in which Eusebius so 
 seriously fails. Yid. art. Eusebius. When Gibbon 
 called this doctrine " perhaps the deepest and 
 darkest corner of the whole theological abyss," he 
 made as irrelevant and feeble a remark as could 
 fall from an able man, as if any Catholic pretended 
 that it was on any side of it comprehensible, and as 
 if this was not the very enunciation in which the in- 
 comprehensibility lies ; as we profess in the Creed, 
 "neque confundentes personas, neque substantiam 
 separantes." This doctrine is not the deepest part of 
 the whole, but it is the whole, other statements being 
 in fact this in other shapes. Each of the Three who 
 speak to us from heaven is simply, and in the full 
 sense of the word, God, yet there is but one God ; this 
 truth, as a statement, is stated most intelligibly when 
 we say the Father, San, and Holy Ghost are in each 
 other, which is the doctrine of the Trepi-^wpija-i^. 
 
 Tf " They next proceed/' says Athanasius, " to dis- 
 parage our Lord's words, I in the Father and the Father 
 in Me, saying, ' How can the One be contained in the
 
 THE COINHERENCE. 73 
 
 Other and the Other in the One ? ' &c. ; 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. . . When it is said, I in 
 the Father and the Father in Me, They are not there- 
 fore, as these suppose, discharged into Each Other, 
 filling the One the Other, as in the case of empty 
 vessels, so that the Son fills t the emptiness of the 
 Father and the Father that of the Son, and Each of 
 Them by Himself is not complete and perfect, (for 
 this is proper to bodies, and therefore the mere asser- 
 tion of it is full of impiety,) 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, is He also thus in the Son. For He is Himself 
 the Father's Power and Wisdom, and by partaking 
 (yciero^) of Him things generate are sanctified in the 
 Spirit; but the Son Himself is not Son by participa- 
 tion (yueroucria, vid. art. Arian Tenets), but is the Father's 
 proper Offspring. Nor again is the Son in the Father, 
 in the sense of the passage, In Him we live and move 
 and have our being ; for He, as being from the Fount of 
 the Father, is the Life, in which all things are both 
 quickened and consist ; for the Life does not live in Life, 
 else it would not be Life, but rather He gives life to 
 all things." Orat. iii. 1 . And again : " 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 
 belongs to the Father's Substance, and knows that the
 
 74 THE COINHEREXCE. 
 
 Father is in the Son. For whereas the Nature (e*So<?) 
 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/' ibid. 3. 
 
 ^[ In accordance with the above, Thomassin ob- 
 serves that by the mutual coinherence or indwelling 
 of the Three Blessed Persons is meant " not a com- 
 mingling as of material liquids, nor as of soul with 
 body, nor as the union of our Lord's Godhead and 
 humanity, but it is such that the whole power, life, 
 substance, wisdom, essence, of the Father, should be 
 the very essence, substance, wisdom, life, and power of 
 the Son." de Trin. 28, 1. S.' Cyril adopts Athan.'s 
 language to express this doctrine. " The Son in one 
 place says, that He is in the Father and has the Father 
 again in Him ; for what is simply proper I iBiov) to the 
 Father's substance, by nature coming to the Son, shows 
 the Father in Him." in Joan. p. 105. " One is con- 
 templated in the other, and is truly, according to 
 the connatural and consubstantial." de Trin. vi. 
 p. 621. " He has in Him the Son, and again is in the 
 Son, because of the identity of substance." in Joan, 
 p. 168. Yid. art. Trinity in Unity. 
 
 ^f The Trepixtapija-is is the test of orthodoxy, as 
 regards the Holy Trinity, against Arianism. This is 
 seen clearly in the case of Eusebius, whose language 
 approaches to Catholic more nearly than that of 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. infra, 
 art. Eusebius, whereas we believe that He is literally
 
 THE COINHERENCE. 75 
 
 and numerically one with the Father, and therefore 
 His Person dwells in the Father's Person by an inef- 
 fable unity. And hence the strong language of Pope 
 Dionysius, supr. vol. i. p. 45, " the Holy Ghost must 
 repose and dwell in God," e^tXo^capelv ro3 #ea> nal 
 IvStairdcrBai. 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. 3, 12. Hence Athan. contrasts creatures, who 
 are ev fjLefjLepicrpevoKj TOTTO^, with the Son. vid. Serap. 
 iii. 4. Accordingly, one of the first symptoms of 
 reviving orthodoxy in the second school of Semi-Arians 
 is the use in the Macrostich Creed, of language of this 
 character, viz. " All the Father embosoming the Son/' 
 they say, " and all the Son hanging and adhering to 
 the Father, and alone resting on the Father's breast 
 continually." supr. vol. i. p. 107. 
 
 Tf St. Jerome's figure above might seem inconsistent 
 with S. Athanasius's disclaimer of material images j but 
 Athan. only means that such illustrations cannot be 
 taken literally, as if spoken of natural subjects. The 
 Father is the TOTTO? or locus of the Son, because when 
 we contemplate the Son in His fulness as 0X09 0eo?, we 
 do but view the Father as that Person in whom God the 
 Son is ; our mind abstracts His Substance which is the 
 Son for the moment from Him, and regards Him merely 
 as Father. Thus Athan. rrjv Oelav ovaiav TOV \ojov 
 f)va>/j,vr)v (frixrei TU> eavrov irarpL. in illud Omn. 4. 
 It is, however, but a mode of speaking in theology, 
 and not a real emptying of Godhead from the Father, 
 if such words may be used. Father and Son are both
 
 76 THE COINHERENCE. 
 
 the same God, though really and eternally distinct 
 from each other ; and Each is full of the Other, that is, 
 their Substance is one and the same. This is insisted 
 on by S. Cyril, " We must not conceive that the 
 Father is held in the Son as body in body, or vessel 
 in vessel; . . . for the One is in the Other. &>? ev 
 rfjf ovcrias cnrapaXkaKTW, Kal rfj Kara (frvcriv 
 i re Kal 6fj,ot,6rr}rt. in Joan, p. 28. And by S. 
 Hilary : " Material natures do not admit of being 
 mutually in each other, of having a perfect unity of a 
 nature which subsists, of the abiding nativity of the 
 Only-begotten being inseparable from the verity of the 
 Father's Godhead. To God the Only-begotten alone 
 is this proper, and this faith attaches to the mystery of 
 a true nativity, and this is the work of a spiritual 
 power, that to be, and to be in, differ nothing ; to be in, 
 yet not to be one in another as body in body, but so 
 to be and to subsist, as to be in the subsisting, and so 
 to be in, as also to subsist/' &c. Trin. vii. fin. ; vid. 
 also iii. 23. The following quotation from S. Anselm 
 is made by Petavius, de Trin. iv. 16 fin. : "Though 
 there be not many eternities, yet if we say eternity in 
 eternity, there is but one eternity. . . And so whatever 
 is said of God's Essence, if repeated in itself, does not 
 increase quantity, nor admit number. . . Since there is 
 nothing out of God, when God is born of God. . . He 
 will not be born out of God, but remains in God." 
 
 TI " There is but one Face (etSo?, nature) of God, which 
 is also in the Word, and One God, the Father, existing 
 by Himself and according as He is above all, and 
 appearing in the Son according as He pervades all
 
 THE COINHERENCE. 77 
 
 things, and in the Spirit according as in Him He acts 
 in all things through the Word. And thus we confess 
 God to be One through the Trinity." Orat. iii. 15. 
 And so : " The Word is in the Father, and the Spirit is 
 given from the Word." iii. 25. " That Spirit is in 
 us which is in the Word which is in the Father." 
 ibid. " The Father in the Son taketh the oversight 
 of all." 36 fin.; vid. art. the Father Almighty, 2. 
 " The sanctification which takes place from Father 
 through Son in Holy Ghost." Serap. i. 20.; vid. also 
 ibid. 28, 30, 31, iii. 1, 5 init. et fin., also Hil. Trin. 
 vii. 31. Eulogius says, "The Holy Ghost, proceeding 
 from the Father, having the Father as an Origin, and 
 proceeding through the Son unto the creation." ap. 
 Phot. cod. p. 865. Damascene speaks of the Holy 
 Spirit as $vva/j,iv TOV irarpos Trpoep^ofievrjv KOI ev TOJ 
 Xoyop avaTravo/jLevrjv, F. 0. i. 7 ; and in the beginning of 
 the ch. he says that " the Word must have Its Breath 
 (Spirit) as our word is not without breath, though in 
 our case the breath is distinct from our substance." 
 "The way to knowledge of God is from One Spirit 
 through the One Son to the One Father." Basil, de 
 Sp. S. 47. " We preach One God by One Son with 
 the Holy Ghost." Cyr. Cat. xvi. 4. "The Father 
 through the Son with the Holy Ghost bestows all 
 things." ibid. 24. " All things have been made from 
 Father through the Son in Holy Ghost." Pseudo- 
 Dion, de Div. Nom. i. p. 403. " Through Son and in 
 Spirit God made all things consist, and contains 
 and preserves them." Pseudo-Athau. c. Sab. Greg. 
 10.
 
 70 THE CO INHERENCE. 
 
 ^ 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 
 jrepi')((apr]cri<; of Persons is implied in the Unity of 
 Substance. 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 Father are 
 one." And the cause of this unity and Trept^&jp^crt? is 
 the Divine yevw)<ri<i. Thus S. Hilary : " The perfect 
 Son of a perfect Father, and of the Ingenerate God 
 the Only-generate Offspring, who from Him who hath 
 all hath received all, God from God, Spirit from Spirit, 
 Light from Light, says confidently, ( The Father in 
 Me and I in the Father/ for as the Father is Spirit so 
 is the Son, as the Father God so is the Son, as the 
 Father Light so is the Son. From those things there- 
 fore which are in the Father, are those in which is the 
 Son ; that is, of the whole Father is born the whole 
 Son ; not from other, &c. . . . not in part, for in the 
 Son is the fulness of Godhead. What is in the Father, 
 that too is in the Son ; One from the Other and Both 
 One (unum) ; not Two One Person (' unus/ vid. how- 
 ever, the language of the Athan. Creed, which expresses 
 itself differently after S. Austin) but Either in Other, 
 because not Other in Either. The Father in the Son, 
 because from Him the Son . . . the Only-begotten in 
 the Ingenerate, because from the Ingenerate the Only- 
 generate," &c. Trin. iii. 4. 
 
 ^[ And so pyao/j.evov TOV Tia-rpos, epyd&adai ical TOV
 
 THE COINHERENCE. 79 
 
 vldv. in illud Omn. 1 . " Cum luce nobis prodeat, 
 In Patre totus Films, 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 Kara rqv Swafjuv, They are one 
 also in ov&ia. in Joan. Horn. 61, 2. Tertullian in 
 Prax. 22, and S. Epiphanius, Haer. 57, p. 488, seem to 
 say the same on the same text. Vid. Larnpe, Joan. x. 35. 
 And so S. Athan. rpta? dStaiperos rfj (frvcrei, Kal pia 
 TavTijs rj evepyeia. Serap. i. 28 ; i/ OeXtj/jua vrarpo? 
 Kal viov KOI /3ov\r]fj,a, eVel Kal rj (fivcris (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 essentiae," de Sp. ii. 12 fin., and of 
 S. Basil, wv fJiia evepyeia, TOUTWV Kal ovaia pia, 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, 3. 
 As to the very word Trepf^coprja-i^, Petavius observes, 
 de Trin. iv. 16, 4, that its first use in ecclesiastical 
 writers was one which Arianism would admit of ; its 
 ' use to express the Catholic doctrine was later.
 
 80 CURSUS 1'UBLICUS. 
 
 CUESUS PUBLICUS. 
 
 ON the Cursus Publicus, vid. Gothofred, in Cod. 
 Theod. viii. tit. 5. It was provided for the journeys 
 of the Emperor, for parties whom he summoned, for 
 magistrates, ambassadors, and such private persons 
 as the Emperor indulged in the use of it. The use 
 was granted by Constantine to the Bishops summoned 
 to Nicsea, as far as it went. Euseb. Constant, iii. v. 
 6. The Cursus Publicus brought the Bishops to the 
 Council of Tyre, ibid. iv. 43. In the conference be- 
 tween Liberius and Constantius, Theod. Hist. ii. 13, 
 it is objected that the Cursus Publicus is not sufficient 
 to convey Bishops to the Council which Liberius con- 
 templates. Constantius answers that the Churches are 
 rich enough to convey their Bishops as far as the sea. 
 Thus St. Hilary was compelled (" data evectionis copia," 
 Sulp. Hist. ii. 57) to attend at Seleucia, and Athan. at 
 Tyre. Julian complains of the abuse of the Cursus 
 Publicus, perhaps with an allusion to these Councils of 
 Constantius, vid. Cod. Theod. viii. 5, 12, where 
 Gothofred quotes Libanius's Epitaph in Julian, t. i. 
 p. 569, ed. Eeize. Vid. the passage in Ammianus, who 
 speaks of the Councils being the ruin of the res 
 vehicularia, Hist. xxi. 16. The Eusebians at Philippopo- 
 lis say the same thing. Hil. fragm. iii. 25. The Emperor 
 provided board and perhaps lodging for the Bishops at
 
 CURSUS PUBLICUS. 81 
 
 Ariminum, which the Bishops of Aquitaine, Gaul, and 
 Britain declined, excepting three British by reason of 
 poverty, Sulp. ii. 56. Hunneric in Africa, after as- 
 sembling 466 Bishops at Carthage, dismissed them 
 without conveyances, provision, or baggage. Viet. 
 Ut. iv. fin. In the Emperor's letter before the sixth 
 Ecumenical Council, A.D. 678 (Hard. Cone. t. 3, p. 1048 
 fin.), he says he has given orders for the convey- 
 ance and maintenance of its members. Pope John 
 VIII. (A.D. 876) reminds Ursus, Duke of Venice, of the 
 same duty of providing for the members of a Council, 
 "secundum pios principes, qui in talibus munifice 
 semper erant intenti." Colet. Concil. t. xi. p. 14, 
 Venet. 1730. 
 
 Gibbon says that by the Government conveyances 
 "it was easy to travel 100 miles in a day," ch. ii. ; 
 but the stages were of different lengths, sometimes a 
 day's journey, Coust. in Hilar. Psalm. 118, Lit. 5, 2 
 (as over the Delta to Pelusium, and then coasting all 
 the way to Antioch), sometimes half a day's journey, 
 Herman, ibid. Vid. also Ambros. in Psalm. 118, Serm. 
 5, 5. The halts were called paved or mansiones, and 
 properly meant the building where soldiers or other 
 public officials rested at night; hence applied to 
 monastic houses, a statement which, if correct, dis- 
 connects the word from fidvos. Such buildings included 
 granaries, stabling, &c. Vid. Cod. Theod. t. 1, p. 47,. 
 t. 2, p. 507; Ducange, Gloss, t. 1, p. 426, col. 2. 
 
 VOL. II.
 
 82 DEFINITIONS. 
 
 DEFINITIONS. 
 
 FEOM the first the Church had the power, by its 
 divinely appointed representatives, to declare the truth 
 upon such matters in the revealed message or gospel 
 tidings as from time to time came into controversy, 
 for, unless it had this power, how could it be the 
 " columna et firmamentum veritatis " ?) ; and these re- 
 presentatives, of course, were the Eulers of the Chris- 
 tian people, who received, as a legacy, the depositum 
 of doctrine from the Apostles, and by means of it, as 
 need arose, exercised their office of teaching. Each 
 Bishop was in his own place the Doctor Ecclesise for 
 his people ; there was an appeal, of course, from his 
 decision to higher courts ; to the Bishops of a province, 
 of a nation, of a patriarchate, to the Roman Church, to 
 the Holy See, as the case might be ; and thus at length 
 a final determination was arrived at, which in conse- 
 quence was the formal teaching of the Church, and, as 
 far as it was direct and categorical, was, from the 
 reason of the case, the Word of God. And being such, 
 was certain, irreversible, obligatory on the inward belief 
 and reception of all subjects of the Church, or what is 
 called def.de. 
 
 All this could not be otherwise if Christianity was 
 to teach divine truth in contrast to the vague opinions 
 and unstable conjectures of human philosophers and
 
 DEFINITIONS. 83 
 
 moralists, and if, as a plain consequence, it must 
 have authoritative organs of teaching, and if true 
 doctrines never can be false, but what is once true is 
 always true. What the Church proclaims as true 
 never can be put aside or altered, and therefore such 
 truths are called opiadevra or opoi, definitions, as being 
 boundaries or landmarks. Vid. Athan. Decret. 2. 
 
 If Decrees or definitions of Councils come to us as 
 formal notices or memoranda setting forth in writing 
 what has ever been held orally or implicitly in the 
 Church. Hence the frequent use of such phrases as 
 e r y f ypa<j)(t)<; e^ereBr) with reference, to them. Thus 
 Damasus, Theod. Hist. v. 10, speaks of that "aposto- 
 lical faith, which was set forth in writing by the Fathers 
 in Nicaea." On the other hand, Ephrem of Antioch 
 speaks of the doctrine of our Lord's perfect humanity 
 being " inculcated by our Holy Fathers, but not as 
 yet [i.e. till the Council of Chalcedon] being confirmed 
 by the decree of an Ecumenical Council/' Phot. 229, 
 p. 801 . (ey7pa(<u9, however, sometimes relates to the act 
 of the Bishops in subscribing, Phot, ibid., or to Scrip- 
 ture, Clement. Strom, i. init. p. 321.) Hence Athan. 
 says, ad Afros 1 and 2, that " the Word of the Lord, 
 which was given through the Ecumenical Council in 
 Nicaea remainethfor ever;" and uses against its opposers 
 the texts, " Remove not the ancient landmark which thy 
 fathers have set " (vid. also Dionysius in Eus. Hist. vii. 
 7), and "He that curseth his father or his mother 
 shall surely be put to death." Prov. 22, 28, Ex. 21, 
 1 7 ; vid. also Athan. ad Epict. 1 . And the Council of 
 Chalcedon professes to " drive away the doctrines of 
 
 G 2
 
 84 DEFINITIONS. 
 
 error by a common decree, and renew the unswerving 
 faith of the fathers," Act. v. p. 452, " according as," 
 they proceed, "from of old the prophets spoke of 
 Christ, and He Himself instructed us, and the creed of 
 the Fathers has delivered to us," whereas " other faith 
 it is not lawful for any to bring forth, or to write, or 
 to draw up, or to hold, or to teach," p. 456. 
 
 ^f And so S. Leo passim concerning the Council of 
 Chalcedon, " Concord will be easily established, if the 
 hearts of all concur in that faith, which, &c., no discus- 
 sion being allowed whatever with a view to retracta- 
 tion." Ep. 94. He calls such an act a " magnum 
 sacrilegium." Ep. 157, c. 3, " To be seeking for what 
 has been perfected, to tear up what has been laid down 
 (definita), what is this but to be unthankful for what 
 we gained?" Ep. 162^ vid. the whole of it. He says 
 that the attempt is " no mark of a peacemaker but a 
 rebel." Ep. 164, c. 1 fin. ; vid. also Epp. 145 and 156, 
 where he says, none can assail what is once determined, 
 but "aut antichristus aut diabolus," c, 2. 
 
 H At Seleucia Acacius said, " If the Nicene faith has 
 been altered once and many times since, no reason why 
 we should not dictate another faith now/' Eleusius 
 the Semi-Arian answered, "This Council is convoked, 
 not to learn what it does not know, not to receive a 
 faith which it does not possess, but walking in the 
 faith of the Fathers," (meaning the Semi-Arian Council 
 of the Dedication, A.D. 341, vid. Syn. 22), "it swerves 
 not from it in life or death." On this Socrates (Hist, 
 ii. 40) observes^ (f How call you those who met at 
 Autioch Fathers, Q Eleusius, you who deny their
 
 DEFINITIONS. 85 
 
 Fathers ? for those who met at Nicasa, and unani- 
 mously professed the Consubstantial, might more 
 properly receive the name, &c. But if the Bishops at 
 Antioch set at nought their own fathers, those who 
 come after are blindly following parricides ; and how 
 did they receive a valid ordination from them, whose 
 faith they set at nought as reprobate ? But if those 
 had not the Holy Ghost, which cometh through laying 
 on of hands, neither did these receive the priesthood ; 
 for did they receive from those who have not where- 
 with to give ? " 
 
 *H This reconsideration of points once settled Athan. 
 all through his works strenuously resists, and with 
 more consistency than the Semi-Arians at Seleucia. 
 And so in their Letter the Fathers at Ariminum ob- 
 serve that the Emperor had commanded them " to treat 
 of the faith," to which ambiguous phrase they reply that 
 they mean rather to " adhere " to the faith, and to reject 
 all novelties. And so at Sardica the Council writes 
 to Pope Julius, that the Emperors Constantius and 
 Constans had proposed three subjects for its considera- 
 tion ; first, " that all points in discussion should be 
 debated afresh (de integro), and above all concerning 
 the holy faith and the integrity of the truth which 
 [the Arians] had violated." Hil. Fragm. ii. 11. 
 Enemies of the Arians seem to have wished this as 
 well as themselves ; and the Council got into difficulty 
 in consequence. Hosius the president and Protogenes 
 Bishop of the place wrote to the Pope to explain, 
 " from fear/' says Sozomen, " lest some might think 
 that there was any innovation upon the Nicene de-
 
 86 DEFINITIONS. 
 
 crees." iii. 12. From his way of stating the matter, 
 Sozomen seems to have himself believed that the 
 Council did publish a creed. And, in fact, a remark- 
 able confession, and a confession attributed to the 
 Council, does exist. Accordingly Athanasius, Euse- 
 bius of Vercellee, and the Council of Alexandria, A.D. 
 362, protest against the idea of a treatment de integro. 
 " It is true," they say, " that certain persons wished 
 to add to the Nicene Council as if there was something 
 wanting, but the Holy Council was displeased," &c. 
 Tom. ad Antioch. 5. However, Vigilius of Thapsus 
 repeats the report, contr. Eutych. v. init. 
 
 ^ This, however, did not interfere with their adding 
 without undoing. " For," says Vigilius, " if it were 
 unlawful to receive aught further after the Nicene 
 statutes, on what authority venture we to assert 
 that the Holy Ghost is of one substance with the 
 Father, which it is notorious was there omitted ? " 
 contr. Eutych. v. init. ; he gives other instances, some 
 in point, others not ; vid. also Eulogius, apud Phot. 
 Cod. 23, pp. 829, 853. Yet to add to the confession of 
 the Church is not to add to the faith, since nothing 
 can be added to the faith. Leo, Ep. 124, p. 1237. 
 Nay, Athan. says that the Nicene faith is sufficient to 
 refute every heresy, ad Max. 5 fin. also Leo. Ep. 54, 
 p. 956, and Naz. Ep. 102 init., excepting, however, the 
 doctrine of the Holy Spirit ; which explains his 
 meaning. The Henoticon of Zeno says the same, but 
 with the intention of dealing a blow at the Council 
 of Chalcedon. Evagr. iii. li, p. 345. Aetius at Chal- 
 cedon says that at Ephesus and Chalcedon the Fathers
 
 DEFINITIONS. 87 
 
 did not profess to draw up an exposition of faith, and 
 that Cyril and Leo did but interpret the Creed." Cone, 
 t. 2, p. 428. Leo even says that the Apostles' Creed 
 is sufficient against all heresies, and that Eutyches 
 erred on a point " of which our Lord wished no one of 
 either sex in the Church to be ignorant/' and he 
 wishes Eutyches to take the plentitude of the Creed 
 " puro et simplici corde." Ep. 31, p. 857, 8.
 
 DEIFICATION. 
 
 DEIFICATION. 
 
 THE titles which belong to the Divine Word by 
 nature, are by grace given to us, a wonderful privilege, 
 of which the Arians showed their sense, not by teaching 
 the elevation of the creature to the Son of God, but 
 by lowering the Son to the level of the creature. The 
 means by which these titles become ours are our real 
 participation (f^ero^rj) of the Son by His presence 
 within us, a participation so intimate that in one sense 
 He can be worshipped in us as being His temple or 
 shrine. Vid. art. ^erovala. 
 
 Athanasius insists on this doctrine again and again. 
 
 5f " The Word was made flesh in order to offer up 
 this body for all, and that we, partaking of His Spirit, 
 might be made gods." Deer. 14. 
 
 5[ "While all things which are made, have by 
 participation (e /Lteroucrta?) the grace of God, He is the 
 Father's Wisdom and Word, of whom all things 
 partake. It follows that He, being the deifying and 
 enlightening power of the Father, in which all things 
 are deified and quickened, is not alien in substance 
 from the Father, but one in substance." Syn. 51. 
 
 ^f " He was not man, and then became God, but He 
 was God and then became man, and that to make us 
 gods." Orat. i. 39. 
 
 5f " This is our grace and high exaltation, that even
 
 DEIFICATION. 89 
 
 when He became man, the Son of God is worshipped, 
 and the heavenly powers are not startled at all of us, 
 who are one body with Him, being introduced into 
 their realms." ibid. 42. 
 
 If " 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.' " 
 ibid. 43. 
 
 U " God created Him for our sakes, because of us 
 preparing for Him that created body, that in Him we 
 might be capable of being renewed and made gods." 
 Orat. ii. 47. 
 
 5f " Therefore did He assume the body generate and 
 human, that, having renewed it as its framer, He 
 might make it god. . . . For man had not been made 
 god, if joined to a creature, . . . the union was of this 
 kind, . . . that his salvation and deification might be 
 sure." ibid. 70. 
 
 " Although there be but one Son by nature, True and 
 Only-begotten, we too become sons, . . . and, though 
 we are men from the earth, we are yet called gods . . . 
 as has pleased God who has given us that grace." Orat. 
 iii 19. 
 
 II " As we are sons and gods, because of the Word in 
 us, so shall we be in the Son and in the Father, 
 because the Spirit is in us." ibid. 25. 
 
 If " We men are made gods by the Word, as being 
 joined to Him through His flesh/' ibid. 34. 
 
 ^f " That He might redeem mankind . . . that He
 
 90 DEIFICATION. 
 
 might hallow them and make them gods, the Word 
 became flesh." ibid. 39. 
 
 51 " What is this advance but the deifying and grace 
 imparted from Wisdom to men ? " ibid. 53. 
 
 Yid. also Adelph. 4; Serap. i. 24; Cyr. in Joann. 
 p. 74 ; Theod. Hist. p. 846 init. 
 
 f 
 
 *
 
 ECONOMICAL LANGUAGE. 91 
 
 ECONOMICAL LANGUAGE. 
 
 ^ BY " Economical/' I mean language relating to 
 matters beyond the direct apprehension of those to 
 whom it is addressed, and which, in order to have a 
 chance of conveying to them any idea, however faint, 
 of the fact, must be more or less of an analogous or 
 figurative character, as viewed relatively to the truths 
 which it professes to report, instead of a direct and 
 literal statement of the things which have to be conveyed. 
 Thus a child's idea of a king is that of a man richly 
 dressed with a crown and sceptre, sitting on a throne ; 
 thus an attempt might be made to convey to a blind man 
 the character of scarlet contrasted with other colours 
 by telling him that it is like the sound of a trumpet; 
 thus, since none of us can imagine to ourselves a spirit 
 and its properties, it is a received economy to represent 
 Angels as bright beings with wings. Hence, again, 
 it is an economy to speak of our Lord as sitting on 
 the right hand of God, as if right and left were possible 
 in Him ; and, indeed, Scripture is necessarily full of 
 economies, when speaking of heavenly things, because 
 there is no other way of introducing into our minds 
 even a rude idea, even any idea at all, of matters so 
 utterly out of our experience. About such economies 
 in the revealed statement of religious truths, two 
 rules must be observed.
 
 92 ECONOMICAL LANGUAGE. 
 
 First, while aware of their imperfection as informa- 
 tions, still we must keep strictly to what is told us in 
 them, because we cannot know more exactly what is 
 told us in them than they tell us. Thus we read, " God 
 is a consuming fire " now fire is a material substance, 
 and cannot literally belong to the Divine Nature ; but 
 it is the only, or at least the truest, mode in which His 
 nature, in a certain relation to us, can be brought 
 home to us, and we must accept it and believe it as a 
 substantial truth, iu spite of its not being the whole 
 truth or the exact impress of the truth. Secondly, it 
 must be recollected that we cannot argue and deduce 
 freely from economical language as if it were adequate 
 and complete, and that in revealed matters we may fall 
 into serious error, if we argue and deduce except under 
 the magisterium of the Church. Thus it is that some 
 Calvinists have argued against freewill from St. Peter's 
 words in his first Epistle (" Ye, as living stones, are 
 built up a spiritual house,") thus, " This is giving free- 
 will a stab under the fifth rib, for can stones build them- 
 selves?" Copleston on Predestinat. p. 129. And thus 
 it was, that Arius argued, from the economical word 
 Son, given us as the nearest approximation in human 
 language to the ineffable truth itself, that our Lord was 
 not the everlasting God, because human sons have a 
 beginning of existence. 
 
 Hence it is that mystery is the necessary note of 
 divine revelation, that is, mystery subjectively to the 
 human mind : because, when the mind goes on freely to 
 reason from language which only partially corresponds 
 to eternal truths, which cannot be adequately expressed
 
 ECONOMICAL LANGUAGE. 93 
 
 in human words, it draws from one revealed information 
 what is inconsistent with what it draws from another, 
 and instead of saying, "This collision of deductions 
 arises from the imperfection of our knowledge of pre- 
 misses," it refuses to beliave what it cannot understand, 
 acting like a man who, having learned some geometrical 
 truths by means of arithmetic or algebra, and having 
 found that by multiplying a quantity into itself, and 
 again into itself, he could reach a number which in its 
 properties corresponded to a geometrical cube, he 
 should go on to multiply once more, and then should 
 consider that he had been brought to the absurdity of 
 a fourth dimension in space, and in consequence should 
 withdraw his faith from algebraical deductions alto- 
 gether. Vid. art. Trinity) also Illustrations, and 
 others. 
 
 1[ "Such illustrations and such images," says Atha- 
 nasius, " has Scripture proposed, that, considering the 
 inability of human nature to comprehend God, we 
 might be able to form ideas even from these, however 
 poorly and dimly, as far as is attainable." Orat. ii. 32, 
 a/auSpw?, vid. also a/j,v8pa ; ii. 17. 
 
 f Elsewhere, after adducing the illustration of the 
 sun and its light, he adds, " From things familiar and 
 ordinary we may use some poor illustration, and repre- 
 sent intellectually what is in our mind, since it were 
 presumptuous to intrude upon the incomprehensible 
 Nature." in Illud Omnia 3 fin. Vid. also 6; also 
 Serap. i. 20, and Deer. 12. And S. Austin, after an 
 illustration from the nature of the human mind, pro- 
 ceeds : " Far other are these Three and that Trinity. . .
 
 94 ECONOMICAL LANGUAGE. 
 
 When a man hath discovered something in them and 
 stated it, let him not at once suppose that he has dis- 
 covered what is above them/* &c. Confess, xiii. 11. 
 And again, ( ' Ne hanc imaginem ita comparet Trinitati, 
 ut omni modo existimet similem." Trin. xv. 39. And 
 S. Basil says, " Let no one urge against what I say, 
 that the illustrations do not in all respects answer to 
 the matters in question. For it is not possible to 
 apply with exactness what is Little and low to things 
 divine and eternal, except so far as to refute," &c. 
 contr. Eunom. ii. 17. 
 
 ^f Scripture is full of mysteries, but they are mys- 
 teries of fact, not of words. Its dark sayings or 
 aenigmata are such, because in the nature of things they 
 cannot be expressed clearly. Hence contrariwise, 
 Orat. ii. 77 fin. he calls Prov. 8, 22 an enigma, with an 
 allusion to Prov. 1, 6, Sept. In like manner S. Ambrose 
 says, " Mare est scriptura divina, habens in se sensus 
 profundos, et altitudinem propheticorum cenigmatum, 
 &c." Ep. ii. 3. What is commonly called " explaining 
 away " Scripture, is the transference of this obscurity 
 from the subject to the words used. 
 
 IF Nothing is more common in theology than com- 
 parisons which are only parallel to a certain point as 
 regards the matter in hand, especially since many 
 doctrines do not admit of exact illustrations. Our 
 Lord's real manhood and imputed sinfulness were alike 
 adjuncts to His Divine Person, which was of an Eternal 
 and Infinite Nature ; and therefore His Manhood may 
 be compared to an Attribute, or to an accident, without 
 meaning that it really was either. The Athan. Creed
 
 ECONOMICAL LANGUAGE. 95 
 
 compares the Hypostatic Union to that of soul and 
 body in one man, which, as taken literally by the 
 Monophysites, became their heresy. Again S. Cyril 
 says, " As the Bread of the Eucharist, after the invo- 
 cation of the Holy Ghost, is mere bread no longer, but 
 the Body of Christ, so also this holy ointment is no 
 more simple ointment," &c. Catech. xxi. 3, Oxf . Tr. ; 
 but no one contends that S. Cyril held either a change 
 in the chrism, or no change in the bread. Hence again 
 we find the Arians arguing from John xvii. 11, that our 
 union with the Holy Trinity is as that of the Adorable 
 Persons with Each Other; vid. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. 
 iii. 19, and Athanasius replying to the argument, 
 Orat. iii. 17-25. And so "As we receiving the 
 Spirit, do not lose our own proper substance, so the 
 Lord, when made man for us and bearing a body, was 
 no less God," Deer. 14; yet He was God made man, 
 and we are but the temple of God. And again Atha- 
 nasius compares the Incarnation to our Lord's presence 
 in the world of nature. Incarn. 41-42.
 
 96 
 
 ECUMENICAL. 
 
 ECUMENICAL. 
 
 , . 
 
 THIS name was given from the first to Councils of 
 the whole Church, whose definitions could not be altered, 
 vid. art. Definitions. Athan. twice in his Deer, calls the 
 Nicene by this name, viz. 4 and 27. " Are they not 
 committing a crime to gainsay so great and ecumenical 
 a Council ?" 4, and "the devil alone persuades you to 
 slander the ecumenical Council/' 27; vid. also Orat. 
 i. 7; ad Afros 2 twice; Apol. contr. Arian. 7; ad 
 Ep. Mg. 5; Epiph. Hser. 70, 9; Euseb. Vit. Const. 
 iii. 6. The second General Council, A.D. 381, took the 
 name of ecumenical, vid. Can. 6 fin. ; but incidentally. 
 The Council of Ephesus so styles itself in the opening 
 of its Synodical Letter.
 
 EUSEBIUS. 97 
 
 EUSEBIUS. 
 
 YID. arts. Sfimi-Arianism and Asterius for a notice 
 of the symbol of the opoiovcriov, in opposition to the 
 orthodox opoovcrtov and e' ovalas on the one hand, 
 and to avopoiov on the other. Eusebius is one of the 
 special supporters of this form of heresy. Asterius 
 is another (vid. art. Arian Leaders) ; the statements 
 set down here and under the title " Asterius " are 
 mainly taken from what we find in their controversial 
 works. 
 
 ^[ In his Letter to his people, supr. vol. i. p. 55, 
 &c. Eusebius scarcely commits himself to any posi- 
 tive sense in which the formula " of the substance " 
 (e ova-las), is to be interpreted, but only says what it 
 does not mean. His comment on it is " of the Father, 
 but not as a part;" where, what is not negative, 
 instead of being an explanation, is but a recurrence to 
 the original words of Scripture, " of the Father/' of 
 which e ovcrias itself is the explanation; a curious 
 inversion. Indeed it is very doubtful whether he 
 admitted the e ova-las at all. He says, that the Son 
 is not like the radiance of light so far as this, that the 
 radiance is an inseparable accident of substance, 
 whereas the Son is by the Father's will, Kara jvd)fji,r)v KOI 
 Trpoalpeaiv, Dem. Ev. iv. 3. (vid. art. BouAgcris) . And 
 though he insists on our Lord being alone e/c deov, yet he 
 
 VOL. IT. H
 
 98 EUSEBIUS. 
 
 means in the sense which Athan. refutes, Deer. 7, viz. 
 that He alone was created immediately from God. It 
 is true that he plainly condemns with the Nicene Creed 
 the e'f OVK ovrwv of the Arians, " the Son was out of 
 nothing/' but an evasion was at hand here also ; for 
 he not only adds, according to Arian custom, " not as 
 others," but he has a theory that no being whatever 
 is out of nothing, for non-existence cannot be the 
 cause of existence. God, he says, " proposed His own 
 will and power as a sort of matter and substance of the 
 production and constitution of the universe, so that it 
 is not reasonably said, that anything is out of nothing. 
 For what is from nothing cannot be at all. How 
 indeed can nothing be to anything a cause of being ? 
 but all that is, takes its being from One who only 
 is and was, who also said, ' I am that I am/ " Dem. 
 Ev. iv. 1. Again, speaking of our Lord, " He who 
 was from nothing would not truly be Son of God, as 
 neither is any other of things generate." Eccl. Theol. 
 i. 9 fin. 
 
 ^f He distinctly asserts, Dem. Ev. iv. 2, that our Lord 
 is a creature. " This offspring," he says, " did He 
 first produce Himself from Himself as a foundation of 
 those things which should succeed ; the perfect handy- 
 work, Sr)fAtovp<yi]fAa, of the Perfect, and the wise structure 
 ap^ireKTovrjfjLa, of the Wise," &c. It is true in his Lett. 
 6, he grants that "He was not a work resembling the 
 things which through Him came to be -," but this again 
 is only the ordinary Arian evasion of " an offspring, not 
 as the offsprings." E.g. "It is not without peril to 
 say recklessly that the Son is generate out of nothing
 
 EUSEB1US. 99 
 
 similarly to the other generates. 3 ' Dem. Ev. v. 1 ; vid. 
 also Eccl. Theol. i. 9, iii. 2. And he considers our Lord 
 the only Son by a divine provision similar to that by 
 which there is only one sun in the firmament, as a 
 centre of light and heat. " Such an Only-begotten 
 Son, the excellent artificer of His will and operator, 
 did the supreme God and Father of that operator 
 Himself first of all beget, through Him and in Him 
 giving subsistence to the operative words (ideas or 
 causes) of things which were to be, and casting in Him 
 the seeds of the constitution and governance of the 
 universe; . . . Therefore the Father being one, it 
 behoved the Son to be one also ; but should any one 
 object that He constituted not more, it is fitting for 
 such a one to complain that He constituted not more 
 suns, and moons, and worlds, and ten thousand other 
 things." Dem. Ev. iv. 5 fin. ; vid. also iv. 6. 
 
 ^[ He does not say that our Lord is from the substance 
 of the Father, but that He has a substance from the 
 Father "notfrom other substance,but from the Father/' 
 This is the Semi-Arian doctrine, which, whether con- 
 fessing the Son from the substance of the Father or 
 not, implied that His substance was not the Father's 
 substance, but a second substance. The same doctrine 
 is found in the Semi-Arians of Ancyra, though they 
 seem to have confessed, " of the substance." And 
 this is one object of the opoovaiov, to hinder the con- 
 fession " of the substance " from implying a second 
 substance, which was not obviated or was even 
 encouraged by the oftoioixnov. The Council of Ancyra, 
 quoting the text " As the Father hath life in Himself, 
 
 H 2
 
 100 EUSEBITJS. 
 
 so," &c., says, " since the life which is in the Father 
 means substance, and the life of the Only-begotten 
 which is begotten from the Father means substance, 
 the word ' so ' implies a likeness of substance to sub- 
 stance." Bpiph. Hser. 73, 10 fin. Hence Eusebius does 
 not scruple to speak of " two substances," and other 
 writers of three substances, contr. Marcell. i. 4, p. 25. 
 He calls our Lord "a second substance," Dem. Ev. 
 vi. Pnef.; Prap. Ev. vii. 12, p. 320, and the Holy Spirit 
 a third substance, ibid. 1 5, p. 325. This it was that made 
 the Latins so suspicious of three hypostases, because 
 the Semi-Arians, as well as they, understood viroa-racris 
 to mean substance. Eusebius in like manner calls our 
 Lord " another God," " a second God," Dem. Ev. v. 
 4, p. 226, v. fin.; " second Lord," ibid. 3 init. 6 fin.; 
 "second cause," Dem. Ev. v. Praef. ; "not the True 
 God." Syn. 17, Concil. vii. art. 6. p. 409. Vid. 
 also erepov e^ovcra TO tear ovalav irrroKei^evov, Dem. Ev. 
 v. 1, p. 215; Kaff eavTov ovo-iafjievos, ibid. iv. 3. And 
 so ere/jo? irapa rov irarepa, Eccl. Theol. i. 20, p. 90 ; 
 and farjv iSiav %(0v, ibid. ; and ^wv teal v<peo-ra)<; /cat rov 
 7rarpo<; {nrdp^wv e/cro?, ibid. Hence Athan. insists so 
 much on our Lord not being external to the Father. 
 Once admit that He is in the Father, and we may 
 call the Father, the only God, for He is included. 
 And so again as to the Ingenerate, the term does not 
 exclude the Son, for He is generate in the Ingene- 
 rate. Vid. ' ' A.yei>rjTos and Marcellus. 
 
 T[ The Semi-Arians, however, considering the Son as 
 external to the Father, and this as a necessary truth, 
 maintained, in order logically to escape Sabellianism,
 
 EUSEB1US. 101 
 
 that the opoovaiov implied a separation or divulsion of 
 the Divine Substance into two, following the line of 
 argument of Sainosatene, who seems to have stopped 
 the reception of that formula at Antioch in the third 
 century by arguing that it involved either Sabellianism 
 (vid. Hilary) or materialism (vid. Athan. and Basil) . 
 E.g. Euseb. Demonstr. iv. 3, p. 148, p. 149, v. 1, p. 
 213-215; contr. Marcell. i. 4 ; p. 20; Eccl. Theol. 
 i. 12, p. 73; in laud. Const, p. 525; de Fide i. ap. 
 Sirmond. torn. i. p. 7; deFide ii. p. 16; and apparently 
 his de Incorporali. And so the Semi-Arians at Ancyra, 
 Epiph. Haer. 73, 11, p. 858. And so Meletius, ibid, 
 p. 878 fin., and Cyril Hier. Catech. vii. 5, xi. 18. 
 ov irddei Trarrjp ryevoiAevos, OVK ere <7u/u.7rXo/}?, ou /car' 
 ayvotav, OVK cnroppevcras, ov /zei&)$et?, OVK a\\oia)dek. 
 Vid. also Eusebius's letter to his people as given by 
 Athan. Cyril, however, who had friends among the 
 Semi-Arians and apparently took their part, could not 
 be stronger on this point than the Nicene Fathers. 
 
 T The only sense then in which the word 6/j.oova-iov 
 could be received by such as Eusebius, would seem 
 to be negative, unless it should rather be taken as 
 a mere formula of peace ; for he says, " We assented 
 &c. . . . without declining even the term ' Consub- 
 stantial/ peace being the object which we set before 
 us and maintenance of the orthodox view . . . ' Con- 
 substantial with the Father ' suggests that the Son of 
 God bears no resemblance to the creatures which have 
 been made, but that He is in every way after the 
 pattern of His Father alone who begat Him." Euseb. 
 Lett. 7. These last words can hardly be called an
 
 102 EUSEBIUS. 
 
 interpretation of onoovawv, for it is but saying that 
 6/jioova-iov means opoiovcriov, whereas the two words 
 notoriously were antagonistic to each other. 
 
 If It must be observed too that, though the Semi-Arian 
 opoiovcnov may be taken, as it is sometimes by Athan., 
 as satisfying the claims of theological truth, especially 
 when it is understood in the sense of a7rapaX,Xa/cro? 
 eiKMv, " the exact image " of the Father, (vid. Deer. 
 20, Theod. Hist. i. 4,) yet it could easily be explained 
 away. It need mean no more than a likeness of Son 
 to Father, such as a picture to its original, while 
 differing from it in substance. " Two men are not of 
 like nature, but of the same nature, Tin is like silver 
 but not of the same nature." Syn. 47-50. Also 
 Athan. notices that " like " applies to qualities rather 
 than to substance. Also Basil. Ep. 8, n. 3 ; " while in 
 itself," says the same Father, " it is frequently used 
 of faint similitudes, and falling very far short of the 
 original." Ep. 9, n. 3. But the word O/AOOVO-IOV implies 
 " the same in likeness," ravrov rfj o/iouwcret, that the 
 likeness may not be considered analogical, vid. Cyril, 
 in Joan. iii. 5, p. 302. Eusebius makes no concealment 
 that it is in this sense that he uses the word 6/u.oiova-iov, 
 for he says, " Though our Saviour Himself teaches 
 that the Father is the only True, still let me not be 
 backward to confess Him also the true God, as in an 
 Image, and that possessed ; so that the addition of 
 ' only ' may belong to the Father alone as Archetype 
 of the Image. ... As supposing one king held sway, 
 and his image was carried about into every quarter, 
 no one in his right mind would say that those who
 
 EUSEBIUS. 103 
 
 held sway were two, but one, who was honoured 
 through his image." de Eccl. Theol. ii. 23 ; vid. ibid 
 7, pp. 109, 111. 
 
 ^[ Accordingly, instead of e oucna?, which was the 
 Nicene formula, he held ^rovffia, that is, " like to the 
 Father by participation of qualities," as a creature may 
 be ; e'f avrrjs rfj<; TrarpiKris [not ovcrias, but] //.erofcria?, 
 (wcrTrep aTrb 7rrjyrj<; } CTT' avTov irpo^eo/u-ei^ irXrjpov/jievov. 
 Eccl. Theol. i. 2. Whereas Athan. says, ovSe Kara 
 /j,eTovarlav avrov, dXX' o\ov I'Sioy avrov <yevvr)f*,a. Orat. 
 iii. 4. (Disc. n. 228.) "If ye speak of the Son as 
 being merely such by participation, fjLerovo-ta, then 
 call Him oftoioixriov," Syn. 53 ; but no, it is for crea- 
 tures to possess God /Lteroi/cria, but when God is 
 said to beget, this is all one with enunciating the 
 e oiWa?, and a whole participation. Vid. Orat. i. 
 16. 
 
 ^[ Hence St. Austin says, as quoted supr. Arian tenets, 
 " As the Father has life in Himself, so hath He given 
 also to the Son to have life in Himself, not by partici- 
 pating, but in Himself. For we have not life in our- 
 selves, but in our God. But that Father, who has life 
 in Himself, begat a Son such, as to have life in Himself, 
 not to become partaker of life, but to be Himself life ; 
 and of that life to make us partakers." Serm. 127, de 
 Verb. Evang. 9. 
 
 ^[In Eusebius's Letter to Euphration,as quoted in the 
 seventh Ecum. Council, he introduced the usual Arian 
 argument against the Son's Eternity. " If They co- 
 exist, how shall the Father be Father and the Son Son ? 
 or how the One first, and the Other second ? and the
 
 I(j4 EUSEBIUS. 
 
 One ingenerate and the Other generate ? " Vid. supr. 
 Arian tenets. 
 
 1T And further he explained away what Catholics held 
 of the eternity of the gennesis by insisting that God 
 was a Father in posse from eternity, not in fact. 
 " Our religious Emperor did at the time/' at Nica3a, 
 " prove in a speech, that our Lord was in being even 
 according to His Divine generation, which is before all 
 ages, since even before He was generated in fact He 
 was in virtue with the Father ingenerately, the Father 
 being always Father, as King always and Saviour 
 always, being all things in virtue, and having all things 
 in the same respects and in the same way." Eus. 
 Lett. 10. 
 
 Theognis too, another of the Nicene Arians, says the 
 same, according to Philostorgius ; viz. " that God even 
 before He begat the Son was a Father, as having the 
 power, ButKtfw, of being so," Hist. ii. 15, 16 ; and Aste- 
 rius. They are answered by Catholics, on the ground 
 that Father and Son are words of nature, but Creator, 
 King, Saviour, are external, or what may be called 
 accidental to Him. Thus Athanasius observes, that 
 Father actually implies Son, but Creator only the 
 power to create, as expressing a Swapis ; " a maker is 
 before his works, but he who says Father, forthwith in 
 Father implies the existence of the Son/' (Disc. n. 
 231.) Orat. iii. 6. Vid. Cyril too, Dial. ii. p. 459; 
 Pseudo-Basil, contr. Eun. iv. 1 fin. On the other hand 
 Origen argues the reverse way, that since God is 
 eternally a Father, therefore eternally Creator also. 
 " As one cannot be father without a son, nor lord
 
 EUSEBIUS. 105 
 
 without possession, so neither can God be called All- 
 powerful, without subjects of His power," Periarch. 
 i. 2, n. 10; hence he argued for the eternity of creation, 
 which Suarez, after St. Thomas, allows to be abstract- 
 edly possible. Vid. Theol. Tracts ii. 11 circ. fin. 
 
 ^[ Athan. distinguishes as follows : that, as it is of 
 the essence of a son to be of the nature of the father, 
 so is it of the essence of a creature to be of nothing, 
 e OVK OVTCOV ; 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, impossible from 
 incapacity, not in the Infinite, but in the finite. Orat. 
 i. 29. Vid. ibid. 58, where he takes "They shall 
 perish," in the Psalm, not as a fact, but as the de- 
 finition of the nature of a creature. Also ii. 1, where 
 he says, "It is proper to creatures and works to have 
 said of them, e' OVK ovrwv and OVK r\v jrplv <yevvr)0f).' } 
 Vid. Cyril. Thesaur. 9, p. 67. Dial. ii. p. 460. 
 
 It has been above shown that Eusebius held with the 
 run of Arians that our Lord was created by the God of 
 all in order that He might create all else. And this was 
 because the creation could not bear the Divine Hand, 
 as the Arians also said. Vid. a clear and eloquent 
 passage in his Eccl. Theol. i. 8, also 13, to show that 
 our Lord was brought into being before all creation, eVi 
 (Tcorrjpia rwv o\o)v. Vid. also Demonstr. iv. 4; Praep. vii. 
 1 5 ; but especially his remark, " not because the Father 
 was not able to create, did He beget the Son, but 
 because those things which were made were not able 
 to sustain the power of the In generate, therefore
 
 1 06 ETJSEBIUS. 
 
 speaks He through a Mediator," contra Sabell. i. 
 p. 9. 
 
 There is another peculiarity of Eusebius's view of the 
 creative office of the Divine Word, in contrast with 
 the Catholic doctrine. It is that the Word does not 
 create from His own designs, as being Himself really 
 the TVTro?, el/caiv, and vTroypa/A/jia of those things which 
 He is creating, but that He copies the Father's 
 patterns as an external minister. " The Father designed 
 (SieTVTrov) and prepared with consideration, how, and 
 of what shape, measure, and parts. . . . And He 
 watching (evarevi^wv) the Father's thoughts, and alone 
 beholding the depths in Him, went about the work, 
 subserving the Father's orders (vev/j,aa-i) ... As a 
 skilful painter, taking the archetypal ideas from the 
 Father's thoughts, He transferred them to the sub- 
 stances of the works." Eccl. Theol. iii. 3, pp. 164, 5. 
 
 In this Eusebius follows the Platonists ; so he does, 
 when he attributes our Lord's Priesthood to His 
 Divine Nature, as the Word, in which case His human 
 sufferings have no part in it. 
 
 Moreover, it is doubtful whether he held that our 
 Lord, in becoming incarnate, took on Him a human soul 
 as well as body. In his work against Marcellus, p. 54, 
 he seems to grant his opponent's doctrine, when he 
 says, 4 p,ev fyvyfis Sifcrjv (St%a) oiK&v ev ainw rat a-wfian ; 
 and at p. 55 be seems to say that, if the Word retired 
 from the &uo7ro609 aapl; , the crap]* would be left d\o<yo<> ; 
 vid. also ibid. p. 91.
 
 THE FATHER ALMIGHTY. 107 
 
 THE FATHER ALMIGHTY. 
 
 1. THE idea of an Almighty, All-perfect Being, in its 
 fulness involves the belief of His being the Father of 
 a co-equal Son, and this is the first advance which a 
 habit of devout meditation makes towards the intel- 
 lectual apprehension of the doctrine of the Holy 
 Trinity, when once that doctrine has been received with 
 the claim and the sanction of having been revealed. 
 
 If The Fathers speak as if it were nothing short of 
 a necessary truth, involved in the nature of things, 
 that One who is infinite in His attributes should 
 subsist over again in an infinite perfect Image, Im- 
 press, Likeness, Word, or Son, for these names 
 denote the same sacred truth. A redundatio in ima- 
 ginem or in Verbum is synonymous with a gene- 
 ratio Filii. "Naturam et essentiale Deitatis," says 
 Thomassin, "in suo Fonte assentiuntur omnes esse 
 plemtudinem totius Esse. At haec necesse est ut 
 statim exundet nativa foBcunditate sua. Infinitum 
 enim illud Esse non Esse tantuin est sed Esse totum 
 est ; vivere id ipsum est intelligere, sapere ; opulentiaB 
 suge, bonitatis, et sapientia3 rivulos undique spargere; 
 nee rivulos tantum, sed et fontem et p]enitudinem 
 ipsam suam dinundere. Haec enim demum foecun- 
 ditas Deo digna, Deo par est, ut a Fonte bonitatis 
 non rivulus sed flumen effluat, nee extra efnuat, sed
 
 108 THE FATHER ALMIGHTY. 
 
 in ipsomet, cum extra nihil sit, quo ilia plenitude capi 
 possit." de Trin. 19, 1. 
 
 Thus Athan. says, "Let them dare to say openly . . that 
 the Fountain failed to beget Wisdom, whence it would 
 follow that there is no longer a Fountain, but a sort of 
 pool, as if receiving water from without, yet usurping 
 the name of Fountain." Deer. 15; vid. also Orat. 
 i. 14 and 19. And so -777777) ^rjpa, Serap. ii. 2 ; Orat^ 
 i. 14 fin.; also Kapjroyovos 77 ovcria, ii. 2, where 
 Athanasius speaks as if those who deny that Almighty 
 God is Father cannot really believe in Him as a 
 Creator . " If our Lord be not a Son, let Him be called 
 a work . . and let God be called, not Father, but Framer 
 only and Creator, . . and not of a generative nature. 
 But if the divine substance be not fruitful (KapTroyovos) , 
 but barren, as they say, as a light which enlightens 
 not, and a dry fountain, are they not ashamed to 
 maintain that He possesses the creative energy ? " 
 Vid. also 7777777 tfeoTT??, Pseudo-Dion. Div. Nom. 
 ii. 4 ; 777777) ex 7777777?, of the Son, Epiphan. Ancor. 19. 
 And Cyril, " If thou take from God His being Father, 
 thou wilt deny the generative power (KapTroyovov) of 
 the divine nature, so that It no longer is perfect. This 
 then is a token of its perfection, and the Son who went 
 forth from Him apart from time, is a pledge (atypayls) 
 to the Father that He is perfect." Thesaur. p. 37. Vid. 
 also yevvrjTiKos, Orat. ii. 2, iii. 66, iv. 4 fin. ; 
 ayovos, i. 14, 19, and Sent. Dion. 15 and 19; 77 (f>v<riKr) 
 701^07-779, Damasc. F. 0. i. 8; a/capTros, Cyr. Thes. p. 45 ; 
 Epiph. Hasr. 65, p. 609 ; also the jevvrjaif and the 
 connected together, Orat. i. 29. This doctrine
 
 THE FATHER ALMIGHTY. 
 
 is briefly expressed in Orat. iv. 4, el ayovos, real 
 avevep^tjro^. So much at least is plain at first sight, 
 that a divine gennesis is not more difficult to our 
 imagination than a creation out of nothing. 
 
 This is the first conclusion which we are in a position 
 to draw under the sanction given to our reasonings by 
 the revelation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in 
 Unity. 
 
 2. A second conclusion is suggested by Thomas- 
 sin's words, towards the end of the above quotation, 
 " ut effluat nee extra effluat." It is the first of truths 
 that there is but one only Supreme Almighty Being. 
 The Arians and others accused Catholics, in their 
 maintenance of our Lord's Divinity, of virtually con- 
 travening this initial doctrine of all faith; as Euseb. 
 Eccl. Theol. i. 10, p. 69 ; and accordingly they insisted 
 on His being external and thereby subordinate and 
 inferior to God. But this was in fact to admit that 
 He was not born from God at all, but eoA,A?}cr#a TO> 
 Trarpl \o^ov } Orat. iv. 3; and Marcellus, according 
 to Eusebius, spoke of Him as rjvw^evov rc3 #ee3 \6jov 
 (vid. <ry/i/3e/3?7Ac6<?), Athan. protesting on the other 
 hand against the notion " that the Fountain begat 
 not wisdom from Itself, but acquired it from without," 
 vid. supr. Deer. 15, and Orat. iv. 4, and laying down 
 the principle ouSei/ ev Trpo? TOV irarepa, el prj TO e avrov. 
 Orat. iv. 17. 
 
 ff But the Son still was in as well as from the Father, 
 and this union of distant characteristics in the Son was 
 signified by S. John by the word TT/OOV, i. 1, whereas 
 the Sabellians preferred to say ev ro> Oeo,. Hence
 
 110 THE FATHER ALMIGHTY. 
 
 Basil, o ev dvdpwTrw X,0705 ov Trpos avrbv elvai \eyerai 
 d\X' ev avrw, c. Sabell. 1 fin., but the Divine Son 
 was 7rpo9 rbv Oeov, not ev rw Oew- It was in this 
 sense and with this explanation that Catholics held 
 and insisted on the Divine Unity ; or, as they 
 then called it, the Monarchia : and thence they 
 went on to the second great doctrine associated in 
 theology with the Eternal Father, and signified by 
 Thomassin in the above extract in the words, " ut 
 effluat flumen Deitatis nee extra effluat." The Infinite 
 Father of an Infinite Son must necessarily be con- 
 terminous (so to speak) with Him. A second self 
 (still to use inaccurate language) cannot be a second 
 God. The Monarchia of the Father is not only the 
 symbol of the Divine Unity, but of the Trinity in that 
 Unity, for it implies the presence of Those who, though 
 supreme, are not ap%ai. This was especially its purpose 
 in the first centuries, when polytheistic errors prevailed. 
 The Son and Spirit were then viewed relatively to the 
 Father, and the Father as the absolute God. Even now 
 statements remain in the Ritual of the old usage, as in 
 the termination of Collects, and as in the Sunday Preface 
 in the Mass : ' ' Pater Onmipotens, qui cum Unigenito 
 Filio tuo et Spiritu Sancto, Unus es Deus," instead of 
 the " Pater, Filius, Spiritus Sanctus, Unus Deus " of 
 the Psalmus Quicunque. 
 
 And so, " The Word," says Athan., " being the Son 
 of the One God, is referred to Him of whom also He is." 
 Orat. iv. 1. et? av-rov dva^eperai. vid. also Nazianz. Orat. 
 20, 7 ; Damasc. F. O. i. 8, p. 140; Theod. Abuc. Opusc. 
 42, p. 542. And so avdjerai, Naz. Orat. 42, 15 ; and
 
 THE FATHER ALMIGHTY. Ill 
 
 iva 77yu,a9 avcnre/Jb^Irr) eirl rrjv rov 7rarpo9 avOevriav, 
 Euseb. Eccl. Theol. i. 20, p. 84, though in an heretical 
 sense. (Vid. a remarkable illustration of this, under 
 Ignorance in Basil on Mark xiii. 32.) This, then, is 
 the Catholic doctrine of the Monarchia, in opposition 
 to the Three Archical Hypostases of Plato and 
 others. The Son and the Spirit were viewed as the 
 Father's possession, as one with Him yet as really 
 distinct from Him as a man's hands are one and 
 not one with himself; but still, in spite of this, 
 as being under the conditions of a nature at once 
 spiritual and infinite, therefore, in spite of this ana- 
 logy, not inferior, even if subordinate to the Father. 
 The word " parts " belongs to bodies, and implies 
 magnitude; but as the soul has powers and properties, 
 conscience, reason, imagination, and the like, but no 
 parts, so each Person of the Holy Trinity must either 
 be altogether and fully God, or not God at all. 
 
 ^[ By the Monarchy is meant the doctrine that the 
 Second and Third Persons in the Ever-blessed Trinity 
 are ever to be referred in our thoughts to the First as 
 the Fountain of Godhead. It is one of the especial 
 senses in which God is said to be one. " We are not 
 introducing three origins or three Fathers, as the 
 Marcionites and Manichees, just as our illustration is 
 not of three suns, but of sun and its radiance/' 
 Orat. iii. 15; vid. also iv. 1. Serap. i. 28 fin. 
 Naz. Orat. 23, 8. Bas. Horn. 24, init. Nyssen. Orat. 
 Cat. 3, p. 481. " The Father is unition, ewwcri?," 
 says S. Greg. Naz., "from whom and unto whom 
 are the others." Orat. 42, 15; also Orat. 20, 7,
 
 112 THE FATHER ALMIGHTY. 
 
 and Epiph. Hasr. 57, 5. Tertullian, and Dionysius of 
 Alexandria after him (Athan. Deer. 26), uses the word 
 Monarchia, which Praxeas had perverted into a kind 
 of Unitarianism or Sabellianism, in Prax. 3. Irenaaus 
 too wrote on the Monarchy, i. e. against the doctrine 
 that God is the author of evil. Eus. Hist. v. 20. And 
 before him was Justin's work " de Mouarchia/' where 
 the word is used in opposition to Polytheism. The 
 Marcionites, whom Dionysius also mentions, are 
 referred to by Athan. de Syn. 52 ; vid. also Cyril. 
 Hier. Cat. xvi. 4. Epiphanius says that their three 
 origins were God, the Creator, and the evil spirit, 
 Hasr. 42, 3. or as Augustine says, the good, the just, 
 and the wicked, which may be taken to mean nearly 
 the same thing. Haar. 22. The Apostolical Canons 
 denounce those who baptize into Three Unoriginate ; 
 vid. also Athan. Tom. ad Antioch. 5 ; Naz. Orat. 20, 6. 
 Basil denies rpet? apxiKai vTroa-rdaet,^, de Sp. S. 38. 
 
 Tf When characteristic attributes and prerogatives 
 are ascribed to God, or to the Father, this is done only 
 to the exclusion of creatures, or of false gods, not to 
 the exclusion of His Son who is implied in the mention 
 of Himself. Thus when God is called only wise, or 
 the Father the only God, or God is said to be ingene- 
 rate, ayevrjTos, this is not in contrast to the Son, but to 
 all things which are distinct from God. vid. Athan. 
 Orat. iii. 8; Naz. Orat. 30, 13; Cyril. Thesaur. p. 142. 
 " The words ' one ' and ' only ' ascribed to God in 
 Scripture," says S. Basil, " are not used in contrast 
 to the Son or the Holy Spirit, but with reference to 
 those who are not God, and falsely called so." Ep. H,
 
 THE FATHER ALMIGHTY. 113 
 
 n. 3. On the other hand, when the Father is men- 
 tioned, the other Divine Persons are implied in Him. 
 " The Blessed and Holy Trinity/' says S. Athan., " is 
 indivisible and one with Itself ; and when the Father 
 is mentioned, His Word is present too (vrpocreo-Ti), and 
 the Spirit in the Son ; and if the Son is named, in the 
 Son is the Father, and the Spirit is not external to the 
 Word." ad Serap. i. 14. "I have named the Father/' 
 says S. Dionysius, " and before I mention the Son, I 
 have already signified Him in the Father ; I have 
 mentioned the Son, and though I had not yet named 
 the Father, He had been fully comprehended in 
 the Son," &c. Sent. D. 17, vid. art. Coinherence. 
 
 ^f Passages like these are distinct from that 
 in which Athan. says that ' ' Father implies Son," 
 Orat. iii. 6, for there the question is of words, 
 but here of fact. That the words are correla- 
 tive, even Eusebius does not scruple to admit in 
 babell. i. (ap. Sirm. t. i. p. 8.) " Pater statim, ut 
 dictus fuit pater, requirit ista vox filium, &c. ;" but 
 in that passage no Trepixtoprjais is implied, which is the 
 orthodox doctrine. Yet Petavius observes as to the 
 very word Trept^wpiyo-i? 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. 
 
 3. Thirdly, from what has been said, since God, 
 although He is One and Only, nevertheless is Father 
 because He is God, we are led to understand that He 
 is Father in a sense of His own, not in a mere human 
 sense ; for a Father, who was like other fathers, 
 
 VOL. II. 1
 
 114 THE FATHER ALMIGHTY. 
 
 would of course impart to a Son that which he was 
 himself, and thus God would have a Son who could be 
 a father, and, as God, would in His Son commence a 
 Beoyovla ; this was the objection of the Arians ; but His 
 Son is His Image, not as Father, but as God ; and to 
 be Father is not the accident of His Person, as in the 
 case of men, but belongs necessarily to it ; and His 
 personality in the Godhead consists, as far as we know 
 it, in His being Father and in nothing else; and can only 
 so be denned or described ; and so in a parallel way as 
 regards the Son. The words " Father " and " Son " 
 have a high archetypical sense, and human fathers 
 and sons have but the shadow of it. 
 
 Tf With us a son becomes a father because our 
 nature is peva-rr), transitory and without stay, ever 
 shifting and passing on into new forms and relations : 
 but 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 ; thus Levi 
 before his birth was in the loins of Abraham ; whereas it 
 is by imparting Himself wholly that the Father begets 
 the Son ; and a perfect gennesis 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 only true Son ; the Father only a Father, 
 the Son only a Son; being really in Their Persons 
 what human fathers are but by function, circum- 
 stance, accident, and name. And since the Father 
 is unchangeable as Father, in nothing does the Son
 
 THE FATHER ALMIGHTY. 115 
 
 more fulfil the idea of a perfect Image than in being 
 unchangeable too. Thus S. Cyril, also, Thesaur. 4, 
 pp. 22,23; 13, p. 124, &c. 
 
 Men differ from each other as being individuals, but 
 the characteristic difference between Father and Son is, 
 not that they are separate 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. we are speaking of the Almighty Father, as such ; 
 there being no real separation between His Person and 
 His Substance. 
 
 ^[ Thus Athanasius : " ' If the Son is the Father's 
 offspring and image, and is like in all things to the 
 Father/ say the Arians, ' 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, . . if God be as man, let 
 Him be 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 mul- 
 titude 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 that a Creator has begun their 
 line, 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 into 
 being. Hence in such instances there is not, properly 
 
 i 2
 
 116 THE FATHER ALMIGHTY. 
 
 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, and 
 father of his son. But it is not so m the Godhead ; 
 for not as man is God; for the Father is not from 
 father; therefore doth He not beget one who shall 
 beget ; nor is the Son from effluence of the Father, nor 
 is He begotten from a father that was begotten ; there- 
 fore neither is He begotten so as to beget. Thus it 
 belongs to the Godhead alone, that the Father is 
 properly (xupiW) father, and the Son properly son, and 
 in Them, and Them only, does it hold that the Father 
 is ever Father and the Son ever Son. Therefore he 
 who asks why the Son has not a son, must inquire why 
 the Father had not a father. But both suppositions 
 are indecent and impious exceedingly. For as the 
 Father is ever Father and never could be Son, so the 
 Son is ever Son and never could be Father. For in 
 this rather is He shown to be the Father's Impress and 
 Image, remaining what He is and not changing, but 
 thus receiving from the Father to be one and the 
 same." Orat. i. 21,22. Presently he says, "For 
 God does not make men His pattern, but rather, for that 
 God is properly and alone truly Father of His Son, we 
 men also are called fathers of our own children, for 
 ' of Him is every fatherhood in heaven and on earth 
 named.' " 23. The Semi-Arians at Ancyra quote the 
 same text for the same doctrine. Epiphan. Hser. 73, 
 5. As do Cyril, in Joan. iii. p. 24 ; Thesaur. 32, 
 p. 281 ; and Damascene de Fid. Orth. i. 8. 
 
 Again : " As men create not as God creates, as their
 
 THE FATHER ALMIGHTY. 117 
 
 being is not such as God's being, so men's generation 
 is in one way, and the Son is from the Father in another. 
 For the offspring of men are portions of their fathers, 
 since the very nature of bodies is not uncompounded, 
 but transitive, and composed of parts ; and men lose 
 their substance in begetting, and again they gain 
 substance from the accession of food. And on this 
 account men in their time become fathers of many 
 children; but God, being without parts, is Father of 
 the Son without partition or passion ; for of the Im- 
 material there is neither effluence nor accession from 
 without, as among men ; and being uncompounded in 
 nature, He is Father of One Only Son. This is why the 
 Son is Only-begotten, and alone in the Father's bosom, 
 and alone is acknowledged by the Father to be from 
 Him, saying, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am 
 well pleased." de Deer. 11. The parallel, with which 
 this passage begins, as existing between creation and 
 generation, is insisted on by Isidor. Pel. Ep. iii. 355 ; 
 Basil, contr. Eun. iv. 1, p. 280, A ; Cyril. Thesaur. 6, 
 p. 43 ; Epiph. Hser. 69, 36 ; and Gregor. Naz. Orat. 20, 
 9, who observes that God creates with a word, Ps. 148, 
 5, which evidently transcends human creations. (Vid. 
 also supr. 1st part of this art.) Theodorus Abucara, 
 with the same object, draws out the parallel of life, far], 
 as Athan. that of being, eti/ai. Opusc. iii. p. 420-422. 
 
 The word /cup/a>?, used in the first of these passages, 
 also occurs on the same subject in Scrap, i. 16. 
 " 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
 
 118 THE FATHER ALMIGHTY. 
 
 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, fcvpiax;, hold." 
 Vid. the whole passage. Also ibid. iv. 4 fin. and 6 ; 
 vid. also /eup09, Greg. Naz. Orat. 29, 5 ; aXijOws, 
 Orat. 25, 16; 6Wo>?, Basil, contr. Eunom. i. 5, p. 
 215. 
 
 1[ C O fiev ira-Trjp, Trarrjp ecrn. Orat. iii. 11. And so, 
 " In the Godhead only, o Trarrjp Kvpiws earl Trarrjp, 
 teal o vlo<f Kvpltos I/to?." Serap. i. 16. He speaks of 
 " receding from things generate, casting away created 
 images, and ascending to the Father." Syn. 51, and 
 of men " not being in nature and truth benefactors/' 
 Almighty God being Himself the type and pattern. 
 Orat. iii. 19. And so S. Cyril, TO Kvpuot riicrov egeavrov 
 TO Oelov ecrnv, i7/u,ets Se Kara fUf&ftn*. Thesaur. 13, p. 133, 
 jrarrjp Kvpi(0<>, on fjurj /cat woV wcnrep teal vibs Kvplws, on 
 firj KOI Trarrjp. 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, KVpUoQ KOI 7rp&>T&>9, belong to 
 men, and are given by us but by a figure Kara^ptja-- 
 TiAcw<? (vol. i. p. 19, note 2) 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 the 
 Father even of us, much more is He the iraTrjp rov Kara 
 <j>vo-tv viov. Vid. also Euseb. contr. Marc. i. 4, p. 22. Eccl. 
 Theol. i. 12 fin.; ii. 6. Marcellus, on the other hand,
 
 THE FATHER ALMIGHTY. 119 
 
 contrasting Son and Word, said that our Lord was 
 Kvpt,a>$ X.0709, not Kvpia)<; vlos. ibid, ii. 10 fin. 
 
 S. Basil says in like manner that, though God is 
 Father icvpiws (properly), yet it comes to the same 
 thing though we were to say that He is rpoinKw^ and IK 
 fj,era(popd<;, figuratively, Father; contr. Eun. ii. 24; 
 for in that case we must, as in other metaphors 
 used of Him (anger, sleep, flying), take that part of 
 the human sense which can apply to Him. Now 
 <yevvr](Ti<; implies two things passion, and relationship, 
 ol/ceiaHris </>u<re&>9 ; accordingly we must take the latter 
 as an indication of the divine sense of the term. On 
 the terms Son, Word, &c., being figurative, or illustra- 
 tive, and how to use them, vid. also de Deer. 12 ; 
 Orat. i. 26, 27, ii. 32, iii. 18, 67; Basil, contr. 
 Eunom. ii. 17; Hil. de Trin. iv. 2. Vid. also Athan. ad 
 Serap. i. 20, and Basil. Ep. 38, n. 5, and what is said 
 of the office of faith in each of these.
 
 120 FLESH. 
 
 FLESH. 
 
 WE know that our Lord took our flesh and in it by 
 His death atoned for our sins, and by the grace commu- 
 nicated to us through that Flesh, renews our nature ; 
 but the question arises whether He took on Him our 
 flesh as it was in Adam before the fall, or as it is now. 
 To this the direct and broad answer is, He assumed it 
 as it is after the fall, though of course some explana- 
 tions have to be made. 
 
 IT 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 unto him He should become like ; 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. t. 9. p. 692, Bibl. Max. Accordingly Athan. says, 
 " He took a servant's form, putting on that flesh, which 
 was enslaved to sin." Orat. i. 43. And, " Had no 
 Sinlessness appeared 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 life-giving, He might destroy the corruption
 
 FLESH. 121 
 
 &c For by this means might sin in our flesh 
 
 become dead." Ep. ad Success, i. p. 138. And S. 
 Leo, "Non alterius natures erat ejus caro quam nostra, 
 nee alio illi quam cgeteris hominibus anima est inspirata 
 principio, quae excelleret, non diversitate generis, sed 
 sublimitate virtutis." Ep. 35 fin. ; vid. also Ep. 28, 
 3; Ep. 31, 2; Ep. 165, 9; Serin. 22, 2, and 25, 5. 
 It may be asked whether this doctrine does not in- 
 terfere with that of the Miraculous Conception ; but 
 that miracle was wrought in order that our Lord 
 might not be born in original sin, and does not 
 affect, or rather we may say it includes, His taking 
 flesh of the Blessed Virgin's substance, 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 S. Austin says, "We say not that it was 
 by the felicity of a flesh separated from sense that Christ 
 could not feel the desire of sin, but that by perfection of 
 virtue, and by a flesh not begotten through concu- 
 piscence of the flesh, He had not the desire of sin." 
 Op. Imperf. iv. 48. On the other hand, S. Athanasius 
 expressly calls it Manichean doctrine to consider TTJV 
 (frvcnv of the flesh dpapriav, teal ou rrjv Trpd^iv, contr. 
 Apoll. i. 12 fin., or <f>vaiKr)v elvat TTJV a^apriav, ibid. i. 
 14 fin. His argument in Apoll. i. 15 is on the ground 
 that all natures are from God, but God made man 
 upright nor can be the author of evil (vid. also Vit.
 
 122 FLESH. 
 
 Anton. 20) ; " not as if/' he says, " the devil wrought in 
 man a nature, (God forbid !) for of a nature the devil 
 cannot be maker (77^1017)709), as is the impiety of the 
 Manichees, but he wrought a bias of nature by trans- 
 gression, 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 assault 
 of sin which is death, did God the Word raise 
 again, so as to be secure from the devil's bias and the 
 assault 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. 
 ^J " As, since the flesh has become the all- quicken ing 
 Word's, it overbears the might of corruption and 
 death, so, I think, since the soul became His who 
 knew not error, it has an unchangeable condition for 
 all good things established in it, and far more vigorous 
 than the sin that of old time tyrannized over us. For, 
 first and only of men on the earth, Christ did not sin, 
 nor was guile found in His mouth ; and He is laid 
 down as a root and firstfruit of those who are re- 
 fashioned unto newness of life in the Spirit, and unto 
 immortality of body, and He will transmit to the whole 
 human race the firm security of the Godhead, as by 
 participation and by grace." Cyril, de Eect. Fid. 
 p. 18. Vid. art. Specialties.
 
 USE OF FORCE IN RELIGION. 123 
 
 USE OF FORCE IN RELIGION. 
 
 " IN no long time/' says Athan., " they will turn to 
 outrage ; and next they will threaten us with the band 
 and the captain/' Vid. John xviii. 12. Elsewhere he 
 speaks of tribune and governour, with an allusion to 
 Acts xiii. 22, 24, &c. Hist. Arian. 66 fin. and 67 ; vid. 
 also 2. " How venture they to call that a Council, 
 in which a Count presided, &c." Apol. c. Ar. 8 ; vid. 
 also 10, 46; Ep. Enc. 5. And so also doctrinally, 
 " Our Saviour is so gentle that He teaches thus, If 
 any man wills to come after Me, and Whoso wills to be 
 My disciple ; and coming to each, He does not force 
 them, but knocks at the door and says, Open unto Me, 
 My sister, My spouse; 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 per- 
 suasion and counsel." Ar. Hist. 33 ; vid. also 67, and 
 Hilar. ad Const, i. 2. On the other hand he observes 
 of the Nicene Fathers, " It was not necessity which 
 drove the judges " to their decision, " but all vindi- 
 cated the Truth of deliberate purpose." Ep. ^g. 13. 
 As to the view taken in early times of the use of 
 force in religion, it seems to have been that that was 
 a bad cause which depended upon it ; but that, when 
 a cause was good, there was nothing wrong in using
 
 124 USE OF FORCE IN RELIGION. 
 
 secular means in due subordiuation to argument ; that 
 it was as lawful to urge religion by such means on in- 
 dividuals who were incapable of higher motives, as by 
 inducements of temporal advantage. Our Lord's king- 
 dom was not of this world, in that it did not depend 
 on this world ; but means of this world were some- 
 times called for in order to lead the mind to an act of 
 faith in that which was not of this world. The simple 
 question was, whether a cause depended on force for 
 its success. S. Athanasius declared, and the event 
 proved, that Arianism was thus dependent. When 
 Emperors ceased to persecute, Arianism ceased to be ; 
 it had no life in itself. Again, active heretics were 
 rightly prevented by secular means from spreading the 
 poison of their heresy. But all exercise of temporal 
 pressure, long continued or on a large scale, was wrong, 
 as arguing an absence of moral and rational grounds in 
 its justification. Again, the use of secular weapons in 
 ecclesiastical hands was a scandal, as negotiatio would be. 
 And further there is an abhorrence of cruelty, just and 
 natural to us, which may easily be elicited, unless the use 
 of the secular arm is directed with much discretion and 
 charity. For a list of passages from the Fathers on the 
 subject, vid. Limborch on the Inquisition, vol. i. and ii. 
 2 and 5; Bellarmin. de Laicis, c. 21, 22. For authors 
 who defend its adoption, vid. Gerhard de Magistr. Polit. 
 p. 741. So much as to the question of principle, which 
 even Protestants act on and have generally acted ; in 
 this day and here, State interference would so simply 
 tell against the Catholic cause, that it would be a 
 marvel to find any Catholic advocating: it.
 
 USE OF FORCE IN RELIGION. 125 
 
 In that day it was a thought which readily arose in 
 the minds of zealous men. Thus : 
 
 If " Who comprehends not the craft of these God- 
 assailants ? who but would stone such madmen ? OVK 
 av Ka-ra\i6(a<Tei,v." Deer. 28. - 
 
 " If then they thus conceive of the Son, let all men 
 throw stones at them, considering, as they do, the Word 
 a part of this universe, and a part insufficient without 
 the rest for the service committed to_ Him. But 
 if this be manifestly impious, let them acknowledge 
 that the Word is not in the number of things made, 
 but the sole and proper Word of the Father, and their 
 Framer. His words are {3a\\ea-0a)o-av irapa Trdvrwv," 
 Orat. ii. 28. Vid. also i. 38, and iii. 41. 
 
 *[[ There is an apparent allusion in such passages to 
 the punishment of blasphemy and idolatry under the 
 Jewish Law. Vid. art. Definition, supra, Ex. xxi. 17. 
 Thus, for instance, Nazianzen : " While I go up the 
 mount with good heart, . . that I may become within 
 the cloud, arid may hold converse with God, for so God 
 bids, if there be any Aaron, let him go up with me 
 and stand near. . . And if there be any Nadab or Abiud, 
 or any of the elders, let him go up, but stand far off, 
 according to the measure of his purification. . . . But 
 if any one is an evil and savage beast, and quite inca- 
 pable of science and theology . . let him stand off still 
 further, and depart from the mount ; or he will be 
 stoned and crushed ; for the wicked shall be miserably 
 destroyed. For as stones for the bestial are true words 
 and strong. Whether he be leopard, let him die spots 
 and all," &c. Orat. 28, 2. The stoning then was
 
 126 USE OF FORCE IN RELIGION. 
 
 metaphorical ; the stones were strong words. In the 
 same way S. Dionysius speaks of the charges of hetero- 
 doxy brought against him before the Roman See. 
 "By two words taken out of their context, as with 
 stones, they sling at me from a distance." Athan. de 
 Sent. D. 18. 
 
 
 
 ^[ " Are they not deserving of many deaths ? " Orat. 
 ii. 4. " You ought (w^etXe?) to have your impious 
 tongue cut out/' the Arian Acacius says to Marcellus, 
 ap. Epiph. Hser. 72, 7. "If Eutyches thinks otherwise 
 than the decrees of the Church, he deserves (aio<?) not 
 only punishment, but the fire." Dioscorus ap. Concil. 
 Chalced. (Hard. t. 2, p. 100.) In time they advanced 
 from accounting to doing. The Emperor Justin 
 proposes to cut out the heretic Severus's tongue, 
 Evagr. iv. 4 ; and " blasphemiis lapidasti," Theodor. 
 ap. Concil. 6. (Labbe, t. 6, p. 88.) Afterwards 
 we find an advance from allegory to fact. Sometimes 
 it was a literalism deduced from the doctrine in dispute ; 
 as the heretics at the Latrocinium cried, " Cut in two 
 those who assert two Natures." Concil. Hard. t. 2, p. 
 81. Palladius relates a case in which a sort of ordeal 
 became a punishment : Abbot Copres proposed to a 
 Mariichee to enter a fire with him. After Copres had 
 come out unharmed, the populace forced the Manichee 
 into it, and then cast him, burnt as he was, out of the 
 city. Hist. Lausiac. 54. S. Gregory mentions the 
 case of a wizard, who had pretended to be a monk, 
 and had used magical arts against a nun, being subse- 
 quently burned by the Roman populace. Dial. i. 4.
 
 FREEDOM OF OUR MORAL NATURE. 127 
 
 FREEDOM OF OUR MORAL NATURE. 
 
 THIS, it need hardly be said, is ona of the chief 
 blessings which we have secured to us by the Incarna- 
 tion. We are by nature the captives and prisoners of 
 our inordinate and unruly passions and desires ; we are 
 not our own masters, till our Lord sets us free ; and 
 the main question is, how does He set us free, and by 
 what instrumentality ? 
 
 1. Here we answer, first, by bringing home to us the 
 broad and living law of liberty and His own pattern 
 which He has provided for us. " Whereas," Athan. 
 says, "of things made the nature is alterable, . . there- 
 fore there was here need of One who was unalterable, 
 that men might have the immutability of the righteous- 
 ness of the Word as an image and type for virtue/' 
 Orat. i. 51. (Disc. n. 84.) 
 
 ^[ Vid. Athan. de Incarn. 13, 14; vid. also Gent. 
 
 41 fin. " Cum justitia nulla esset in terra, doc- 
 torem misit, quasi vivam legein." Lactant. Instit. iv. 
 25. " The Only-begotten was made man like us, ... 
 as if lending us His own steadfastness/' Cyril, in 
 Joann. lib. v. 2, p. 473 ; vid. also Thesaur. 20, p. 198 ; 
 August, de Corr. et Grat. 10 12; Damasc. F. 0. iv. 
 4. And this pattern to us He is, not only through 
 His incarnation, but as manifested in a measure by 
 His glory, as TrptoTOTO/co?, in the visible universe.
 
 128 FREEDOM OF OUR MORAL NATURE. 
 
 Vid. a beautiful passage, cpntr. Gent. 42, &c. Again, 
 " He made them [men] after His own image, impart- 
 ing to them of the power of His proper Word, that, 
 having as it were certain shadows of the Word, and 
 becoming rational, \oyucol, they might be enabled to 
 continue in blessedness." In earn. 3 ; vid. also Orat. 
 ii. 78, (Disc. n. 215), where he speaks of Wisdom as 
 being infused into the world on its creation, that the 
 world might possess " an impress and semblance of 
 Its Image." 
 
 So again, " He is the Truth, but we by imitation 
 become virtuous and sons ; . . that, as He, being the 
 Word, is in His own Father, so we too, taking Him as 
 an exemplar, might live in unanimity," &c. &c. Kara 
 fjiifji^cnv. Orat. iii. 19. (Disc. n. 252) ; Clem. Alex. 
 rcov fiKovwv TO? fjikv e/erpeTTO/jLevovs, ras Se ^i/j,ov/j,vov<f. 
 Pasdag. i. 3, p. 102, ed. Pott, and /jLi^aei TOV i/oo? 
 eiceivov. Naz. Ep. 102, p. 95 (ed. Ben.). Vid. Leo 
 in various places, infra, p. 190, art. Incarnation; " ut 
 imitatores operum, factores sermonum, &c. Iren. Hser. 
 v. 1 ; exemplum verum et adjutorium. August. 
 Serm. 101, 6; mediator non solum per adjutorium, 
 verum etiam per exemplum. August. Trin. xiii. 22, 
 also ix. 21, and Eusebius, though with an heretical 
 meaning, Kara TTJV avrov fjilfirjcnv. Eccl. Theol. iii. 19. 
 
 2. But of course an opportunity of imitation is not 
 enough : a powerful internal grace is necessary, how- 
 ever great the beauty of the Moral Law and its Author, 
 in order to set free and convert the human heart. 
 " Idly do ye imagine to be able to work in yourselves 
 newness of the principle which thinks (^povovvTo^} and
 
 FREEDOM OF OUR MORAL NATURE. 129 
 
 actuates the flesh, expecting to do so by imitation . . . 
 for if men could have wrought for themselves newness 
 of that actuating principle without Christ, and if what 
 is actuated follows what actuates, what need was there 
 of Christ's coming?" Apoll. i. 20 fin. And again: 
 " The Word of God/' he says, " underwent a sort of 
 creation in the Incarnation, in order to effect thereby 
 our new creation. If He was not thus created for us," 
 but was absolutely a creature, which is the Arian 
 doctrine, " it follows that we are not created in Him ; 
 and, if not created in Him, we have Him not in our- 
 selves, but externally, as, for instance, receiving in- 
 struction from Plim as from a teacher. And, it being 
 so with us, sin has not lost its reign over the flesh, 
 being inherent and not cast out of it." Orat. ii. 56. 
 (Disc. n. 180.) And this is necessary, he goes on to 
 say, " that we might have e\evdepov TO ^povijfia' 3 
 
 Tf He speaks, contr. Gent., of man "having the 
 grace of the Giver, and his own virtue from . the 
 Father's Word ; " of the mind " seeing the Word, 
 and in Him the Word's Father also," 2 ; of ' ' the way 
 to God being, not as God Himself, above us and far 
 off, or external to us, but in us," 30, &c. &c. ; vid. also 
 Basil, de Sp. S. n. 19. This is far more than mere 
 teaching. " Rational creatures, receiving light," says 
 Cyril, " enlighten by imparting principles, which are 
 poured from their own mind into another intellect j ' 
 and such an illumination may be justly called teaching 
 rather than revelation. But the Word of God en- 
 lighteneth every man that cometh into the world, not 
 in the way of a teacher, as for instance Angels do or 
 
 VOL. II. K
 
 130 FREEDOM OF OUR MORAL NATURE. 
 
 men, but rather as God, in the way of a Framer, doth 
 He sow in each whom He calls into being the seed of 
 Wisdom, that is of divine knowledge, and implant a 
 root of understanding/' &c. Cyril, in Joan. xix. p. 75. 
 Athan. speaks of this seed sometimes as natural, some- 
 times as supernatural, and indeed the one order of 
 grace is parallel to the other, and not incompatible 
 with it. Again, he speaks of " a reason combined and 
 connatural with everything that came into being, 
 which some are wont to call seminal, inanimate indeed 
 and unreasoning and unintelligent, but operating only 
 by external art according to the science of Him who 
 sowed it." contr. Gent. 40. Thus there are three 
 supernatural aids given to men of which the Word is 
 the apyj), that of instinct, of reason, and the " gratia 
 Christi." 
 
 3. Even this is not all which is given us over and 
 above nature. The greatest and special gift is the 
 actual presence, as well as the power within us of the 
 Incarnate Son as a principle or ap-^rj (vid. art. ap^rj) 
 of sanctification, or rather of deification, (vid. art. Deif.) 
 On this point Athan. especially dwells in too many 
 passages to quote or name. 
 
 E.g. "The Word of God was made man in order 
 to sanctify the flesh." Orat. ii. 10. (Disc. n. 114 
 fin.) "Ye say, ' He destroyed [the works of the devil] 
 by not sinning;' but this is no destruction of sin 
 For not in Him did the devil in the beginning work 
 sin, that by His coming into the world and not 
 sinning sin was destroyed ; but whereas the devil had 
 wrought sin by an after-sowing in the rational and
 
 FREEDOM OF OUR MORAL NATURE. 131 
 
 spiritual nature of man, therefore it became impossible 
 for nature, which was rational and had voluntarily 
 sinned, and fell under the penalty of death, to recover 
 itself into freedom (e\evdepiav). . . . Therefore came 
 the Son of God by Himself to establish [the flesh] in 
 His own nature from a new beginning (apxfy an ^ a 
 marvellous generation." Apoll. ii. 6. 
 
 ^[ "True, without His incarnation at all, God was able 
 to speak the Word only and undo the curse . . . but then 
 the power indeed of Him who gave command had been 
 shown, but man would have fared but as Adam before the 
 fall, by receiving grace only from without, not having it 
 united to the body. . . Then, had he been again seduced 
 by the serpent, a second need had arisen of God's 
 commanding and undoing the curse ; and thus the need 
 had been interminable, and men had remained under 
 guilt just as before, being in slavery to sin, &c. 
 Orat. ii. 68. (Disc. n. 200) ; vid arts. Incarnation 
 and Sanctification. And so in Incarn. 7, he says 
 that repentance might have been pertinent, had man 
 merely offended, without corruption following ; but 
 that that corruption involved the necessity of the 
 Word's vicarious sufferings and intercessory office. 
 
 ^f " If the works of the Word's Godhead had not 
 taken place through the body, man had not been made 
 god ; and again, had not the belongings of the flesh 
 been ascribed to the Word, man had not been 
 thoroughly delivered from them ; but though they had 
 ceased for a little while, as I said before, still sin had 
 remained in man and corruption, as was the case with 
 mankind before He came ; and for this reason : 
 
 K 2
 
 132 FREEDOM OF OUR MORAL NATURE. 
 
 Many, for instance, have been made Holy and clean 
 from all sin ; nay, Jeremias was hallowed, even from 
 the womb, and John, while yet in the womb, leapt for 
 joy at the voice of Mary Mother of God ; nevertheless 
 death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those that 
 had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgres- 
 sion ; and thus men remained mortal and corruptible 
 as before, liable to the affections proper to their nature. 
 But now the Word having become man and having 
 appropriated the affections of the flesh, no longer do 
 these affections touch the body, because of the Word 
 who has come in it, but they are destroyed by Him, 
 and henceforth men no longer remain sinners and dead 
 according to their proper affections, but having risen 
 according to the Word's power, they abide ever im- 
 mortal and incorruptible. Whence also, whereas the 
 flesh is born of Mary Mother of God, He Himself is 
 said to have been born, who furnishes to others a 
 generation of being ; in order that, by His transferring 
 our generation into Himself, we may no longer, as 
 mere earth, return to earth, but as being knit into the 
 Word from heaven, may be carried to heaven by Him/' 
 Orat. iii. 33. (Disc. n. 270.) 
 
 ^[ " We could not otherwise/' says S. Irengeus, 
 "receive incorruption and immortality, but by being 
 united to incorruption and immortality. But how 
 could this be, unless incorruption and immortality had 
 first been made what we are ? that corruption might 
 be absorbed by incorruption and mortal by immortality, 
 that we might receive the adoption of Sons." Hser. 
 iii. 19, n. 1. "He took part of flesh and blood, that
 
 FREEDOM OF OUR MORAL NATURE. 133 
 
 is, He became man, whereas He was Life by nature, 
 . . . that uniting Himself to the corruptible flesh 
 according to the measure of its own nature, ineffably, 
 and inexpressibly, and as He alone knows, He might 
 bring it to His own life, and render it partaker through 
 Himself of God and the Father. . . . For He bore our 
 nature, refashioning it into His own life; . . . He is 
 in us through the Spirit, turning our natural corrup- 
 tion into incorruption and changing death to its 
 contrary." Cyril, in Joan. lib. ix. cir. fin. pp. 883, 4. 
 This is the doctrine of S. Athanasius and S. Cyril, 
 one may say, passim. 
 
 1[ Vid. Naz. Epp. ad Cled. 1 and 2 (101, 102, ed. 
 Ben.) ; Nyssen. ad Theoph. inApoll. p. 696. " Generatio 
 Chris ti origo estpopuli Christiani," says S. Leo ; "for 
 whoso is regenerated in Christ," he continues, "has 
 no longer the propagation from a carnal father, but the 
 germination of a Saviour, who therefore was made Son 
 of man, that we might be sons of God." Serm. 26, 
 2. " Multum fuit a Christo recepisse formam, sed plus 
 est in Christo habere substantiam. Suscepit nos in 
 suam proprietatem ilia natura/' &c. &c. Serm. 72, 2 ; 
 vid. Serm. 22, 2 ; " ut corpus regenerati fiat caro Cruci- 
 fixi." Serm. 63, 6. " Hsec est nativitas nova dum homo 
 nascitur in Deo ; in quo homine Deus natus est, carne 
 antiqui seminis suscepta, sine semine antique, ut illam 
 novo semine, id est, spiritualiter, reformaret, exclusis 
 antiquitatis sordibus, expiatam." Tertull. de Carn. 
 Christ. 17; vid. Orat. iii. 34. 
 
 ^[ Such is the channel and mode in which spiritual 
 life and freedom is given to us. Our Lord Himself,
 
 134 FREEDOM OF OUR MORAL NATURE. 
 
 according to the Holy Fathers, is the ap-^r] of the new 
 creation to each individual Christian. If it be asked 
 of them, What real connexion can there possibly be 
 between the sanctification of Christ's manhood and 
 ours ? how does it prove that human nature is sancti- 
 fied because a particular specimen of it was sanctified 
 in Him ? S. Chrysostom explains : " He is born of our 
 substance ; you will say, ' This does not pertain to 
 all ;' yea, to all. He mingles (avap'vyvvcriv) Himself 
 with the faithful individually, through the mysteries, 
 and whom He has begotten those He nurses from 
 Himself, not puts them out to other hands," &c. Horn. 
 82, 5. in Matt. And just before, " It sufficed not for 
 Him to be made man, to be scourged, to be sacrificed ; 
 but He assimilates Himself to us (dva<f)vpi eavrov yfjuv), 
 nor merely by faith, but really, has He made us His 
 body." Again, " That we are commingled (avarcepaa-- 
 6wfAv) into that flesh, not merely through love, but 
 really, is brought about by means of that food which 
 He has bestowed upon us." Horn. 46. 3. in Joann. 
 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. 10, p. 863, 4. And Nyssen : " As they who 
 have taken poison, destroy its deadly power by some 
 other preparation ... so when we have tasted what
 
 FREEDOM OF OUR MORAL NATURE. 135 
 
 destroys our nature, we have need of that instead 
 which restores what was destroyed. . . . But what is 
 this ? nothing else than that Body which has been 
 proved to be mightier than death, and was the be- 
 ginning, KaTtjpZaTo, of our life. For a little leaven/' 
 &c. Orat. Catech. 37. "Decocta quasi per ollam carnis 
 nostraa cruditate, sanctificavit in geternum nobis cibum 
 carnem suam." Paulin. Ep. 23. 7. Of course in such 
 statements nothing material is implied. But without 
 some explanation of this nature, language such as 
 S. Athanasius's in the text seems a mere matter of 
 words.
 
 136 GKACE OF GOD. 
 
 GEACE OF GOD. 
 
 IT is a doctrine much insisted on by S. Athanasius, 
 that, together with the act of creation, there was, on 
 the part of the Creator, a further act conservative of 
 the universe which He was creating. This was the 
 communication to it of a blessing or grace, analogous 
 to the grace and sonship purchased for us by our Lord's 
 incarnation, though distinct in kind from it and far 
 inferior to it ; and in consequence the universe is not 
 only yevijTov but ^evvi^rov, not only made, but in a 
 certain sense begotten or generated, and, being 
 moulded on the Pattern supplied by the Divine Nature, 
 is in a true sense an Image or at least a Semblance of 
 the Creator. (Vid. art. ^evmjrov.} 
 
 In controversy with the Arians, he explains with 
 great care the nature of this gift, because it was their 
 device to reduce our Lord's Sonship, in which lay the 
 proof of His Divinity, to the level of the supernatural 
 adoption which has been accorded by the Creator first 
 to the whole world on its creation, and again through 
 the redemption of the fallen race of man upon the cross. 
 
 This grace of adoption was imparted in both cases 
 by the ministration of the Eternal Son, in capacity 
 of Primogenitus or First-born, as through His In- 
 carnation in the Gospel Economy so through His 
 s., or the coming in the beginning of His
 
 GRACE OF GOD. 137 
 
 Personal Presence into the world, and was His type 
 and likeness stamped upon the world, and a fulness of 
 excellence enriching it from the source of all excellence. 
 (Vid. vrptoTOTO/o)?.) 
 
 "Since God is self-existing and not composed of parts," 
 says Athan., " such too is His Word also, being One 
 Only-begotten God, who from a Father, as a Fount of 
 Good, has gone forth (7rpoe\0a)v} Himself Good, and 
 put into order and into consistency all things. The 
 reason for this is truly admirable, and evidently befit- 
 ting. For the nature of creatures, as coming into subsis- 
 tence out of nothing, is dissoluble, and feeble, and, taken 
 by itself, is mortal, but the God of the universe is good 
 and of surpassing beauty in His nature, (vid. pevcrros) . . 
 Beholding then that all created nature was in respect 
 of its own laws dissoluble and dissolving, lest this 
 should happen to it, and the whole world fall back 
 again into nothing, having made all things by His own 
 Eternal Word, and having given substance to the 
 creation, He refused to let it be carried away and 
 wrecked (^e^d^eo-Oat) by stress of its own nature, and, 
 as a Good God, He governs and sustains it all by His 
 own Word, who is Himself God, . . . through whom 
 and in whom all things consist, visible and invisible," 
 &c. contr. Gent. 41. 
 
 Again, "In order that what came into being might not 
 only be, but be good, it pleased God that His own Wis- 
 dom should condescend ((TvyKaTaftrfvai) 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. For as
 
 138 GRACE OF GOD. 
 
 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." 
 Orat. ii. 78. (Disc. n. 215.) 
 
 ^[ S. Cyril, using another figure, says that the uni- 
 verse is grafted on the Word : " 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. 
 
 Moreover, Athan. goes so far as to suggest that the 
 universe does not evidence the Creator, except as being 
 inhabited by the Son, and that what we see divine in 
 it is His Presence. " He has said, ' The invisible 
 things of Him from the creation of the world are 
 clearly seen, being understood by the things that are 
 made, His eternal Power and Divinity/ . . . Study the 
 context, and ye will see that it is the Son who is 
 signified. 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 were made. If indeed the creation be suffi- 
 cient of itself alone, without the Son, to make God 
 known, see that you fall not into the further opinion 
 that without the Son it came to be. But if through
 
 GRACE OF GOD. 139 
 
 the Son it came to be, and in Him all things consist, 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. 
 And on Philip's asking, Show us the Father, He said 
 not, ' Behold the creation' but, He that hath seen Me, 
 hath seen the Father." Orat. i. 11, 12. (Disc. n. 17.) 
 
 2. It is then the original o-vyfcaTdftaa-is of the Son, 
 making Himself the First-begotten of the creation in 
 the beginning, which breathes, and which stamps a sort 
 of divinity upon the natural universe, and prepares us 
 for that far higher grace and glory which is given to 
 human nature by means of the Incarnation; this 
 evangelical grace being not merely a gift from above, 
 but an inhabitation of the Giver in man, a communi- 
 cation of His Person, and a participation, as it may be 
 called, of the Virtue of that Person, similar to that, 
 which, when He came upon earth He bestowed on 
 individuals by contact with His hands or His garments 
 for their deliverance from bodily ailments or injuries. 
 
 ^[ Our Lord, then, came on earth, not merely as the 
 physician of our souls, but as the First-born and the 
 Parent of a new Family, who should be the principle 
 of propagation of a new birth in a fallen world. " The 
 flesh being first sanctified in Him, we have the sequel 
 of the Spirit's grace, receiving out of His fulness/' 
 Orat. i. 50 fin. (Disc. n. 83 fin.) " Therefore did He 
 assume the body created and human, that, having re- 
 newed it as its Framer, He might make it god in 
 Himself, and thus might introduce us all into the 
 kingdom of heaven after His likeness." Orat. ii. 70.
 
 140 GRACE OF GOD. 
 
 " How could we be partakers of that adoption of sons, 
 unless through the Son we had received from Him 
 that communion with Him, unless His Word had been 
 made flesh, and had communicated it to us ? " Iren. 
 Ha>r. iii. 18, 7. 
 
 ^[ Hence it is that the adoption of sons which is 
 the gift which we gain by the Incarnation, is far more 
 than an adoption in the ordinary sense of that word, 
 and far stronger terms are used of it. Athan. says 
 that we are made sons 'truly/ vio7roiovfj,e6a aA,??#&>?. 
 Deer. 31. (Nic. n. 45.) Again S. Basil says, that we 
 are sons, Kvpiw, "properly/ 7 and Trpcorw?, "primarily/' 
 in opposition to e/c perafopas and rpoTu/coi?, " figura- 
 tively/' contr. Eunom. ii. 23, 24. S. Cyril too says, that 
 we are sons " naturally, "(frva-ifcws, as well as Kara x"-pw, 
 vid. Suicer. Thesaur. v. m'o<?, i. 3. Of these words, 
 aXrjd&s, <f)vcri,KO)<s 3 icvpluis, and irpcoToof, the first two 
 are commonly reserved for our Lord ; e. g. rbv akijd^ 
 vibv, Orat. ii. 37. (Disc. n. 150 fin.) ridels viol, OVK d>s 
 eiceivos <j>vo-ei ical a\rjdeia, Orat. iii. 19. (Disc. n. 251.) 
 Hilary indeed seems to deny us the title of " proper " 
 sons, de Trin. xii. 15 ; but his " proprium " is a trans- 
 lation of f$tWj not tcvpicos. 
 
 T[ The true statement is, that, whereas there is a 
 primary and secondary sense in which the word Son is 
 used, the primary, when it has its formal meaning of 
 continuation of nature, and the secondary when it is 
 used nominally, or for an external resemblance to the 
 first meaning, it is applied to the regenerate, not in the 
 secondary sense, but in the primary. S. Basil and S. 
 Gregory Nyssen consider Son to be " a term of reZa-
 
 GRACE OF GOD. 141 
 
 tionship according to nature " (vid. art. Son), also 
 Basil in Psalm 28, 1. The actual presence of the 
 Holy Spirit in the regenerate in substance (vid. Cyril. 
 Dial. 7, p. 638), constitutes this relationship of nature; 
 and hence after the words quoted from S. Cyril in the 
 beginning of this note, in which he says, that we are 
 sons (frvai/cws, he proceeds, " naturally, because we are 
 in Him, and in Him alone/' vid. A than /s words which 
 folio win the text at the end of Deer. 31. And hence 
 Nyssen lays down, as a received truth, that " to none 
 does the term ( proper/ /cvpicararov, apply, but to one 
 in whom the name responds with truth to the nature." 
 contr. Eunom. iii. p. 123. And he also implies, p. 117, 
 the intimate association of our sonship with Christ's, 
 when he connects together regeneration with our Lord's 
 eternal generation, neither being Sia Tradovs, or, of the 
 will of the flesh. If it be asked, what the distinctive 
 words are which are incommunicably the Son's, since so 
 much is man's, it is obvious to answer, 18105 tto? and 
 IMovoyevrjs, which are in Scripture, and the symbols 
 " of the substance," and " one in substance," of the 
 Council; and this is the value of the Council's phrases, 
 that, while they guard the Son's divinity, they allow 
 full scope, without risk of intrenching on it, to the 
 Catholic doctrine of the fulness of the Christian privi- 
 leges.
 
 142 HAND. 
 
 HAND. 
 
 GOD, the Creative Origin and Cause of all beings, 
 acts by the mediation, ministration, or agency of His 
 co-equal Son. To symbolize His numerical oneness 
 with that Son, the Son is called His Hand. 
 
 E.g. by Athan. Dec. 7, 17. Orat. ii. 31, 71. iv. 
 26. Also Incarn. c. Ar. 12. 
 
 Also by Clem. E/ecogn. viii. 43. Horn. xvi. 12. Me- 
 thod ap. Phot. cod. 235, p. 937. Iren. Hger. iv. praaf. 20, 
 v. 1 and 5 and 6. Clem. Protr. (brachium) p. 93. Potter. 
 Tertull. Herm. 45. Cyprian. Test. ii. 4. Euseb. in 
 Psalm. 108, 27. Hilar. Trin. viii. 22. Basil. Eunom. v. 
 p. 297. Cyril, in Joann. 476, 7, et alibi. Thesaur. 
 p. 154. Job. ap.Phot. p. 582. August, in Joan. 48, 7 
 (though he prefers another use of the word), p. 323. 
 
 This image is in contrast with that of instrument, 
 op^avov, which the Arians would use to express the 
 relation of the Son to the Father, as implying sepa- 
 rateness and subservience, whereas the word Hand 
 implies His consubstantiality ; vid. art. Mediation.
 
 HERESIES. 143 
 
 HERESIES. 
 
 IT HERESIES are partial views of the truth, starting 
 from some truth which they exaggerate, and disowning 
 and protesting against other truth, which they fancy 
 inconsistent with it. 
 
 If All heresies are partial views of the truth, and are 
 wrong, not so much in what they directly say as in 
 what they deny. 
 
 IF All heresies seem connected together and to run 
 into each other. When the mind has embraced one, 
 it is almost certain to run into others, apparently 
 the most opposite, it is quite uncertain which. 
 Thus Arians were a reaction from Sabellians, yet 
 did not the less consider than they that God was but 
 one Person, and that Christ was a creature. Apolli- 
 naris was betrayed into his heresy by opposing the 
 Arians, yet his heresy started with the tenet in which 
 the Arians ended, that Christ had no human soul. 
 His disciples became, and even naturally, some of 
 them Sabellians, some Arians. Again, beginning with 
 denying our Lord a soul, he came to deny Him a body, 
 like the Manichees and Docetse. The same passages 
 from Athanasius will be found to refute both Euty- 
 chians and Nestorians, though diametrically opposed 
 to each other : and these agreed together, not only in 
 considering nature and person identical, but, strange
 
 144 HERESIES. 
 
 to say, in holding, (and the Apollinarians too,) that our 
 Lord's manhood existed before its union with Him, 
 which is the special heresy of Nestorius. Again, the 
 Nestorians were closely connected with the Sabellians 
 and Samosatenes, and the latter with the Photinians 
 and modern Socinians. And the Nestorians were con- 
 nected with the Pelagians; and Aerius, who denied 
 Episcopacy and prayers for the dead, with the Arians ; 
 and his opponent the Semi-Arian Eustathius with the 
 Encratites. One reason of course of this peculiarity 
 of heresy is, that when the mind is once unsettled, it 
 may fall into any error. Another is that it is heresy ; 
 all heresies being secretly connected, as in temper, so 
 in certain primary principles. And, lastly, the Truth 
 only is a real doctrine, and therefore stable ; every- 
 thing false is of a transitory nature and has no stay, 
 like reflections in a stream, one opinion continually 
 passing into another, and creations being but the first 
 stages of dissolution. Hence so much is said in the 
 Fathers of orthodoxy being a narrow way. Thus S. 
 Gregory speaks of the middle and " royal " way. 
 Orat. 32, 6, also Damasc. contr. Jacob, iii. t. 1, p. 398 ; 
 vid. also Leon. Ep. 85, 1, p. 1051 ; Ep. 129, p. 1254, 
 "brevissimaadjectione corrumpitur;" also Serin. 25, 1, 
 p. 83 ; also Vigil, in Eutych. i. init. " Quasi inter duos 
 latrones crucifigitur Dominus," &c. Novat. Trin. 30. 
 vid. the promise, " Thine ears shall hear a word behind 
 thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, and go 
 not aside either to the right hand, or to the left. 1 ' 
 Is. xxx. 21. 
 
 If Heresies run into each other, (one may even say)
 
 HERESIES. 145 
 
 logically. No doctrines were apparently more opposed, 
 whether historically or ethically, than the Arian and the 
 Apollinarian or the Monophysite; nay, in statement, 
 so far as the former denied that our Lord was God, 
 the latter that He was man. But their agreement lay in 
 this compromise, that strictly speaking He was neither 
 God nor man. Thus in Orat. ii. 5 8, Athan. hints 
 
 * 
 
 that if the Arians gave the titles (such as Priest) 
 which really belong to our Lord's manhood, to His 
 pre-existent nature, what were they doing but remov- 
 ing the evidences of His manhood, and so far denying 
 it ? Vid. the remarkable passage of the Council of 
 Sardica against Valens and Ursacius quoted supr. 
 vol. i. p. 116. In the Arian Creed No. vii. or second 
 Sirmian, it is implied that the Divine Son is passible, 
 the very doctrine against which Theodoret writes one of 
 his Anti-monophysite Dialogues, called Eranistes. He 
 writes another on the arpeirrov of Christ, a doctrine 
 which was also formally denied by Arius, and is de- 
 fended by Athan. Orat. i. 35. Vid. art. Eusebius, who 
 speaks of our Lord's taking a body, almost to the pre- 
 judice of the doctrine of His taking a perfect man- 
 hood; el fjtev ^f%^f SLICIJV, &c. Hence it is that Gibbon 
 throws out (ch. 47, note 34), after La Croze, Hist* 
 Christ, des Indes, p. 11, that the Arians invented the 
 term 0eoro/o9, which the Monophysites, in their own 
 sense strenuously held, vid. Garner in Mar. Merc, 
 t. 2, p. 299. If the opposites of connected heresies are 
 connected together, then the doctrinal connexion of 
 Arianism and Apollinarianism is shown in their re- 
 spective opposition to the heresies of Sabellius and 
 
 VOL. II. L
 
 146 HERESIES. 
 
 Nestorius. Salig, (Eutycli. ant. Eut. 10,) denies the 
 connexion, but with very little show of reason. La 
 Croze calls Apollinarianism tr Arianismi tradux," 
 Thes. Ep. Lacroz. t. 3, p. 276. 
 
 IT It was the tendency of all the heresies concern- 
 ing 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 in- 
 carnation and crucifixion were not of its essence. The 
 Apollinarians resolved the Incarnation into a manifes- 
 tation, Theod. Eran. i. The Nestorians denied the 
 Atonement, Procl. ad Armen. p. 615. And the Euty- 
 chians, Leon. Ep. 28, 5. 
 
 TT It is remarkable that the Monophysites should have 
 been forced into their circumscription of the Divine 
 Nature by the limits of the human, considering that 
 Eutyches their Patriarch began with asserting for 
 reverence-sake that the Incarnate Word was not under 
 the laws of human nature, vid. infra art. Specialties, 
 &c. This is another instance of the running of 
 opposite heresies into each other. Another remark- 
 able instance will be found in art. Ignorance, viz. the 
 Agnoetae, a sect of those very Eutychians, who denied 
 or tended to deny our Lord's manhood with a view of 
 preserving His Divinity, yet who were characterized 
 by holding that He was ignorant as man. 
 
 f " This passage of the Apostle," Rom. i. 1, " [Mar- 
 cellus] I know not why perverts, instead of declared, 
 opiffOevros, making it predestined, Trpoopiadevros, that 
 the Son may be such as they who are predestined ac- 
 cording to foreknowledge." Euseb. contr. Marc. i. 2.
 
 HERESIES. 147 
 
 Paul of Samosata also considered our Lord Son by 
 foreknowledge, Trpoyvcoaei. vid. Routh, Reliqu. t, 2, 
 p. 466 ; and Eunomius, Apol.' 24. 
 
 ^[ In spite of their differing diametrically from each 
 other in their respective heresies about the Holy Trinity, 
 that our Lord was not really the Divine Word was 
 the point in which Arians and Sabellians agreed, vid. 
 infr. Orat. iv. init. ; also ii. 22, 40, also Sent. D. 25. 
 Ep. Mg. 14 fin. Epiph. Hser. 72, p. 835. 
 
 ^[ Heretics have frequently assigned reverence as the 
 cause of their opposition to the Church ; and if even 
 Arius was obliged to affect it, the plea may be expected 
 in any others. " stultos et impios metus," says S. 
 Hilary, "et irreligiosam de Deo sollicitudinem." de 
 Trin. iv. 6. It was still more commonly professed in re- 
 gard to the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation. Thus 
 Manes, " Absit ut Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum 
 per naturalia mulieris descendisse confitear ; ipse enim 
 testimonium dat, quia de sinibus Patris descendit." 
 Archel. Disp. t. iii. p. 601. "We, as saying that the Word 
 of God is incapable of defilement, even by the assump- 
 tion of mortal and vulnerable flesh, fear not to believe 
 that He is born of a Virgin; ye" Manichees, "because 
 with impious perverseness ye believe the Son of God 
 to be capable of it, dread to commit him to the flesh." 
 August, contr. Secund. 9. Faustus " is neither willing 
 to receive Jesus of the seed of David, nor made of a 
 woman . . . nor the death of Christ itself, and burial, 
 and resurrection," &c. August, contr. Faust, xi. 3. 
 As the Manichees denied our Lord a body, so the 
 Apollinarians denied Him a rational soul, still under 
 
 L 2
 
 148 HERESIES. 
 
 pretence of reverence, because, as they said, the soul 
 was necessarily sinful. Leontius makes this their main 
 argument, 6 vovs a/^aprrjTt/f.o'i eari, 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. and 
 others call the Apollinarian doctrine Manichean in con- 
 sequence, vid. in Apoll. ii. 8, 9, &c. Again, the Era- 
 nistes in Theodoret, who advocates a similar doctrine, 
 will not call our Lord man. " I consider it important 
 to acknowledge an assumed nature, but to call the 
 Saviour of the world man is to impair our Lord's 
 glory." Eranist. ii. p. 83. Eutyches, on the other 
 hand, would call our Lord man, bat refused to admit 
 His human nature, and still with the same profession. 
 " Ego," he says, " sciens sanctos et beatos patres 
 nostros refutantes duarum naturarum vocabulum, et 
 non audens de natura tractare Dei Verbi, qui in carnem 
 venit, in veritate non in phantasmate homo factus," 
 &c. Leon. Ep. 21, 1 fin. "Forbid it," he says at 
 Constantinople, " that I should say that the Christ 
 was of two natures, or should discuss the nature, 
 (frvo-ioXoyetv, of my God/' Concil. t. 2, p. 157. And 
 so in this day popular Tracts have been published, 
 ridiculing St. Luke's account of our Lord's nativity 
 under pretence of reverence towards the God of all, 
 and interpreting Scripture allegorically on Pantheistic 
 principles. A modern argument for Universal Resti- 
 tution takes the same form ; " Do not we shrink from 
 the notion of another's being sentenced to eternal 
 punishment; are we more merciful than God?' 3 vid. 
 Matt. xvi. 22, 23.
 
 HERESIES. 149 
 
 ^[ That heresies before the Arian appealed to 
 Scripture we learn from Tertullian, de Prasscr. 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 Novatian. Commonit. 2. 
 Still Arianism was contrasted with other heresies 
 on this point, as in these two respects; (1.) they ap- 
 pealed to a secret tradition, unknown, even to most of 
 the Apostles, as the Gnostics, Iren. Hser. iii. 1 ; or they 
 professed a gift of prophecy introducing fresh revela- 
 tions, as Montanists, Syn. 4, and Manichees, Aug. 
 contr. Faust, xxxii. 6. (2.) The Arians availed them- 
 selves of certain texts as objections, argued keenly and 
 plausibly from them, and would not be driven from 
 them. Orat. ii. ^ 18, c. ; Bpiph. Haer. 69, 15. Or 
 rather they took some words of Scripture, and made 
 their own deductions from them; viz. "Son," "made," 
 " exalted," &c. 
 
 ^f " They who do not pertinaciously defend their 
 opinion, false and perverse though it be, especially 
 when it does not spring from the audacity of their 
 own presumption, but has come to them from parents 
 seduced and lapsed into error, while they seek the 
 truth with cautious solicitude, and are prepared to 
 correct themselves when they have found it, are by no 
 means to be ranked among heretics." August. Ep. 
 43, init. ; vid. also de Bapt. contr. Don. iv. 20.
 
 150 HERETICS. 
 
 HERETICS. 
 
 EEVEALED truth, to be what it professes, must 
 have an uninterrupted descent from the Apostles ; its 
 teachers must be unanimous, and persistent in their 
 unanimity ; and it must bear no human master's name 
 as its designation. 
 
 On the other hand, first novelty, next discordance, 
 vacillation, change, thirdly sectarianism, are conse- 
 quences and tokens of religious error. 
 
 These tests stand to reason ; for what is over and 
 above nature must come from divine revelation; and, 
 if so, it must descend from the very date when it was 
 revealed, else it is but matter of opinion; and 
 opinions vary, and have no warrant of permanence, 
 but depend upon the relative ability and success of 
 individual teachers, one with another, from whom they 
 take their names. 
 
 The Fathers abound in passages which illustrate 
 these three tests. 
 
 ^f " Who are you ? " says Tertullian, " whence and 
 when came ye ? what do ye on my property, being 
 none of mine ? by what right, O Marcion, cuttest thou 
 my wood ? by what licence, Yalentinus, turnest thou 
 my springs ? by what power, Apelles, movest thou 
 my landmarks ? Mine is possession. ... I possess of 
 old, I have prior possession. ... I am heir of the
 
 HERETICS. 151 
 
 Apostles." Tertull. de Praescr. 37. "Tardily forme 
 hath this time of day put forth these, in my judgment, 
 most impious doctors. Full late hath that faith of 
 mine, which Thou hast taught me, encountered these 
 Masters. Before these names were heard of, I thus 
 believed in Thee, I thus was new born by Thee, and 
 thenceforth I thus am Thine.'" Hil. de Trin. vi. 21. 
 "What heresy hath ever burst forth, but under the 
 name of some certain men, in some certain place, and 
 at some certain time ? who ever set up any heresy, 
 who first divided not himself from the consent of the 
 universality and antiquity of the Catholic Church ? " 
 Vincent. Lir. Commonit. 24. " I will tell thee my mind 
 briefly and plainly, that thou shouldest remain in that 
 Church which, being founded by the Apostles, endures 
 even to this day. When thou hearest that those who 
 are called Christ's, are named, not after Jesus Christ, 
 but after some one, say Marcionites, Valentinians, &c., 
 know then it is not Christ's Church, but the synagogue 
 of Antichrist. For by the very fact that they are 
 formed afterwards, they show that they are those who 
 the Apostle foretold should come." Jerom. in Lucif. 
 27. "If the Church was not . . . whence hath 
 Donatus appeared ? from what soil has he sprung ? 
 out of what sea hath he emerged ? from what heaven 
 hath he fallen ? " August, de Bapt. contr. Don. iii. 2. 
 vid. art. Catholic, &c. 
 
 1[ "However the error was, certainly," says Tertullian 
 ironically, " error reigned so long as heresies were not. 
 Truth needed a rescue, and looked out for Marcionites 
 and Yalentinians.''' " Meanwhile, gospelling was nought,
 
 152 HERETICS. 
 
 faith was nought, nought was the baptism of so many 
 thousand thousand, so many works of faith performed, 
 so many virtues, so many gifts displayed, so many 
 priesthoods, so many ministries exercised, nay, so many 
 martyrdoms crowned." Tertull. Prasscr. 29. '" Pro- 
 fane novelties/ which if we receive, of necessity the 
 faith of our blessed ancestors, either all or a great part 
 of it, must be overthrown; the faithful people of all 
 ages and times, all holy saints, all the chaste, all the 
 continent, all the virgins, all the Clergy, the Deacons, 
 the Priests, so many thousands of confessors, so great 
 armies of martyrs, so many famous populous cities and 
 commonwealths, so many islands, provinces, kings, 
 tribes, kingdoms, nations, to conclude, almost now the 
 whole world, incorporated by the Catholic Faith to 
 Christ their head, must needs be said, so many hundred 
 years, to have been ignorant, to have erred, to have 
 blasphemed, to have believed they knew not what/' 
 Vine. Comm. 24. "0 the extravagance ! the wisdom, 
 hidden until Christ's coming, they announce to us to- 
 day, which is a thing to draw tears. For if the faith 
 began thirty years since, while near four hundred are 
 past since Christ was manifested, nought hath been 
 our gospel that long while, and nought our faith, and 
 fruitlessly have martyrs been martyred, and fruitlessly 
 have such and so great rulers ruled the people. Greg. 
 Naz. ad Cledon. Ep. 102, p. 97. 
 
 Tf " They know not to be reverent even to their 
 leaders. And this is why commonly schisms exist not 
 among heretics ; because while they are, they are not 
 visible. Schism is their very unity. I am a liar if
 
 HERETICS. 153 
 
 they do not dissent from their own rules, while every 
 man among them equally alters at his private judgment 
 (suo arbitrio) what he has received, just as he who 
 gave to them composed it at his private judgment. 
 The progress of the thing is true to its nature and its 
 origin. What was a right to Valentinus, was a right 
 to Valentinians, what to Marcion was to the Marcionites, 
 to innovate on the faith at their private judgment. 
 As soon as any heresy is thoroughly examined, it is 
 found in many points dissenting from its parent. 
 Those parents for the most part have no Churches ; 
 they roam about without mother, without see, bereaved 
 of the faith, without a country, without a home." 
 Tertull. Prsescr. 42. 
 
 ^[ " Faith is made a thing of dates rather than 
 Gospels, while it is written down by years, and is not 
 measured by the confession of baptism." Hil. ad Const. 
 ii. 4. " We determine yearly and monthly creeds con- 
 cerning God, we repent of our determinations ; we 
 defend those who repent, we anathematize those whom 
 we have defended ; we condemn our own doings in 
 those of others, or others in us, and gnawing each 
 other, we are well-nigh devoured one of another/' 
 ibid. 5. " It happens to thee," says S. Hilary to Con- 
 stantius, " as to unskilful builders, always to be dissatis- 
 fied with what thou hast done ; thou art ever destroying 
 what thou art ever building." contr. Constant. 23. 
 ff miserable state ! with what seas of cares, with what 
 storms are they tossed ! for now at one time, as the 
 wind driveth them, they are carried away headlong in 
 error; at another time, coming again to themselves,
 
 154 HERETICS. 
 
 they are beaten back like contrary waves ; sometimes 
 with rash presumption, they allow such things as seem 
 uncertain, at another time of pusillanimity they are in 
 fear even about those things which are certain ; doubt- 
 ful which way to take, which way to return, what to 
 desire, what to avoid, what to hold, what to let go, &c." 
 Vincent. Comm. 20. " He writes," says Athan. of 
 Constantius, "and while he writes repents, and while 
 he repents is exasperated ; and then he grieves again, 
 and not knowing how to act, he shows how bereft the 
 soul is of understanding." Hist. Arian. 70 \ vid. also 
 ad Ep. J3g. 6. 
 
 ^f " The Emperor [Theodosius] had a conversa- 
 tion with Nectarius, Bishop [of Constantinople], in 
 what way to make Christendom concordant, and to 
 unite the Church. . . This made Nectarius anxious ; but 
 Sisinnius, a man of ready speech and of practical ex- 
 perience, and thoroughly versed in the interpretation 
 of the sacred writings and in the doctrines of philo- 
 sophy, having a conviction that disputation would but 
 aggravate the party-spirit of the heresies instead of 
 reconciling schisms, advised him to avoid dialectic 
 engagements, and to appeal to the statements of the 
 ancients, and to put the question to the heresiarchs 
 from the Emperor, whether they made any sort of 
 account of the doctors who belonged to the Church 
 before the division, or came to issue with them as 
 aliens from Christianity ; for if they made their autho- 
 rity null, therefore let them venture to anathematize 
 them. But if they did venture, then they would be 
 driven out by the people." Socr. v. J 0.
 
 HIERACAS HOMOUSION, HOMCEUSION. 155 
 
 HIERACAS. 
 
 HIEKACAS was a Manichaean. He compared the Two 
 Divine Persons to the two lights of one lamp, where 
 the oil is common and the flame double, thus implying 
 a third substance distinct from Father and Son, or to 
 a flame divided into two by (for instance) the papyrus 
 which was commonly used instead of a wick. vid. 
 Hilar. de Trin. vi. 12. 
 
 ^f This doctrine is also imputed to Valentinus, 
 though in a different sense, by Nazianzen, Orat. 33, 
 16. vid. also Clement. Recogn. i. 69. 
 
 HOMOUSION, HOMCEUSION. 
 Vid. ofjioovaiov, Nicene Tests, Semi-Arians, &c.
 
 156 HYPOCRISY, HYPOCRITES. 
 
 HYPOCRISY, HYPOCRITES. 
 
 THIS is almost a title of the Arians, (with an apparent 
 allusion to 1 Tim. iv. 2. vid. Socr. i. p. 13. Athan. Orat. i. 
 10, ii. 1 and 19, iii. 16. Syn. 32. Ep. Enc. 6. 
 Ep. JSg. 18. Epiph. Haer. 73, 1,) and that in various 
 senses. The first meaning is that, being heretics, they 
 nevertheless used orthodox phrases and statements to 
 deceive and seduce Catholics. The term is thus used 
 by Alexander in the beginning of the controversy, 
 vid. Theod. Hist. i. 3, pp. 729, 746. Again, it implies 
 that they agreed with Arius, but would not confess it ; 
 professed to be Catholics, but would not anathematize 
 him. vid. Athan. ad Ep. .^Eg. 20, or alleged untruly 
 the Nicene Council as their ground of complaint, ibid. 
 18. Again, it is used of the hollowness and pretence 
 of their ecclesiastical proceedings, with the Emperor 
 at their head ; which Were a sort of make-belief of 
 spiritual power, or piece of acting, Spafiarovpy^/uia. Ep. 
 Encycl. 2 and 6. It also means general insincerity, as 
 if they were talking about what they did not under- 
 stand, and did not realize what they said, and were 
 blindly implicating themselves in evils of a fearful cha- 
 racter. Thus Athan. calls them (as cited supr.) TOU<? TT}? 
 'A-peiov /mavias VTTOKptrds, Orat. ii. 1, init. ; and he 
 speaks of the evil spirit making them his sport, roi? 
 v7rofcpivo/j,voi<; Tr\v pavtav avrov, ad Serap. i. 1. And
 
 HYPOCRITES. 157 
 
 hence further it is applied, at Syn. 32, as though 
 with severity, yet to those who were near the truth, 
 and who, though in sin, would at length come to it or 
 not, according as the state of their hearts was. He is 
 here anticipating the return into the Church of those 
 whom he thus censures. In this sense, though with 
 far more severity in what he says, the writer of a 
 Tract imputed to Athan. against the Catholicizing 
 Semi-Arians of 363, entitles it " on the hypocrisy of 
 Meletius and Eusebius of Samosata." It is remark- 
 able that what Athan. here predicts was fulfilled to 
 the letter, even of the worst of these " hypocrites." 
 For Acacius himself, who in 361 signed the Anomcean 
 Confession above recorded, was one of those very men 
 who accepted the Homoiision with an explanation 
 in 363.
 
 158 HYPOSTASIS. 
 
 HYPOSTASIS. 
 
 s, subsistence, person. It is remarkable how 
 seldom this word occurs in Athanasius except as found 
 in Hebr. i. 3 ; and the more so, because it is a term little 
 known outside Christian theology, and within that 
 theology after Athan/s time so important and authentic. 
 It is not found, I believe, in his first two Orations ; twice 
 in the third ; in the fourth, which seems a distinct work 
 from the three, by contrast five times, and often in S. 
 Alexander's Letter in Theodoret, to his namesake 
 at Constantinople. Vid. art. etSo? and ovaia, which 
 Athan. seems to use instead of it. 
 
 It would seem as if there were a class of words 
 which, in the first age, before the theological ter- 
 minology was fixed by ecclesiastical determinations, 
 admitted of standing either for the Divine Being or a 
 Divine Person as the occasion settled; and this, as 
 being one of them, was not definite or precise enough 
 for a mind so clear as Athan's. vid. Orat. iii. 66. iv. 1. 
 25, 33, 35. vid. art. ovaia.
 
 IDOLATRY OF ARIANISM. 159 
 
 IDOLATRY OF ARIANISM. 
 
 ARIANS considered our Lord a creature, with a be- 
 ginning of existence, with a probation, and during it a 
 liability to fall. Yet it was one of their fundamental 
 tenets that He was creator of the universe, and created 
 with this very end. Accordingly Athan. and the other 
 Fathers rightly charge them with idol worship. 
 
 " We must take reverent heed," says Athanasius, 
 "lest transferring what is proper to the Father to 
 what is unlike Him, and expressing the Father's god- 
 head by what is unlike in kind and alien, we introduce 
 another being foreign to Him, as if capable of the pro- 
 perties of the first, and lest we be silenced by God 
 Himself, saying, My glory I will not give to another, 
 and be discovered worshipping this alien God." Syn. 
 50. " Who told them after abandoning the worship 
 of creatures, after all to draw near and to worship a 
 creature and a work ? " Orat. i. 8. vid. also Orat. ii. 
 14. Ep. ^Bgypt. 4 and 13. Adelph. 3. Scrap, i. 29. 
 
 This point, as might be expected, is insisted on by 
 other Fathers, vid. Cyril. Dial. iv. p. 511, &c. v. p. 566. 
 Greg. Naz. Orat. 40, 42. Hil. Trin. viii. 28. Ambros. 
 de Fid. i. n. 69 and 104. Theod. in Rom. i. 25. 
 
 ^[ The Arians were in the dilemma of holding two 
 Gods, or worshipping the creature, unless they denied 
 to the Lord both divinity and worship. Hence Athan.
 
 160 IDOLATRY OF ARIANISM. 
 
 says, <a<7oi>Te9, ov Xeyopev Svo ayei/Tyra, Xeyovcri Svo 
 Oeovs, Orat. iii. 16. 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, "We see God and creation and besides nothing; 
 for whatever falls external to God's nature, is certainly 
 made; and whatever is clear of the definition of 
 creation, is certainly within the definition of the God- 
 head." In Joan. p. 52. vid. also Naz. Orat. 31, 6. 
 Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 31. 
 
 ^[ Petavius gives a large collection of passages, de 
 Trin. ii. 12, 5, from other Fathers, in proof of the 
 worship of Our Lord evidencing His Godhead.
 
 IGNORANCE ASSUMED ECONOMICALLY BY OUR LORD. 161 
 
 IGNORANCE ASSUMED ECONOMICALLY BY 
 OUR LORD. 
 
 " IT is plain that He knows the hour of the end 
 of all things," says Athan., " as the Word, though 
 as man He is ignorant of it, for ignorance belongs to 
 man." Orat. iii. 43, and Serap. ii. 9. 
 
 5[ S. Basil, on the general question being asked him, 
 of our Lord's infirmities, by S. Amphilochius, says that 
 he shall give him the answer he had " heard from a boy 
 from the fathers," but which was more fitted for pious 
 Christians than for cavillers, and that is, that " Our 
 Lord says many things to men in His human aspect, 
 as ' Give Me to drink/ . . . yet He who asked was not 
 flesh without a soul, but Godhead using flesh which 
 had one." Ep. 236, 1. He goes on to suggest an- 
 other explanation about His ignorance which is men- 
 tioned below. And S. Cyril, " Let them [the heretics] 
 strip the Word openly of the flesh and what it implies, 
 and destroy outright the whole Economy [Incarnation] 
 and then they will clearly see the Son as God ; or, if 
 they shudder at this as impious and absurd, why blush 
 they at the conditions of the manhood, and determine 
 to find fault with what especially befits the economy 
 of the flesh?" Trin. pp. 623, 4. vid. also Thes. 
 p. 220. "As He submitted as man to hunger and 
 thirst, so ... to be ignorant/' p. 221. Vid. also Naz. 
 
 VOL. II. M
 
 162 IGNORANCE ASSUMED ECONOMICALLY BY OUR LORD. 
 
 Orat. 30, 15, Theodoret expresses the same opinion 
 very strongly, speaking of a gradual revelation to the 
 manhood from the Godhead, but in an argument when 
 it was to his point to do so, in Anath. 4, t. v. p. 23, ed. 
 Schulze. Theodore of Mopsuestia also speaks of a 
 revelation made by the Word. ap. Leont. iii. c. Nesb. 
 (Canis. i. p. 579). 
 
 If Though our Lord, as having two natures, had a 
 human as well as a divine knowledge, and though that 
 human knowledge was not only limited because human, 
 but liable to ignorance in matters in which greater 
 knowledge was possible; yet it is the received doc- 
 trine, that in fact He was not ignorant even in His 
 human nature, according to its capacity, since it was 
 from the first taken out of its original and natural 
 condition, and " deified " by its union with the Word. 
 As then (infra art. Specialties, part 5) His manhood 
 was created, yet He may not be called a creature even 
 in His manhood, and as (ibid, part 6) His flesh 
 was in its abstract nature a servant, yet He is not a 
 servant in fact, even as regards the flesh ; so, though 
 He took on Him a soul which left to itself had been 
 partially ignorant, as other human souls, yet ds ever 
 enjoying the Beatific Vision from its oneness with the 
 Word, it never was ignorant in fact, but knew all things 
 which human soul can know. vid. Eulog. ap. Phot. 230, 
 p. 884. As Pope Gregory expresses it, "Novit in 
 natura, non ex natura humanitatis." Bpp. x. 39. 
 However, this view of the sacred subject was received 
 by the Church after S. Athanasius's day, and it cannot 
 be denied that he and others of the most eminent
 
 IGNORANCE ASSUMED ECONOMICALLY BY OUR LORD. 163 
 
 Fathers use language which primd facie is inconsistent 
 with it. They certainly seem to impute ignorance to 
 our Lord as man, as Athan. in the passage cited above. 
 Of course it is not meant that our Lord's soul had the 
 same perfect knowledge which He has as God. This 
 was the assertion of a General of the Hermits of S. 
 Austin at the time of the Council of Basil, when the 
 proposition was formally condemned, tf animam Christi 
 Deum videre tarn clare et intense quam clare et 
 intense Deus videt seipsum." vid. Berti Opp. t. 3, 
 p. 42. Yet Fulgentius had said, "I think that in 
 no respect was full knowledge of the Godhead want- 
 ing to that Soul, whose Person is one with the 
 Word, whom Wisdom so assumed that it is itself 
 that same Wisdom," ad Ferrand. Resp. iii. p. 223. 
 ed. 1639; though, ad Trasimund. i. 7, he speaks of 
 ignorance attaching to our Lord's human nature. 
 
 ^[ S. Basil takes the words ovS" 6 vlos, el pr) 6 Trarrfp, 
 to mean, " nor does the Son know, except the Father 
 knows/' or " nor would the Son but for, &c." or 
 " nor does the Son know, except as the Father knows." 
 " The cause of the Son's knowing is from the Father." 
 Ep. 236, 2. S. Gregory alludes to the same interpreta- 
 tion, ovS" 6 vibs rj &)? ort o TraT'ijp, " Since the Father 
 knows, therefore the Son." Naz. Orat. 30, 16. S. 
 Irenaeus seems to adopt the same when he says, " The 
 Son was not ashamed to refer the knowledge of that 
 day to the Father;" Ha3r. ii. 28, n. 6, as Naz. supr. 
 uses the words eVt TTJV alriav dvafapeffdo). And so 
 Photius distinctly, et? apx*) v ava^eperai. " ' Not the 
 Son, but the Father/ that is, whence knowledge 
 
 M 2
 
 161 IGNORANCE ASSUMED ECONOMICALLY BY OUR LORD. 
 
 comes to the Son as from a fountain." Epp. p. 342. 
 ed. 1651. 
 
 If Origen considers such answer an economy. " He 
 who knows what is in the heart of men, Christ Jesus, 
 as John also has taught us in his Gospel, asks, yet is not 
 ignorant. But since He has now taken on Him man, 
 He adopts all that is man's, and among them the asking 
 questions. Nor is it strange that the Saviour should 
 do so, since the very God of all, accommodating Him- 
 self to the habits of man, as a father might to his son, 
 inquires, for instance, ' Adam, where art thou ? ' and 
 ' Where is Abel thy brother ? ' " in Matt. t. 10, 14 ; 
 vid. also Pope Gregory and Chrysost. infr. 
 
 If S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, and Pope S. Gregory, 
 in addition to the instances in Orat. iii. 50, refer to " I 
 will go down now, and see whether they have done, &c. 
 and if not, I will know." Gen. xviii. 21. " The Lord 
 came down to see the city and the tower, &c." Gen. 
 xi. 5. " God looked down from heaven upon the 
 children of men to see, &c." Ps. liii. 3. " It may be 
 they will reverence My Son." Matt. xxi. 37. Luke 
 xx. 13. " Seeing a fig tree afar off, having leaves, 
 He came, if haply He might find, &c." Mark xi. 13, 
 " Simon, lovest thou Me?" Johnxxi. 15. Vid. Ambros. 
 de Fid. v. c. 17. Chrys. in Matt. Horn. 77, 3. Greg. 
 Epp. x. 39. Vid. also the instances Athan. Orat. iii. 37. 
 Other passages may be added, such as Gen. xxii. 12. vid. 
 Berti Opp. t. 3, p. 42. But the difficulty of Mar. xiii. 32, 
 lies in its signifying that there is a sense in which the 
 Father knows what the Son knows not. Petavius, 
 after S. Augustine, meets this by explaining it to mean
 
 IGNORANCE ASSUMED ECONOMICALLY BY OUR LORD. 165 
 
 that our Lord, as sent from the Father on a mission, 
 was not to reveal all things, but to observe a silence and 
 profess an ignorance on those points which it was 
 not good for His brethren to know. As Mediator and 
 Prophet He was ignorant. He refers in illustration of 
 this view to such texts as, " I have not spoken of My- 
 self; but the Father which sent Me, He gave Me com- 
 mandment what I should say and what I should speak. 
 .... Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father 
 said unto Me, so I speak." John xii. 49, 50. 
 
 ^[ It is a question to be decided, whether our Lord 
 speaks of actual ignorance in His human Mind, or of the 
 natural ignorance of that Mind considered as human ; 
 ignorance " in " or " ex natura ;" or, which comes to 
 the same thing, whether He spoke of a real ignorance, 
 or of an economical or professed ignorance, in a certain 
 view of His incarnation or office, as when He asked, 
 " How many loaves have ye ? " when " He Himself 
 knew what He would do," or as He is called sin, though 
 sinless. Thus Ath. seems, Orat. ii. 55 fin. to make 
 His infirmities altogether imputative, not real ; " He 
 is said to be infirm, not being infirm himself," as if 
 showing that the subject had not in his day been 
 thoroughly worked out. In like manner S. Hilary, 
 who, if the passage be genuine, states so clearly 
 our Lord's ignorance, de Trin. ix. fin. yet, as Peta- 
 vius observes, seems elsewhere to deny to Him those 
 very affections of the flesh to which he has there 
 paralleled it. And this view of Athan.'s meaning 
 is favoured by the tarn of his expressions. He says, 
 such a defect belongs to "that human nature whose pro-
 
 166 IGNORANCE ASSUMED ECONOMICALLY BY OUR LORD. 
 
 perty it is to be ignorant ;" Orat. iii. 43; that "since 
 He was made man, He is not ashamed, because of the 
 flesh which is ignorant, to say f I know not ;' " ibid. 
 And 45, that " as showing His manhood, in that to be 
 ignorant is proper to man, and that He had put on a 
 flesh that was ignorant, being in which, He said accord- 
 ing to the flesh, 'I know not;'" "that He might 
 slww that as man He knows not," 46 ; viz. as man 
 (i.e. on the ground of being man, not in the capacity 
 of man,) "He knows not," ibid.; and that "He aslts 
 about Lazarus humanly," even when " He was on His 
 way to raise him," which implied surely knowledge in 
 His human nature. The reference to the parallel of 
 S. Paul's professed ignorance when he really knew, 
 47, leads us to the same suspicion. And so, " for 
 our profit, as I think, did He this." 48 50. 
 
 The natural want of precision on such questions in the 
 early ages was shown or fostered by such words as 
 oiKovofUKan, which, in respect of this very text, is used 
 by S. Basil to denote both our Lord's Incarnation, Ep. 
 236, 1 fin. and His gracious accommodation of Himself 
 and His truth, Ep. 8, 6 ; and with the like variety of 
 meaning, with reference to the same text, by Cyril. 
 Trin. p. 623; and Thesaur. p. 224. (And the word 
 dispensatio in like manner, Ben. note on Hil. Trin. 
 x. 8.) In the latter Ep. S. Basil suggests that our 
 Lord " economizes by a feigned ignorance." And S. 
 Cyril, in Thesaur. I.e. (in spite of his strong language 
 ibid. p. 221), "The Son knows all things, though 
 economically He says He is ignorant of something," 
 Thesaur. p. 224. And even in de Trin. vi. he seems
 
 IGNORANCE ASSUMED ECONOMICALLY BY OUR LORD. 167 
 
 to recognize the distinction laid down just now between 
 the natural and actual state of our Lord's humanity ; 
 " God would not make it known even to the Son Him- 
 self, were He a mere man upon earth, as they say, and 
 not having it in His nature to be God." p. 629. And 
 S. Hilary arguing that He must as man know the day of 
 judgment, for His then coming is as man, says, " Since 
 He is Himself a sacrament, let us see whether He be 
 ignorant in the things which He knows not. For if 
 in the other respects a profession of ignorance is not 
 an intimation of not knowing, so here too He is not 
 ignorant of what He knows not. For since His igno- 
 rance, in respect that all treasures of knowledge lie hid 
 in Him, is rather an economy (dispensation) than an 
 ignorance, you have a cause why He might be ignorant 
 without an actual intimation of not knowing." Trin. ix. 
 62. And he gives reasons why He professed ignorance, 
 n. 67. viz. as S. Austin words it, " Christum se dixisse 
 nescientem, in quo alios facit occultando nescientes." 
 Ep. 180. 3. S. Austin follows Hilary, saying, " Hoc 
 nescit quod nescientes facit." Trin. i. n. 23. Pope Gre- 
 gory says that the text " is most certainly to be referred 
 to the Son not as He is Head, but as to His body which 
 we are." Ep. x. 39. And S. Ambrose distinctly ; " The 
 Son which took on Him the flesh, assumed our affec- 
 tions, so as to say that He knew not with our ignorance ; 
 not that He was ignorant of anything Himself, for, 
 though He seemed to be man in truth of body, yet He 
 was the life and light, and virtue went out of Him, &c." 
 de Fid. v. 222. And so Csesarius, Qu. 20. andPhotius 
 Epp.p. 336, &c. Chrysost. inMatth. Horn. 77,3. Theo-
 
 168 IGNORANCE ASSUMED ECONOMICALLY BY OUR LORD. 
 
 doret, however, but in controversy, is very severe on 
 the principle of Economy. " If He knew the day, and 
 wishing to conceal it, said He was ignorant, see what 
 a blasphemy is the result. Truth tells an untruth." 
 I.e. pp. 23, 24. 
 
 ff The expression, Orat. iii. 48, &c. " for our sake," 
 which repeatedly occurs, surely implies that there was 
 something economical in our Lord's profession of igno- 
 rance. He said it with a purpose, not as a mere plain 
 fact or doctrine. And so S. Cyril, " He says that He 
 is ignorant, for our sake and among us, as man ; " 
 Thes. p. 221. "economically effecting, olKovo/j.<av, 
 something profitable and good." ibid. And again, 
 after stating that there was an objection, and parallel- 
 ing His words with His question to S. Philip about the 
 loaves, he says, " Knowing as God the Word, He can, 
 as man, be ignorant." p. 223. " It is not a sign of 
 ignorance, but of wisdom, for it was inexpedient that 
 we should know it." Ambros. de Fid. v. 209. S. 
 Chrysostom seems to say the same, denying that the 
 Son was ignorant, Horn. 77, 1. And Theophylact, 
 " Had He said, ' I know, but I will not tell you/ they 
 had been cast down, as if despised by Him ; but now 
 in saying ' not the Son but the Father only/ He hinders 
 them asking .... for how can the Son be ignorant 
 of the day ? " Theophyl. in loc. Matt. " Often little 
 children see their fathers holding something in their 
 hands, and ask for it, but they will not give it. Then 
 the children cry as not receiving it. At length the 
 fathers hide what they have got and show their empty 
 hands to their children,, and so stop their crying. ....
 
 IGXORANCE ASSUMED ECONOMICALLY BY OUR LORD. 169 
 
 For our profit hath He hid it." ibid, in loo. Marc. 
 " For thee He is ignorant of the hour and day of judg- 
 ment, though nothing is hid from the Very Wisdom. 
 .... But he economizes this because of thy infirmity, 
 &c." supr. Basil, Ep. 8, 6. 
 
 ^[ It is the doctrine of the Church that Christ, as man, 
 was perfect in knowledge from the first, as if ignorance 
 were hardly separable from sin, and were the direct 
 consequence or accompaniment of original sin. " That 
 ignorance," says S. Austin, " I in no wise can suppose 
 existed in that Infant, in whom the Word was made 
 flesh to dwell among us ; nor can I suppose that that 
 infirmity of the mind belonged to Christ as a babe, 
 which we see in babes. For in consequence of it, 
 when they are troubled with irrational emotions, no 
 reason, no command, but pain sometimes and the 
 alarm of pain restrains them, &c." de Pecc. Mer. ii. 48. 
 As to the limits of Christ's perfect knowledge as man, 
 we must consider " that the soul of Christ knew all 
 things that are or ever will be or ever have been, but 
 not what are only in posse, not in fact." Petav. Incarn. 
 xi. 3, 6. 
 
 ^j Leporius, in his Retractation, which S. Augustine 
 subscribed, writes, "That I may in this respect also 
 leave nothing to be cause of suspicion to any one, I 
 then said, nay I answered when it was put to me, that 
 our Lord Jesus Christ was ignorant as He was man 
 (secundum hominem). But now not only do I not 
 presume to say BO, but I even anathematize my former 
 opinion expressed on this point, because it may not be 
 said, that the Lord of the Prophets was ignorant even
 
 170 IGNORANCE ASSUMED ECONOMICALLY BY OUR LOK1). 
 
 as He was man." ap. Sirmond. t. i. p. 210. A subdivi- 
 sion also of the Eutychians were called by the name of 
 Agnoetae from their holding that our Lord was ignorant 
 of the day of judgment. " They said," says Leontius, 
 " that He was ignorant of it, as we say that He un- 
 derwent toil." de Sect. 5. circ. fin. Felix of Urgela 
 held the same doctrine according to Agobard's 
 testimony, as contained adv. Fel. 6, Bibl. Patr. Max. 
 t. xiv. p. 244. The Ed. Ben. observes, Ath. Orat. iii. 
 44, that the assertion of our Lord's ignorance " seems 
 to have been condemned in no one in ancient times, 
 unless joined to other error." And Petavius, after 
 drawing out the authorities for and against it, says, 
 "Of these two opinions, the latter, which is now 
 received both by custom and by the agreement of 
 divines, is deservedly preferred to the former. For it 
 is more agreeable to Christ's dignity, and more befitting 
 His character and office of Mediator and Head, that is, 
 Fountain of all grace and wisdom, and moreover of 
 Judge, who is concerned in knowing the time fixed for 
 exercising that function. In consequence, the former 
 opinion, though formerly it received the countenance of 
 some men of high eminence, was afterwards marked as 
 a heresy." Incarn. xi. 1. 15. 
 
 ^[ The mode in which Athan. expresses himself, is as 
 if he only ascribed apparent ignorance to our Lord's 
 soul, and not certainly in the broad sense in which here- 
 tics have done so : as Leontius, e. g. reports of Theodore 
 of Mopsuestia, that he considered Christ "to be ignorant 
 so far, as not to know, when He was tempted, who 
 tempted Him;" contr. Nest. iii. (Canis. t. i. p. 579,)
 
 IGNORANCE ASSUMED ECONOMICALLY BY OUR LORD. 171 
 
 and Agobard of Felix the Adoptionist that he held 
 " Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh truly to 
 have been ignorant of the sepulchre of Lazarus, when 
 He said to His sisters, ' Where have ye laid him ? ' 
 and was truly ignorant of the day of judgment ; and 
 was truly ignorant what the two disciples were saying 
 as they walked by the way, of what had been done at 
 Jerusalem; and was truly ignorant whether He was 
 more loved by Peter than by the other disciples, when 
 He said, ' Simon Peter, Lovest thou Me more than 
 these?'" Bibl. Patr. Max. t. xiv. p. 244. The 
 Agnoetee have been noticed above. 
 
 ^[ It is remarkable, considering the tone of his 
 statements, Orat. iii. 42 53, that there and in 
 what follows upon it Athan. should resolve our Lord's 
 advance in wisdom merely into its gradual mani- 
 festation through the flesh; and it increases the 
 proof that his statements are not to be taken in the 
 letter, and as if fully brought out and settled. 
 Naz. says the same, Ep. ad Cled. 101. p. 86, which 
 is the more remarkable since he is chiefly writing 
 against the Apollinarians, who considered a fyavepuxn,? 
 the great end of our Lord's coming; and Cyril, c. 
 Nest. iii. p. 87. Theod. Hser. v. 18. On the other 
 hand, S. Epiphanius speaks of Him as growing in 
 wisdom as man. Haer. 77, p. 1019-24, and S. Ambrose, 
 Incarn. 71-74. Vid. however Ambr. de Fid. as quoted 
 supr. p. 167. The Ed. Ben. in Ambr. Incarn. con- 
 siders the advancement of knowledge spoken of to 
 be that of the " scientia experimentalis " alluded to in 
 Hebr. v. 8, which is one of the three kinds of know-
 
 172 IGNORANCE ASSUMED ECONOMICALLY BY OUR LORD. 
 
 ledge possessed by Christ as man. vid. Berti Opp. t. 3, 
 p. 41. Petavius, however, omits the consideration of 
 this knowledge, (which S. Thomas at first denied in our 
 Lord, and in his Summa ascri s to Him,) as lying be- 
 yond his province. " De hac nte neutram in partem 
 pronuntiare audeo," says Petavius, "hujusmodi enim 
 quaestiones ad Scholas relegandas sunt ; de quibus 
 nihil apud antiques liquid! ac defmiti reperitur." 
 Incarn. xi. 4, 9.
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS. 173 
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 ^[ " Is there any cause of fear," says Athan., " lest, be- 
 cause the offspring from men are one in substance, the 
 Son, by being called One in substance, be Himself con- 
 sidered as a human offspring too ? perish the thought ! 
 not so ; but the explanation is easy. For the Son is 
 the Father's Word and Wisdom ; whence we learn the 
 impassibility (aTraOes] and indivisibility (apepurTov) of 
 such a generation from the Father. For not even 
 is man's word part of Him, nor proceeds from Him 
 according to passion ; much less God's Word ; whom 
 the Father has declared to be His own Son : lest, on the 
 other hand, if we merely heard of ' Word/ we should 
 suppose Him, such as is the word of man, unsubsistent 
 (avimcxnaTov) ; therefore we are told that He is Son, 
 that we may acknowledge Him to be a living Word 
 and a substantive (evoixnov) Wisdom. Accordingly, as 
 in saying ' Offspring/ we have no human thoughts, 
 and, though we know God to be a Father, we enter- 
 tain no material ideas concerning Him, but while we 
 listen to these illustrations and terms, we think suitably 
 of God, for He is not as man, so in like manner, when 
 we hear of ' consubstantial/ we ought to transcend 
 all sense, and, according to the Proverb, understand by 
 the understanding that is set before us; so as to know, 
 that not by the Father's will, but in eternal truth, is
 
 174 ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 He genuine Son of the Father, as Life from Fountain, 
 and Radiance from Light. Else why should we un- 
 derstand ' Offspring ' and ' Son/ in no corporeal 
 way, while we conceive of ' One in substance ' as 
 after the manner of bodies ? especially since these 
 terms are not here used about different subjects, but 
 of whom " offspring " is predicated, of Him is " one 
 in substance also." Syn. 41, 42. 
 
 " For whereas men beget with passion, so again when 
 at work they work upon an existing subject matter, 
 and otherwise cannot make. Now if we do not under- 
 stand creation in a human way, when we attribute it 
 to God, much less seemly is it to understand gene- 
 ration in a human way, or to give a corporeal sense to 
 Consubstantial ; instead, as we ought, of receding from 
 things generate, casting away human images, nay, all 
 things sensible, and ascending to the Father, lest we 
 rob the Father of the Son in ignorance, and rank Him 
 among His own creatures." Syn. 51. 
 
 5[ 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. 
 
 IT The question is not, whether in matter of fact, in 
 the particular case, the rays would issue after, and not 
 with the initial existence of the luminous body ; for the 
 illustration is not used to show how such a thing may 
 be, or to give an instance of it, but to convey to the
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS. 175 
 
 mind a correct idea of what it is proposed to teach in 
 the Catholic doctrine. 
 
 *S Athanasius guards against what is defective in his 
 illustration, Orat. iii. 5, of an Emperor and his image, 
 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 ; still 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. 
 
 ^f " Whoso uses the particle as, implies, not identity, 
 nor equality, but a likeness of the matter in question, 
 viewed in a certain respect. This we may learn from 
 our Saviour Himself, when He says " As Jonas," &c. 
 Orat. iii. 22, 23. "Even when the analogy is solid 
 and well founded, we are liable to fall into error, if we 
 suppose it to extend farther than it really does. .... 
 Thus because a just analogy has been discerned be- 
 tween the metropolis of a country, and the heart in the 
 animal body, it has been sometimes contended that its 
 increased size is a disease, that it may impede some of 
 its most important functions, or even be the means of 
 its dissolution." Copleston on Predestination, p. 129. 
 The principle here laid down, in accordance with 
 S. Athan., of course admits of being made an excuse 
 for denying the orthodox meaning of " Word, Wis-
 
 176 ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 dom, &c.," under pretence that the figurative terms 
 are not confined by the Church within their proper 
 limits; but here the question is about the matter of 
 fact, which interpretation is right, the Church's or the 
 objector's ? Thus a late writer says, " The most 
 important words of the N. T. have not only received an 
 indelibly false stamp from the hands of the old School- 
 men, but those words having, since the Reformation, 
 become common property in the language of the 
 country, are, as it were, thickly incrusted with the 
 
 most vague, incorrect, and vulgar notions Any 
 
 word . ... if habitually repeated in connexion with 
 certain notions, will appear to reject all other signi- 
 fications, as it were, by a natural power." Heresy and 
 Orthod. pp. 21, 47. Elsewhere he speaks of words 
 " which were used in a language now dead to represent 
 objects .... which are now supposed to express 
 figuratively something spiritual and quite beyond the 
 knowledge and comprehension of man." P. 96. Of 
 course Athan. assumes that, since the figures and 
 parallels given us in Scripture have but a partial ap- 
 plication, therefore there is given us also an interpreter 
 in order to apply them. Vid. art. Economical. 
 
 f Again, just as S. Athan. says, " A figure is but a 
 parallel, ... if we too become one, as the Son in the 
 Father, we shall not therefore be as the Son, nor 
 equal to Him, for He and we are but parallel/' so 
 again Dr. Copleston thus proceeds, " Analogy does not 
 mean the similarity of two things, but the similarity 
 
 or sameness of two relations Things most 
 
 unlike and discordant in their nature may be strictly
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS. 177 
 
 analogous to one another. Thus a certain pro- 
 position may be called the basis of a system .... 
 it serves a similar office and purpose .... the system 
 rests upon it j it is useless to proceed with the argument 
 till this is well established : if this were removed, the 
 system must fall." On Predest. pp. 122, 123. 
 
 VOL. n.
 
 178 IMAGE. 
 
 IMAGE 
 
 Is used to signify our Lord's relation to the Eternal 
 Father : and first in Scripture, 
 
 1. We find Him called ei/ccov, imago, in 2 Cor. iv. 4; 
 and Col. i. 15. In a verse following the former of 
 these passages it is said in like manner that the glory 
 of God is in the face of Jesus Christ. This carries us 
 to Heb. i. 3, where we read of Him as the aTrai/yaoyxa 
 of God's glory, and find in the word 'xapcucrrjp, figura, 
 impress, a synonym for the word Image. St. John 
 confirms St. Paul; he speaks of our Lord's glory 
 " quasi Unigeniti a Patre," and says that the " Son who 
 is in the bosom of the Father, hath declared Him." 
 
 These modes of expressing the nature and office of 
 the Son, as the revealed and revealing God, as the 
 Light, the Glory, the Image, the Impress, the Face of 
 the Almighty, are exemplified with still greater variety 
 and fulness of language in the Book of Wisdom, ch. 
 vii., in a passage too long to quote, in which, among 
 other attributes and prerogatives, Wisdom, that is, our 
 Lord, is called a Trvevfjuz ayiov, povoyeves, <j)t,\drya8os, 
 fytXdvQpunros, the airoppoia Trjs rov iravroKparopo^ 0^779, 
 the aTrai/yacr/Lta <<0T09 diSlov, the ea-oTnpov a 
 n?9 TOU 6eov vepyda<;, and the dtcwv rfjs 
 auroi). 
 
 It is impossible that the Holy Apostles, when they
 
 IMAGE. 179 
 
 spoke of our Lord as the Word, Image, and Splendour 
 of God, should not have had in mind this passage, 
 so overpowering in its force and significance, and 
 were not investing with personality and substance 
 what they thus viewed as all-perfect, immutable, co- 
 eternal, consubstantial with Him. 
 
 2. S. Athanasius and the other Fathers take up 
 and insist upon this definite theology, thus found in 
 Scripture. 
 
 "We must conceive of necessity," says Athan., 
 " that in the Father is the eternal, the everlasting, the 
 immortal ; and in Him, not as foreign to Him, but as 
 in a Fount abiding (dvairavopeva] in Him, and also in 
 the Son. When then you would form a conception of 
 the Son, learn what are the things in the Father, and 
 believe that they are in the Son too. If the Father is 
 creature or work, these attributes are also in the Son, 
 &c. . . . He who honours the Son, is honouring the 
 Father who sent Him, and he who receives the Son, is 
 receiving with Him the Father, &c." In illud Omn. 4. 
 " As the Father is I Am (6 &v) so His Word is I 
 Am and God over all." Scrap, i. 28. "Altogether, 
 there is nothing which the Father has, which is not the 
 Son's ; for therefore it is that the Son is in the Father, 
 and the Father in the Son ; because the things of the 
 Father, these are in the Son, and still the same are 
 understood as being in the Father. Thus is understood, 
 ' I and the Father are One ;' since not these things are 
 in Him and those in the Son, but the things which are in 
 the Father those are in the Son, and what thou seest 
 in the Father, because thou seest in the Son, thereby is 
 
 N 2
 
 180 IMAGE. 
 
 rightly understood ' He that hath seen Me, hath seen 
 the Father/ " S'erap. ii. 2. 
 
 Ao-ain : " Such as the parent, such of necessity is 
 
 O A 
 
 the offspring; and such as is the Word's Father, such 
 must be also His Word . . . God is not as man, as 
 Scripture has said, but is existing (a>v ecm) and is 
 ever, therefore His Word also is existing, and is ever- 
 lastingly with the Father, as. radiance with light. . . . 
 As radiance from light, so is He perfect offspring from 
 perfect. Hence He is also God, as being God's Image. 
 Orat. ii. 35. " It was fitting that, whereas God is 
 One, that His Image should be One also, and His 
 Word One, and One His Wisdom." Ibid. 36. 
 
 ^[ " He is likeness and image of the sole and true 
 God, being Himself sole also/' 49. /xoi/o? ev p,6vw } 
 Orat. iii. 21. 0X05 o\ov el/cwv, Serap. i. 16. "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 ; reX,eto9 re\eiov 
 lyeyevvijicev, Trvevpa Trvev^a. Epiph. Hear. Ixxvi. p. 945. 
 " As Light from Light, and Life from Life, and Good 
 from Good; so from Eternal Eternal." Nyss. contr. 
 Eunom. i. p. 164. App. " De Deo nascitur Deus, de 
 Ingenito Unigenitus, de Solo Solus, de Toto Tot us, de 
 Vero Verus, de Perfecto Perfectus, Totum Patris 
 habens, nihil derogans Patri." Zenon. Serm. ii. 3. 
 
 H if A man will see the extravagance of this heresy 
 still more clearly, if he considers that the Son is the 
 Image and Radiance of the Father, and Impress 
 and Truth. For if, when Light exists, there be withal
 
 IMAGE. 181 
 
 its Image, viz. Radiance, and a Subsistence existing, 
 there be of it the entire Impress, and a Father 
 existing, there be His true representation, let them 
 consider what depths of impiety they fall into, who 
 make time the measure of the Image and Countenance 
 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. And the Subsistence existing, of course 
 there was forthwith its Impress and Image ; for God's 
 Image is not delineated from without, but God Himself 
 hath begotten It; in which seeing Himself, He has 
 delight, as the Son Himself says, I was His delight. 
 When then did the Father not see Himself in His own 
 Image? or when had He not delight in Him, that a man 
 should dare to say, ' The Image is out of nothing/ 
 and ' The Father had not delight before the Image 
 was generated ? ' and how should the Maker and 
 Creator see Himself in a created and generated sub- 
 stance? for such as is the Father, such must be the 
 Image. Proceed we then to consider the attributes of 
 the Father, and we shall come to know whether this 
 Image is really His. The 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.'' Orat. i. 20, 21. 
 
 ^[ " If God be ingenerate, His Image is not generate 
 [made,] but an Offspring, which is His Word and His 
 Wisdom," ibid. 31.
 
 182 IMAGE. 
 
 Athan. argues from the very name Image for our 
 Lord's eternity. An Image, to be really such, must be 
 an impress from the Original, not an external and 
 detached imitation. It was attempted to secure this 
 point before Nicaea by the epithets living and cnrapaX- 
 XO/CTO?, unsuccessfully, vid. Deer. 20. Thus S. Basil, 
 " He is an Image not made with the hand, or a work of 
 art, but a living Image," &c. vid. art. a,Trapd\\aiCTOv , 
 also contr. Eunom. ii. 16, 17. Epiph. Hser. 76, 3. 
 Hilar. Trin. vii. 41 fin. Origen observes that man, on 
 the contrary, is an example of an external or im- 
 proper image of God. Periarch. i. 2, 6. vid. Theod. 
 Hist. i. 3, pp. 737, 742. 
 
 If S. Gregory Naz. argues from the name of Image 
 to our Lord's consubstantiality. "He is Image as 
 ofioova-iov . , . for this is the nature of an image to be 
 a copy of the archetype." Orat. 30, 20. 
 
 H[ Vid. S. Athan.'s doctrine concerning Wisdom, 
 Orat. ii. 80, &c. He says, Gent. 34, "The soul as in a 
 mirror contemplates the Word the linage of the Father, 
 and in Him considers the Father, whose Image the 
 Saviour is ... or if not . . . yet from the things that 
 are seen, the creation is such, as by letters signifying 
 and heralding its Lord and Maker by means of its 
 order and harmony." And " As by looking up to the 
 heaven ... we have an idea of the Word who set it 
 in order, so considering the Word of God, we cannot 
 but see God His Father/' 45. And Incarn. 11, 41, 42, 
 &c. Yid. also Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 16. 
 
 !I On the Arian objection, that, if our Lord be the 
 Father's Image, He ought to resemble Him in being
 
 IMAGE. 183 
 
 a Father, vid. article, "Father Almighty." The 
 words " like " and much more " image," would be in- 
 appropriate, if the Second Divine Person in nothing 
 differed from the First. Sonship is just that one 
 difference which allows of likeness being predicated 
 of Him.
 
 184 IMPERIAL TITLES AND HONOURS. 
 
 IMPEEIAL TITLES AND HONOUES. 
 
 If EUSEBIUS was emphatically the court bishop, but he 
 did but observe the ecclesiastical rule in calling Con- 
 stantino " most pious," 14, Lett. App. Deer, "most 
 wise and most religious," 4, " most religious," 8, 
 10. (Nic. n. 47, &c.) He goes in his Vit. Const, 
 further than this, and assigns to him the office of deter- 
 mining the faith ( Constantino being as yet unbaptized) . 
 E. g. " When there were differences between persons 
 of different countries, the Emperor, as if some 
 common bishop appointed by God, convened Coun- 
 cils of God's ministers ; and, not disdaining to be pre- 
 sent, and to sit amid their conferences," &c. i. 44. 
 When he came into the Nicene Council, " it was," 
 says Eusebius, " as some heavenly Angel of God," iii. 
 10, alluding to the brilliancy of the imperial purple. 
 He confesses, however, he did not sit down until the 
 Bishops bade him. Again at the same Council, " with 
 pleasant eyes, looking serenity itself into them all, 
 collecting himself, and in a quiet and gentle voice," he 
 made an oration to the Fathers upon peace. Constan- 
 tine had been an instrument in conferring such vast 
 benefits, humanly speaking, on the Christian body, 
 that it is not wonderful that other writers of the day 
 besides Eusebius should praise him. Hilary speaks 
 of him as " of sacred memory," Fragm. 5, init.
 
 IMPERIAL TITLES AND HONOURS. 185 
 
 Athanasius calls him "most pious," Apol. contr. 
 Arian. 9, "of blessed memory," Ep. 2Eg. 18, 19. 
 Epiphanius " most religious and of ever-blessed 
 memory," Haer. 70, 9. Posterity, as was natural, was 
 still more grateful. 
 
 TT Up to the year 356, when Constantius took up the 
 Anomoeans, this was Athan.'s tone in speaking of him 
 also. In his Apol. contr. Arian. init. (A.D. 350,) ad Ep. 
 ^Bg. 5, (356,) and his Apol. ad Constant, passim. (356,) 
 he calls the Emperor most pious, religious, &c. At 
 the end of the last-mentioned work, 27, the news 
 comes to him while in exile of the prosecution of the 
 Western Bishops and the measures against himself. 
 He still in the peroration calls Constantius, " blessed 
 and divinely favoured Augustus," and urges on him 
 that he is a " Christian, faXoxpurTos, Emperor." Yid. 
 supr. art. Athanasius. 
 
 ^[ The honour paid to the Imperial Statues is well 
 known. " He who crowns the Statue of the Emperor 
 of course honours him, whose image he has crowned." 
 Ambros. in Psalm 118, x. 25. vid. also Chrysost. Horn, on 
 Statues, Oxf. Tr. pp. 355, 6, &c. Fragm. in Act. Cone. vii. 
 (t. 4, p. 89, Hard.) . Chrysostom's second persecution 
 arose from his interfering with a statue of the Empress 
 which was so near the Church, that the acclamations 
 of the people before it disturbed the services. Socr. 
 vi. 18. The Seventh Council speaks of the images 
 sent by the Emperors into provinces instead of their 
 coming in person; Ducange in v. Lauratum. Vid. a 
 description of the imperial statues and their honours 
 in Gothofred, Cod. Theod. t. 5, pp. 346, 347, and in
 
 186 IMPERIAL TITLES AND HONOURS. 
 
 Philostorg, ii. 18, xii. 10. vid. also Molanus de Imagi- 
 nibus ed. Paquot, p. 197. 
 
 5[ 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. Dollinger, Church 
 History, vol. iii. p. 55. E. Tr. Certain Fathers, e. g. 
 S. Jerome, set themselves against the civil custom, as 
 idolatrous, comparing it to that paid to Nebuchad- 
 nezzar's statue, vid. Hieron. in Dan. iii. 18. Incense 
 was burnt before those of the Emperors; as afterwards 
 before the Images of the Saints.
 
 THE INCARNATION. 187 
 
 THE INCARNATION, 
 
 
 
 1. Considered in its purpose. 
 
 " THE need of man preceded His becoming man/' 
 says Athan., "apart from which He had not put on 
 flesh. And what the need was for which He became 
 man, He Himself thus signifies, J came down from 
 heaven . . . to do the will of Him that sent Me. And 
 this is the will of Him that sent Me, that of all which 
 He hath given Me, I should lose nothing ; but, &c. &c. 
 (John vi. 38 40), and again, I am come a Light into 
 the World, &c., and again, To this end was I born, &c., 
 that I should bear witness unto the truth (Johnxviii. 37), 
 and John hath written, For this was manifested the Son 
 of God, that He might destroy the works of the devil 
 (1 John iii. 8). To give a witness, then, and for our 
 sakes to undergo death, to raise men up and loose the 
 works of the devil, the Saviour came, and this is the 
 reason of His Incarnate Presence." Orat. ii. 54. 
 
 ^f However, there are theologians of great name, who 
 consider that the decree of the Incarnation was inde- 
 pendent of Adam's fall ; and certainly by allowing that 
 it was not absolutely necessary (vid. infra) for the divine 
 forgiveness of sin, and that it was the actual and 
 immediate means of the soul's renewal and sanctifica- 
 tion, as we shall see presently, Athan. goes far towards
 
 188 THE INCARNATION. 
 
 countenancing that belief. " Dico ex vi prassentis 
 decreti," says Viva (Curs. Theol. de Incarn. p. 74), 
 "Adamo non peccante Yerbum fuisse incarnatum; 
 atque adeo motivum Incarnationis non fuit sola re- 
 demptio, sed etiam et principalius ipsa Christi excel- 
 lentia ac humance naturae exaltatio. Ita Scotistse, 
 Suar. Martinon. et alii contra Thomistas. Angelicus 
 vero qu. 1 a. 3 sententiam nostram censet probabilem, 
 quamvis probabiliorem putet oppositam." 
 
 IT It is the general teaching of the Fathers in accord- 
 ance with Athan., that our Lord would not have 
 been incarnate had not man sinned. " Our cause was 
 the occasion of His descent, and our transgression 
 called forth the Word's love of man. Of His incarna- 
 tion we became the ground/' Athan. de Incarn. Y. 
 D. 4. vid. Thomassin, at great length de Incarn. ii. 5 
 11, also Petav. de Incarn. ii. 17, 7 12. Yasquez. in 
 3 Thorn. Disp. x. 4 and 5. 
 
 51 " Without His sojourning here at all, God was able 
 to speak the word only and undo the curse .... but 
 then the power indeed of Him who gave command had 
 been shown, but man, though restored to what Adam 
 was before the fall, had received grace only from with- 
 out, not had it united to his body. . . . Then, had he 
 been again seduced by the serpent, a second need had 
 arisen of God's commanding and undoing the curse ; 
 and this had gone on without limit, and men had re- 
 mained under guilt just as before, being in slavery to 
 sin ; and ever sinning, they had ever needed pardon, 
 and never been made free, being in themselves carnal, 
 and ever defeated by the Law by reason of the infirmity
 
 THE INCARNATION. 189 
 
 of the flesh." Orat. ii. 68. And so in Incarn. 7, he 
 says that repentance might have been pertinent, had 
 man merely offended, without corruption following 
 (supra Freedom), vid. also 14. Athan. is supported 
 by Naz. Orat. 19, 13 ; Theod. adv. Gent. vi. p. 876-7. 
 Aug. de Trin. xiii. 13. The contrary view is taken 
 by St. Anselm, but St. Thomas and the Schoolmen 
 side with the Fathers, vid. Petav. Incarn. ii. 13. 
 
 ^f On the subject of God's power, as contrasted 
 with His acts, vid. Petav. de Deo, v. 6. 
 
 Tf There were two reasons then for the Incarnation, viz. 
 atonement for sin, and renewal in holiness, and these 
 are ordinarily associated with each other by Athanasius. 
 
 These two ends of our Lord's Incarnation, that He 
 might die for us, and that He might renew us, answer 
 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, in- 
 cluding both of these, is treated of in Incarn. 4 20, 
 or rather in the whole Tract, and in the two books 
 against Apollinaris. It is difficult to make accurate 
 references under the former head, (vid. supra, art. 
 Atonement,) without including the latter. " Since all 
 men had to pay the debt of death, on which account 
 especially He came on earth, therefore after giving 
 proofs of His Divinity from His works, next He offered 
 a sacrifice for all, &c.," the passage then runs on into 
 the other fruit of His death. Incarn. 20. Vid. also 
 Orat. ii. 7 9, where he speaks of our Lord as offer- 
 ing Himself, as offering His flesh to God ; also Deer. 
 14. And Orat. iv. 6, he says, " When He is said
 
 190 THE INCARNATION. 
 
 to hunger, to weep and weary and to cry Eloi, which 
 are human affections, He receives them from us and 
 offers to His Father, interceding for us, that in 
 Him they may be annulled." And so Theodoret, 
 " Whereas He had an immortal nature, He willed ac- 
 cording to equity to put a stop to death's power, 
 taking on Himself first from those who were exposed 
 to death a first fruit ; and preserving this immaculate 
 and guiltless of sin, He surrenders it for death to 
 seize upon as well as others, and satiate its insatiable- 
 ness ; and then on the ground of its want of equity 
 against that first-fruit, He put a stop to its iniquitous 
 tyranny over others." Eran. iii. p. 196, 7. Vigil. Thaps. 
 contr. Eutych. i. 9, p. 496 (Bibl. Patr. 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 
 person and ours. Thus he says that our Lord " took 
 on Him all our infirmities which come of sin without 
 sin ;" and " the most cruel pains and death/' because 
 " none could be rescued from mortality, unless He, in 
 whom our common nature was innocent, allowed Him- 
 self to die by the hands of the impious;" "unde," he 
 continues, " in se credentibus et sacramentum condidit 
 et exemplum, ut unum apprehenderent renascendo, al- 
 terum sequerentur imitando." Serm. 63, 4. He speaks 
 of His fortifying us against our passions and infirmi- 
 ties, both " sacramento susceptionis " and " exemplo." 
 Serm. 65, 2, and of a " duplex remedium cujus aliud in
 
 THE INCARNATION. 191 
 
 sacramento, aliud in exemplo." Serm. 67, 5, also 69, 5. 
 Elsewhere lie makes the strong statement, " The 
 Lord's passion is continued on [producitur] even to 
 the end of the world ; and as in His Saints He is 
 honoured Himself, and Himself is loved, and in the 
 poor He Himself is fed, is clothed Himself, so in all who 
 endure trouble for righteousness' sake, does He Him- 
 self suffer together [" compatitur "] , Serm. 70, 5. vid. 
 also more or less in Serm. pp. 76, 93, 98, 99, 141, 249, 
 257, 258, 271, fin. and Bpist. pp. 1291, 1363, 1364. At 
 other times, however, the atonement is more distinctly 
 separated from its circumstances, pp. 136, 198, 310 ; 
 but it is very difficult to draw the line. The tone of 
 his teaching is throughout characteristic of the 
 Fathers, and very like that of S. Athanasius. vid. art. 
 Atonement and Freedom. 
 
 2. Considered in itself. 
 
 THE Two natures, the divine and human, both perfect, 
 though remaining distinct, are in the Christ intimately 
 and for ever one. 
 
 " Two natures," says S. Leo, " met together in our 
 Redeemer, and, while what belonged to each remained, 
 so great a unity was made of either substance, that from 
 the time that the Word was made flesh in the Blessed 
 Virgin's womb, we may neither think of Him as God 
 without that which is man, nor as man without that 
 which is God," &c. Vid. art. Two Natures. 
 
 11 And the principle of unity, viz, that in which they 
 were united, was the Person of the Son. From this 
 unity of Person it comes to pass, first, that one and the
 
 192 THE INCARNATION. 
 
 same act on the part of our Lord may be both divine 
 and human ; e. g. His curing with a touch, this is called 
 the OeavSpiKrj cvepyeia; and secondly, that the acts and 
 attributes of one nature may safely be ascribed as per- 
 sonal to the other ; this is called the avri&ocns l&iwpdrwv. 
 Thus it is true that " the Creator is the Lamb of God/' 
 though there can be no intrinsic union of attribute or 
 act in Him who both in the beginning created and in 
 the fulness of time suffered. 
 
 That Person which our Lord is after the Incarnation, 
 He was before ; His human nature is riot a separate 
 being; that is the heresy of the Nestorians. vid. Unity, 
 &c. It has no personality belonging to it ; but that 
 human nature, though perfect as a nature, lives in and 
 belongs to and is possessed by Him, the second Person 
 of the Trinity, as an attribute or organ or inseparable 
 accident of being, not as what is substantive, inde- 
 pendent, or co-ordinate. Vid. Articles opyavov and 
 
 ^[ Personality is not necessary in order to a nature 
 being perfect, as we see in the case of brute animals. 
 
 U" Nothing then follows from the union of the two 
 natures, which circumscribes or limits the Divine Son ; 
 so to teach was the heresy of the Monophysites, who 
 held that the Divinity and Manhood of Christ made 
 up together one nature, as soul and body in man are one 
 compound nature ; from which it follows that neither 
 of them is perfect. Vid. Article Mta
 
 THE DIVINE INDWELLING. 19 
 
 THE DIVINE INDWELLING. 
 
 OUR Lord, by becoming man, has found a way 
 whereby to sanctify that nature, of which His own 
 manhood is the pattern specimen. He inhabits us 
 personally, and this inhabitation is effected by the 
 channel of the Sacraments. 
 
 ce Since the Word bore our body," says Athanasius, 
 " and came to be in us (yeyovev), therefore, by reason 
 of the Word in us, is God called our Father." 
 Deer. 31. Yid. rbv ev yfuv vlov. Orat. ii. 59, 6 
 Xo'yo? 0eo9 ev vapid . . . eveta TOV dytd^eiv TIJV crdptca 
 yeyovev avdpwiros. ibid. 10, also 56, and TOV ev avrot? 
 olfcovvra Xoyov, (51. Also Orat. i. 50, iii. 23 25, 
 iv. 21. "We rise from the earth, the curse of sin 
 being removed, because of Him who is in us," 
 iii. 33. 
 
 ^[ In thus teaching Athan. follows the language of 
 Scripture, in which ev means in our nature, not merely 
 among us ; vid. OVTCOS ev r)/j,iv $eo<?, 1 Cor. xiv. 25. ev 
 e/ioi, Gal. i. 24. evrbs vfiwv, Luke xvii. 21. ea-Krjvdxrev 
 ev rjfiiv, John i. 14; also xiv. 17, 23; 1 Cor. vi. 20; 
 1 John iii. 24, &c. 
 
 By this indwelling our Lord is the immediate ap%?) 
 of spiritual life to each of His elect individually. 
 OVK 6 Xoyo? ea-Tiv 6 j3e\TiovjJ>evo<>, el^ev yap Trdvra, 
 ' ol avOpwTrot, ol dpx*]v e^oz/re? TOV \ap,(3dveiv ev auTw 
 
 VOL. II. O
 
 194 THE DIVINE INDWELLING. 
 
 KOI Si avTov> Orat. i. 48. Vid. also what he says on 
 the phrase ap%r) oSwv. Orat. ii. 48, &c. Also the note 
 of the Benedictine editor on Justin's Tryphon. 61, 
 referring to Tatian. c. Gent. S. Athenag. Apol. 10. 
 Iren. Hser. iv. 20, n. 4. Origen in Joan. torn. i. 89. 
 Tertull. Prax. 6, and Ambros. de Fid. iii. 7. 
 
 IT " Flesh being first sanctified in Him," says Athan., 
 " and He being said on account of it to have received as 
 man [the anointing] , we have the sequel of the Spirit's 
 grace receiving out of His fulness." Orat. i. 50. vid. art. 
 Grace. Other Fathers use still stronger language. S. 
 Chrysostom explains ; " He is born of our substance : 
 you will say, ' This does not pertain to all ; yea, to all. 
 He mingles (ava/j,iyvu<Tiv) Himself with the faithful 
 individually, through the mysteries, and whom He has 
 begotten those He nurses from Himself, not puts them 
 out to other hands," &c. Horn. 82, 5, in Matt., &c., &c. 
 vid. art. Freedom. 
 
 In Orat. iii. 33 S. Athanasius uses the strong phrase 
 Xo7&>0eiaT7? TT}? o-ap/eo?, of regenerate human nature. 
 Damascene speaks of the Xo7&>o-t<? of the flesh, but he 
 means principally our Lord's flesh, F. 0. iv. 18, p. 286, 
 ed. Ven. For the words 0eov<r8ai, &c. vid. supr. art. 
 Deification ; also vid. Flesh. 
 
 ^ Nor is this all; we must go on to the results 
 of this doctrine, as indicated in the following pas- 
 sages of Scripture which are referred to above. 
 "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and 
 that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you ? " 1 Cor. 
 iii. 16, 17 ; vi. 1520. 2 Cor. vi. 16, &c. It is plain 
 that there is a special presence of God in those who are
 
 THE DIVINE INDWELLING. 195 
 
 real members of our Lord. To this St. Paul seems to 
 refer when he says, "They glorified God in me," 
 Gal. i. 24. To this and to other passages noted supr. 
 Athanasius refers, when he says, " 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." Orat. i. 43. And S. Basil, arguing 
 for the worship of the Holy Spirit, says, "Man in 
 common is crowned with glory and honour, and glory 
 and honour and peace is reserved in the promises for 
 every one who doeth good. And there is a certain 
 glory of Israel peculiar, and the Psalmist speaks of a 
 glory of his own, ' Awake up my glory ;' and there is 
 a glory of the sun, and according to the Apostle even 
 a ministration of condemnation with glory. So many 
 then being glorified, choose you that the Spirit alone 
 of all should be without glory ? " de Sp. S. c. 24. 
 
 ^[ We are led on to a farther remark : If even while 
 we are in the flesh, soul and body become, by the in- 
 dwelling of the Word, so elevated above their natural 
 state, so sacred, that to profane them in a sacrilege, is 
 it wonderful that the Saints above should so abound in 
 prerogatives and privileges, and should claim a reli- 
 gious cultus, when once in the pleroma, and in the sight 
 as in the fruition of the exuberant infinitude of God ? 
 
 o 2
 
 196 MARCELLUS. 
 
 MAECELLUS. 
 
 1" MAKCELLUS was Bishop of Ancyra iu Galatia. 
 In the early years of S. Athanasius's episcopate, he 
 wrote his Answer to the Arian Asterius and others, 
 which was the occasion, and forms the subject of 
 Eusebius's " contra Marcellum " and " Ecclesiastica 
 Theologia," and which is the only existing document 
 of his opinions. " Now he replies to Asterius," says 
 Eusebius, " now to the great Eusebius [of Nicomedia] 
 " and then he turns upon that man of God, that indeed 
 thrice blessed person Paulinus [of Tyre]. Then he 
 goes to war with Origen. . . Next he marches out 
 against Narcissus, and pursues the other Eusebius," 
 himself. " In a word, he counts for nothing all the 
 Ecclesiastical Fathers, being satisfied with no one but 
 himself." contr. Marc. i. 4. He was in consequence 
 condemned in several Arian Councils, and retired to 
 Rome, as did S. Athanasius, about the year 341, when 
 both of them were formally acquitted of heterodoxy by 
 the Pope in Council. Both were present, and both 
 were again acquitted at the Council of Sardica in 347. 
 From this very date, however, the charges against him, 
 which had hitherto been confined to the Arians, begin 
 to find a voice among the Catholics. S. Cyril in his 
 Catechetical Lectures, A.D. 347, speaks of the heresy 
 which had lately arisen in Galatia, which denied Christ's
 
 MARCELLUS. 197 
 
 eternal reign, a description which both from country 
 and tenet is evidently levelled at Marcellus. He is 
 followed by S. Paulinus at the Council of Aries, and 
 by S. Hilary, in the years which follow; but S. 
 Athanasius seems to have acknowledged him down to 
 about A.D. 360. At length the latter began to own 
 that Marcellus " was not far from heresy/' vid. below, 
 and S. Hilary and S. Sulpicius say that he separated 
 from his communion. S. Hilary adds (Fragm. ii. 21.) 
 that Athanasius was decided in this course, not by 
 Marcellus's work against Asterius, but by publications 
 posterior to the Council of Sardica. Photinus, the 
 disciple of Marcellus, who had published the very 
 heresy imputed to the latter before A.D. 345, had now 
 been deposed, with the unanimous consent of all 
 parties, for some years. Thus for ten years Marcellus 
 was disowned by the Saint with whom he had shared 
 so many trials ; but in the very end of S. Athanasius's 
 life a transaction took place between himself, S. Basil, 
 and the Galatian school, which issued in his being 
 induced again to think more favourably of Marcellus, 
 or at least to think it right in charity to consider him 
 in communion with the Church. S. Basil had taken a 
 strong part against him, and wrote to S. Athanasius 
 on the subject, Ep. 69, 2, thinking that AthanasiusV 
 apparent countenance of him did harm to the Catholic 
 cause. Upon this the accused party sent a deputation 
 to Alexandria, with a view of setting themselves right 
 with Athanasius. Eugenius, deacon of their Church, 
 was their representative, and he in behalf of his 
 brethren subscribed a statement in vindication of his
 
 198 MARCELLUS. 
 
 and their orthodoxy, which was countersigned by the 
 clergy of Alexandria and apparently by S. Athanasius, 
 though his name does not appear among the extant 
 signatures. This important document, which was 
 brought to light and published by Montfaucon, speaks 
 in the name of " the Clergy and the others assembled 
 in Ancyra of Galatia, with our father Marcellus." He, 
 as well as Athanasius himself, died immediately after 
 this transaction, Marcellus in extreme age, being at 
 least twenty years older than Athanasius, who himself 
 lived till past the age of seventy. One might trust 
 that the life of the former was thus prolonged, till he 
 really recanted the opinions which go under his name ; 
 yet viewing him historically, and not in biography, it 
 still seems right, and is in accordance with the usage 
 of the Church in other cases, to consider him rather in 
 his works and in his school and its developments, than 
 in his own person and in his penitence. Whether S. 
 Athanasius wrote the controversial passages which 
 form Orat. iv. against him or against his school, in 
 either case it was prior to the date of the explanatory 
 document signed by Eugenius; nor is its inter- 
 pretation affected by that explanation. As to S. 
 Hilary's statement, that S . Athanasius did not condemn 
 the particular work of Marcellus against Asterius, of 
 which alone portions remain to us, his evidence in 
 other parts of the history is not sufficiently exact for 
 us to rely on his evidence in Marcellus's favour, 
 against the plainly heretical import of the statements 
 made in that work. Those statements were as follows: 
 Marcellus held, according to Eusebius, that (1 ) there
 
 MARCELLUS. 199 
 
 was but one person, irpovwirov, in the Divine Nature ; 
 but he differed from Sabellius in maintaining, (2) not 
 that the Father was the Son and the Son the Father, 
 (which is called the doctrine of the vloTrd-rwp,} but that 
 
 (3) Father and Son were mere names or titles, and 
 
 (4) not expressive of essential characteristics, names 
 or titles given to Almighty God and (5) to His Eternal 
 Word, on occasion of the Word's appearing in the 
 flesh, in the person, or subsistence (v-rroa-racn^) of Jesus 
 Christ, the Son of Mary. The Word, he considered, 
 was from all eternity in the One God, being analogous 
 to man's reason within him, or the ev8id0eTO<; Xcfyo? of 
 the philosophical schools. (6) This One God or /*oz>a? 
 has condescended to extend or expand Himself, 
 jr\aTvveadai, to effect our salvation. (7 and 8) The 
 expansion consists in the action, evepyela, of the X.0709, 
 which then becomes the Xo709 irpo(poptxo<; or voice of 
 God, instead of His inward Reason. (9) The incarna- 
 tion is a special divine expansion, viz. an expansion in 
 the flesh of Jesus, Son of Mary; (10) in order to 
 which the Word went forth, as at the end of the 
 dispensation He will return. Consequently the Xtxyo? 
 is not (11) the Son, nor (12) the Image of God, nor 
 the Christ, nor the First-begotten, nor King, but Jesus 
 is all these ; and if these titles are applied to the Word 
 in Scripture, they are applied prophetically, in antici- 
 pation of His manifestation in the flesh. (13) And 
 when He has accomplished the object of His com- 
 ing, they will cease to apply to Him ; for He will 
 leave the flesh, return to God, and be merely the 
 Word as before; and His Kingdom, as being the
 
 200 MARCELLUS. 
 
 Kingdom of the flesh or manhood, will come to an 
 end. 
 
 This account of the tenets of Marcellus comes, it is 
 true, from an enemy, who was writing against him, 
 and moreover from an Arian or Arianizer, who was 
 least qualified to judge of the character of tenets 
 which were so opposite to his own. Yet there is no 
 reason to doubt its correctness on this account. 
 Eusebius supports his charges by various extracts from 
 Marcellus's works, and he is corroborated by the 
 testimony of others. Moreover, if Athanasius's account 
 of the tenets against which he himself writes in his 
 fourth Oration, answers to what Eusebius tells us of 
 those of Marcellus, as in fact they do, the coincidence 
 confirms Eusebius as well as explains Athanasius. 
 And further, the heresy of Photinus, the disciple of 
 Marcellus, which consisted in the very doctrines which 
 Eusebius deduces from the work of Marcellus, gives 
 an additional weight to such deductions. 
 
 ^[ He wrote his work against Asterius not later 
 than 335, the year of the Arian Council of Jerusalem, 
 which at once took cognizance of it, and cited Marcellus 
 to appear before them. The same year a Council held 
 at Constantinople condemned and deposed him, about 
 the time that Arius came thither for re-admission into 
 the Church. From that time his name is frequently 
 introduced into the Arian anathemas, vid. Macrostich, 
 Syn. 26. By adding those " who communicate with 
 him," in that document the Eusebians intended to 
 strike at the Eoman see, which had acquitted Mar- 
 cellus in a Council held in June of the same year.
 
 MARCELLUS. 201 
 
 ^1 The Arians of Alexandria, writing to Alexander, 
 (Syn. 16) speak of the Son as "not as existing before, 
 and afterwards generated or new created into a Son." 
 One school of theologians may be aimed at, who held 
 our Lord's ai^y/wiTa/Sao-i? to create the world was His 
 yevi>r]ai<;, and certainly such language as that of Hippol. 
 contr. Noet. 15, favours the supposition. But a 
 class of the Sabellians may more probably be intended, 
 who held that the Word became the Son on His incar- 
 nation, such as Marcellus, vid. Euseb. Eccles. Theol. i 
 1. contr. Marc. ii. 3. vid. also Eccles. Theol. ii. 9, 
 p. 114. b. fAyS* aXXore aXkrjv K. T. X. Also the Macrostich 
 says, " We anathematize those who call Him the mere 
 Word of God, . . . not allowing Him to be Christ and Son 
 of God before all ages, but from the time He took on 
 Him our flesh . . . such are the followers of Marcellus 
 and Photinus, &c." Syn. 26. Again, Athanasius, 
 Orat. iv. 15, says that, of those who divide the Word 
 from the Son, some called our Lord's manhood the Son, 
 some the two Natures together, and some said " that 
 the Word Himself became the Son when He was made 
 man." It makes it the more likely that Marcellus is 
 meant, that Asterius seems to have written against him 
 before the Nicene Council, and that Arius in other of 
 his writings borrowed from Asterius, vid. de Decret. 
 8 ; though it must not be forgotten that some of 
 the early Fathers spoke unadvisedly on this subject, 
 vid. the author's Theological Tracts. 
 
 5[ In the fourth (Arian) Confession of Antioch (supr. 
 vol.i.p. 101) words are used, which answer to those added 
 in the second General Council (381 ) to the Creed, and are
 
 202 MARCELLUS. 
 
 directed against the doctrine of Marcellus, who taught 
 that the Word was but a divine energy, manifested in 
 Christ and retiring from Him at the consummation of 
 all things, when the manhood or flesh of Christ would 
 consequently no longer reign. " How can we admit," 
 says Marcellus in Eusebius, " that that flesh, which is 
 from the earth and profiteth nothing, should co-exist 
 with the Word in the ages to come as serviceable to 
 Him?" de Eccl. Theol. iii. 8. Again, "If He has 
 received a beginning of His Kingdom not more than 
 four hundred years since, it is no paradox that He who 
 gained that Kingdom so short a while since, should be 
 said by the Apostle to deliver it up to God. What are 
 we to gather about the human flesh, which the Word 
 bore for us, not four hundred years since ? will the 
 Word have it in the ages to come, or only to the judg- 
 ment season?" iii. 17. And, " Should any ask whether 
 that flesh which is in the Word has become immortal, 
 we say to him, that we count it not safe to pro- 
 nounce on points of which we learn not for certain 
 from divine Scripture." Ibid. 10. 
 
 If Pope Julius acquitted Marcellus, Athan. Apol. Ar. 
 32, A.D. 341, but it would seem that he did not eventually 
 preserve himself from heresy, even if he deserved a 
 favourable judgment at that time. Athan. also sides 
 with him, de Fug. 3. Hist. Arian. 6, but Epiphanius 
 records, that, once on his asking Athan. what he 
 (Athan.) thought of Marcellus, a smile came on his 
 face, as if he had an opinion of him which he did not 
 like to express, or which Epiphanius ought not to 
 have asked for. Haer. 72, 4. And S. Hilary says that
 
 MARCELLUS. 203 
 
 Athan. separated Marcellus from his communion, 
 because he agreed with his disciple, Photinus. He is 
 considered heretical by Epiphanius, I.e.; by Basil, Epp. 
 69, 125, 263, 265; Chrysost. in Heb. i. 8; Theod. Hter. 
 ii. 10 ; by Petavius, far more strongly by Bull. Mont- 
 faucon defends him, Tillemont, and Natal, Alex,
 
 204 THE BLESSED MARY. 
 
 THE BLESSED MAEY. 
 1. Mary Ever-Virgin. 
 
 THIS title is found in Athan. Orat. ii. 70. "Let 
 those who deny that the Son is from the Father by 
 nature and proper to His substance, deny also that He 
 took true human flesh of Mary Ever- Virgin." Yid. also 
 Athan. Comm. in Luc. in Collect. Nov. t. 2, p. 43. 
 Epiph. Hser. 78, 5. Didym. Trin. i. 27 p. 84. Rufin. 
 Fid. i. 43. Lepor. ap. Cassian. Incarn. i. 5. Leon. Ep. 
 28, 2. Pseudo-Basil, t. 2, p. 598. ^Csesarius has 
 denrals. Qu. 20. On the doctrine itself, vid. the con- 
 troversial Tract of S. Jerome against Helvidius ; also 
 a letter of S. Ambrose and his brethren to Siricius, 
 and the Pope's letter in response. Coust. Ep. Pont, 
 t i. p. 669682. 
 
 Pearson, Bishop of Chester, writes well upon this 
 subject. Creed, Art. 3. A passage from him is inci- 
 dentally quoted infr. art. evcrefieia. He also says, 
 " As we are taught by the predictions of the Prophets 
 that a Virgin was to be Mother of the promised 
 Messias, so are we assured by the infallible relation of 
 the Evangelists, that this Mary ' was a Virgin when 
 she bare him/ .... Neither was her act of parturition 
 more contradictory to virginity, than that former [act] 
 of conception. Thirdly, we believe the Mother of our
 
 THE BLESSED MARY. 205 
 
 Lord to have been, not only before and after His 
 nativity, but also for ever, the most immaculate and 
 
 blessed Virgin The peculiar eminency and 
 
 unparalleled privilege of that Mother, the special 
 honour and reverence due unto her Son and ever paid 
 by her, the regard of that Holy Ghost who came upon 
 her, the singular goodness and . piety of Joseph, to 
 whom she was espoused, have persuaded the Church of 
 God in all ages to believe that she still continued in 
 the same virginity, and therefore is to be acknowledged 
 as the Ever- Virgin Mary." Creed, Art. 3. 
 
 He adds that " many have taken the boldness to 
 deny this truth, because not recorded in the sacred 
 writ," but " with no success." He replies to the 
 argument from " until" in Matt. 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 cix. 1, and 
 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. himself, Eccl. Theol. iii. 13, 14. 
 Vid. also Cyr. Cat. 15, 29, Naz. Orat. 30, 4, where 
 the true force of " until " 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?" 
 
 51 1 have said in a note on the word in the Aurea Ca- 
 tena, that the word " till " need not imply a termination 
 at a certain point of time, but may be given as informa- 
 tion up to a certain point from which onwards there is
 
 206 THE BLESSED MARY. 
 
 already no doubt. Supposing an Evangelist thought 
 the very notion shocking that Joseph should have con- 
 sidered the Blessed Virgin as his wife, after he was 
 witness of her bearing the Son of God, he would only 
 say that the vision had its effect upon him up to that 
 date, when the idea was monstrous. If one said of 
 a profligate, that, in consequence of some awful oc- 
 currence, he was in the habit of saying a prayer, every 
 night up to the time of his conversion, no one would 
 gather thence that he left off praying on being con- 
 verted. " Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to 
 the day of her death;" had she children after it? 
 This indeed is one of Pearson's references. Vid. also 
 Suicer de Symb. Niceno-Const. p. 231. Spanheim, 
 Dub. Evang. part i. 28, 11. 
 
 If Athan. elsewhere compares the Virgin's flesh to the 
 pure earth of Paradise out of which Adam was formed. 
 She is avepryacrros 777. Orat. ii. 7, and so Iren. Haer. 
 iii. 21 fin., and Tertullian, " That virgin earth, not yet 
 watered by rains, nor impregnated by showers, from 
 which man was formed in the beginning, from which 
 Christ is now born according to the flesh from a Vir- 
 gin." Adv. Jud. 13, vid. de Cam. Christ. 17. "Ex 
 terra virgiue Adam, Christus ex virgine." Ambros. in 
 Luc. lib. iv. 7. Vid. also the parallel drawn out t. v. Serin. 
 147. App. S. August, and in Proems, Orat. 2, pp. 103, 
 4, ed. 1630, vid. also Chrysost. t. 3, p. 113, ed. Ben. 
 and Theodotus at Ephesus, " earth unsown, yet 
 bearing a salutary fruit, Virgin, who didst surpass the 
 very Paradise of Eden," &c. Cone. Eph. p. 4 (Hard, 
 t. i. p. 1643). And so Proclus again, "She, the
 
 THE BLESSED MARY. 207 
 
 flowering and incorruptible Paradise, in whom the 
 Tree of Life," &o. Orat. 6, p. 227. And Basil of 
 Seleucia, "Hail, full of grace, the amarantine Para- 
 dise of purity, in whom the Tree of Life, &c." Orat. 
 in Annunc. p. 215. And p. 212, "Which, think they, is 
 the harder to believe, that a virgin womb should be 
 with child, or the ground should be animated?" &c. 
 And Hesychius, " Garden unsown, Paradise of im- 
 mortality." Bibl. Patr. Par. 1624. t. 2, pp. 421, 423. 
 
 Tf Vid. the well-known passage in S. Ignatius, ad 
 Bph. 19, where the devil is said to have been 
 ignorant of the Virginity of Mary, and the Nativity 
 and the Death of Christ ; Orig. Horn. 6. in Luc. Basil, 
 (if Basil,) Horn, in t. 2, App. p. 598, ed. Ben. and 
 Jerome in Matt. i. 18, who quote it. vid. also Leon. 
 Serm. 22, 3. Clement Eclog. Proph. p. 1002, ed. 
 Potter. 
 
 ^[ " Many," says Athanasius, " have been made holy 
 and clean from all sin; nay, Jeremias was hallowed 
 even from the womb, and John, while yet in the womb, 
 leapt for joy at the voice of Mary Mother of God." 
 Orat. iii. 33. vid. Jer. i. 5. And so S. Jerome, S. 
 Leo, &c. as mentioned in Corn, a Lap. in loc. who adds 
 that S. Ephrem considers Moses also sanctified in the 
 womb, and S. Ambrose Jacob. S. Jerome implies a 
 similar gift in the case of Asella (ad Marcell. Ep. 24, 
 2). And so S. John Baptist, Mai don. in Luc. i. 15. 
 
 ^ It is at first strange that these instances of spe- 
 cial exemptions should be named by early writers, 
 without our Lady also being mentioned; or rather it
 
 208 THE BLESSED MARY. 
 
 would be strange, unless we bore in mind how little is 
 said of her at all by Scripture or the Fathers up to the 
 Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431. It would seem as if 
 till our Lord's glory called for it, it required an effort 
 for the reverent devotion of the Church to speak much 
 about her or to make her the subject of popular 
 preaching; but, when by her manifestation a right 
 faith in her Divine Son was to be secured, then the 
 Church was to be guided in a contrary course. It 
 must be recollected that there was a disciplina arcani 
 in the first centuries, and, if it was exercised, as far as 
 might be, as regards the Holy Trinity and the Eucharist, 
 so would it be as regards the Blessed Virgin. 
 
 I have insisted upon this deep sentiment of re- 
 verence in matters of sacred doctrine in my " History 
 of the Arians," written long before I was a Catholic, 
 and I may fairly quote here one of several passages 
 contained in it, in solution of a difficulty with which at 
 that time I was not concerned. For instance, I say, 
 ch. 2, 1 : " The meaning and practical results of 
 deep-seated religious reverence were far better under- 
 stood in the primitiue times than now, when the 
 infidelity of the world has corrupted the Church. Now, 
 we allow ourselves publicly to canvass the most solemn 
 truths in a careless or fiercely argumentative way ; 
 truths, which it is as useless as it is unseemly to discuss 
 before men, as being attainable only by the sober and 
 watchful, by slow degrees, with dependence on the 
 giver of wisdom, and with strict obedience to the light 
 which has already been granted. Then, they would 
 scarcely express in writing, what now is not only
 
 THE BLESSED MARY. 209 
 
 preached to the mixed crowds who frequent our 
 churches, but circulated in prints among all ranks and 
 classes of the unclean and the profane, and pressed 
 upon all who choose to purchase. Nay, so perplexed 
 is the present state of things, that the Church is obliged 
 to change her course of acting, after the spirit of the 
 alteration made at Nicsea, and unwillingly to take part 
 in the theological discussions of the day, as a man 
 crushes venomous creatures of necessity, powerful to 
 do it, but loathing the employment." I am corro- 
 borated in my insistance on this principle by the words 
 of Sozomen, who says, " I formerly deemed it necessary 
 to transmit the confession drawn up by the unanimous 
 consent of the Nicene Council, in order that posterity 
 might possess a public record of the truth; but 
 subsequently I was persuaded to the contrary by some 
 godly and learned men, who represented that such 
 matters ought to be kept secret, as only requisite to 
 be known by disciples and their instructors." Hist, 
 i. 20. 
 
 In an Anglican Sermon of a later date, I apply 
 this instinctive feeling to the fact of the silence of 
 Scripture about the Blessed Virgin in its narrative of 
 the Resurrection. " Here perhaps," I say, " we learn a 
 lesson from the deep silence which Scripture observes 
 concerning the Blessed Virgin after the Resurrection ; 
 as if she, who was too pure and holy a flower to be 
 more than seen here on earth, even during the seasor 
 of her Son's humiliation, was altogether drawn by the 
 Angels within the veil on His Resurrection, and had 
 her joy in Paradise with Gabriel, who had been the 
 
 VOL. II. P
 
 210 THE BLESSED MARY. 
 
 first to honour her, and with those elder saints who 
 arose after the Resurrection, appeared in the Holy City, 
 and then vanished away." Par. Serm. vol. iv. 23. And 
 I refer in a note to the following passage in the Chris- 
 tian Year. 
 
 " God only, and good angels, look 
 
 Behind the blissful screen, 
 As when, triumphant o'er His woes, 
 The Son of God by moonlight rose, 
 
 By all but Heaven unseen ; 
 As when the Holy Maid beheld 
 
 Her risen Son and Lord, 
 Thought has not colours half so fair, 
 That we to paint that hour may dare, 
 
 In silence best adored." 
 
 Such doubtless were the spirit and the tone of the 
 Church till Nestorius came forward to deny that the 
 Son of God was the Son of Mary. Thenceforward 
 her title of Theotocos, already in use among Christian 
 writers, became dogmatic. 
 
 2. Mary Theotocos. 
 
 Mater Dei. Mother of God. Vid. Art. 
 IBico/jMTwv. Athanasius gives the title to the Blessed 
 Virgin, Orat. iii. 14, 29, 33. Orat. iv. 32. 
 Incarn. c. Ar. 8, 22. 
 
 IF As to the history of this title, Theodoret, who from 
 his party would rather be disinclined towards it, says 
 that " the most ancient (rwv TraPuu /cat Trpo-jrakai) heralds
 
 THE BLESSED MARY. 211 
 
 of the orthodox faith taught to name and believe the 
 Mother of the Lord tfeoro/co?, according to the Apos- 
 tolical tradition." Hger. 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.) And Alexander, 
 the most obstinate or rather furious of all Nestorius's 
 adherents, who died in banishment in Egypt, fully 
 allows the ancient reception of the word, though only 
 into popular use, from which came what he considers 
 the doctrinal corruption. " That in festive solemnities, 
 or in preaching and teaching, OeoroKos should be un- 
 guardedly said by the orthodox without explanation, 
 is no blame, becaiise such statements were not dog- 
 matic, nor said with evil meaning. But now after the 
 corruption of the whole world/' &c. Lup. Ephes. Epp. 
 94. He adds that it, as well as avdpwrroToicos, " was used 
 by the great doctors of the Church." Socrates Hist. 
 vii. 32. says that Origen, in the first tome of his Com- 
 mentary on the Romans (vid. de la Rue in Rom. lib. i. 5. 
 the original is lost), ti-eated largely of the word ; which 
 implies that it was already in use. " Interpreting," he 
 says, " how 0eoTo/co<? is used, he discussed the question 
 at length." Constantine implies the same with an 
 allusion to pagan mythology of an unpleasant kind; he 
 says, " When He had to draw near to a body of this 
 world, and to tarry on earth, the need so requiring, He 
 contrived a sort of irregular birth of Himself, vodrjv 
 
 p 2
 
 212 THE BLESSED MARY. 
 
 Tiva ryevecrtv ; for without marriage was there concep- 
 tion, and childbirth, el\eiOvia, from a pure Virgin, and 
 a maid, the Mother of God, deov ^ryp /copy." Ad. Sanct. 
 Coat. p. 480. The idea must have been familiar to 
 Christians before Constantino's date to be recognized 
 by him, a mere catechumen, and to be virtually com- 
 mented on by such a parallelism. 
 
 ^[ For instances of the word deoroKOf, besides Origen. 
 ap. Socr. vii. 32, vid. Euseb. Y. Const, iii. 43, in Psalm 
 cix. 4, p. 703, Montf. Nov. Coll.; Alexandr. Ep. ad Alex. 
 ap. Theodor. Hist. i. 3, p. 745; Athan. (supra); Cyril. Cat. 
 x. 19 ; Julian Imper. ap. Cyril, c. Jul. viii. p. 262 ; Am- 
 philoch. Orat. 4, p. 41 (if Amphil.) ed. 1644; Nyssen. Ep. 
 ad Eustath. p. 1093 ; Chrysost. apud Suicer Symb. t. ii. 
 p. 240; Greg. Naz. Orat. 29, 4 ; Ep. 101, p. 85, ed. Ben. 
 Antiochus and Ammon. ap. Cyril, de Recta Fid. pp. 
 49, 50 ; Pseudo-Dion, contr. Samos. 5, p. 240 ; Pseudo- 
 Basil. Horn. t. 2, p. 600, ed. Ben. 
 
 H Pearson on the Creed (notes on Art. 3), arguing 
 from Ephrem. ap. Phot. Cod. 228, p. 775, says the 
 phrase Mater Dei originated with St. Leo. On the con- 
 trary, besides in Constantino's Oration as above, it is 
 found, before S. Leo, in Ambros. de Virg. ii. 7; 
 Cassian. Incarn. ii. 5, vii. 25 ; Vincent. Lir. Commonit. 
 21. It is obvious that ^eoro/eo?, though framed as a 
 test against Nestorians, was equally effective against 
 Apollinarians and Eutychians, who denied that our 
 Lord had taken human flesh at all, as is observed by 
 Facundus Def. Trium Cap. i. 4. And so S. Cyril, 
 " Let it be carefully observed, that nearly this whole 
 contest about the faith has been created against us for
 
 THE BLESSED KARY. 213 
 
 our maintaining that the Holy Virgin is Mother of God ; 
 now, if we hold," as was the calumny, " that the Holy 
 Body of Christ our common Saviour was from heaven, 
 and not born of her, how can she be considered as 
 Mother of God ?" Epp. pp. 106, 7. Yet these sects, as 
 the Arians, maintained the term. Vid. supr. Heresies. 
 
 ^[ As to the doctrine, which the term implies and 
 guards, the following are specimens of it. Vid. S. Cyril's 
 quotations in his de Recta Fide, p. 49, &c. "The 
 fleshless," says Atticus, " becomes flesh, the impalpable 
 is handled, the perfect grows, the unalterable advances, 
 the rich is brought forth in an inn, the coverer of 
 heaven with clouds is swathed, the king is laid in a 
 manger/' Antiochus speaks of Him, our Saviour " with 
 whom yesterday in an immaculate bearing Mary 
 travailed, the Mother of life, of beauty, of majesty, the 
 Morning Star," &c. "The Maker of all," says S. 
 Amphilochius, " is born to us to-day of a Virgin." 
 " She did compass," says S. Chrysostom, " without 
 circumscribing the Sun of righteousness. To-day the 
 Everlasting is born, and becomes what He was not. 
 He who sitteth on a high and lofty throne is placed in 
 a manger, the impalpable, incomposite, and immaterial 
 is wrapped around by human hands, He who snaps the 
 bands of sin, is environed in swathing bands." And 
 in like manner S. Cyril himself, " As a woman, though 
 bearing the body only, is said to bring forth one who 
 is made up of body and soul, and that will be no injury 
 to the interests of the soul, as if it found in flesh the 
 origin of its existence, so also in the instance of the 
 Blessed Virgin, though she is Mother of the Holy
 
 214 THE BLESSED MARY. 
 
 Flesh, yet she bore God of God the Word, as being in 
 truth one with it." Adv. Nest i. p. 18. "God dwelt 
 in the womb, yet was not circumscribed ; whom the 
 heaven containeth not, the Virgin's frame did not 
 straiten." Procl. Orat. i. p. 60. " When thou hearest 
 that God speaks from the bush, and Moses falling on 
 his face worships, believest thou, not considering the 
 fire that is seen, but God that speaks ? and yet, when 
 I mention the Virgin womb, dost thou abominate and 
 turn away ? ... In the bush seest thou not the Virgin, 
 in the fire the loving-kindness of Him who came ? " 
 Theodotus of Ancyra ap. Cone. Eph. (p. 1529, Labb.). 
 " Not only did Mary bear her Elder," says Cassian in 
 answer to an objector, " but her Author, and giving 
 birth to Him from whom she received it, she became 
 parent of her Parent. Surely it is as easy for God to 
 give nativity to Himself, as to man ; to be born of 
 man as to make men born. For God's power is not 
 circumscribed in His own Person, that He should not 
 do in Himself what He can do in all." Incarn. iv. 2. 
 " The One God Only-begotten, of an ineffable origin 
 from God, is introduced into the womb of the Holy 
 Virgin, and grows into the form of a human body. 
 He who contrives all, . . is brought forth according 
 to the law of a human birth ; He at whose voice Arch- 
 angels tremble . . and the world's elements are dis- 
 solved, is heard in the wailing of an infant, &c." Hil. 
 Trin. ii. 25. " ' My beloved is white and ruddy ; J 
 white truly, because the Brightness of the Father, 
 ruddy, because the Birth of a Virgin. In Him shines 
 and glows the colour of each nature; . . He did not
 
 THE BLESSED MARY. 215 
 
 begin from a Virgin, but the Everlasting came into a 
 Virgin." Ambros. Virgin, i. n. 46. " Him, whom, 
 coming in His simple Godhead, not heaven, not 
 earth, not sea, not any creature had endured, 
 Him the inviolate womb of a Virgin carried." 
 Chrysost. ap. Cassian. Incarn. vii. 30. " Happily do 
 some understand by the ' closed gate/ by which only 
 ' the Lord God of Israel enters/ that Prince on whom 
 the gate is closed, to be the Virgin Mary, who both be- 
 fore and after her bearing remained a Virgin." Jerom. 
 in Ezek. 44 init. " Let them tell us," says Capreolus of 
 Carthage, " how is that Man from heaven, if He be 
 not God conceived in the womb ? " ap. Sirm. Opp. t. i. 
 p. 216. " He is made in thee," says S. Austin, " who 
 made thee . . . nay, through whom heaven and earth 
 is made ; . . the Word of God in thee is made flesh, 
 receiving flesh, not losing Godhead. And the Word 
 is joined, is coupled to the flesh, and of this so high 
 wedding thy womb is the nuptial chamber, &c." Serm. 
 291, 6. " Say, blessed Mary," says S. Hippolytus, 
 " what was It which by thee was conceived in the 
 womb, what carried by thee in that virgin frame ? It 
 was the Word of God, &c." ap. Theod. Eran. i. p. 55. 
 " There is one physician," says S. Ignatius, " fleshly 
 and spiritual, generate and ingenerate, God come in 
 the flesh, in death true life, both from Mary and 
 from God, first passible, then impassible, Jesus Christ 
 our Lord." Ep. ad Eph. 7.
 
 216 MEDIATION. 
 
 MEDIATION. 
 
 GOD, the Origin and Cause of all things, acts by the 
 mediation, ministration, or operation of His Son, as 
 signified by the Son's names of "Word and "Wisdom. 
 Vid. art. Eternal Son. 
 
 '' It belongs to the Son," says Athanasius, " 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." Orat. ii. 24. 
 " Men were made through the Word, when the Father 
 Him self willed." Orat. i. 63. " Even if God com- 
 pounded the world out of materials, . . . still allow the 
 Word to work those materials, though at the bidding and 
 in the service of God, r n-poa-Tarr6/j-evo<; /cal irjrovpywv ; 
 but if by His own Word He calls into existence things 
 which existed not, then the Word is not in the number 
 of things not existing," &c. Orat. ii. 22. "With whom 
 did God speak," (saying Let us make, &c.) " so as even 
 to speak with a command," TrpoaTarrmv ? " He bids, 
 TrpocrrdTret, and says, Let us make men. . . . Who was 
 it but His Word ? " c. Gent. 46. " A Word then 
 must exist, to whom God gives command, eVreXXerat 6 
 fleck," de Deer. 9. 
 
 H" The language of Catholics and heretics is very much 
 the same on this point of the Son's ministration, with
 
 MEDIATION. 217 
 
 this essential difference of sense, that Catholic writers 
 mean a ministration internal to the divine substance and 
 an instrument connatural with the Father, and Arius 
 meant an external and created medium of operation, 
 vid. arts. Band and opyavov. Thus S. Clement calls 
 our Lord "the All-harmonious Instrument (opyavov) of 
 God." Protrept. p. 6. Eusebius, " an animated and 
 living instrument (opyavov l/u/^t>^oi>,) nay, rather divine 
 and ... . vivific of every substance and nature." 
 Demonstr. iv. 4. S. Basil, on the other hand, insists that 
 the Arians reduced our Lord to " an inanimate instru- 
 ment," opyavov atyvxpv, though they called Him 
 v-rrovpyov reXeioTarov, " most perfect minister or under- 
 worker." adv. Eunom. ii. 21. Elsewhere he says, " the 
 nature of a cause is one, and the nature of an instru- 
 ment, opyavov, another; . . . foreign then in nature 
 is the Son from the Father, since so is an instru- 
 ment from an artist." de Sp. S. n. 6 fin. vid. also 
 n. 4 fin. and n. 20. Afterwards he speaks of our 
 Lord as " not intrusted with the ministry of each work 
 by particular injunctions in detail, for this were minis- 
 tration," \eiTovpyifcov, but as being " full of the 
 Father's excellences/' and "fulfilling not an instru- 
 mental, 6pyaviKr}v } and servile ministration, but accom- 
 plishing the Father's will like a Maker, SypiovpyiKus" 
 ibid. n. 19. And so S. Gregory, "The Father signi- 
 fies, the Word accomplishes, not servilely, nor igno- 
 rantly, but with knowledge and sovereignty, and, to 
 speak more suitably, in the Father's way, iraTpiiccos." 
 Orat. 30, 11. And S. Cyril, " There is nothing abject 
 in the Son, as in a minister, i/Trovpyy, as they say ; for
 
 218 MEDIATION. 
 
 the God and Father injoins not, e-rmdr-rei, on His 
 Word, ' Make man/ but as one with Him, by nature, 
 and inseparably existing in Him as a co-operator," 
 &c., in Joann. p. 48. Explanations such as these 
 secure for the Catholic writers some freedom in their 
 modes of speaking ; e.g. we have seen supr. that Athan. 
 speaks of the Son, as " enjoined and ministering," 
 7rpo<7TaTTO/iefo<?, /cat virovp'ywv, Orat. ii. 22. Thus 
 S. Irenaeus speaks of the Father being well-pleased 
 and commanding /ceXeuoi/ro?, and the Son doing and 
 framing. Hser. iv. 38, 3. S. Basil too, in the same 
 treatise in which are some of the foregoing protests, 
 speaks of " the Lord ordering, Trpoa-rda-a-ovra, and the 
 Word framing." de Sp. S. n. 38. S. Cyril of Jerusa- 
 lem, of " Him who bids, eWeXXerat, bidding to one 
 who is present with Him," Cat. xi. 16. vid. also 
 virrjperwv rfi ftov\f) } Justin. Tryph. 126, and virovpybv, 
 Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 10 (Galland. t. 2, p. 95), e 
 perwv OekrjjjiaTi, Clem. Strom, vii. p. 832. 
 
 ^f As to these words TrpotrTorTO/iei/o? Kal v 
 it is not quite clear that Athan. accepts these words 
 in his own person, as has been assumed supr. Vid. 
 de Deer. 7, and Orat. ii. 24 and 31, which, as 
 far as they go, are against their use. Also S. Basil 
 objects to vTrovpyos, contr. Eunom. ii. 21, and S. 
 Cyril in Joan. p. 48, though S. Basil speaks of TOV 
 Trpoo-raTTovTa Kvpiov, as noticed above, and S. Cyril of 
 the Son's vTroraryrj, Thesaur. p. 255. Yid. " minister- 
 ing, vTrypf-Tovvra, to the Father of all." Just. Tryph. 
 n. 60. " The Word become minister, vTryperr)?, of the 
 Creator," Origen in Joan. t. 2, p. 67, also Constit.
 
 MEDIATION. 219 
 
 Ap. viii. 12, but Pseudo-Athan. objects to v 
 de Comm. Essent. 30, and Athan. apparently, Orat. ii. 
 28. Again, " Whom did he order, prsecepit ? " 
 Iren. User. iii. 8, n. 3. " The Father bids eWeXXerat 
 (allusion to Ps. 33. 9), the Word accomplishes . . . 
 He who commands, Ke\evcov, is the Father, He who 
 obeys, VTTCIKOVCOV, the Son . . . the Father willed, 
 r]de\r)aev, the Son did it." Hippol. c. Noet. 14, on 
 which vid. Fabricius's note. S. Hilary speaks of the 
 Son as "subditus per obedientiae obsequelam/' Syn. 51. 
 Origen contr. Gels. ii. 9. Tertull. adv. Prax. 12. fin. 
 PatresAntioch. ap. Eouth t. 2. p. 468. Prosper in Psalm. 
 148. Hilar. Trin. iv. 16. " That the Father speaks and 
 the Son hears, or contrariwise, that the Son speaks and 
 the Father hears, are expressions for the sameness of 
 nature and the agreement of Father and Son/' Didym. 
 de Sp. S. 36. "The Father's bidding is not other 
 than His Word ; so that 'I have not spoken of Myself/ 
 He perhaps meant to be equivalent to ' I was not born 
 from Myself/ For if the Word of the Father speaks, 
 He pronounces Himself, for He is the Father's Word, 
 &c." August, de Trin. i. 26. On this mystery vid. 
 Petav. Trin. vi. 4. 
 
 ^f Athan. says that it is contrary to all our notions of 
 religion that Almighty God cannot create, enlighten, ad- 
 dress, and unite Himself to His creatures immediately. 
 This seems to be implied when it was said by the Arians 
 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 as all-perfect, but
 
 220 MEDIATION. 
 
 acting according to a certain divine order. Here 
 the remark is in point about the right and wrong 
 sense of the words " commanding," " obeying/' 
 &c. 
 
 Hence our Lord is the ftov\t]<n,<s and the f3ov\rj, and 
 <ucra fiovXri, of the Father. Orat. iii. 63 fin. and so 
 Cyril Thes. p. 54, who uses /3ov\r) expressly, (as it is 
 always used by implication,) in contrast to the Kara 
 /3ov\T)(riv of the Arians, though Athan. uses Kara TO 
 , e. g. Orat. iii. 31. And so auro? TOV Trarpo? 
 , Nyss. contr. Eunom. xii. p. 345. 
 
 ^[ The bearing of the above teaching of the early 
 Fathers on the relation of the Second to the First 
 Person in the Holy Trinity, is instructively brought 
 out by Thomassinus in his work, de Incarnations, from 
 which I have made a long extract in one of my 
 Theological Tracts : part of it I will make use of 
 here. 
 
 " It belongs to the Father to be without birth, but 
 to the Son to be born. Now innascibility is a prin- 
 ciple of concealment, but birth of exhibition. The 
 former withdraws from sight, the latter comes forth into 
 open day ; the one retires into itself, lives to itself, 
 and has no outward start; the other flows forth and 
 extends itself and is diffused far and wide. It corre- 
 sponds then to the idea of the Father, as being 
 ingenerate, to be self-collected, remote, unapproach- 
 able, invisible, and in consequence to be utterly alien 
 to an incarnation. But to the Son, considered as once 
 for all born, and ever coming to the birth, and starting 
 into view, it especially belongs to display Himself, to
 
 MEDIATION. 221 
 
 be prodigal of Himself, to bestow Himself as an object 
 for sight and enjoyment, because in the fact of being 
 born He has burst forth into His corresponding act of 
 self-diffusion. . . . 
 
 " Equally . . . incomprehensible is in His nature the 
 Son as the Father. Accordingly we are here con- 
 sidering a personal property, not a natural. It is 
 especially congenial to the Divine Nature to be good, 
 beneficent, and indulgent ; and for these qualities 
 there is no opening at all without a certain manifesta- 
 tion of their hiding-place, and outpouring of His 
 condescending Majesty. Wherefore, since the majesty 
 and goodness of God, in the very bosom of His 
 nature, look different ways, and by the one He re- 
 tires into Himself, and by the other He pours Him- 
 self out, it is by the different properties of the Divine 
 Persons that this contrariety is solved," &c., &c. vid. 
 Thomassin. Incarn. ii. 1, p. 89, &c.
 
 222 \ MELETIU9. 
 
 MELETIUS. 
 
 MELETIUS was Bishop of Lycopolis in the Thebais, in 
 the first years of the fourth century. He was convicted 
 of sacrificing to idols in the persecution, and deposed 
 by a .Council under Peter, Bishop of Alexandria and 
 subsequently martyr. Meletius separated from the 
 communion of the Church, and commenced a schism ; 
 at the time of the Nicene Council it included as many 
 as twenty-eight or thirty Bishops; in the time of 
 Theodoret, a century and a quarter later, it included a 
 number of monks. Though not heterodox, they sup- 
 ported the Arians on their first appearance, in their 
 contest with the Catholics. The Council of Nicsea, 
 instead of deposing their Bishops, allowed them on 
 their return a titular rank in their sees, but for- 
 bade them to exercise their functions. 
 
 ^f The Meletian schismatics of Egypt formed an 
 alliance with the Arians from the first. Athan. imputes 
 the alliance to ambition and avarice in the Meletians, 
 and to zeal for their heresy in the Arians. Ep. ^Eg. 
 22, vid. also Hist. Arian. 78. In like manner after 
 Sardica the Semi- Arians attempted a coalition with the 
 Donatists of Africa. Aug. contr. Cresc. iii. 34 (n. 38) . 
 
 If Epiphanius gives us another account of the cir- 
 cumstances under which Meletius's schism originated. 
 
 If There was another Meletius, Bishop of Antioch, in 
 the latter part of the same century. He at one time 
 belonged to the Semi- Arian party, but joined the ortho- 
 dox, and was the first president of the second Ecu- 
 menical Council.
 
 TWO NATURES OF EMMANUEL. 223 
 
 TWO NATURES OP EMMANUEL. 
 
 ^[ " Two natures," says S. Leo, " met together in 
 our Redeemer, and, while what belonged to each re- 
 spectively remained, so great a unity was made of either 
 substance, that from the time that the Word was made 
 flesh in the Blessed Virgin's womb, we may neither 
 think of Him as God without that which is man, nor as 
 man without That which is God. Each nature certifies 
 its own reality under distinct actions, but neither of 
 them disjoins itself from connexion with the other. 
 Nothing is wanting from either towards other ; there 
 is entire littleness in majesty, entire majesty in little- 
 ness ; unity does not introduce confusion, nor does what 
 is special to each divide unity. There is what is 
 passible, and what is inviolable, yet He, the Same, has 
 the contumely whose is the glory. He is in infirmity 
 who is in power; the Same is both the subject and 
 the conqueror of death. God then did take on Him 
 whole man, and so knit Himself into man and man into 
 Himself in His mercy and in His power, that either 
 nature was in other, and neither in the other lost its 
 own attributes/' Serm. 54, 1. " Suscepit nos in 
 suam proprietatem ilia natura, qu83 nee nostris sua, 
 nee suis nostra consumeret," &c. Serm. 72. p. 286. vid. 
 also Ep. 165, 6. Serm. 30, 5. Cyril. Cat. iv. 9. Amphi- 
 loch. ap. Theod. Eran. i. p. 66, also pp. 60, 87, 88. 
 
 ^f "All this belongs to the Economy, not to the 
 Godhead. On this account He says, ' Now is My soul
 
 224 TWO NATURES OF EMMANUEL. 
 
 troubled/ .... so troubled as to seek for a release, if 
 
 escape were possible As to hunger is no blame, 
 
 nor to sleep, so is it none to desire the present life. 
 Christ had a body pure from sins, but not exempt from 
 physical necessities, else it had not been a body." 
 Chrysost. in Joann. Horn. 67. 1 and 2. "He used His 
 own flesh as an instrument for the works of the flesh 
 and for physical infirmities and for other infirmities 
 which are blameless/' &c. Cyril, de Kect. Fid. p. 18. 
 " As a man He doubts, as a man He is troubled ; it is 
 not His power (virtus) that is troubled, not His 
 Godhead, but His soul," &c. Ambros. de Fid. ii. n. 
 56. Vid. a beautiful passage in S. Basil's Horn. iv. 5 
 (de Divers.), in which he insists on our Lord's having 
 wept to show us how to weep neither too much nor 
 too little. 
 
 " Being God, and existing as Word, while He re- 
 mained what He was, He became flesh, and a child, 
 and a man, no change profaning the mystery. The 
 Same both works wonders, and suffers ; by the 
 miracles signifying that He is what He was, and 
 by the sufferings giving proof that He had be- 
 come what He had framed." Procl. ad Armen. 
 p. 615. " Without loss then to what belongs to 
 either nature and substance (salva proprietate, and 
 so Tertullian, " Salva est utriusque proprietas substan- 
 tise," &c., in Prax. 27), " yet with their union in one 
 Person, Majesty takes on it littleness, Power infirmity, 
 Eternity mortality, and, to pay the debt of our estate, 
 an inviolable Nature is made one with a nature that is 
 passible ; that, as was befitting for our cure, One and
 
 TWO NATURES OF EMMANUEL. 225 
 
 the Same Mediator between God and man, the man 
 Jesus Christ, might both be capable of death from the 
 one, and incapable from the other." Leo's Tome 
 (Ep. 28, 3), also Hil. Trin. ix. 11 fin. " Vagit infans, 
 sed in coelo est," &c., ibid. x. 54. Ambros. de Fid. 
 ii. 77. " Erat vermis in cruce sed dimittebat peccata. 
 Non habebat speciem, sed plenitudinem divinitatis," 
 &c. Id. Epist. i. 46, n. 5. Theoph. Ep. Pasch. 6, ap. 
 Cone. Ephes. p. 1404. Hard. 
 
 ^f Athanasins, Orat. iv. 33, speaks of the Word as 
 ( ' putting on the first fruits of our nature, and blended 
 (avaKpadei<>) with it;" vid. note on Tertull. Oxf. Tr. vol. i. 
 p. 48 ; and so rj /catvrj /u^t?, $609 KOI avQpwjros, Greg. Naz. 
 as quoted by Eulogius ap. Phot. Bibl. p. 857 ; "im- 
 mixtus/'Cassian. Incarn. i. 5; "commixtio," Vigil, contr. 
 Eutych. i. 4. p. 494 (Bibl. Patr. 1624); "permixtus," Au- 
 gust. Ep. 137, 1 1 ; " ut naturae alteri altera misceretur," 
 Leon. Serm. 23, 1. There is this strong passage in 
 Naz. Ep. 101, p. 87 (ed. 1840), Kipva^evwv &<nrep 
 rw (frvcrecov, ovra) Srj KOL ra>v K\rjcrect)v, real Trepi-^wpovcrwv 
 et? aXX^Xa? TO) \6ya) TT}? a-v/j,(f)vta<; ; Bull says that in 
 using Trepi-^wpovawv Greg. Naz. and others " minus 
 proprie loqui." Defens. F. N. iv. 4, 14. Petavius had 
 allowed this, but proves the doctrine intended amply 
 from the Fathers. De Incarn. iv. 14. Such oneness is 
 not "confusion," for ov a-vyxya-cv aTrepyaadfjuevos, a\\a 
 ra 8vo icepda-as et? ev, says Epiph. Ancor. 81 fin. and 
 so Eulog. ap. Phot. Bibl. p. 831 fin. ov rrjs /cpaVeoo? 
 a-vyXya-Lv avroJ Srj\ov<rr)^. Yid. also on the word fju'Zis, 
 &c. Zacagn. Monum. p. xxi. xxvi. Thomassin. de 
 Incarn. iii. 5 iv. 15. 
 
 VOL. II. Q
 
 226 THE NICENE TESTS OF ORTHODOXY. 
 
 THE NICENE TESTS OF ORTHODOXY. 
 
 WHAT were the cardinal additions, made at Nicsea, 
 to the explicit faith of the Church, will be understood 
 by comparing the Creed, as there recorded and sanc- 
 tioned, with that of Eusebius, as they both are found 
 (vol. i. supr. pp. 55 57) in his Letter to his people. His 
 Creed is distinct and unexceptionable, as far as it goes ; 
 but it does not guard against the introduction of the 
 Arian heresy into the Church, nor could it, as being a 
 creed of the primitive age, and drawn up before the 
 heresy. On the other hand, we see by the anathe- 
 matisms appended to the Nicene Creed what it was 
 that had to be excluded, and by the wording of the 
 additions to the Creed, and by Eusebius's forced expla- 
 nation of them, how they acted in effecting its exclusion. 
 The following are the main additions in question : 
 
 1. The Creed of Eusebius says of our Lord, ex 
 TO{) Trarpo? <ye<ywrjiJ,vov ; but the Nicene says, yevrj- 
 Oevra ov iroi^Qtvra, because the Arians considered 
 generation a kind of creation, as Athan. says, Orat. ii. 
 20, " Ye say that an offspring is the same as a work, 
 writing ' generated or made/ " And more distinctly, 
 Arius in his letter to Eusebius uses the words, irplv 
 <yevvr)6fj rjroi KTi(r6fj rf opia-Bfi rj 6e/J,e\ia)6f). Theodor. 
 Hist. i. 4, p. 750. And to Alexander, dxpovcos ryevvyQels 
 ical jrpb alcavcav KTivOds Kal 0e/ieXtG>#et9. De Syn. 16.
 
 THE N1CENE TESTS OF ORTHODOXY. 227 
 
 And Eusebius to Paulinus, KTICTTOV /cat $e/ieXttOTOi> Kal 
 ^ewrjTov. Theod. Hist. i. 5, p. 752. These different 
 words profess to be scriptural, and to explain each 
 other; " created" being in Prov. viii. 22 ; " made " in 
 the speech of St. Peter, Acts ii. 22 ; " appointed " or 
 " declared " in Rom. i. 4 ; and " founded " or " esta- 
 blished " in Prov. viii. 23 ; vid. Orat. ii. 72, &c., vid. 
 also 52. 
 
 2. We read in the Nicene Creed, " from the Father, 
 that is, from the substance of the Father/' whereas 
 in Eusebius's Letter it is only " God from God/' 
 According to the received doctrine of the Church 
 all rational beings, and in one sense all beings 
 whatever, are " from God," over and above the fact of 
 their creation, and in a certain sense sons of God, vid. 
 Arian tenets, Adam, and Eusebius. And of this un- 
 deniable truth the Arians availed themselves to ex- 
 plain away our Lord's proper Sonship and Divinity. 
 
 3. But the chief test at Nicasa was the word 
 opoovaiov, its special force being that it excludes the 
 maintenance of more than one divine ovaia or substance, 
 which seems to be implied or might be insinuated even 
 
 'in Eusebius's creed; " We believe/' he says, "each of 
 these [Three] to be and to exist, the Father truly 
 Father, the Son truly Son, the Holy Ghost truly Holy 
 Ghost ; " for if there be Three substances or res exist- 
 ing, either there are Three Gods or two of them are 
 not God. The e' ova-ias, important and serviceable as 
 it was, did not exclude the doctrine of a divine emana- 
 tion, and was consistent with Semi-Arianism, and with 
 belief in two or in three substances ; vid. the art 
 
 Q 2
 
 228 THE NTCENE TESTS OF ORTHODOXY. 
 
 6/Jioova-Lov. " It is the precision of this phrase," says 
 Athan., "that detects their pretence, whenever they 
 use the phrase 'from God/ and that excludes all the 
 subtleties with which they seduce the simple. For, 
 whereas they contrive to put a sophistical construction 
 on all other words at their will, this phrase only, ag 
 detecting their heresy, do they dread, which the Fathers 
 did set down as a bulwark against their impious 
 speculations one and all," de Syn. 45. And Epipha- 
 nius calls it crvvSecr/Aos Tr/areo)?, Ancor. 6. And again 
 he says, " Without the confession of the ' One in 
 substance ' no heresy can be refuted ; for as a serpent 
 hates the smell of bitumen, aad the scent of sesame- 
 cake, and the burning of agate, and the smoke of 
 storax, so do Arius and Sabellius hate the notion of the 
 sincere profession of the ' One in substance/ '' And 
 Ambrose, " That term did the Fathers set down in their 
 formula of faith, which they perceived to be a source 
 of dread to their adversaries ; that they themselves 
 might unsheath the sword which cut off the head of 
 their own monstrous heresy." de Fid. iii. 15. 
 
 This is very true, but a question arises whether another 
 and a better test than the liomoiision might not have 
 been chosen, one eliciting less opposition, one giving 
 opportunities to fewer subtleties ; and on this point a 
 few words shall be said here. 
 
 Two ways then lay before the Fathers at Nicsea of 
 condemning and eliminating the heresy of Arius, who 
 denied the proper divinity of the Son of God. By 
 means of either of the two a test would be secured for 
 guarding the sacred truth from those evasive profes-
 
 THE NICENE TESTS OF ORTHODOXY. 229 
 
 sions and pretences of orthodoxy, which Arius himself, 
 to do him justice, did not ordinarily care to adopt. 
 Our Lord's divinity might be adequately defined either 
 (1) by declaring Him to be in and of the essence of 
 the Father, or (2) to be with the Father from ever- 
 lasting, that is, to be either consubstantial or co-eternal 
 with God. Arius had denied both doctrines ; " He is 
 not eternal," he says, " or co-eternal, or co-ingenerate 
 with the Father, nor has He His being together with 
 Him'/' And " The Sou of God is not consubstantial 
 with God." Syn. 15, 16 (vid. also Epiph. Heer. 69, 7). 
 Either course then would have answered the purpose 
 required : but the Council chose that which at first sight 
 seems the less advisable, the more debatable of the 
 two ; it chose the " Homoiision " or " Consubstantial/' 
 not the Co-eternal. 
 
 Here it is scarcely necessary to dwell on a state- 
 ment of Gibbon, which is strange for so acute and 
 careful a writer. He speaks as if the enemies of Arius 
 at Nicaea were at first in a difficulty how to find a test 
 to set before the Council which might exclude him 
 from the Church, and then accidentally became aware 
 that the Homoiision was such an available term. He 
 says that in the Council a letter was publicly read 
 and ignominiously torn, in which the Arian leader, 
 Eusebius of Nicomedia, "ingenuously confessed that 
 the admission of the Homoiision, a word already 
 familiar to the Platonists, was incompatible with the 
 principles of his theological system. The fortunate 
 opportunity was eagerly embraced by the bishops who 
 governed the resolutions of the Synod/' &c., ch. xxi.
 
 230 THE NICENE TESTS OF ORTHODOXY. 
 
 He adds in a note, " We are indebted to Ambrose (vid. 
 de Fid. iii. 15,) for the knowledge of this curious 
 anecdote." This comes of handling theological sub- 
 jects with but a superficial knowledge of them ; it is 
 the way in which foreigners judge of a country which 
 they enter for the first time. Who told Gibbon that 
 Arius's enemies and the governing bishops did not 
 know from the first of the Arian rejection of this word 
 " consubstantial " ? who told him that there were not 
 other formulse which Arius rejected quite as strongly 
 as it, and which would have served as a test quite as 
 well ? As I have quoted above, he had publicly said, 
 "The Son is not equal, no, nor consubstantial with 
 God/' and "Foreign to the Son in substance is the 
 Father ; " and, as to matter already provided by him for 
 other tests, he says in that same Thalia, " When 
 the Son was not yet, the Father was already God ; " 
 " Equal, or like Himself, He [the Father] has 
 none" (vid. Syn. 15), &c., &c. S. Ambrose too was 
 not baptized till A.D. 374, a generation after the 
 Nicene Council, and his report cannot weigh against 
 contemporary documents j nor can his words at this 
 time receive Gibbon's interpretation. It was not 
 from any dearth of tests, that the Fathers chose the 
 Homoiision ; and the question is, why did they prefer 
 it to avval&iov, avap^ov, ayevrjrov, &c., &C. ? 
 
 The first difficulty attached to "consubstantial" 
 was that it was not in Scripture, which would have 
 been avoided, had the test been "from everlasting," 
 " without beginning," &c. ; a complaint, however, which 
 came with a bad grace from the Arians, who had begun
 
 THE NICENE TESTS OF ORTHODOXY. 231 
 
 the controversy with phrases of their own devising, 
 and not in Scripture. But, if the word was not Scrip- 
 tural, it had the sanction of various Fathers in the 
 foregoing centuries, and was derived from a root, 6 &>v } 
 which was in Scripture. Nor could novelty be objected 
 to the word. Athanasius, ad. Afros 6, speaks of the 
 use of the word " by ancient Bishops, about 130 years 
 since;" and Eusebius, supr. Deer. App. 7, con- 
 firms him as to its ancient use in the Church : and, 
 though it was expedient to use the words of Scripture 
 in enunciations of revealed teaching, it would be a 
 superstition to confine ourselves to them, as if the 
 letter could be allowed to supersede the sense. 
 
 A more important difficulty lay in the fact that some 
 fifty or sixty years before, in the Councils occasioned 
 by the heretical doctrine of Paulus, Bishop of Antioch, 
 the word had actually been proposed in some quarter 
 as a tessera against his heresy and then withdrawn by 
 the Fathers as capable of an objectionable sense. 
 Paulus, who was a sharp disputant, seems to have con- 
 tended that the term either gave a material character 
 to the Divine nature, or else, as he wished himself 
 to hold, that it implied that there was no real distinc- 
 tion of Persons between Father and Son. Any how, 
 the term was under this disadvantage, that in some 
 sense it had been disowned in the greatest Council 
 which up to the Nicene the Church had seen. But its 
 inexpedience at one time and for one purpose was no 
 reason why it should not be expedient at another 
 time and for another purpose, and its imposition at 
 Nicsea showed by the event that it was the fitting
 
 232 THE N1CENE TESTS OF ORTHODOXY. 
 
 word, and justified those who selected it. Even still 
 the question occurs why it was that the Nicene Fathers 
 selected a term which was not in Scripture, and had 
 on a former occasion been considered open to objec- 
 tion, while against " co -eternal " or " from everlast- 
 ing" no opposition could have been raised short of the 
 heretical denial of its truth ; and again, whether it was 
 not rather a test against Tritheism, of which Arius was 
 not suspected. " Consubstantial }> was a word needing 
 a definition ; " co-eternal " spoke for itself. 
 
 Arius, it is true, had boldly denied the " consubstan- 
 tial," but he had still more often and more pointedly 
 denied the " co-eternal.' The definition of the Son's 
 eternity a parte ante would have been the destruc- 
 tion of the heresy. Arius had said on starting, ac- 
 cording to Alexander, that " God was not always a 
 Father;" "the Word was not always." "He said," 
 says Socrates, " if the Father begot the Son, he that 
 was begotten had a beginning of existence." Arius 
 himself says to his friend Eusebius, " Alexander has 
 driven us out of our city for dissenting from his public 
 declaration, 'As God is eternal, so is His Son.'" 
 Again, to Alexander himself, as quoted supr., " The 
 Son is not eternal, or co-eternal, or co-ingenerate with 
 the Father." "Vid. also Deer. 6. Would it not, 
 then, have avoided all the troubles which, for a long 
 fifty or sixty years, followed upon the reception of the 
 Homoiision by the Nicene Council, would it not have 
 been a far more prudent handling of the Creed of 
 the Church, to have said " begotten from everlasting, 
 not made," instead of introducing into it a word of
 
 THE NICENE TESTS OF ORTHODOXY. 233 
 
 doubtful meaning, already discredited, and at best 
 unfamiliar to Catholics ? This is what may be asked, 
 and, with a deep feeling of our defective knowledge of 
 the ecclesiastical history of the times, I answer, under 
 correction, as follows : 
 
 There are passages, then, in the history of the 
 Ante-Nicene times which suggest to us that the 
 leading bishops in the Council were not free to act as 
 they might wish, or as they might think best, and 
 that the only way to avoid dangerous disputes in an 
 assemblage of men, good and orthodox, but jealous 
 in behalf of their own local modes of thought and ex- 
 pression and traditional beliefs, was to meet indirectly 
 the heresy which they all agreed to condemn, which 
 all wished to destroy. So it was, that various writers, 
 some of them men of authority and influence, and at 
 least witnesses to the sentiments of their day, had, in 
 the course of the three centuries past, held the doctrine 
 of the temporal gennesis, a doctrine which gave an 
 excuse and a sort of shelter to the Arian misbelief. 
 (Vid. supr. art. Arians, 3.) I am not denying that 
 these men held with the whole Catholic Church that 
 our Lord was in personal existence from eternity as the 
 Word, connatural with the Father, and in His bosom ; 
 but they also held, with more or less distinctness, that 
 He was not fully a Son from eternity, but that, when 
 the creation according to the Divine counsels was in 
 immediate prospect, and with reference to it, the Word 
 was born into Sonship, and became the Creator, the 
 Pattern, and the Conservative Power of all that was 
 created. These writers were such as Justin, Tatian,
 
 234 THE NICENE TESTS OF ORTHODOXY. 
 
 Theophilus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus; and if the 
 Fathers of the Nicene Council had spoken uncon- 
 ditionally and abruptly of the Son's eternity, they 
 would have given an opening to the Arians, who dis- 
 believed in the eternity of the Personal Word, to gain 
 over to their side, and to place in opposition to the 
 Alexandrians, -many who substantially were orthodox 
 in their belief. They did not venture then, as it 
 would seem, to pronounce categorically that the 
 gennesis was from everlasting, lest they should 
 raise unnecessary questions : at the same time, 
 by making the " consubstantial " the test of ortho- 
 doxy, they provided for the logical and eventual 
 acceptance of the Son's a parte ante eternity, on the 
 principle which Athan. is continually insisting on, 
 " What God is, that He ever was ;" and by including 
 among the parties anathematized at the end of the 
 Creed " those who said that our Lord ' was not in being 
 before He was born/ " they both inflicted an additional 
 blow upon the Arians, and indirectly recognized the 
 orthodoxy, and gained the adhesion, of those who, by 
 speaking of the temporal gennesis, seemed at first 
 sight to ascribe to our Lord a beginning of being.
 
 OMNIPRESENCE OF GOD. 235 
 
 OMNIPRESENCE OF GOD. 
 
 II ATHAN. says, Deer. 11, "Men, being incapable 
 of self-existence, are enclosed in place, and consist in 
 the Word of God ; but God is self-existent, inclosing 
 all things, and inclosed by none, within all according 
 to His own goodness and power, yet outside all in His 
 own nature/' Vid. also Incarn. 17. This contrast is 
 not commonly found in ecclesiastical writers, who are 
 used to say that God is present everywhere, in sub- 
 stance as well as by energy or power. Clement, how- 
 ever, expresses himself still more strongly in the same 
 way, " In substance far off (for how can the generate 
 come close to the Ingenerate ?), but most close in 
 power, in which the universe is embosomed." Strom. 
 ii. 2, but the parenthesis explains his meaning. Vid. 
 Cyril. Thesaur. 6, p. 44. The common doctrine 
 of the Fathers is, that God is present everywhere in 
 substance. Vid. Petav. de Deo, iii. 8 and 9. It may 
 be remarked that S. Clement continues, " neither 
 inclosing nor inclosed." 
 
 ^[ Athan., however, explains himself in Orat. iii. 22, 
 saying that when our Lord, in comparing the Son 
 and creatures, " uses the word ' as/ He signifies those 
 who become from afar as He is in the Father; . . for 
 in place nothing is far from God, but only in nature 
 all things are far from Him." When, then, he says
 
 236 OMNIPRESENCE OF GOD. 
 
 " outside all in His nature/' he must mean as here 
 " far from all things considered in His nature." He 
 says here distinctly, "in place nothing is far from 
 God." S. Clement, loc. cit., gives the same expla- 
 nation, as above noticed. It is observable that the 
 Tract Sab. Greg, (which the Benedictines consider 
 not Athan.'s) speaks as Athan. does supr., " not by 
 being co-extensive with all things, does God fill all; 
 for this belongs to bodies, as air ; but He comprehends 
 all as a power, for He is an incorporeal, invisible power, 
 not encircling, nofc encircled." 10. Eusebius says the 
 same thing, " Deum circumdat nihil, circumdat Deus 
 omnia non corporaliter ; virtute enim incorporali adest 
 omnibus," &c. De Incorpor. i. init ap. Sirm. Op. 
 t. i. p. 68. vid. S. Ambros. " Quomodo creatura in Deo 
 esse poteat," &c. de Fid. i. 16.
 
 PAUL OF SAMOSATA. 237 
 
 PAUL OF SAMOSATA.. 
 
 MENTION of this Paul and of his sect is frequently 
 made by Athan. There is some difficulty in determining 
 what his opinions were. As far as the fragments of 
 the Antiochene Acts state or imply, he taught, more 
 or less, as follows : that the Son's pre-existence was 
 only in the divine foreknowledge, Routh, Rell. t. 2. 
 p. 466 ; that to hold His substantial pre-existence was 
 to hold two Gods, ibid. p. 467; that He was, if not an 
 instrument, an impersonal attribute, p. 469 ; that His 
 manhood was not "unalterably made one with the 
 Godhead/' p. 473 ; " that the Word and Christ were 
 not one and the same/' p. 474 ; that Wisdom was in 
 Christ as in the prophets, only more abundantly, as in 
 a temple ; that He who appeared was not Wisdom, 
 p. 475 ; in a word, as it is summed up, p. 484, that 
 "Wisdom was born with the manhood, not substan- 
 tially, but according to quality." vid. also p. 476, 485. 
 All this plainly shows that he held that our Lord's 
 personality was in His Manhood, but does not show 
 that he held a second personality in His godhead ; 
 rather he considered the Word impersonal, though the 
 Fathers in Council urge upon him that he ought to 
 hold two Sons, one from eternity, arid one in time, 
 p. 485. 
 
 Accordingly the Synodal Letter after his deposition
 
 238 PAUL OF SAMOSATA. 
 
 speaks of him as holding that Christ came not from 
 Heaven, but from beneath. Euseb. Hist. vii. 30. S. 
 Athanasius's account of his doctrine is altogether in 
 accordance, (vid. vol. i. supr. p. 25, note 1.) viz., that 
 Paul taught that our Lord was a mere man, and that 
 He was advanced to His divine power, e/c TrpoKOTrfjs. 
 
 However, since there was a great correspondence 
 between Paul and Nestorius, (except in the doctrine 
 of the personality and eternity of the Word, which the 
 Arian controversy determined and the latter held,) it 
 was not unnatural that reference should be made to 
 the previous heresy of Paul and its condemnation 
 when that of Nestorius was on trial. Yet the Con- 
 testatio against Nestorius which commences the Acts 
 of the Council of Ephesus, Harduin. Cone. t. i. p. 1272, 
 and which draws out distinctly the parallel between 
 them, says nothing to show that Paul held a double 
 personality. And though Anastasius tells us, Hodeg. 
 c. 7, p. 108, that the "holy Ephesian Council showed 
 that the tenets of Nestorius agreed with the doctrine 
 of Paul of Samosata," yet in c. 20, p. 323, 4, he shows 
 us what he means, by saying that Artemon also before 
 Paul " divided Christ in two." Ephrem of Antioch 
 too says that Paul held that " the Son before ages was 
 one, and the Son in the last time another," ap. Phot, 
 p. 814 ; but he seems only referring to the words of 
 the Antiochene Acts, quoted above. Again, it is 
 plain from what Vigilius says in Eutych. t. v. p. 731. 
 Ed. Col. 1618, (the passage is omitted in Ed. Par. 
 1624.) that the Eutychians considered that Paul and 
 Nestovius differed ; the former holding that our Lord
 
 PAUL OF SAMOSATA. 239 
 
 was a mere man, the latter a mere man only till He 
 was united to the Word. And Marius Mercator says, 
 " Nestorius circa Yerbum Dei, non ut Paulus sentit, qui 
 non substantivum, sed prolatitium potentisa Dei efficax 
 Verbum esse definit." part 2, p. 17. Ibas, and Theo- 
 dore of Mopsuestia, though more suspicious witnesses, 
 say the same, vid. Facund. vi. 3, iii. 2, and Leontius 
 de Sectis, iii. p. 504. To these authorities may be 
 added Nestorius's express words, Serm. 12, ap. Mar. 
 Merc. t. 2, p. 87, and Assemani takes the same view, 
 Bibl. Orient, t. 4, p. 68, 9. 
 
 The principal evidence in favour of Paul's Nesto- 
 rianism consists in the Letter of Dionysius to Paul and 
 his answer to Paul's Ten Questions, which are certainly 
 spurious, as on other grounds, so on some of those 
 urged against the professed Creed of Antioch (in my 
 " Theol. Tracts ") but which Dr. Burton in his excellent 
 remarks on Paul's opinions, Bampton Lectures, Note 
 102, admits as genuine. And so does the accurate and 
 cautious Tillemont, who in consequence is obliged to 
 believe that Paul held Nestorian doctrines ; also Bull, 
 Fabricius, Natalis Alexander, &c. In holding these 
 compositions to be certainly spurious, I am following 
 Valesius, Harduin, Montfaucon, Pagi, Mosheim, Cave, 
 Routh, and others.
 
 240 PERSONAL ACTS AND OFFICES OF OUR LORD. 
 
 PERSONAL ACTS AND OFFICES OF OUR 
 LORD. 
 
 THERE are various (and those not the least prominent 
 and important) acts and offices of our Lord, which, 
 as involving the necessity of both His natures in con- 
 currence and belonging to His Person, may be said to 
 be either BeavSpifca (vid. art. under that heading), or 
 instances of avriSocris IBtca/jbdrwv (vid. art.). Such are 
 His office and His acts as Priest, as Judge, &c., in 
 which He can be viewed neither as simply God, nor as 
 simply man, but in a third aspect, as Mediator, the 
 two natures indeed being altogether distinct, but the 
 character, in which He presents Himself to us by the 
 union of these natures, belonging rather to His Person, 
 which is composite. 
 
 ^[ Athanasius says, Orat. ii. 16, " Since we men 
 would not acknowledge God through His Word, nor 
 serve the Word of God our natural Master, it pleased 
 God to show in man His own Lordship, and so to 
 draw all men to Himself. But to do this by a mere 
 man beseemed not ; lest, having man for our Lord, we 
 should become worshippers of man. Therefore the 
 Word Himself became 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
 
 PERSONAL ACTS AND OFFICES OF OUR LORD. 241 
 
 crucified, every knee bows, we may acknowledge as 
 Lord and King both the Son and through Him the 
 Father." Here the renewal of mankind is made to be 
 the act, primarily indeed of the Word, our natural 
 Master, but not from Him, as such, simply, but as 
 given to Him to carry out by the Father, when He 
 became incarnate, by virtue of His Persona composita. 
 
 ^[ He says again 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 ne- 
 cessary 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 " begin- 
 ning " is' " in the number of the creatures." Though 
 He becomes the "beginning/' He is not "a beginning 
 as to His substance ;" vid. Orat. ii. 60, where he says, 
 " He who is before all, cannot be a beginning of all, 
 but is other than all." He is the beginning in the 
 sense of Archetype. 
 
 ^f And so again of His Priesthood (vid. art. upon it) 
 the Catholic doctrine is that He is Priest, neither as 
 God nor as man simply, but as being the Divine Word 
 in and according to His manhood. 
 
 ^[ Again S. Augustine says of judgment ; " He 
 judges by His divine power, not by His human, and 
 yet man himself will judge, as the Lord of glory was 
 crucified." And just before, " He who believes in Me, 
 believes not in that which He sees, lest our hope 
 should be in a creature, but in Him who has taken 
 
 VOL. II. R
 
 242 PERSONAL ACTS AND OFFICES OF OUR LORD. 
 
 on Him the creature, in which He might appear to 
 human eyes." Trin. i. 27, 28. 
 
 If And so again none but the Eternal Son could be 
 irpwTOTOKos, yet He is so called only when sent as 
 Creator and as incarnate, Orat. ii. 64. 
 
 ^f The phrase ^0709, $ \6yos earl, is frequent in 
 Athan. as denoting the distinction between the Word's 
 original nature and His offices, vid. Orat. i. 43, 44. 
 47, 48. ii. 8. 74. iii. 38, 39. 41. 44. 52. iv. 23.
 
 PHILOSOPHY. 243 
 
 PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 ATHAN. says, speaking of dyevvijrov, "I am told the 
 word has different senses." Deer. 28. 
 
 And so de Syn. 46, " we have on careful inquiry 
 ascertained, &c." Again, " I have acquainted myself 
 on their account [the Arians'] with the meaning of 
 diyevrjrov." Orat. i. 30. This is remarkable, for 
 Athan. was a man of liberal education. In the same 
 way S. Basil, whose cultivation of mind none can 
 doubt, speaks slightingly of his own philosophical 
 knowledge. He writes of his "neglecting his own 
 weakness, and being utterly unexercised in such 
 disquisitions ;" contr. Eunom. init. And so in de Sp. S. 
 n. 5, he says, that ' ' they who have given time " to 
 vain philosophy, " divide causes into principal, co- 
 operative," &c. Elsewhere he speaks of having " ex- 
 pended much time on vanity, and wasted nearly all 
 his youth in the vain labour of pursuing the studies of 
 that wisdom which God has made foolishness." Ep. 
 223. 2. In truth Christianity has a philosophy of its 
 own. Thus at the commencement of his Vise Dux, 
 Anastasius says, " It is a first point to be understood 
 that the tradition of the Catholic Church does not 
 proceed upon, or follow the philosophical definitions 
 in all respects of the Greeks, and especially as regards 
 the mystery of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity, 
 
 E 2
 
 244 PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 but a certain rule of its own, evangelical and apos- 
 tolical ;" p. 20. In like manner, Damascene, speaking 
 of the Jacobite use of (jtvais and uTroVracn?, says, " Who 
 of holy men ever thus spoke ? unless ye introduce to 
 us your St. Aristotle, as a thirteenth Apostle, and pre- 
 fer the idolater to the divinely inspired." contr. Jacob. 
 10, p. 399. and so again Leontius, speaking of Philo- 
 ponus, who from the Monophysite confusion of nature 
 and hypostasis was led into Tritheism. " He thus 
 argued, taking his start from Aristotelic principles ; 
 for Aristotle says that there are of individuals particu- 
 lar substances as well as one common." de Sect. v. fin. 
 ^[ " What our Fathers have delivered," says Athan, 
 " this is truly doctrine ; and this is truly the token of 
 doctors, to confess the same thing with each other, and 
 to vary neither from themselves nor from their fathers ; 
 whereas they who have not this character, are not to 
 be called true doctors but evil. Thus the Greeks, as 
 not witnessing to the same doctrines, but quarrelling 
 one with another, have no truth of teaching ; but the 
 holy and veritable heralds of the truth agree together, 
 not differ. For though they lived in different times, 
 yet they one and all tend the same way, being pro- 
 phets of the one God, and preaching the same Word 
 harmoniously/' Deer. 4. 
 
 S. Basil says the same of the Grecian Sects, 
 " We have not the task of refuting their tenets, for 
 they suffice for the overthrow of each other." Hexaem, 
 i. 2. vid. also Theod. Graec. Affect, i. p. 707. &c. 
 August. Civ. Dei, xviii. 41. and Vincentius's celebrated 
 Commonitorium passim.
 
 PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST. 245 
 
 PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST. 
 
 " THE expressions He became and He was made," says 
 Athanasius, on Hebr. iii. 2 (vid. Orat. ii. 8) must 
 not be understood as if the Word, considered as the 
 Word, were made, (vid. art. Personal Acts, &c.,) but 
 because the Word, being Framer of all, afterwards was 
 made High Priest, by putting on a body which was 
 made." 
 
 5{ In a certain true sense our Lord may be called 
 a Mediator before He became incarnate, but the Arians, 
 even Eusebius, seem to have made His mediatorship 
 consist essentially in His divine nature, instead of 
 holding that it was His office, and that He was made 
 Mediator when He came in the flesh. Eusebius, like 
 Philo and the Platonists, considers Him as made in 
 the beginning the " Eternal Priest of the Father/' 
 Demonst. v. 3. de Laud. C. p. 503 fin. " an inter- 
 mediate divine power/' p. 525, "mediating and joining 
 generated substance to the Ingenerate," p. 528. 
 
 51 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 in- 
 ferior divinity. The notice of it therefore in Heb. iii. 
 1, 2, did but confirm them in their interpretation of the 
 words made, fyc. For the Arians, vid. Epiph. Haer. 
 69, 37. Eusebius too had distinctly declared, " Qui
 
 246 PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST. 
 
 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, vid. 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 justitise sacerdota- 
 lis," de fug. Saec. 3. 14. S. Clement Alex, before them 
 speaks once or twice of the \6ryos dpxtepevs, e. g. 
 Strom, ii. 9 fin. and Philo still earlier uses similar lan- 
 guage, 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 ; Cyril adv. Nest. p. 64. 
 And Augustine and Fulgentius may be taken to coun- 
 tenance him, de Consens. Evang. i. 6, and 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 irpwroroKo^ infr. art. in voc. " 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 Mediator- 
 ship, such as the Word may be said to sustain between 
 the Father and all creatures, and an earthly and sacri- 
 ficial for the sake of sinners, vid. also Huet. Origenian. 
 ii. 3. 4, 5.
 
 PRIVATE JUDGMENT ON SCRIPTURE. 247 
 
 PEIVATE JUDGMENT ON SCRIPTURE. 
 (Yid. art. Rule of Faith.) 
 
 THE two phrases by which Athan. denotes private 
 judgment on religious matters, and his estimate of it, 
 are TO, tSia and a ij6e\ov, e. g. 
 
 5f " Laying down their private (rrjv l&lav) impiety 
 as some sort of rule (009 icavova Tiva, i.e. as a Rule of 
 Faith) they wrest all the divine oracles into accord- 
 ance with it." Orat. i. 52. And so ISitov KCUCOVOIWV, 
 Orat. ii. 18. rat? I8lats /jLvdo7r\aa'Tiai<?. Orat. iii. 
 10, and, "they make the language of Scripture their 
 pretence ; but, instead of the true sense, sowing upon 
 it (Matt. xiii. 25. vid. art. eV/crTretpa?) the private (rov 
 iBiov) poison of their heresy." Orat. i. 53. And so, 
 icara TOV iSiov vovv. Orat. i. 37. TTJV ISiav acre/Sclav. 
 iii. 55. And, " He who speaketh of his own, etc TWV 
 ISlcov, speaketh a lie." contr. Apoll. i. fin. 
 
 ^f And so other writers : " They used to call the 
 Church a virgin," says Hegesippus, " for it was not 
 yet defiled by profane doctrines . . . the Simonists, 
 Dosithians, &c. . . . each privately (tSw?) and sepa- 
 rately has brought in a private opinion." ap. Euseb. 
 Hist. iv. 22. Ruffinus says of S. Basil and S. 
 Gregory, " Putting aside all Greek literature, they 
 are said to have passed thirteen years together 
 in studying the Scriptures alone, and followed out
 
 248 PRIVATE JUDGMENT ON SCRIPTURE. 
 
 their sense not from their private opinion, but by the 
 writings and authority of the Fathers, &c." Hist. ii. 
 9. Sophronius at Seleucia cried out, " If to publish 
 day after day our own private (iSlav) will, be a 
 profession of faith, accuracy of truth will fail us." 
 Socr. ii. 40. 
 
 " We must not make an appeal to the Scriptures, 
 nor take up a position for the fight, in which victory can- 
 not be, or is doubtful, or next to doubtful. For though 
 this conflict of Scripture with Scripture did not end in 
 a drawn battle, yet the true order of the subject re- 
 quired that that should be laid down first, which now 
 becomes but a point of debate, viz. who have a claim 
 to the faith itself, whose are the Scriptures." Tertull. 
 de Prsescr. 19. "Seeing the Canon of Scripture is 
 perfect, &c. what need we join unto it the authority 
 of the Church's understanding and interpretation ? 
 because the Scripture being of itself so deep and 
 profound, all men do not understand it in one and 
 the same sense, but so many men, so many opinions 
 almost may be gathered out of it ; for Novatian ex- 
 pounds it one way, Photinus another, Sabellius, &c." 
 Vincent. Comm. 2. Hippolytus has a passage very 
 much to the same purpose, contr. Noet. 9 fin. 
 
 As to the phrase o><? ovroi de\ov<Ti, vid. Xeyovre? /j,vj 
 otmu? . a>? r) eKK\r)a-ia Krjpvcra-ei, d\\' w? avrol 6e\ovcrt. 
 Orat. iii. 10, words which follow IStais /jivOoTrXao-Ttais, 
 quoted just above. Yid. also iii. 8 and 17. This 
 is a common phrase with Afchan. &>? edekrja-ev, a-rrep 
 0e\r}(rav, orav deXwcn, ov? e6e\r)crav, &c., &c., the pro- 
 ceedings of the heretics being self-willed from first to
 
 PRIVATE JUDGMENT ON SCRIPTURE. 249 
 
 last. Vid. Sent. Dion. 4 and 16. Mort. Ar. fin. Apoll. 
 ii. 5. init. in contrast with the evayyeXttcbs opo?. Also 
 Deer. 3. Syn. 13. Ep. M%. 5. 19. 22. Apol. 
 Arian. 2. 14. 35. 36. 73. 74. 77. Apol. Const. 1. 
 de Fug. 2. 3. 7. Hist. Arian. 2. 7. 47. 52. 54. 59- 
 60. 
 
 In like manner a {3ov\.ovTai, &c. Ep. Enc. 7. Ap. 
 Arian. 82. 83. Ep. Mg. 6. Apol. Const. 32. 
 deFug. 1. Hist. Ar. 15. 18.
 
 250 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 THE EULE OF FAITH. 
 
 (ViD. art. Private Judgment.} The recognition of 
 this rule is the basis of St. Athanasius's method of 
 arguing against Arianisra. It is not his aim ordinarily 
 to prove doctrine by Scripture, nor does he appeal to 
 the private judgment of the individual Christian in 
 order to determine what Scripture means ; but he 
 assumes that there is a tradition, substantive, inde- 
 pendent and authoritative, such as to supply for us 
 the true sense of Scripture in doctrinal matters a 
 tradition carried on from generation to generation by 
 the practice of catechising, and by the other ministra- 
 tions of Holy Church. He does not care to contend 
 that no other meaning of certain passages of Scrip- 
 ture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible 
 or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that 
 any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, 
 untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and 
 decisive. What he was instructed in at school and in 
 church, the voice of the Christian people, the analogy 
 of faith, the ecclesiastical <f>p6vi} t uia } the writings of 
 saints ; these are enough for him. He is in no sense 
 an inquirer, nor a mere disputant; he has received, 
 and he transmits. Such is his position, though the 
 expressions and turn of sentences which indicate it are 
 so delicate and indirect, and so scattered about his
 
 THE RULE OF FAITH. 251 
 
 pages, that it is difficult to collect them and to analyse 
 what they imply. Perhaps the most obvious proof 
 that what I have stated is substantially true, is that on 
 any other supposition he seems to argue illogically. 
 Thus he says : " The Arians, looking at what is human, 
 in the Saviour, have judged him to be a creature. . . . 
 But let them learn, however tardily, that the Word 
 became flesh;" and then he goes on to show that he 
 does not rely simply on the inherent, unequivocal force 
 of St. John's words, satisfactory as that is, for he adds, 
 " Let us, as possessing TOV CTKOTTOV rfjs Trtaretw?, ac- 
 knowledge that this is the right (opdrjv, orthodox) 
 understanding of what they understand wrongly/' 
 Orat. iii. 35. 
 
 Again, " What they now allege from the Gospels 
 they explain in an unsound sense, as we may easily see 
 if we will but avail ourselves of rbv O-KOTTOV Tij<i xad y 
 rjHas Trto-reco?, and using this Sxrirep KOVOVI, apply our- 
 selves, as the Apostle says, to the reading of inspired 
 Scripture/' Orat. iii. 28. 
 
 And again : " Since they pervert divine Scripture 
 in accordance with their own private (iBtov) opinion, 
 we must so far (rocrovrov) answer them as (oaov) to 
 justify its word, and to show that its sense is orthodox, 
 op6ijv." Orat. i. 37. 
 
 For other instances, vid. art. opQos; also vid. supr., 
 vol. i. pp. 36, 235, 390, fin. 407 ; also Scrap, iv. 15, 
 Gent. 6, 7, and 33. 
 
 51 In Orat. ii., 5, after showing that " made " is 
 used in Scripture for " begotten/' in other instances 
 besides that of our Lord, he says," " Nature and truth
 
 252 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 draw the meaning to themselves " of the sacred text 
 that is, while the style of Scripture justifies us in thus 
 interpreting the word " made," doctrinal truth obliges 
 ns to do so. He considers the Regula Fidei the 
 principle of interpretation, and accordingly he goes on 
 at once to apply it. 
 
 ^[ It is his way to start with some general exposition 
 of the Catholic doctrine which the Arian sense of the 
 text in dispute opposes, and thus to create a prceju- 
 dicium or proof against the latter; vid. Orat. i. 10, 38, 
 40, init. 53, ii. 12 init. 3234. 35. 44. init., which 
 refers to the whole discussion (18 43.) 73. 77. iii. 18. 
 init. 36 init. 42. 51. init. &c. On the other hand 
 he makes the ecclesiastical sense the rule of interpreta- 
 tion, TOUTW (rt3 aveoTT&J, the general drift of Scripture 
 doctrine) wcnrep tcavovt ^prjcrdnevoi, as quoted just 
 above. This illustrates what he means when he says 
 that certain texts have a " good," " pious," " ortho- 
 dox " sense, i. e. they can be interpreted (in spite, if so 
 be, of appearances) in harmony with the Regula 
 Fidei. 
 
 5f It is with a reference to this great principle, that he 
 begins and ends his series of Scripture passages, which 
 he defends from the misinterpretation of the Arians. 
 When he begins he refers to the necessity of inter- 
 preting them according to that sense which is not the 
 result of private judgment, but is orthodox. " This," 
 he says, " I conceive is the meaning of this passage, 
 and that a meaning especially ecclesiastical." Orat. i. 
 44. And he ends with : " Had they dwelt on these 
 thoughts, and recognized the ecclesiastical scope as an
 
 THE RULE OF FAITH. 253 
 
 anchor for the faith, they would not of the faith have 
 made shipwreck. Orat. iii. 58. 
 
 ^[ It is hardly a paradox to say that in patristical 
 works of controversy the conclusion in a certain sense 
 proves the premisses. As then he here speaks of the 
 ecclesiastical scope " as an anchor for the faith ;" so 
 when the discussion of texts began, Orat. i. 37, he 
 introduces it as already quoted by saying, " Since they 
 allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinter- 
 pretation according to their private sense, it becomes 
 necessary to meet them so far as to do justice to these 
 passages, and to show that they bear an orthodox sense, 
 and that our opponents are in error." Again Orat. iii. 
 7, he says, " What is the difficulty, that one must need 
 take such a view of such passages ? " He speaks of 
 the 0-/C07T09 as a Kavwv or rule of interpretation, 
 supr. iii. 28. vid. also 29 init. 35 Serap. ii. 7. 
 Hence too he speaks of the "ecclesiastical sense/' 
 e g. Orat. i. 44, Serap. iv. 15, and of the <f)p6vr)/j,a, 
 Orat. ii. 31 init. Deer. 17 fin. In ii. 32, 3, he makes 
 the general or Church view of Scripture supersede 
 inquiry into the force of particular illustrations.
 
 254 SABELL1US. 
 
 SABELLIUS. 
 
 EUSEBIUS, Eccles. Theol. i. 20, p. 91, as well as the 
 Macrostich Confession, supr. Syn. 26, says that 
 Sabellius held the Patripassian doctrine. Epiph. 
 however, Heer. p. 398. denies it, and imputes the 
 doctrine to Noetus. Whatever Sabellius taught, it 
 should be noticed, that, in the reason which the Arian 
 Macrostich alleges against his doctrine, it is almost 
 implied that the divine nature of the Son suffered on 
 the Cross. The Arians would naturally fall into this 
 notion directly they gave up their belief in our 
 Lord's absolute divinity. It would as naturally 
 follow to hold that our Lord had no human soul, 
 but that His pre-existent nature stood in the place 
 of it: also that His Priesthood was no peculiarity 
 of His Incarnation. 
 
 ^f It is difficult to decide what Sabellius's doctrine 
 really was; nor is this wonderful, considering the 
 perplexity and vacillation which is the ordinary con- 
 sequence of abandoning Catholic truth. Also we must 
 distinguish between him and his disciples. He is con- 
 sidered by Eusebius, Eccl. Theol. i. p. 91, Patripassian, 
 i. e. as holding that the Father was the Son ; also by 
 Athan. Orat. iii. 36 init. de Sent. Dion. 5 and 9. By 
 the Eusebians of the Macrostich Creed ap. Athan. de 
 Syn. 26 vol. 1 supr. By Basil. Ep. 210, 5. Euffin. in
 
 SABELLTUS. 255 
 
 Syrab. 5. By Augustine de Haer. 41. By Theodor. 
 Hser. ii. 9. And apparently by Origen. ad Tit. t. 4. 
 p. 695. And by Cyprian. Ep. 73. On the other 
 hand, Epiphanius seems to deny it, ap. August. 1. c. 
 and Alexander, by comparing Sabellianism to the ema- 
 nation doctrine of Valentinus, ap. Theod. Hist. i. 3, 
 p. 743. 
 
 ^[ Sabellians, as Arians, denied that the Word was a 
 substance, and as the Samosatenes, who, according 
 to Epiphanius, considered our Lord the internal, ev 
 SidQeros, word and thought, Hasr. 65. 
 
 All Sabellians, except Patripassians, mainly differed 
 from Arians only at this point, viz. when it was that 
 our Lord came into being. Both parties considered 
 Him a creature, and the true Word and Wisdom but 
 attributes or energies of the Almighty. This Lucifer 
 well observes to Constantius, with the substitution 
 of Paulus and Photinus for Sabellius, " Quid interesse 
 arbitraris inter te et Paulum Samosatenum, vel eum turn 
 ejus discipulum tuum conscotinum, nisi quia tu 'ante 
 omnia' dicas, ille vero ' post omnia'"? p. 203, 4. A 
 subordinate difference was that the Samosatenes, Pho- 
 tinians, &c. considered our Lord to be really gifted 
 with the true Word, whereas Arians did scarcely more 
 than admit Him to be formed after its pattern. 
 
 The Sabellians agreed with the Arians, as far as 
 words went, in considering the Logos as a creative 
 attribute, vid. Sent. D. 25. Ep. ^Egypt. 14 fin. 
 Epiph. Haer. 72, p. 835 ; but such of them as held 
 that the Logos actually took flesh, escaped the mys- 
 tery of God subsisting in Two Persons, only by
 
 256 SABELLIUS. 
 
 falling into the heterodox notion that His nature was 
 compounded of substance and attribute or quality, 
 (Tvv6erov TOV 6eov etc TTOIOT^TO? /cal oucr/a?. They vir- 
 tually ' denied, with many Trinitarians outside the 
 Church in this day, that the Son and again the Spirit 
 is 0X09 0eo5; but, if Each is not 0X05 #eo?, God is
 
 SANCTIPICATION. 257 
 
 SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 ATHANASIUS insists earnestly on the merciful dispen- 
 sation of God, who has not barely given us through 
 Christ justification, but has made our sanctification to 
 be included in the gift, and sanctification through the 
 personal presence in us of the Son. After saying, 
 Incarn. 7, that to accept mere repentance from sinners 
 would not have been fitting, evXoyov, he continues, 
 " Nor does repentance recover us from our state of 
 nature, it does but arrest the course of sin. Had 
 there been but a fault committed, and not a subse- 
 quent corruption, repentance had been well, but if," 
 &c. vid. Incarnation and Freedom. 
 
 " While it is mere man who receives the gift, he is 
 liable to lose it again (as was shown in the case of 
 Adam, for he received and he lost), but that the grace 
 may be irrevocable, and may be kept sure by men, 
 therefore it is the Son who Himself appropriates the 
 gift." Orat. iii. 38. 
 
 He received gifts in order " that strong by Him (81 
 avrov) men might henceforward upon earth have 
 power against devils, as ' having become partakers of a 
 divine nature/ and in heaven might, as ' being delivered 
 from corruption/ reign everlastingly ; . . . and, whereas 
 the flesh received the gift in Him, henceforth by It for 
 us also that gift might abide secure." Orat. iii. 40. 
 
 VOL. II. S
 
 258 SATSCTIFICATION. 
 
 " The Word of God, who loves man, put on Himself 
 created flesh, at the Father's will, that, whereas the 
 first man had made the flesh dead through the trans- 
 gression, He Himself might quicken it in the Blood of 
 His own body." Orat. ii. 65. Vid. also Orat. i. 
 48. 51, ii. 56. 
 
 ^[ " How could we be partakers of the adoption of 
 sons, unless through the Son we had received from 
 Him that communion with Him, unless His Word had 
 been made flesh, and had communicated that Flesh to 
 us?" Iren. Hser. iii. 19. " He took part of flesh and 
 blood, that is, He became man, whereas He was Life 
 by nature, . . . that, uniting Himself to the corruptible 
 flesh according to the measure of its own nature, 
 ineffably and inexpressibly, and as He alone knows, He 
 might bring it to His own life, and render it partaker 
 through Himself of God and the Father. . . . For He 
 bore our nature, refashioning it into His own life. . . . 
 He is in us through the Spirit, turning our natural 
 corruption into incorruption, and changing death to its 
 contrary." Cyril, in Joan. ix. dr. Jin. 
 
 f " The Word having appropriated the affections of 
 the flesh, no longer do those affections touch the body, 
 because of the Word who has come in it, but they are 
 destroyed by Him, and henceforth men . . . abide 
 ever immortal and incorruptible." Orat iii. 33. vid. 
 also Incarn. c. Ar. 12. contr. Apoll. i. 17. ii. 6. 
 " Since God the Word willed to annul the passions, 
 whose end is death, and His deathless nature was not 
 capable of them, .... He is made flesh of the Virgin in 
 the way He knoweth, &c." Procl. ad. Armen. p. 616.
 
 SANCTIFICATION. 259 
 
 Also Leon. Serm. 22. pp. 69. 71. Serm. 26. p. 88. 
 Nyssen. contr. Apoll. t. 2. p. 696. Cyril. Epp. p. 138, 9. 
 in Joan. p. 95. Chrysol. Serm. 148. 
 
 5[ " His body is none other than His, and is a natural 
 recipient of grace; for He received grace as far as 
 man's nature was exalted, which exaltation was its being 
 deified." Orat. i. 45. vid. Indwelling and Deification. 
 
 s 2
 
 260 SCRIPTURE CANON. 
 
 SCKIPTURE CANON. 
 
 ATHAN. will not allow that the Pastor is canonical, 
 Deer. 18. "In the Shepherd it is written, since 
 they [the Arians] allege this book also, though it is 
 not in the Canon ; " yet he uses the formula, "It is 
 written." 
 
 ^[ And so in Ep. Fest. fin. he enumerates it with 
 "Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and 
 others, " not canonized but appointed by the Fathers 
 to be read by late converts and persons under 
 teaching." He calls it elsewhere a most profitable 
 book. Incarn. 3. 
 
 If As to the phrase, " it is written," or " he says " 
 raSe Xeyet, the Douay renders such phrases by 
 "he," 810 Xeyei, "wherefore he saith," Eph. v. 14; 
 eliprjKe Trepl TTJS epSo^s OVTCO, "he spoke," Heb. iv. 
 4 ; and 7, " he limiteth." And we may take in explana- 
 tion, " As the Holy Ghost saith, To-day," &c. Heb. iii. 
 7. Or understand with Athan. &ie\e<yl;6i \e<ya)v 6 
 IlauXo?. Orat. i. 57. to? el-Trev o 'looaw???. Orat. iii. 30. 
 vid. also iv. 31 . On the other hand, " doth not the 
 Scripture say," John vii. 42 ; " what saith the Scrip- 
 ture ?" Eom. iv. 3 ; "do you think that the Scripture 
 saith in vain/' James iv. 5. And so Athan. olSev 77 
 7/oa<T; \ejova~a. Orat. i. 56. edosrfj deifj ypa<f>fi 
 Orat. iv. 27. Xeyeirjypa^rj, Deer. 22. fyalv 
 Syn. 52. 

 
 AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE. 261 
 
 AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 ATHANASIUS considers Scripture sufficient for the proof 
 of such fundamental doctrines as came into contro- 
 versy during the Arian troubles j but, while in con- 
 sequence he ever appeals to Scripture, (and indeed has 
 scarcely any other authoritative document to quote,) 
 he ever speaks against interpreting it by a private 
 rule instead of adhering to ecclesiastical tradition. 
 Tradition is with him of supreme authority, including 
 therein catechetical instruction, the teaching of the 
 scliola, ecumenical belief, the (f)povrj/j,a of Catholics, the 
 ecclesiastical scope, the analogy of faith, &c. 
 
 " The holy and inspired Scriptures are sufficient of 
 themselves for the preaching of the truth ; yet there 
 are also many treatises of our blessed teachers com- 
 posed for this purpose." contr. Gent. init. "For 
 studying and mastering the Scriptures, there is need 
 ef a good life and a pure soul, and virtue according to 
 Christ," Incarn. 57. "Since divine Scripture is suffi- 
 cient more than anything else, I recommend persons 
 who wish to know fully concerning these things/' (the 
 doctrine of the blessed Trinity,) " to read the divine 
 oracles," ad Ep. ^Bg. 4. " The Scriptures are suffi- 
 cient for teaching ; but it is good for us to exhort 
 each other in the faith, and to refresh each other with 
 discourses." Vit. S. Ant. 16. "We must seek before
 
 262 AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 all things whether He is Son, and on this point 
 specially search the Scriptures, for this it was, when 
 the Apostles were questioned, that Peter answered/* 
 &c. Orat. ii. 73. And passim in Athan. Vid. 
 Serap. i. 32 init. iv. fin. contr. Apoll. i. 6, 8, 9, 11, 
 22. ii. 8, 9, 13, 14, 1719. 
 
 5f " The doctrine of the Church should be proved, 
 not announced, (aTroSeiKTitca)*; OVK aTrofavTiKw? ;) there- 
 fore show that Scripture thus teaches." Theod. Eran. 
 p. 199. " We have learned the rule of doctrine 
 (Kavova) out of divine Scripture." ibid. p. 213. 
 " Do not believe me, let Scripture be recited. I 
 do not say of myself ' In the beginning was the 
 Word,' but I hear it ; I do not invent, but I read ; 
 what we all read, but not all understand/' Ambros. 
 de Incarn. 14. " Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de 
 tuo infers." Tertull. Carn. Christ. 7. vid. also 6. 
 " You departed from inspired Scripture and therefore 
 didst fall from grace." Max. de Trin. Dial. v. 29. "The 
 Children of the Church have received from their holy 
 Fathers, that is, the holy Apostles, to guard the faith ; 
 and withal to deliver and preach it to their own 
 children. . . . Cease not, faithful and orthodox men, 
 thus to speak, and to teach the like from the divine 
 Scriptures, and to walk, and to catechise, to the con- 
 firmation of yourselves and those who hear you; 
 namely, that holy faith of the Catholic Church, as the 
 holy and only Virgin of God received its custody from 
 the holy Apostles of the Lord ; and thus, in the case 
 of each of those who are under catechising, who are to 
 approach the Holy Laver, ye ought not only to preach.
 
 AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE. 263 
 
 faith to your children in the Lord, but also to teach 
 them expressly, as your common mother teaches, to 
 say : ' We believe in One God/ " &c. Bpiph. Ancor. 
 119, fin. who thereupon proceeds to give at length the 
 Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. And so Athan. 
 speaks of the orthodox faith, as " issuing from Aposto 
 lical teaching and the Fathers' tradition, and confirmed 
 by New and Old Testament." ad Adelph. 6, init. 
 Cyril Hier. too as " declared by the Church and esta- 
 blished from all Scripture/' Cat. v. 12. "Let us 
 
 guard with vigilance what we have received 
 
 What then have we received from the Scriptures but 
 altogether this ? that God made the world by the 
 Word/' &c. &c. Procl. ad Armen. Bp. 2. p. 612. " That 
 God the Word, after the union, remained such as He 
 was, &c. so clearly hath divine Scripture, and more- 
 over the doctors of the Churches, and the lights of the 
 world taught us/' Theodor. Eran. p. 175, init. " That it 
 is the tradition of the Fathers is not the whole of our 
 case ; for they too followed the meaning of Scripture, 
 starting from the testimonies, which just now we laid 
 before you from Scripture/' Basil de Sp. S. n. 16. vid. 
 also a remarkable passage in Athan. Synod. 6, fin. 
 
 ^f S. Gregory says in a well-known passage ; 
 "Why art thou such a slave to the letter, and 
 takest up with Jewish wisdom, and pursuest sylla- 
 bles to the loss of things ? For if thou wert to say, 
 ' twice five,' or ' twice seven/ and I concluded ' ten ' 
 or ' fourteen ' from your words, or from ' a rea- 
 sonable mortal animal ' I concluded ' man/ should I 
 seem to you absurd ? how so, if I did but give your
 
 264 AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 meaning ? for words belong as much to him who de- 
 mands them as to him who utters/' Orat. 31. 24. 
 vid. also Hil. contr. Constant. 16. August. Ep. 238. 
 n. 46. Cyril Dial. i. p. 391. Petavius refers to other 
 passages, de Trin. iv. 5. 6. 
 
 ^f In interpreting Scripture, Athan. always assumes 
 that the Catholic teaching is true and the Scripture 
 must be explained by it, vid. art. Rule of Faith. Thus 
 he says, Orat. ii. 3. " If He be Son, as indeed He is, 
 let them not question about the terms which the sacred 
 writers use of Him. . . . For terms do not disparage 
 His Nature but rather that Nature draws to itself 
 those terms and changes them/' And presently 
 " Nature and truth draw the meaning to themselves ; 
 This being so, why ask, is He a work ; it is proper to 
 ask of them first, is he a Son ? " ii. 5. 
 
 K The great and essential difference between Ca- 
 tholics and n on- Catholics was, that Catholics inter- 
 preted Scripture by Tradition, and non-Catholics by 
 their own private judgment. 
 
 ^[ That not only Arians, but heretics generally, pro- 
 fessed to be guided by Scripture, we know from 
 many witnesses. 
 
 ^[ Heretics in particular professed to be guided by 
 Scripture. Tertull. Prasscr. 8. For Gnostics vid. 
 Tertullian's grave sarcasm, " Utantur haeretici omnea 
 scripturis ejus, cujus utuntur etiam mundo." Cam. 
 Christ. 6. For Arians, vid. supr. Arian tenets. 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.
 
 AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE. 265 
 
 l &v . . . Trapa ron>.) Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p. 177. 
 And Macedonians, vid. Leont. de Sect. iv. init. And 
 Monophysites, " I have not learned this from Scrip- 
 ture; and I have a great fear of saying what it is 
 silent about." Theod. Eran. p. 215. S. Hilary brings 
 a number of these instances together with their re- 
 spective texts, Marcellus, Photinus, Sabellius, Mon- 
 tanus, Manes ; then he continues, " Omnes Scripturas 
 sine Scripturse sensu loquuntur, et fidem sine fide 
 prastendunt. Scripturse enim non in legendo sunt, 
 sed in intelligendo, neque in prasvaricatione sunt sed 
 in caritate." ad Const, ii. 9. vid. also Hieron. c. 
 Lucif. 27. August. Ep. 120, 13.
 
 266 SCRIPTURE PASSAGES. 
 
 SCRIPTURE PASSAGES. 
 
 5[ 1. GEN. i. 26. "Let us make man," &c. 
 
 The Catholic Fathers, as is well known, interpret 
 such texts as this in the general sense which we 
 find taken above (vol. i. de Syn. 27, p. 112) by 
 the first Sirmian Council convened against Photinus, 
 Marcellus, &c. It is scarcely necessary to refer 
 to instances; Petavius, however, cites the following. 
 First, those in which the Eternal Father is con- 
 sidered in Gen. i. 26 to speak to the Son. Theo- 
 philus, ad Autol. ii. 18. Novatian, de Trin. 26. 
 Tertullian, Prax. 12. Synod. Antioch. contr. Paul. 
 Samos. ap. Routh, Reliqu. t. 2, p. 468. Basil. Hexaem. 
 fin. Cyr. Hieros. Cat. x. 6. Cyril. Alex. Dial. iv. p. 516. 
 Athan. contr. Gentes, 46. Orat. iii. 29 fin. Chrysost. in 
 Genes. Horn. viii. 3. Hilar. Trin. iv. 17, v. 8. Ambros. 
 Hexaem. vi. 7. Augustin. c. Maxim, ii. 26 n. 2. Next 
 those in which Son and Spirit are considered as 
 addressed. Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 18. Basil, contr. 
 Eunom. v. 4, p. 315. Pseudo-Chrysost. de Trin. 
 t. i. p. 832. Cyril. Thesaur. p. 12. Theodor. in Genes. 
 19. Hger. v. 3, and 9. But even here, where the 
 Arians agree with Catholics, they differ in this re- 
 markable respect, that in the Canons they pass in their 
 Councils, they place certain interpretations of Scripture 
 under the sanction of an anathema, showing how far
 
 SCRIPTURE PASSAGES. 267 
 
 less free the system of heretics is than that of the 
 Church. 
 
 ^f 2. Gen. xviii. 1. "The Lord appeared to Ab- 
 raham/' &c. 
 
 The same Sirmian Council anathematizes those 
 who say that Abraham saw " not the Son, but the 
 Ingenerate God." 
 
 This again, in spite of the wording, which is 
 directed against the Catholic doctrine, and is of an 
 heretical implication, is a Catholic interpretation, vid. 
 (besides Philo de Somniis, i. 12, p. 1139.) Justin. Tryph. 
 56, and 126. Iren. Heer. iv. 10 n. 1. Tertull. de Cam. 
 Christ. 6. adv. Marc. iii. 9. adv. Prax. 16. Novat. de 
 Trin. 18. Origen. in Gen. Horn. iv. 5. Cyprian, adv. 
 Jud. ii. 5. Antioch. Syn. contr. Paul, apud Routh, 
 Rell. t. 2, p. 469. Athan. Orat. ii. 13. Epiph. Ancor. 
 29 and 39. Hser. 71. 5. Chrysost. in Gen. Horn. 41, 6 
 and 7. These references are principally from Petavius ; 
 also from Dorscheus, who has written an elaborate 
 commentary on this Council. The implication alluded 
 to above is, that the Son is of a visible substance, and 
 thus is naturally the manifestation of the Invisible 
 God. Bull (Dei F. N. iv. 3) denies what Petavius 
 maintains, that this doctrine is found in Justin, Origen, 
 &c. The Catholic doctrine is that the Son manifests 
 Himself (and thereby His Father) by means of 
 material representations. Augustine seems to have 
 been the first who changed the mode of viewing the 
 texts in question, and considered the divine appearance, 
 not God the Son, but a created Angel, vid. de Trin.
 
 268 SCRIPTURE PASSAGES. 
 
 ii. passim. Jansenius considers that lie did so from a 
 suggestion of S. Ambrose, that the hitherto received 
 view had been the " origo haeresis Arianae," vid. his 
 Augustinus, lib. prooem. c. 12. t. 2, p. 12. 
 
 1[ 3. Exodus xxxiii. 23. " Thou shalt see My back, 
 but My face/' &c. ra oV/crco /AOV, and not TO trpoa-MTrov. 
 Gregory Naz. interprets TO cnricrw (oTrieOia) to mean 
 God's works in contrast with His 
 
 ^ 4. Deut. xxviii. 66. " Thy Life shall be hanging 
 before thee." 
 
 Athanasius says, " His crucifixion is denoted by 
 "Ye shall see your Life hanging," Orat. ii. 16, sup. 
 p. 268. 
 
 Vid. Iren. Hser. iv. 10. 2. Tertull. in Jud. 11. 
 Cyprian. Testim. ii. 20. Lactant. Instit. iv. 18. 
 Cyril. Catech. xiii. 19. August, contr. Faust, xvi. 22, 
 which are referred to in loc. Cypr. (Oxf. Tr.) To 
 which add Leon. Serm. 59, 6. Isidor. Hisp. contr. 
 Jud. i. 35, ii. 6. Origen. in Gels. ii. 75. Epiph. Haer. 
 24. p. 75. Damasc. F. O. iv. 11. fin. This interpre- 
 tation I am told by a great authority is recommended 
 even by the letter, which has 133D ~p O'N^n, airevavTi 
 r&v o^>6d\fia)v <rov, in Sept. " Pendebit tibi a regione," 
 vid. Gesenius, who also says, " Since things which are a 
 regione of a place, are necessarily a little removed from 
 it, it follows that TUO signifies at the same time to be 
 at a small distance," referring to the case of Hagar, 
 who was but a bow-shot from her child. Also, though 
 the word here is x^n , yet rftn which is the same root,
 
 SCRIPTURE PASSAGES. 269 
 
 is used for hanging on a stake, or crucifixion, e. g. 
 Gen. 20, 19. Deut. 21, 22. Esth. 5, 14; 7, 10. 
 
 t 5. Psalm xliv. 9." Therefore God, Thy God, hath 
 anointed Thee," &c. 
 
 " Wherefore" says Athan. " 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 shown ; 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 we were made in the beginning ; for Thine also 
 is the Spirit/ . . . 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." 
 Orat. i. 49. supr. vol. i. p. 228. 
 
 The word " wherefore " denotes the fitness why the 
 Son of God should become the Son of man. His 
 Throne, as God, is for ever ; He has loved righteous- 
 ness; therefore He is equal to the anointing of the 
 Spirit, as man. And so S. Cyril in Joan. lib. v. 
 2. " In this ineffable unity," says St. Leo, " of the 
 Trinity, whose words and judgments are common in 
 all, the Person of the Son has fitly undertaken to 
 repair the race of man, that, since He it is by whom 
 all things were made, and without whom nothing is 
 made, and who breathed the truth of rational life into
 
 270 SCRIPTURE PASSAGES. 
 
 men fashioned of the dust of the earth, so He too 
 should restore to its lost dignity our nature thus fallen 
 from the citadel of eternity, and should be the reformer 
 of that of which He had been the maker." Leon. 
 Serm. 64. 2. vid. Athan. de Incarn. 7 fin. 10. In illud 
 Omn. 2. Cyril, in Gen. i. p. 13. 
 
 Tf 6. Prov. viii. 22. " The Lord created Me in the 
 beginning of His ways, for His works." 
 
 The long and beautiful discourse left us by 
 Athanasius on the First-born and His condescension, 
 may be said to have grown out of what must be 
 considered a wrong reading of this verse, created for 
 possessed, eVmo-e for etcrrjaaro being the Septuagint 
 translation of the Hebrew rup, as also in Gen. xiv. 
 19, 22. Such too is the sense of the word given in 
 the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic versions, and the 
 greater number of primitive writers. In consequence 
 we find that it was one of the passages relied upon by 
 the forerunners of the Arians in the 3rd century, vid. 
 supr. vol. i. pp. 45 47. On the rise of Arianism, 
 Eusebius of Nicomedia appealed to it against Alexan- 
 der ; and the other Eusebius in Demonstr. Evan. v. 
 p. 212, &c. It was still insisted on in A.D. 350. 
 
 On the other hand Aquila translates eW^'craTo, and 
 so read Basil c. Eunom. ii. 20, Nyssen c. Eunom. i. 
 p. 34, Jerome in Is. xxvi. 13 ; and the Vulgate 
 translates possedit, vid. also Gen. iv. 1, and Deut. 
 xxxii. 8. The Hebrew sense is also recognized by 
 Eusebius, Eccl. Theol. iii. 2, p. 153, and Epiph. Haer. 
 69, 24.
 
 SCRIPTURE PASSAGES. 271 
 
 Athanasius, assuming the word created to be cor- 
 rect, interprets it of our Lord's human nature, 
 as do Epiph. Hser. 69, 2025. Basil. Ep. viii. 8. 
 Naz. Orat. 30, 2. Nyss. contr. Eunom. vid. supra, 
 et al. Cyril. Thesaur. p. 155. Hilar. de Trin. xii. 86 
 49. Ambros. de Fid. i. 15. August, de Fid. et 
 Symb. 6. 
 
 ^[ Our Lord is ap^ o8e5z>, says Athan. Orat. ii. 47, 
 fin. in contrast with His proper Sonship ; and so 
 Justin understands the phrase, according to the 
 Benedictine Ed. vid. supr. art. Indwelling. 
 
 ^f 7. Isa. liii. 7. " He shall be led as a sheep to 
 the slaughter." 
 
 Athan. says, Orat. i. 54, supr. vol. i. p. 234, as else- 
 where, that the error of heretics in their interpreta- 
 tion of Scripture arises from their missing the person, 
 time, circumstances, &c., which Scripture has in view, 
 and which, as I understand him to imply, Tradition, 
 that is, the continuous teaching of the Church, sup- 
 plies; just as the Jews, as regards Isa. liii. instead 
 of learning from Philip, as he says, the meaning of the 
 chapter, conjecture its words to be spoken of Jeremias 
 or some other of the Prophets. 
 
 ^[ 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. Hger. iv. 33. Tertull. 
 in Jud. 9. Cyprian Testim. in Jud. ii. 13. Euseb. Dem. 
 iii. 2, &c.
 
 272 SCRIPTURE PASSAGES. 
 
 ^[ 8. Jerem. xxxi. 22. " The Lord hath created a 
 new salvation, &c. 
 
 This is the Septuagint version, as Athan. notices 
 Expos. F. 3, Aquila's being " The Lord hath created 
 a new thing in the woman." The Vulgate, (" a new 
 thing upon the earth, a woman shall compass a man,") 
 is with the Hebrew. Athan. has preserved Aquila's 
 version in three other places, Ps. xxx. 12, lix. 5, and 
 Ixv. 18. 
 
 ^[ 9. Matt. i. 25. " And he knew her not, until" 
 &c., that is, until then, when it became impossible, 
 and need not be denied. 
 
 Supposing it was said, " He knew her not till her 
 death," would not that mean, " He never knew her " ? 
 and in like manner, if she was " the Mother of God," 
 it was an impossible idea, and the Evangelist would 
 feel it to be so. They only can entertain the idea, who 
 in truth do not believe our Lord's divinity, who do not 
 believe literally that the Son of Mary is God. Vid. art. 
 Mary. 
 
 t 10. Matt. iii. 17." This is My well-beloved Son," 
 d<ya-7n)T6s, &c. " Only -begotten and Well-beloved are 
 the same," says Athan. ..." hence the Word, with 
 a view of conveying to Abraham the idea only- 
 begotten, says, ' Offer thy Son, thy Well-beloved.' " 
 Orat. iv. 24. He adds, ibid. iv. 29, " The word 
 ' Well-beloved ' even the Greeks who are skilful in 
 grammar know to be equivalent with ' Only-be- 
 gotten.' For Homer speaks thus of Telemachus,
 
 SCRIPTURE PASSAGES. 273 
 
 who was the only-begotten of Ulysses, in the second 
 book of the Odyssey : 
 
 O'er the wide earth, dear youth, why seek to run, 
 
 An only child, a well-beloved son ? (povvos e'wv dyewn/Toy.) 
 
 He whom you mourn, divine Ulysses, fell, 
 
 Par from his country, where the strangers dwell. 
 
 Therefore he who is the only son of his father is called 
 well-beloved." 
 
 'AycnrrjTos is explained by fjLovoyevrjs by Hesychius, 
 Suidas, and Pollux ; it is the version in the Sept. 
 equally with povoyevr)? of the Hebrew TIT . Homer 
 calls Astyanax '^KTopiSijv djaTr^Tov ; Plutarch notices 
 the instance of Telemachus, ef O/j,r)po<; djaTrtjTov o 
 rr)\vyerov } rovrean /j,rj e%ovcrt erepov 
 ova-t yeyevvrj/jievov, as quoted by Wetstein in 
 Matt. iii. 17. Vid. also Suicer in voc. 
 
 ^[ 11. Matt. xii. 32. " Whosoever shall speak a 
 word," &c. 
 
 This passage, which is commented on at Orat. i. 50, 
 Athan. explains at some length in Serap. iv. 8, &c., 
 supr. vol. i. p. 229. Origen, he says, and Theognostus 
 understand the sin against the Holy Ghost to be apo- 
 stasy from the grace of Baptism, referring to Heb. vi. 
 4. So far the two agree ; but Origen went on to say, 
 that the proper power or virtue of the Son extends 
 over rational natures alone, e. g. heathens, but that of 
 the Spirit only over Christians ; those then who sin 
 against the Son or their reason, have a remedy in 
 Christianity and its baptism, but nothing remains for 
 
 VOL. II. T
 
 274 SCRIPTURE PASSAGES. 
 
 those who sin against the Spirit. But Theognostus, 
 referring to the text, " I have many things to say but 
 ye cannot bear them now; howbeit when He, the 
 Spirit of Truth/' &c., argued that to sin against the 
 Son was to sin against inferior light, but against the 
 Spirit was to reject the full truth of the Gospel. 
 
 f 12. Matt. xiii. 25. " His enemy came and over- 
 sowed cockle/' &c. e-rricnretpas, Deer. 2. Orat. i. 1, 
 &c., &c. supr. vol. i. pp. 14, 153. 
 
 An allusion to this parable is very frequent in 
 Athan. chiefly with a reference to Arianism. He 
 draws it out at length, Orat. ii. 34. " What is sown 
 in every soul from the beginning is that God has a 
 Son, the Word, the Wisdom, the Power, that is, 
 His Image and Radiance; from which it at once 
 follows that He is always ; that He is from the 
 Father; that He is like; that He is the eternal 
 offspring of His substance; and there is no idea 
 involved in these of creature or work. But when 
 the man who is an enemy, while men slept, made a 
 second sowing, of '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." Elsewhere, he uses the image for the evil 
 influences introduced into the soul upon Adam's fall, 
 contr. Apoll. i. 15, as does S. Irengeus, Hser. iv. 
 40. n. 3, using it of such as lead to backsliding in 
 Christians, ibid. v. 10. n. 1. Gregory Nyssen, of the 
 natural passions and of false reason misleading them, de 
 An. et Eesurr. t. ii. p. 640. vid. also Leon. Ep. 156. c. 2.
 
 SCRIPTURE PASSAGES. 275 
 
 ^[ Tertullian uses the image in a similar but higher 
 sense when he applies it to Eve's temptation, and goes 
 on to contrast it with Christ's birth from a Virgin. 
 " In virginem adhuc Evam irrepserat verbum sedifica- 
 torium mortis ; in Virginem eeque introducendum erat 
 Dei Verbum exstructorium vitae. . . . Ut in doloribus 
 pareret, verbum diaboli semen illi fuit ; contra Maria/' 
 &c. de Cam. Christ. 17. S. Leo, as Athan, makes 
 " seed " in the parable apply peculiarly to faith in 
 contrast with obedience, Serm. 69, 5, init. 
 
 1[ 13. John i. 1. "In the beginning," &c. vid. 
 Orat. i. 11, supr. vol. i. p. 165. 
 
 If " beginning " in this verse be taken, not to im- 
 ply time, but origination, then the first verse of St. 
 John's Gospel may be interpreted " In the Beginning," 
 or Origin, i. e. in the Father, " was the Word." Thus 
 Athan. himself understands the text, Orat. ii. 57. 
 Orat. iv. 1. vid. also Orat. iii. 9. Origen. in Joan, 
 torn. 1,17. Method, ap. Phot. cod. 235, p. 940. Nyssen. 
 contr. Eunom. iii. p. 106. Cyril. Thesaur. 32, p. 312. 
 Euseb. Eccl. Theol. ii. 11 and 14. pp. 118, 123, and 
 Jerome in Calmet on Ps. 109. 
 
 ^[ 14. John i. 3. " Without Him was nothing 
 made that was made." Vid. Orat. i. 19. supr. p. 
 177. 
 
 The words " that was made " which end this verse 
 were omitted by the ancient citers of it, as Irenseus, 
 Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Tertullian, nay Augustine ; 
 but because it was abused by the Eunomians, Mace- 
 
 T 2
 
 276 SCRIPTURE PASSAGES. 
 
 donians, &c. as if derogatory to the divinity of the 
 Holy Spirit^ it was quoted in full, as by Epiphanius, 
 Ancor. 75, who goes so far as to speak severely of the 
 ancient mode of citation, vid. Fabric, and Routh, ad 
 Hippol. contr. Noet. 12. 
 
 Also vid. Simon. Hist. Crit. Comment, pp. 7, 32, 52. 
 Lainpe in loc. Joann. Fabric, in Apocryph. N. T. t. 1. p. 
 384. Petav. deTrin.ii. 6, 6. Ed. Ben. in Ambros. deFid. 
 iii. 6. Wetstein in loc. Wolf. Cur. Phil, in loc. The 
 verse was not ended as we at present read it, especially 
 in the East, till the time of S. Chrysostom, according to 
 Simon, (vid. Ben. Prsef. in Joann. iv.) though, as 
 has been said above, S. Epiphanius had spoken strongly 
 against the ancient reading. S. Ambrose loc. cit. 
 refers it to the Arians, Lampe refers it to the Valen- 
 tinians on the strength of Iren. Haer. i. 8. n. 5. 
 Theophilus in loc. (if the Commentary on the Gospels 
 is his) understands by ovbev " an idol," referring to 
 1 Cor. viii. 4. Augustine, even at so late a date, 
 adopts the old reading, vid. de Gen. ad lit. v. 29 3 1 . 
 It was the reading of the Vulgate, even at the time it 
 was ruled by the Council of Trent to be authentic, and 
 of the Roman Missal. The verse is made to end after 
 "in Him," (thus, ovS 1 ev o yeyovev ev avry) by Epiph. 
 Ancor, 75. Hil. in Psalm 148, 4. Ambros. de Fid. 
 iii. 6. Nyssen in Eunom. i. p. 84. app., which favours 
 the Arians. The counterpart of the ancient reading, 
 which is very awkward, ("What was made -in Him 
 was life,") is found in August, loc. cit. and Ambrose 
 in Psalm xxxvi. 35, but he also notices "What was made, 
 was in Him," de Fid. loc, cit. It is remarkable that
 
 SCRIPTURE PASSAGES. 277 
 
 St. Ambrose attributes the present punctuation to the 
 Alexandrians (in loc. Psalm.) in spite of Athan.'s and 
 Alexander's (Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 733.), nay Cyril's (in 
 loc. Joann.) adoption of the ancient. 
 
 If 15. Johnii. 4." Woman," &c. "He chid His 
 Mother/' says Athan. 
 
 'E7re7r\r?TTe; and so eVert/A^cre, Chrysost. in loc. Joann. 
 Horn. 21.3, and Theophyl. <*>? SecrTroT?;? e7rmyu,,Theodor. 
 Eran. ii. p. 106. eWpeTret, Anon. ap. Corder. Cat. in loc. 
 i, Alter Anon. ibid. e7rm/*a OVK dri/jidfav d\\a 
 , Euthym. in loc. OVK err&Tff^^Gv, Pseudo- 
 Justin. Qu89st. ad Orthod. 136. It is remarkable that 
 Athan. dwells on these words as implying our Lord's 
 humanity, (i. e. because Christ appeared to decline a 
 miracle,) when one reason assigned for them by the 
 Fathers is that He wished, in the words rt pot tcai voi, 
 to remind our Lady that He was the Son of God and 
 must be " about His Father's business." " Eepellens 
 ejus intempestivam festinationem," Iren. Hasr. iii. 16, 
 n. 7, who thinks she desired to drink of His cup; 
 others that their entertainer was poor, and that she 
 wished to befriend him. Nothing can be argued from 
 S. Athan. 's particular word here commented on how 
 he would have taken the passage. That the tone of 
 our Lord's words is indeed (judging humanly and 
 speaking humanly) cold and distant, is a simple fact, 
 but it may be explained variously. It is observable 
 that eirnr\rJTTet and eVtriyua are the words used by 
 Theophylact (in Joan. xi. 34, vid. infra, art. Specialties,) 
 for our Lord's treatment of His own sacred body.
 
 278 SCRIPTURE PASSAGES. 
 
 But they are very vague words, and have a strong 
 meaning or not, as the case may be. 
 
 If 16. John x. 30. " I and My Father are One." 
 " They contend/' says Athan. Orat. iii. 1 0, supr. vol. 
 i. p. 367, " that the Son and the Father are not in such 
 wise one as the Church preaches . . but that, since what 
 the Father wills, the Son wills also, and . . is in all 
 respects concordant, (av^cavos) with Him . . . there- 
 fore it is that He and the Father are one. And some 
 of them have dared to write as well as to say this " 
 viz. Asterius; vid. Orat. iii. 2, supr. vol. i. p. 356. 
 
 We find the same doctrine in the Creed, said to be 
 Lucian's, as translated above Syn. 23, supr. vol. i. p. 97, 
 where vid. note 2 ; vid. also infra, art. ofioiov. Besides 
 Origen, Novatian, the Creed of Lucian, and (if so) 
 Hilary, (as mentioned in the note at vol. i. p. 97,) 
 " 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. 19, 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. 
 
 f 17. John x. 30. 38. xiv. 9." I and the Father are 
 One." "The Father is in Me, and" &c. "He that 
 seeth Me," &c. 
 
 These three texts are found together frequently in 
 Athan., particularly in Orat. iii., where he considers the 
 doctrines of the " Image " and the irepi^p^ai^ ; vid.
 
 SCRIPTURE PASSAGES. . 279 
 
 de Deer. 21, 31. de Syn. 45. Orat. iii. 3. 5, 6. 
 10. 16 fin. 17. Ep. Mg. 13. Sent. D. 26. ad Afr. 7, 8, 
 9. vid. also Epiph. Hger. 64. 9. Basil. Hexaem. ix. 
 fin. Cyr. Thes. xii. p. 111. Potam. Ep. ap. Dacher. 
 t. 3. p. 299. Hil. Trin. vii. 41. Yid. also Animadv. in 
 Eustath. Ep. ad Apoll. Rom. 1796. p. 58. 
 
 In Orat. iii. 5, 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, 6pv\\ovvre<; ; which bears 
 incidental testimony to the fact that the doctrine of 
 the Trept^taprjai,^ was the great criterion between 
 orthodox and Arian. To the many instances of the 
 joint use of the three which are given supr. may be 
 added Orat. ii. 54 init. 67 fin. iv. 17, Scrap, ii. 
 9, Serm. Maj. de fid. 29. Cyril, de Trin. p. 554, in 
 Joann. p. 168. Origen, Periarch. p. 56. Hil. Trin. ix. 
 1. Ambros. Hexaem. vi. 7. August, de Cons. Ev. i. 7. 
 1} 18. Johnxiv. 28. "The Father is greater than I." 
 Athan. explains these words by comparing them 
 with, " Made so much better than the Angels," Hebr. i. 
 1. " He says not ' the Father is better than I,' lest 
 we should conceive Him to be foreign to His Nature," 
 as Angels are foreign in nature to the Son ; " but 
 greater, not indeed in greatness nor in time, but be- 
 cause of His generation from the Father Himself," 
 Orat. i. 58, that is, on account of the principatus of 
 the Father, as the ap%) and 77-77777 tfeo'r^To?, and of His 
 own filietas.
 
 280 SCRIPTURE PASSAGES. 
 
 H" 19. Acts x. 36. "God sent the word to the 
 children of Israel. . . . You know the word/' &c. 
 
 So the Vulgate, but the received Greek runs with 
 Athan. Orat. iv. 30. rov \6yov, 6v aTrecrreiXe . . . 
 OVTO? e'erri . . . i>;u,e49 ol'Sare TO ryevopevov prjfjia. The 
 followers of Paul of Samosata, with a view to their 
 heresy, interpreted these words, as Hippolytus before 
 them, as if rbv \6<yov were either governed by Kara or 
 attracted by bv, OVTOS agreeing with 6 \6<yo<; under- 
 stood. Dr. Routh in loc. Hipp. (vid. Noet 13) who 
 at one time so construed it, refers to 1 Pet. ii. 7, 
 John iii. 34, as parallel, also Matt. xxi. 42. And 
 so ' Urbem quam statuo/ &c. vid. Raphel. in Luc. 
 xxi. 6. vid. also ir^v ap%f)v on ical \a\(o vfuv, John 
 viii. 25, with J. C. Wolf's remarks, who would under- 
 stand by apxyv omnino, which Lennep however in 
 Phalar. Ep. says it can only mean with a negative. 
 The Yulgate is harsh in understanding \oyo<? and prj^a 
 as synonymous, and the latter as used merely to con- 
 nect the clauses. Moreover, if \6yos be taken for 
 pr)/u.a, TQV \6jov avreo-retXe is a harsh phrase ; however, 
 it occurs Acts xiii. 26. If Xo'yos on the other hand 
 has a theological sense, a primd facie countenance is 
 given to the distinction between "the "Word" and 
 "Jesus Christ," which the Samosatenes wished to 
 deduce from the passage. 
 
 IT 20. Rom. i. 20. " His Eternal Power and 
 Divinity." 
 
 Athan asius understands this of our Lord. Orat. i. 
 11. Syn. 49. vid. Justinian's Comment, in Paul.
 
 SCRIPTURE PASSAGES. 281 
 
 Epp. for its various interpretations. It was either a 
 received interpretation, or had been adduced at Nicaea, 
 for Asterius had some years before these Discourses 
 replied to it, vid. Syn. 18, supr. vol. i. p. 88, and 
 Orat. ii. 37, p. 295.
 
 282 SEMI-ARIANS. 
 
 SEMI-AR1ANS. 
 
 THE Semi-Arian symbols admitted of an orthodox 
 interpretation, but they also admitted of an heretical. 
 They served as a shelter for virtual Arians, and as a 
 refuge for those who feared the orthodox homoiision, 
 as either materialistic or Sabellian. In the first years 
 of the controversy they were tokens of a falling short 
 of the true faith, in the later years tokens of an ap- 
 proaching it. Hence Athanasius is severe with Euse- 
 bius and Asterius, and kind in his treatment of Basil 
 and his party. 
 
 Accordingly, these symbols in no way served the 
 necessity of the time as a test to secure the Church 
 against a dangerous and insidious heresy. Eusebius 
 of Csesarea could have no difficulty in professing our 
 Lord was God, and like in His nature to the Father, 
 yet his heterodoxy has been shown in art. Eusebius. 
 Still more openly heterodox was Eusebius of Nico- 
 media ; yet such statements as occur in the Semi-Arian 
 Councils and Creeds would give him no annoyance. 
 These men did but scruple at the one word homousion. 
 
 The Catholic Theologians taught, with our Lord, 
 that " He and the Father are one " and, when asked 
 in what sense one, they answered " numerically one, 
 else were there two Gods;" that is, they were 
 The Arians considered them numerically
 
 SEMI-ARIANS. 283 
 
 two, and only in agreement one. Either then they 
 held that there were two Gods, or that our Lord was 
 God only in name and not true God. They would 
 answer that that dilemma was none of their making ; 
 that is, the idea of incomprehensibility in the Infinite, 
 and of mystery in what was predicated of Him, does 
 not seem to have had a place in their reasonings. 
 
 So far Semi-Arians agreed with Arians, in holding 
 a greater God and a less, a true God and a so-called 
 God ; a God of all, and a Divine Mediator and repre- 
 sentative God; but when Catholics questioned them 
 more closely on their belief, as, for instance, whether 
 the Son was a creature, and what was meant by His 
 being "like" the Father, the Arians proper said 
 boldly that He was a creature, though the first of crea- 
 tures and unlike other creatures, and not the Son of 
 God except figuratively, as men were His sons, and 
 that, moreover, as a creature He had been liable to 
 fall, as the Angels fell and Adam ; but from such 
 blasphemy others shrank, and were in consequence 
 called Semi-Arians, holding that, though our Lord 
 was not in being from everlasting, and though He had 
 been brought into being at the will of the Father, 
 still a gennesis was a divine act in kind different from 
 a creation ; not indeed an emanation, else, He was not 
 only like, but the same as the Father in essence, and 
 if so why had Euseb. Nic. from the first protested 
 against e' aTroppoias and /xepo9 bpoovcnov, and why did 
 Euseb. Caes. so evidently evade the egovvias (as shown 
 supr. art. Eiisebius) ? In short they were driven by 
 their remaining religiousness, unlike the Arians proper,
 
 284 SEMI-ARIANS. 
 
 (who in the later shape of Eunomianism expressly de- 
 nied that God was incomprehensible) into the admis- 
 sion that there was mystery in the revealed doctrine. 
 And this Eusebius confesses in a passage which will 
 be quoted infr. art. Son of God. 
 
 Eecurring to the dilemma insisted on against 
 the Arian disputant, it will be observed that the 
 clear-headed Arians grasped fearlessly the conclusion 
 that our Lord was not God, while the more pious 
 and timid Semi-Arians could not extricate them- 
 selves from the charge of holding two Gods. 
 
 Eusebius (vid. art. Euseb.) calls our Lord a second 
 substance, another God, a second God. And it was in 
 this sense his co-religionists used such epithets as 
 reXeto? of our Lord, and called Him, as in Lucian's 
 creed, " perfect from perfect, king from king," &c. viz. 
 under the impression or with the insinuation, that the 
 O/J,OOV<TIOV diluted belief in His divinity into a sort 
 of Sabellianism. Whether in giving these high titles 
 to our Lord they used them in a Catholic sense, would 
 also be seen in their use and interpretation of the word 
 frept^caprjaif, co-inherence, (vid. art. Coinlierence), which 
 was a practical equivalent to bfj,oovatov, though it too 
 they could explain away, and they did. Accordingly 
 viewing Father and Son as distinct substances, and re- 
 jecting both bfM)ov(riov and Trepi^coprja^, they certainly 
 considered them, as far as words go, to be distinct 
 Gods. Such strong expressions as oyuoioyo-to?, and aira- 
 paXXa/cro? e'ltcwv, which they used, would but in- 
 crease the evil, as Athanasius argues against them. 
 "If all that is the Father's is the Son's, as in
 
 SEMI-ARIANS. 285 
 
 an Image and Impress/' he says, "let it be considered 
 dispassionately, whether a substance foreign to the 
 Father's substance admits of such attributes ; and 
 whether such a one can possibly be other in nature and 
 alien in substance, and not rather one in substance 
 with the Father." Syn. 50. vid. also Orat. iii. 16. 
 vid. art. Idolatry. 
 
 However, Athan., and Hilary too, saw enough of 
 what was good and promising in the second generation 
 of Semi-Arians to adopt a kind tone towards them, 
 which they could not use in speaking of the followers 
 of Arius. Athan. calls certain of them " brethren " and 
 " beloved," and Hilary '' sanctissimi," and the events 
 in many cases justified their anticipation. 
 
 They guard, however, their words, lest more should 
 be understood by others than the language of charity 
 and hope. Athan. speaks severely of Eustathius 
 and Basil. Ep. JQg. 7, and Hilary explains him- 
 self in his notes upon his de Syn., from which it 
 appears that he had been expostulated with on his 
 conciliatory tone. Indeed all throughout he had be- 
 trayed a consciousness that he should offend come 
 parties, e. g. 6. In 77, he had spoken of "having 
 expounded the faithful and religious sense of ' like in 
 substance/ which is called Homoaiision." On this he 
 observes, note 3, "I think no one need be asked to 
 consider why I have said in this place ' religious sense 
 of like in substance/ except that I meant that there 
 was also an irreligious ; and that therefore I said that 
 ' like ' was not only equal but the ' same/ vid. supr. 
 vol. i. pp. 133, 4, notes. In the next note he speaks of
 
 286 SEMI-ARIANS. 
 
 them as not more than hopeful. Still it should be ob- 
 served how careful the Fathers of the day were not to 
 mix up the question of doctrine, which rested on Catho- 
 lic tradition, with that of the adoption of a certain term 
 which rested on a Catholic injunction. Not that the term 
 was not in duty to be received, but it was to be received 
 mainly on account of its Catholic sense, and where 
 the Catholic sense was held, the word might for a 
 while by a sort of dispensation be waived. It is 
 remarkable that Athanasius scarcely mentions the 
 word " One in substance " in his three Orations, as 
 has been already observed; nor does it occur in S. 
 Cyril's Catecheses, of whom, as being suspected of 
 Semi-Arianism, it might have been required, before 
 his writings were received as of authority. The word 
 was not imposed upon Ursacius and Yalens, A.D. 
 349, by Pope Julius ; nor, in the Council of Aquileia 
 in 381, was it offered by St. Ambrose to Palladius 
 and Secundianus. S. Jerome's account of the apology 
 made by the Fathers of Ariminum is of the same 
 kind. " We thought," they said, " the sense corres- 
 ponded to the words, nor in the Church of God, where 
 there is simplicity, and a pure confession, did we fear 
 that one thing would be concealed in the heart, an- 
 other uttered by the lips. We were deceived by our 
 good opinion of the bad." ad Lucif. 19.
 
 SON OF GOD. 287 
 
 SON OF GOD. 
 
 I UNDERSTAND Athanasius, (always after accepting and 
 assuming the doctrine as true and indisputable because 
 revealed,) to go on to argue about it thus : 
 
 The Son of God must be God, granting that the 
 human word " Son " is to guide us to the knowledge 
 of what is heavenly ; for on earth we understand by a 
 son one who is the successor and heir to a given 
 nature. A continuation or communication of nature 
 enters into the very idea of vevvrjo-is ; if there is no 
 participation of nature there is no sonship, "Mia 77 
 (fivo-is, ov yap avopowv TO yevvrjfjua rov yevvija-avros, 
 e'l'iccov yap e&nv avrov." Orat. iii. 4. Hence he 
 speaks of " ouceufnj? T?)? (frvaews," ibid. 4, 16, 
 &c. 
 
 This is the teaching also of the great theologians 
 who followed Athanasius. Basil says that Father is 
 " a term of relationship/ ' oitco<re&)5, in Eunom. ii. 24, 
 init. and that a father may be defined, " one who gives 
 to another the origin of being, according to a nature 
 like his own, ibid. 22. And Gregory Nyssen, that " the 
 title ' Son ' does not simply express the being from 
 another, but relationship according to nature," c. 
 Eunom. ii. p. 91. And Cyril says that the term " Son " 
 denotes the " substantial origin from the Father."
 
 288 SON OF GOD. 
 
 Dial. v. p. 573. This was why the Fathers at Nicaea 
 were not content with " from the Father," but wrote 
 " from the substance of the Father." 
 
 The Son then participates in the Divine Nature, and 
 since the Divine Nature is none other than the One 
 individual Living Personal true God, He too is that 
 God, and, since He is thus identical with that One 
 True God, and since that One True God is eternal and 
 never had a beginning of existence, therefore He is 
 eternal and without beginning. 
 
 ^[ Again, such a real Son is made necessary by con- 
 sidering what the very Nature of God, the existence 
 of an Infinite, all-abounding, all-perfect Being, implies. 
 We cannot be surprised to be told that the infinite 
 Essence of God necessarily flows out, in consequence of 
 His very immensity, into a reflexion or perfect image or 
 likeness of Himself, which in all respects is His reitera- 
 tion, except in not being He. There are then at least 
 two Selves (so to speak) in God, that is, a First and 
 Second Person. 
 
 Now this infinite Image of God is not external to 
 the First Person, because the First is infinite. The 
 image is commensurate, but no more than com- 
 mensurate, with the Original. The Second cannot 
 extend beyond the First or be external to Him. The 
 First and Second cannot become Two except as viewed 
 in their relation of Father and Son. As eternity a 
 parte ante is not doubled by being added to eternity 
 a parte post, but before and after are two only when 
 contrasted with each other, so, though God and His 
 Image are relatively two, an Image of God does not
 
 SON OF GOD. 289 
 
 make two Gods. Indeed we cannot apply ideas arising 
 out of number to the Illimitable. 
 
 ^[ This Image, as being the Effluence and Expression 
 and Likeness of the Almighty, may equally well be 
 called Word or Son, and, whether we use one of these 
 names or the other, we mean to express, though under 
 a distinct aspect in each of them, a Second Person 
 in the Godhead. The name of Image teaches us that 
 the Second is commensurate and coequal with the 
 First ; that of Son that He is co-eternal, for the nature 
 of God cannot alter or vary; and the Word, that 
 in Him is represented and exercised the intelligence, 
 living force, and operative energy of the Supreme 
 Being. Hence it is that in the history, (if I may use 
 the word,) of the Creator and His creatures, the 
 Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is the chief 
 Agent manifested to us, and that the offices which are 
 assigned to Him occupy a far larger portion of revealed 
 teaching than even what belongs to His original 
 Divine Nature. 
 
 51 The Arians joined issue with Catholics on the ques- 
 tion as to what was involved in the title "Son." They put 
 aside Word, linage, &c., as figures of speech, said that 
 Son was his real name, and then explained " Son" away, 
 maintaining that whatever else Sonship might teach 
 us, even at first sight it was plain that a Son could not 
 but be posterior in time to his Father; but if so, if 
 Our Lord was not eternal a parte ante, He was only a 
 creature. The Catholics replied that that could not be 
 the essential true meaning of a word which it did not 
 always hold ; now the Arian argument from the word 
 
 VOL. II. U
 
 290 SON OF con. 
 
 "Son" involved the existence of time, which, was a 
 condition which was not always present in the instance 
 of the Almighty ; either then God had no son, or else 
 that Son was co-eval, co-eternal with Him. Moreover 
 there could be no change in the Divine Essence ; what 
 He was once, that He ever was. Once a Father, always 
 a Father. The Arians replied that the Almighty was 
 not always Creator, He became a Creator in time, and so 
 it was with the gennesis of the Son, that it was not from 
 eternity but in time ; that gennesis was some unknown 
 kind of creation, and that to connect it with the Divine 
 ova la was to introduce material notions into the idea 
 of God. The Catholics of course answered that the 
 notion of materiality was quite as foreign to any right 
 conception of God as that of time was, and that as the 
 Divine Sonship was eternal, so was it simply spiritual, 
 being taught under material images, only because 
 from the conditions of our knowledge we could not 
 speak of it in any other way. vid. art. Arian tenets. 
 
 Here Eusebius makes an apposite remark which 
 ought to have led him farther : As we do not know 
 how God can create out of nothing, so, he says, we are 
 utterly ignorant of the Divine Generation. We do 
 not understand innumerable things which lie close to 
 us; how the soul is joined to the body, how it enters 
 and leaves it, what its nature, what the nature of 
 Angels. It is written, He who believes, not he who 
 knows, has eternal life. Divine generation is as 
 distinct from human, as God from man. The sun's 
 radiance itself is but an earthly image, and gives us no 
 true idea of that which is above all images. Eccl.
 
 SON OF GOD. 291 
 
 Theol. i. 12. So too 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. vid. 
 art. Illustrations, Image, &c. 
 
 5f " There are not many Words, but one only Word 
 of the One Father, and one Image of the one God." 
 Orat. ii. 27. 
 
 IT " The Son does not live by the gift of life, for He 
 is life, and does but give it, not receive. " Orat. iii. 1. 
 S. Hilary uses different language with the same mean- 
 ing, "Vita viventis [Filii] in vivo [Patre] est," de 
 Trin. ii. 11. Other modes of expression for the 
 same mystery are found in art. Coinherence, " the 
 whole being of the Son is proper to the Father's sub- 
 stance ; " Orat. iii. 3. " the Son's being, because 
 from the Father, is therefore in the Father;" ibid. 
 also 6 init. "the fulness of the Father's Godhead is 
 the being of the Son." 5. and Didymus 77 irarpucr] 
 0eoT77<?. Trin. i. 27, p. 82, and S. Basil, e ov e'^ei 
 TO elva, contr. Eunom. ii. 12, fin. 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 
 
 5[ The Second Person in the Holy Trinity is not a 
 quality or attribute or relation, but the One Eternal 
 Essence ; not a part of the First Person, but whole or 
 entire God, all that God is ; nor does the gennesis 
 impair the Father's Essence, which is already whole 
 and entire God. Thus there are two infinite Persons, 
 
 u 2
 
 292 SON OF GOD. 
 
 in Each Other because they are infinite. Each of Them 
 being wholly one and the same Divine Being, yet not 
 being merely separate aspects of the Same. Each 
 is God as absolutely as if the Others were not. 
 Such a statement indeed is not so much a contradiction 
 in the terms used, as in our conceptions, from the 
 inability of our minds to deal with infinites; yet not 
 therefore a contradiction in fact, unless we would 
 maintain that human words can express in one formula, 
 or human thought grasp and contemplate, the Incom- 
 prehensible, Self-existent First cause. 
 
 5f "Man/' says S. Cyril, inasmuch as He had a 
 beginning of being, also has of necessity a beginning 
 of begetting, as what is from Him is a thing generate, 
 but ... if God's substance transcend time, or origin, 
 or interval, His generation too will transcend these; 
 nor does it deprive the Divine Nature of the power of 
 generating that He doth not this in time. For other 
 than human is the manner of divine generation ; and 
 together with God's existing is His generating implied, 
 and the Son was in Him by generation, nor did His 
 generation precede His existence, but He was always, 
 and that by generation. Thesaur. v. p. 35.
 
 SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF OUR LORD'S MANHOOD. 293 
 
 SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF OUR 
 LORD'S MANHOOD. 
 
 1. His manhood had no personality, but was taken 
 up into His divinity as Second Person of the Holy 
 Trinity. 
 
 That is, according to the words of the Symbolum 
 S. Atlian., " Unus, non conversione divinitatis in 
 carnem, sed assumptione hurnanitatis in Deum." That 
 personality, which our Lord had had from eternity in the 
 Holy Trinity, He had still after His incarnation. His 
 human nature subsisted in His divine, not existing as we 
 exist, but, so to say, grafted on Him, or as a garment in 
 which He was clad. We cannot conceive of an incarna- 
 tion, except in this way ; for, if His manhood had not 
 been thus after the manner of an attribute, if it had 
 been a person, an individual, such as one of us, if it had 
 been in existence before He united it to Himself, He 
 would have been simply two beings under one name, or 
 else, His divinity would have been nothing more than 
 a special grace or presence or participation of divine 
 glory, such as is the prerogative of saints. 
 
 He then is one, as He was from eternity, the same 
 " He " to whom also belong body and soul, and all their 
 powers and affections, as well as the possession of 
 divinity. He it is, God the Son, who was born, who had 
 a mother, who shed His blood, who died and rose again.
 
 294 SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF OUR LORD S MANHOOD. 
 
 His manhood loses the privilege of a personality of its 
 own, in order to gain the special prerogative of belong- 
 ing to the Second Person of the. Divine Trinity, and all 
 for our sake, that He may be the medium of a spiritual 
 union between us and His Father. 
 
 ^f This was the question which came into discussion in 
 the Nestorian controversy, when it was formally deter- 
 mined that 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, the 
 Word's blood, the Word's exaltation, and the Word's 
 or God's Mother, who was in consequence called 
 OeoroKos, the tessera on which the controversy mainly 
 turned. "The Godhead/' says Athan. elsewhere, "dwelt 
 in the flesh bodily ; which is all one with saying, that, 
 being God, He had a proper body, (iBiov,) and using this 
 as an instrument, opycivy, He became man, for our sakes; 
 and because of this things proper to the flesh are said 
 to be His, since He was in it, as hunger, thirst, suffer- 
 ing, fatigue, and the like, of which the flesh is capable, 
 SeKTitcrj while the works proper to the Word Himself, 
 as raising the dead, and restoring sight to the blind, 
 and curing the issue of blood, He did Himself through 
 His body, &c.' " Orat. iii. 31. vid. the whole passage, 
 which is as precise as if it had been written after the 
 Nestorian and Eutychian controversies, though without 
 the technical words then adopted. 
 
 2. He took on Him our fallen nature, vid. art. Flesh, 
 to which add here from Petavius, " Yerbum corpus et
 
 SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF OUR LORD'S MANHOOD. 295 
 
 naturam hominis ex eadem, queo in corruptelam deflux- 
 erat, massa sibi formare et assumere voluit; tametsi 
 in ea, unde genitus est Deus, carne Virginis repurga- 
 tum illud fuerit." Incarn. v. 14, 6. He says this, 
 quoting Irenaeus ; and elsewhere, quoting Leontius, 
 " Recte Leontius ejusmodi assumpsisse carne m asserit 
 Verbum, qualem habuit Adam post peccatum dam- 
 natus, et qualem nos habemus ex eadem massa pro- 
 creati." Incarn. x. 3, 8. Vid. on this subject Perrone 
 de Incarn, part ii. c. 2. Coroll. iv. 
 
 3. His manhood was subject to death, and to the 
 other laws of human nature. 
 
 ^| Athanasius, Orat. ii. 66, says that our Lord's body 
 was subject to death ; and so elsewhere, " His body, 
 as having a common substance with all men, for it was 
 a human body (though by a new marvel, it subsisted 
 of the Virgin alone), yet being mortal, died after the 
 common course of the like natures." Incarn. 20, 
 also 8, 18, init. Orat. iii. 56. And so rov avdpwirov 
 a-aOpwOevTa. Orat. iv. 33. And so S. Leo. in his Tome 
 lays down that in the Incarnation, " suscepta est ab 
 aeternitate mortalitas." Ep. xxviii. 3. And S. Austin, 
 "Utique vulnerable atque mortale corpus habuit" 
 [Christus], contr. Faust, xiv. 2. A Eutychian sect 
 denied this doctrine (the Aphthartodocetge), 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 
 they 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. art. Adam.
 
 296 SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF OUR LORD^S MANHOOD. 
 
 5T 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 Ca- 
 tholics maintaining the affirmative, as Athanasius, Orat. 
 i. 44. 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, did so by an act 
 of will in each particular case ', and this, lest it should 
 seem that He was moved by the Trddrj against His will 
 aicovaitos ; 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. Apoll. i. 17, and 
 that after the resurrection His body became incor- 
 ruptible, not according to nature, but by grace, vid. 
 Leont. de Sect. x. p. 530. Anast. Hodeg. c. 23. To 
 express their doctrine of the U7re/3$t>e? of our Lord's 
 manhood the Eutychians made use of the Catholic 
 expression "utvoluit," vid. Athan. I.e. Eutyches ap. 
 Leon. Ep. 21. "quomodo voluit et scit" twice; vid. 
 also Theod. Eranist. i. p. 10. ii. p. 105. Leont. contr. 
 Nest. i. p. 544. Pseudo-Athan. Serm. adv. Div. Haer. 
 viii. (t. 2. p. 560.) 
 
 4. Yet He suspended those laws, when He pleased. 
 
 If This our Lord's either suspense or permission, at 
 His will, of the operations of His manhood, is a great 
 principle in the doctrine of the Incarnation. " That 
 He might give proof of His human nature," says 
 Theophylact, on John xi. 34, " He allowed It to do 
 its own work, and chides It and rebukes It by the
 
 SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF OUR LORD*S MANHOOD. 297 
 
 power of the Holy Spirit. The Flesh then, not bearing 
 the rebuke, is troubled and trembles and thus gets the 
 better of Its grief." And S. Cyril: "When grief 
 began to be stirred in Him, and His sacred flesh was 
 on the verge of tears, He suffers it not to be affected 
 freely, as is our custom, but ' He was vehement 
 (eVeyS/at/A^craTo) in the Spirit/ that is, He in some way 
 chides His own Flesh in the power of the Holy Ghost ; 
 and It, not bearing the movement of the Godhead 
 united to It, trembles, &c. . . . For this I think is 
 the meaning of ' troubled Himself/ " fragm. in Joan, 
 p. 685. " Sensus corporei vigebant sine lege peccati, et 
 veritas affectionum sub moderamine Deitatis et mentis." 
 Leon. Ep. 35, 3. " Thou art troubled against thy 
 will ; Christ is troubled, because He willed it. Jesus 
 hungered, yes, but because He willed it ; Jesus slept, 
 yes, but because He willed it; Jesus sorrowed, yes, 
 but because He willed it ; Jesus died, yes, but because 
 He willed it. It was in His power to be affected so or 
 so, or not to be affected." Aug. in Joan. xlix. 18. The 
 Eutychians perverted this doctrine, as if it implied that 
 our Lord was not subject to the laws of human nature ; 
 and that He suffered merely "by permission of the 
 Word." Leont. ap. Canis. t. 1. p. 563. In like 
 manner Marcion or Manes said that His "flesh ap- 
 peared from heaven in resemblance, o>9 ^e'X^crey." 
 Athan. contr. Apoll. ii. 3. 
 
 51 " To be troubled was proper to the flesh," says 
 Athan., " but to have power to lay down His life, and 
 to take it again, when He will, was no property of 
 men, but of the Word's power. For man dies, not by
 
 298 SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF OUR LORD*S MANHOOD. 
 
 his own power, but by necessity of nature and against 
 his will ; but the Lord, being Himself immortal, but 
 having a mortal flesh, had power, as God, to become 
 separate from the body and to take it again, when He 
 would. Concerning this too speaks David in the 
 Psalm, Thou shatt not leave My soul in hell, neither 
 shalt Thou suffer Thy Holy One to see corruption. For 
 it beseemed, that the flesh, corruptible as it was, 
 should no longer after its own nature remain mortal, 
 but because of the Word who had put it on, should 
 abide incorruptible." Orat. iii. 57. 
 
 ^f This might be taken as an illustration of the 
 et ut voluit," vid. supr. p. 296. And so the expressions 
 in the Evangelists, "Into Thy hands I commend My 
 Spirit," " He bowed the head" " He gave up the 
 ghost," are taken to imply that His death was His free 
 act. vid. Ambros. in loc. Luc. Hieron. in loc. Matt, 
 also Athan. Serm. Maj. de Fid. 4. It is Catholic 
 doctrine that our Lord, as man, submitted to death of 
 His free will, and not as obeying an express command 
 of the Father. " Who," says S. Chrysostom on John 
 x. 18. Horn. 60. 2, "has not power to lay down His own 
 life ? for any one who will may kill himself. But He 
 says not this, but how ? ' I have power to lay it down 
 in such sense that no one can do it against My will. . I 
 alone have the disposal of My life/ which is not true of 
 us." And still more appositely Theophylact, " It was 
 open to Him not to suffer, not to die ; for being with- 
 out sin, He was not subject to death ... If then He 
 had not been willing, He had not been crucified." in 
 Hebr. xii. 2. " Since this punishment is contained in
 
 SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF OUR LORD'S MANHOOD. 299 
 
 the death of the body, that the soul, because it has 
 deserted God with its will, deserts the body against its 
 will . . . the soul of the Mediator proved how utterly 
 clear of the punishment of sin was its coming to the 
 death of the flesh, in that it did not desert the flesh un- 
 willingly, but because it willed, and when it willed, and 
 as it willed. . . And this did they specially admire, 
 who were present, says the Gospel, that after that 
 work, in which He set forth a figure of our sin, He 
 forthwith gave up the ghost. For crucified men were 
 commonly tortured by a lingering death. . . . But He 
 was a wonder, (miraculo fuit,) because He was found 
 dead." August, de Trin. iv. n. 16. 
 
 5. Though His manhood was of created substance, 
 He cannot be called a creature. 
 
 ^f Athan. seems to say, Orat. ii. 45, that it is both 
 true that " The Lord created Me," 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. The 
 difficulty may be viewed thus ; that our Lord, even as 
 to His human nature, is the natural, not the adopted, 
 Son of God, (to deny which is the error of the Adop- 
 tionists,) whereas no creature can be His natural and 
 true Son ; and again, that His human nature is 
 worshipped, which would be idolatry, if it were a 
 creature. The question is discussed in Petav. de
 
 300 SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF OUR LORI/S MANHOOD. 
 
 Incarn. vii. 6, who determines that the human nature, 
 though in itself a created substance, yet viewed as 
 deified in the Word, does not in fact exist as a creature. 
 Vasquez, however, considers that our Lord may be 
 called creature, viewed as man, in 3 Thorn. Disp. 66, and 
 also Eaynaud Opp. t. 2. p. 84, expressing his opinion 
 strongly. And Berti de Theol. Disc, xxvii. 5, who 
 adds, however, with Suarez after S. Thomas (in 3 Thorn. 
 Disput. 35. Opp. t. 16, p. 489,) that it is better to 
 abstain from the use of the term. Of the Fathers, S. 
 Jerome notices the doubt, #nd decides it in favour of 
 the term; "Since," he says, "Wisdom in the Pro- 
 verbs of Solomon speaks of Herself as created a 
 beginning of the ways of God, and many through fear 
 lest they should be obliged to call Christ a creature, 
 deny the whole mystery of Christ, and say that not 
 Christ, but the world's wisdom is meant by this 
 Wisdom, we freely declare, that there is no hazard in 
 calling Him creature, whom we confess with all the 
 confidence of our hope to be "worm," and "man," 
 and " crucified," and "curse." In Eph. ii. 10. He is 
 supported by Athan. Orat. ii. 46. Ep. Mg. 17. Expos. 
 F. 4 (perhaps), Serap. ii. 8, fin. Naz. Orat. 30, 2, fin. 38, 
 13. Nyss. in Cant. Horn. 13, t.i. p. 663,init. Cyr. Horn. 
 Pasch. 17, p. 233. Max. Mart. t. 2, p. 265. Damasc. 
 F. 0. iii. 3. Hil. de Trin. xii. 48. Ambros. Psalm. 
 118. Serm. 5. 25. August. Ep. 187, n. 8. Leon. 
 Serm. 77, 2. Greg. Mor. v. 63. The principal 
 authority on the other side is S. Epiphanius, who ends 
 his argument with the words, " The Holy Church of 
 God worships not a creature, - but the Son, who is
 
 SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF OUR LORDS MANHOOD. 301 
 
 begotten, Father in Son, &c." Haer. 69, 36. And S. 
 Proclus too speaks of the child of the Virgin as being 
 " Him who is worshipped, not the creature," Orat. v. 
 fin. 
 
 51 On the whole it would appear, (1.) that if "crea- 
 ture," like " Son/' be a personal term, then 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. Orat. ii. 47.) ; (3.) that since the flesh 
 is infinitely beneath His divinity, it is neither natural 
 nor safe to call Him a creature, (according to St. 
 Thomas's example, " non dicimus, quod ^Ethiops est 
 albus, sed quod est albus secunduin deutes ") ; and 
 (4.) that, if the flesh is worshipped, still it is wor- 
 shipped as in the Person of the Son, not by a separate 
 act of worship. " A creature worship not we," says 
 Athan., "perish the thought . . . but the Lord of 
 creation made flesh, the Word of God; for though the 
 flesh in itself be a part of creation, yet it has become 
 God's body . . . who so senseless as to say to the Lord, 
 Eemove Thyself out of the body, that I may worship 
 Thee ? " ad Adelph. 3. Epiphanius has imitated this 
 passage, Ancor. 51, introducing the illustration of a 
 king and his robe, &c. 
 
 5[ And hence Athanasius says, Orat. ii. 47, 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 above, that ".^Ethiops, 
 albus secundum dentes, not est albus." But why may 
 not our Lord be so called upon the principle of the com- 
 municatio Idiomatum, (vid. art.
 
 302 SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF OUR LORDS MANHOOD. 
 
 as He is said to be born of a Virgin, to have suffered, 
 &c ? The reason is this : birth, passion, &c. con- 
 fessedly belong to His human nature, without adding 
 " according to the flesh ; " but " creature " not im- 
 plying humanity, might appear a simple attribute of 
 His Person, if used without limitation. Thus, as S. 
 Thomas adds, though we may not absolutely say 
 " ^thiops iste albus," we may say " crispus est," or in 
 like manner, "he is bald;" since te crispus," or "bald," 
 can but refer to the hair. Still more does this remark 
 apply in the case of " Sonship," which is a personal 
 attribute altogether ; as is proved, says Petav. de 
 Incarn. vii. 6, fin. by the instance of Adam, who was in 
 all respects a man like Seth, yet not a son. Accord- 
 ingly, we may not call our Lord, even according to the 
 manhood, an adopted Son. 
 
 6. In like manner we cannot call our Lord a servant. 
 
 IF " The assumption of the flesh did not make of 
 the Word a servant," says A than. Orat. ii. 14. 
 OVK e$ov\ov TOV \6yov, though, as he said, Orat, ii. 1] , 
 the Word became a servant, as far as He was man. He 
 says the same thing, Ep. J3g. 17. So say Naz. Orat. 
 32, 18. Nyssen. ad Simpl. (t. 2, p. 471.) Cyril. Alex. 
 adv. Theodor. p. 223. Hilar. de Trin. xi. 13, 14. Am- 
 bros. 1. Epp. 46, 3. Athan. however seems to modify 
 the statement when he says, Orat. ii. 50, " Not that 
 He was servant, but because He took a servant's form." 
 Theodoret also denies it, Eran. ii. fin. And Damasc. 
 F. 0. iii. 21, who says, that our Lord " took on Him 
 an ignorant and servile nature," but " that we may 
 not call Him servant," though " the flesh is servile,
 
 SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF OUR LORD'S MANHOOD. 303 
 
 had it not been united to God the Word." The 
 parallel question of ignorance, here touched upon, has 
 come under our notice already, vid. art. Ignorance. 
 The latter view prevailed after the heresy of the 
 Adoptionists, who seem to have made " servant " 
 synonymous with " adopted son." Petavius, Incarn. 
 vii. 9, distinguishes between the essence or (what 
 is called) actus primus and the actus secundus; thus 
 water may be considered in its nature cold, though 
 certain springs are in fact always warm.
 
 304 SPIRIT OF GOD. 
 
 SPIRIT OF GOD. 
 
 THOUGH the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Trinity 
 and the characteristics of the Three Persons have been 
 taught from the first, there have been in the Church 
 certain difficulties in determining what passages of Scrip- 
 ture belong to each, what are the limits of their respec- 
 tive offices, and what are the terms under which their 
 offices and the acts of those offices are to be expressed. 
 Thus the word " Spirit," if the Fathers are to be our 
 expositors, sometimes means Almighty God, without 
 distinction of Persons, sometimes the Son, and some- 
 times and more commonly the Holy Ghost. And, while 
 the Son and Spirit divide, so to speak, the economy and 
 mission of mercy between Them, it is not always clear 
 how the line of division runs, and in what cases there is 
 no assignable line. 
 
 It is with a view to remove some portion of this 
 difficulty that Athan. 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 
 " Paraclete," or " of truth," or unless He has been 
 spoken of just before. This rule, however, goes but a 
 little way to remove the difficulty, as it exists in fact. 
 One important class of questions is suggested at once 
 by the Holy Ghost being another Paraclete, which
 
 SPIRIT OF GOD. 305 
 
 implies that that office is common to Him and the Son. 
 It is hence, I suppose, that in St. Paul's words, 
 "o tcvpios TO Trvev/Ma ea-riv," 2 Cor. iii. 17, Spirit is 
 understood of the third Divine Person by Origen. c. 
 Gels. vi. 70. Basil, de Spir. S. n. 52. Pseudo-Athan. 
 Comm. Ess. 6. But there are more important instances 
 than this. " Spirit " is used more or less distinctly of 
 our Lord's divine nature, whether in itself or as incar- 
 nate, in John vi. 64, Rom. i. 4, 1 Cor. xv. 45, 1 Tim. iii. 
 16, Hebr. ix. 14, 1 Pet. iii. 18, &c. Indeed, the early 
 Fathers speak as if the " Holy Ghost " which came 
 down on 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. Haer. v. 1. Cypr. Idol. Va-n. 6. 
 (p. 19. Oxf. Tr.) Lactaut. Instit. iv. 12. vid. also Hilar. 
 Trin. ii. 26. Athan. Xo^o? ev r5 TrvevpaTt eirXarre TO 
 ffw/j-a. Scrap, i. 31, fin. ev TU> \6yw r^v TO Trvev^a. ibid. iii. 
 
 6. And more distinctly even as late as S. Maximus, 
 ai>TOv, avTt, cnropas cruXXa/Sovaa TOV \6yov, tceicvTjKe. 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." Past. iii. 5. n. 
 5. The same use of " Spirit " for the Word or God- 
 head of the Word is also found in Tatian. adv. Grasc. 
 
 7. Athenag. Leg. 10. Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 10. 
 Tertull. Apol. 23. Lact. Inst. iv. 6. 8. Hilar. Trin. ix. 
 3. and 14. Eustath. apud Theod. Eran. iii. p. 235. 
 
 VOL. II. X
 
 306 SPIRIT OF GOD. 
 
 Athan. de Incarn. etc. Ar. 22. (if it be Athan.'s), contr. 
 Apol. i. 8. Apollinar. ap. Theod. Bran. i. p. 71. and the 
 Apollinarists passim. Greg. Naz. Ep. 101. ad Cledon. 
 p. 85. Ambros. Tncarn. 63. Severian. ap. Theod. 
 Eran. ii. p. 167. Vid. Grot, ad Marc. ii. 8. Bull. Def. 
 F. N. i. 2. 5. Constant. Prsef. in Hilar. 57, &c. 
 Montfaucon in Athan, Serap. iv. 19. 
 
 Phoebadius too, in his remarks on 2nd Confession of 
 Sirmium (the " blasphemia ") supr. vol. i. p. 116 note, 
 in condemning the clause, " Hominem suscepisse per 
 quern compassus est," as implying that our Lord's higher 
 nature was not divine, but of the nature of a soul, uses 
 the word " spiritus " in the sense of Hilary and the 
 Ante-Nicene Fathers. " Impassibilis Deus," he says, 
 " quia Deus Spiritns . . . non ergo passibilis Dei 
 Spiritus, licet in homine suo passus." 
 
 ^[ Again Athan. says that our Lord's Godhead was 
 the immediate anointing or chrism of the manhood He 
 assumed. " God needed not the anointing, nor was 
 the anointing made without God ; bat God both applied 
 it, and also received it in that body which was capable 
 of it." in Apollin. ii. 3. and TO '^pia-pa eyco 6 Ao7o<?, TO 
 Se xpiadev VTT' e/ioO 6 avQpcoTrcx;. Orat. iv. . 36. vid. 
 Origen. Periarch. ii. 6. n. 4. And S. Greg. Naz. still 
 more expressly, and from the same text as Athan., 
 " The Father anointed Him ' with the oil of gladness 
 above his fellows/ anointing the manhood with the 
 Godhead." Orat. x. fin. Again, " This [the Godhead] 
 is the anointing of the manhood, not sanctifying by an 
 energy as the other Christs [anointed ones], but by a 
 presence of that Whole who anointed, oXou TOI) -%plovTo<$ ;
 
 SPIRIT OF GOD. 307 
 
 whence it came to pass that what anointed was called 
 man and what was anointed was made God." Orat. 
 30. 20. "He Himself anointed Himself; anointing as 
 God the body with His Godhead, and anointed as man." 
 Damasc. F. 0. iii. 3. " Dei Filius, sicutpluviain 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 Orat. i. 47, according to 
 Luke iv. 18. Acts x. 38. 
 
 ^f Again, in explaining Matt. xii. 32, " Quicunque 
 dixerit verbum contra Filium, &c., he considers our 
 Lord to contrast the Holy Ghost with His own 
 humanity, vid. Orat. i. 50, but he gives other expo- 
 sitions in Serap. iv. 6, vid. supr. art. Scripture passages, 
 No. 10. 
 
 ^[ " The Spirit is God's gift," says Athan., 6eov Swpov, 
 Orat. ii. 18. And so S. Basil, Swpov TOV 0eov TO 
 TTvevfj-a. de Sp. S. 57, and more frequently the later 
 Latins, as in the Hymn, ' ' Altissimi Donum Dei ;" also 
 the earlier, e. g. Hil. de Trin. ii. 29. and August. Trin. 
 xv. n. 29, who makes it the personal characteristic of 
 the Third Person in the Holy Trinity ; " non dicitur 
 Verbum Dei, nisi Filius, nee Donum Dei, nisi Spiritus 
 Sanctus." And elsewhere, "Exiit, non quomodo 
 natus, sed quomodo datus, et ideo non dicitur Filius/' 
 ibid. v. 15, making it, as Petavius observes, His 
 eternal property, "ut sic procedat, tanquam donabile," 
 as being Love. Trin. vii. 13. 20. 
 
 ^[ It was an expedient of the Macedonians to deny 
 that the Holy Spirit was God because it was not usual 
 
 x 2
 
 308 SPIRIT OF GOD. 
 
 to call Him Ingenerate ; and perhaps to their form of 
 heresy, which was always implied in Arianism, and 
 which began to show itself formally among the Semi- 
 Arians ten years later, the Sirmian anathematism may 
 be traced ; " Whoso speaking of the Holy Ghost as 
 Paraclete, shall speak of the Ingenerate God," &c., supr. 
 vol. i. p. 113. They asked the Catholics whether the 
 Holy Spirit was Ingenerate, generate, or created, for into 
 these three they divided all things, vid. Basil, in Sabell. 
 eb Ar. Horn. xxiv. 6. But, as the Arians had first made 
 the alternative only between Ingenerate and created, and 
 Athan. de Deer. 28, supr. vol. i. p. 50, shows that 
 generate is a third idea really distinct from one and the 
 other, so S. Greg. Naz. adds proceeding, eKTropevrbv, as 
 an intermediate idea, contrasted with Ingenerate, yet 
 distinct from generate. Orat. xxxi. 8. In other words, 
 Ingenerate means, not only not generate, but not from 
 any origin, vid. August, de Trin. xv. n. 47, 8. 
 
 f " If the Word be not from God," says Athan. 
 a reasonably might they deny Him to be Son ; but if 
 He is from God, how see they not that what exists from 
 any, is the son of that from whom it is ?" Orat. iv. 15. 
 In consequence it is a very difficult question in theology, 
 why the Holy Spirit is not called a "/Son," and His 
 procession " generation." This was an objection of the 
 Arians, vid. ad Serap. i. 15 17, and Athan. only 
 answers it by denying that we may speculate. Other 
 writers apply, as in other cases, the theological language 
 of the Church to a solution of this question. It is 
 carefully discussed in Petav. Trin. vii. 13. 14. 
 
 If As the Arians objected, Orat. i. 14, that the
 
 SPIRIT OF GOD. 309 
 
 First and Second Persons of the Holy Trinity ought to 
 be considered brothers, a8e\<j>ol, so, in the course of 
 the controversy, did they say the same as to the Second 
 and Third, vid. Serap. i. . 15. iv. 2. 
 
 If " Is the Holy Spirit one," says Athan., " and the 
 Paraclete another, and the Paraclete the later, as not 
 mentioned in the Old Testament?" Orat. iv. 29. A 
 heresy of this kind is actually noticed by Origen, viz. 
 of those " qui Spiritum Sanctum alium quidem dicant 
 esse qui fuit in Prophetis, alium autem qui f uit in 
 Apostolis Domini nostri Jesu Christi." In Tit. t. 4. p. 
 695. Hence in the Creed, " who spake by the pro- 
 phets ;" and hence the frequent epithet given by 
 S. Justin to the Holy Spirit of Trpo^riKov ; e. g. when 
 speaking of baptism, Apol. i. 61 fin. Also Ap. i. 6. 
 13. Tryph. 49. On the other hand, he calls the Spirit 
 of the Prophets " the Holy Spirit," e. g. Tryph. 54, 61.
 
 310 THEOGNOSTUS. 
 
 THEOGNOSTUS. 
 
 THEOGNOSTUS was Master of the Catechetical school 
 of Alexandria towards the end of the 3rd century, 
 being a scholar, or at least a follower, of Origen. He is 
 quoted by Athanasius, as being one of those theologians 
 who, before the Council of Nicsea, taught that the ova La 
 of the Son was not created, but from the ova-la of 
 the Father. Athan. calls him " a learned man," Deer. 
 25, and " the admirable and excellent," Serap. iv. 9. 
 His seven books of Hypotyposes treated of the Holy 
 Trinity, of angels, and evil spirits, of the Incarnation 
 and the Creation. Photius, who gives this account, 
 Cod. 106, accuses him of heterodoxy on these points ; 
 which Athanasius in a measure admits, as far as the 
 wording of his treatise went, speaking of his " in- 
 vestigating by way of exercise." Eusebius does not 
 mention him at all.
 
 TRADITION. 311 
 
 TKADITION. 
 
 " SEE/' says Athanasius, ( ' we are proving that this 
 view has been transmitted from Fathers to Fathers ; but 
 ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, whom 
 can ye assign as Fathers to your phrases ? Not one 
 of the understanding and wise ; for all abhor you, but 
 the devil alone; none but he is your father in this 
 apostasy, who both in the beginning scattered on you 
 the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to 
 slander the Ecumenical Council for committing to 
 writing, not your doctrines, but that which ' from the 
 beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers 
 of the Word ' have handed down to us. For the faith 
 which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the 
 faith of the Catholic Church ; to assert this, the blessed 
 Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the 
 Arian heresy ; and this is a chief reason why these men 
 apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is 
 not the terms which trouble them, but that those terms 
 prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond 
 other heresies/' Deer. 27. 
 
 ^f Elsewhere he speaks of the Arians " forcing on the 
 divine oracles a misinterpretation according to their 
 own private sense," Orat. i. 37, and cries out, " Who 
 heard in his first catechizings that God had a Son, 
 without understanding it in our sense ? who, on the
 
 312 TRADITION. 
 
 rise of this odious heresy, was not at once startled at 
 what he heard as strange to him ?" Orat. ii. 34. 
 
 For parallel passages from Athan. and many others, 
 vid. arts. on. Definitions, Heretics, Private Judgment, Rule 
 of Faith, and Scripture. From these it would appear that 
 the two main sources of Revelation are Scripture and 
 Tradition ; that these constitute one Rule of Faith, and 
 that, sometimes as a composite rule^ sometimes as a 
 double and co-ordinate, sometimes as an alternative, 
 under the magisterium, of course, of the Church, and 
 without an appeal to the private judgment of indi- 
 viduals. 
 
 These articles, too, effectually refute the hypothesis 
 of some Protestants, who, to destroy the force of the evi- 
 dence in favour of our doctrine of Tradition, wish to 
 maintain that by Tradition then was commonly meant 
 Scripture ; and that when the Fathers speak of <: Evan- 
 gelical Tradition " they mean the Gospels, and when 
 they speak of "Apostolical" they mean the Epistles. 
 This will not hold, and it may be right, perhaps, here 
 to refer to several passages in illustration. 
 
 For instance, Irenaeus says, " Polycarp, . . whom 
 we have seen in our first youth, . . was taught those 
 lessons which he learned from the Apostles, which the 
 Church also transmits, which alone are true. All the 
 Churches of Asia bear witness to them ; and the 
 successors of Polycarp, down to this day, who is a 
 much more trustworthy and sure witness of truth 
 than Valentinus," &c. Hear. iii. 3, 4. Here is not 
 a word about Scripture, not a hint that by cc trans- 
 mission " and " succession " Scripture is meant. And
 
 TRADITION. 313 
 
 so Irenasus continues, contrasting " Traditio qua3 est ab 
 Apostolis " with Scripture ; " Neque Scripturis neque 
 Traditioni consentire ; " " Traditio Apostolorum ; " TO 
 Krjpv>yfj,a rwv an-ocrr6\wv Kal rr)V TrapaSoaiv' TJV arro rwv 
 d.7rocrr6\ci)v TTapd&ocTi.velXijfai' " Apostolicam Ecclesise 
 Traditionem ; " " veterem Apostolorum Traditionem." 
 Again, Theodoret says that the word deoroKo? was used, 
 Kara rrjv arrocrro\LKr)v Trapa&ocnv ; and no one would 
 say that Oeord/cos was in Scripture. Hasr. iv. 12. 
 And S. Basil contrasts ra e'/c T?)? eyrypdtyov 8tSao-aXta? 
 with ra etc Trjs TWV aTTOffroXuiv Tra^aSocreco?, de Sp. S. 
 n. 66. Presently he speaks of ovre rfy OeoTrveva-rov 
 ypa^ijs, ovre T&V dTroa-roKifcwv trapa^oaewv. n. 77. 
 Origen speaks of a dogma, ovre TrapaSiS6(j,evov VTTO rwv 
 arrocrr6\(i)v , ovre e^aivo^evov rrov rwv ypa*j>uv. Tom. 
 in Matth. xiii. 1. Vid. also in Tit. t. 4, p. 696, and 
 Periarchon. prasf. 2, and Euseb. Hist. v. 23. So in S. 
 Athanasius (de Synod. 21, fin.) we read of "the Apos- 
 tolical Tradition and teaching which is acknowledged 
 by all ; " and soon after, of a believing conformably rfj 
 real arro<rro\ucfi TrapaSocrei." 23, init. where 
 means doctrine, not books, for the Greek 
 would run rfj evayy. Kal rf t airoar. were the Gospels and 
 Epistles intended. (Thus S. Leo, "secundum evan- 
 gelicam apostolicamque doctrinam," Ep. 124, 1.) And 
 he makes 77 evayyeXifcr) jrapa&oais and 77 eKK\riaia<rriKr) 
 Trap, synonymous. Cf. contr. Apoll. i. 22, with ad 
 Adelph. 2, init. In like manner, Neander speaks of 
 two kinds of so-called Apostolical Traditions, doctrinal 
 and ecclesiastical, Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 333, transl. 
 And Le Moyne considers the Apostolical Tradition of S.
 
 314 TRADITION. 
 
 Hippolytus to be what S. Irenaeus means by it, doctrine, 
 as distinct from Scripture. Var. Sacr. t. 2. p. 1062. Vid. 
 also Pearson, Vindic. Ignat. i. 4, circ. fin. In like 
 manner, S. Augustine contrast* Apostolical Tradition 
 with writings, De Bapt. contr. Don. ii. 7, v. 23, and 
 he calls Infant Baptism an Apostolical Tradition. De 
 Peccat. Mer. i. 26. And S. Cyprian speaks of, not 
 only wine, but the mixed Cup in the Holy Eucharist, 
 . as an " Evangelical truth " and " tradition of the 
 Lord." Epist. 63. 14, 15. 
 
 Some instances indeed may be found in the Fathers of 
 Scripture considered as a kind of Tradition, which it is : 
 but these do not serve to make an unnatural or rather 
 an impossible interpretation imperative in the case of 
 such passages as the above. E. g. Athan. says, " The 
 Apostolical Tradition teaches, blessed Peter saying, 
 &c. and Paul writing, &c." Adelph. 6. Suicer refers 
 to Greg. Nys. de Virg. xi. fin. Cyril in Is. Ixvi. 5, p. 909. 
 Balsamon, ad Can. vi. Nic. 2, Cyprian, Ep. 74, &c.
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY IN UNITY. 315 
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY IN UNITY. 
 
 WHEN the Church speaks of Three Persons in One 
 Divine Essence, it seems at first sight that she must 
 imply and mean, if she would avoid contradiction of 
 ideas, either that the " Three " or that the " One " 
 expresses an abstraction of our minds. 
 
 If God is numerically one, if the Divine Essence is 
 undivided and simple in that strict sense in which we 
 speak of each man as an individual, then the term 
 Person must surely denote nothing more than some 
 aspect, character, office, or assemblage of attributes, 
 which belongs to the Almighty, as when our Lord is 
 spoken of as Prophet, Priest, and King, which are 
 mere titles or appellatives, not existing re but ratione. 
 But this is Sabellianism. 
 
 On the other hand, we may consider the Three Per- 
 sons actually to exist, not being mere ideas or modes 
 of our viewing God, but as realities, intrinsically distinct 
 from each other, separate and complete one by one, re 
 as well as ratione, Persons as we men are persons, or 
 at least in some analogous way. In that case we should 
 go on to consider, as a necessary inference, that 
 " One " expressed only a logical unity, Ens unum in 
 nmltis, a nature or class, as when we say " Man is 
 mortal ; " but this conclusion brings us either to 
 Arianism or to Tritheism.
 
 316 THE HOLY TRINITY IN UNITY. 
 
 There is no incompatibility of ideas involved in the 
 doctrine of Sabellian, Arian, or Tritheist, that is, no 
 mystery ; but the Catholic believes and holds as an 
 article of faith that the Divine Three, and again the 
 Divine One, both as One and as Three exist re not 
 ratione and therefore he has to answer the objection, 
 " Either the word ' Trinity ' denotes a mere abstraction, 
 or the word ' Unity ' does ; for it cannot be at once a fact 
 that Each of Three, who are eternally distinct one from 
 another, is really God, and also a fact that there really 
 is but one God." This however is the doctrine of the 
 creed of S. Athanasius, and certainly is to be received 
 and held by every faithful member of the Church, viz. 
 that the Father is God and all that God is, and so too 
 is the Son, and so too is the Holy Ghost, yet there is 
 but one God ; that the word God may be predicated of 
 an objective Triad, yet also belong to only One Being, 
 to a being individual and sole, all-perfect, self-exist- 
 ent and everlasting. 
 
 To state this in the language of Petavius, who is 
 the most learned expositor of the doctrine of the 
 Fathers as distinct from the medieval Church, " Non 
 omittendum Personas Tres, etsi invicem reapse distant, 
 re tamen idem esse cum essentia, et ab ea non nisi 
 ratione discrepare." de Trin. iii. 11, 7. It is a Three or 
 Triad, Each of whom is intrinsically and everlastingly 
 distinct from Each, (as Prophet, Priest, and King are 
 not, but as Priest and his people, King and his sub- 
 jects, Teacher and taught are), yet each one and the 
 same individual Divine Essence. 
 
 Let it be observed the mystery lies, not in any one
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY IN UNITY. 317 
 
 of the statements which constitute the doctrine, but in 
 their combination. The meaning of each proposition 
 is on a level with our understanding. There is no 
 intellectual difficulty in apprehending any one of them. 
 "God is a Father; God is a Son; God is a Holy 
 Spirit ; The Father is not the Son ; the Son is not the 
 Holy Ghost ; the Holy Ghost is not the Father : God 
 is numerically One ; there are not Three Gods." In 
 which of these propositions do we not understand what 
 is meant to be told us ? For devotion, then (and for 
 devotion we may conceive these high truths to be re- 
 vealed to us), the mystery is no difficulty; such un- 
 derstanding of its separate constituent propositions as 
 we have is sufficient for devotion, which lives and 
 thrives upon single objects rather than on a collection. 
 
 The difficulty then is not in understanding each 
 sentence of which the doctrine consists, but in its in- 
 compatibility, (taken as a whole, and in the only words 
 possible for conveying it to our minds) with certain of 
 our axioms of thought indisputable in themselves, but 
 foreign and inapplicable to a sphere of existences of 
 which we have no experience whatever. 
 
 "What in fact do we know of pure spirit ? What do 
 we know of the infinite ? Of the latter just a little, by 
 means of mathematical science, that is, under the con- 
 ditions of number, quantity, space, distance, direction, 
 and shape ; jus't enough to tell us how little we know, 
 and how little we are able to draw arguments and 
 inferences when infinites are in question. Mathematical 
 science tells us that one and one infinite do not, put 
 together, make two j that there may be innumerable
 
 318 THE HOLY TRINITY IN UNITY. 
 
 infinites, and that all put together are not greater than 
 one of them ; that there are orders of infinites. It is 
 plain we are utterly unable to determine what is 
 possible and what is impossible in this high region of 
 realities. And then again, in the case of infinitesi- 
 mals, do not three lines become one line when one is 
 placed upon another ? yet how can we say, supposing 
 them respectively coloured white, red, and blue, that 
 they would not remain three, after they had coalesced 
 into one, as they were really three before ? 
 
 Nor in its doctrine of infinites only, does mathe- 
 matical science illustrate the mysteries of Theology. 
 Geometry, for instance, may be used to a certain point 
 as an exponent of algebraical truth ; but it would be 
 irrational to deny the wider revelations of algebra, 
 because they do not admit of a geometrical expression. 
 The fourth power of a quantity may be received as a fact, 
 though a fourth dimension in space is inconceivable. 
 Again, a polygon or an ellipse is a figure different in 
 kind from a circle ; yet we may tend towards a concep- 
 tion of the latter by using what we know of either of 
 the former. Thus it is by economical expedients that 
 we teach and transmit the mysteries of religion, 
 separating them into parts, viewing them in aspects, 
 adumbrating them by analogies, and so approximating 
 to them by means of words which say too much or too 
 little. And if we consent to such ways of thought 
 in our scientific treatment of " earthly things/' is it 
 wonderful that we should be forced to them in our 
 investigation of " heavenly " ? 
 
 ^[ " You have the Son, you have the Father ; fear not
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY IN UNITY. 319 
 
 duality There is one God, because Father is 
 
 One, and Son is God, having identity as Son towards 
 Father The Father is the whole fulness of God- 
 head as Father, and the Son is the whole fulness of 
 
 Godhead as Son The Father has Being perfect 
 
 and without defect, being root and fount of the Son 
 and the Spirit ; and the Son is in the fulness of God- 
 head, a Living Word and Offspring of the Father 
 without defect. And the Spirit is full of the Son, not 
 being part of another, but whole in Himself; . . Let us 
 understand that the Face (nature elSo?) is One of 
 Three truly subsisting, beginning in Father, beaming 
 in Son, and manifested through Spirit." Pseudo-Ath. 
 c. Sab. Greg. 5 12. "I hardly arrive at contempla- 
 ing the One, when I am encircled with the radiance 
 of the Three; I hardly arrive at distinguishing the 
 Three, when I am carried back to the One. When I 
 have imaged to myself One of the Three, I think It the 
 whole, and my sight is filled, and what is more escapes 
 me. . . . And when I embrace the Three in my contem- 
 plation, I see but One Luminary, being unable to dis- 
 tinguish or to measure the Light which becomes 
 One." Greg. Naz. Orat. 40, 41. " The fulness of God- 
 head is in the Father, and the fulness of Godhead 
 is in the Son, yet not differing, but one Godhead. 
 .... If of all believers there was one soul and one 
 heart .... if every one who cleaves to the Lord 
 is one spirit, .... if man and wife are one flesh, if 
 all of us men in respect of nature are of one substance, 
 if Scripture thus speaks of human things, that many 
 are one, of which there can be no comparison with
 
 320 THE HOLY TRINITY IN UNITY. 
 
 things divine, how much more are Father and Son 
 one in Godhead, where there is no difference of sub- 
 stance or of will, &c." Ambros. de Fid. i. n. 18. 
 " This Trinity is of one and the same nature and sub- 
 stance, not less in Each than in All, nor greater in 
 All than in Each ; but so great in Father alone or in 
 Son alone, as in Father and Son together .... For 
 the Father did not lessen Himself to have a Son for 
 Himself, but as begat of Himself another self, as to 
 remain whole in Himself, and to be in the Son as great 
 as He is by Himself. And so the Holy Ghost, whole 
 from whole, doth not precede That whence He pro- 
 ceeds, but is as great with Him as He is from Him, 
 and neither lessens Him by proceeding nor increases 
 
 by adhering Moreover, He who hath given to 
 
 so many hearts of His faithful to be one heart, how 
 much more doth He maintain in Himself that these 
 Three and Each of Them should be God, and yet all 
 together, not three gods, but One God ? " August. 
 Ep. 170, 5. 
 
 51 It is no inconsistency to say that the Father is first, 
 and the Son first also, for comparison or number is nofe 
 equal to the expression of this mystery. Since Each is 
 0X09 $eo?, Each, as contemplated by our finite reason, at 
 the moment of contemplation excludes the Other. 
 Though we profess Three Persons, Person cannot be 
 made 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 our numbering, and that
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY IN UNITY. 321 
 
 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. 
 Vid. also Orat. iv. 1 and 2, where Athan. argues 
 against the Sabellian hypothesis as making the Divine 
 Nature compound (the Word being a something in It), 
 whereas the Catholic doctrine preserves unity because the 
 Father is the One God simply and entirely, and the Son 
 the One God singly and entirely (vid. next paragraph) ; 
 the Word not a sound, he says, which is nothing, nor 
 a quality which is unworthy of God, but a substantial 
 Word and a substantial Wisdom. " As," he continues, 
 "the Origin is One substance, so Its Word and Wis- 
 dom is One, substantial and subsistent ; for as from 
 God is God, and from Wise Wisdom, and from Rational 
 (\o<yifcov) a Word, and from Father a Son, so from a 
 subsistence is He subsistent, and from substance sub- 
 stantial and substantive, and from existing existent/' 
 &c. Vid. art. Coinherence. 
 
 ^f Nothing is more remarkable than the confident 
 tone in which Athan. accuses Arians, as in Orat. ii. 
 38, and Sabellians, Orat. iv. 2, of considering the 
 Divine Nature as compound, as if the Catholics were 
 
 VOL. II. Y
 
 322 THE HOLY TRINITY IN UNITY. 
 
 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. 
 art. Son of God. 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 
 oX,09 eo<?. 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 num- 
 ber in the sense in which we have earthly experience 
 of it. Thus, " being uncompounded in nature," says 
 Athan., "He is Father of One Only Son," Deer. 
 11. In truth the distinction into Persons, as Pe- 
 tavius remarks, " avails especially towards the unity 
 and simplicity of God," vid. de Deo ii. 4, 8. 
 
 5[ " The Father," says Athan., " having given all 
 things to the Son, in the Son still hath all things ; and 
 the Son having, still the Father hath them; for the 
 Son's Godhead is the Father's Godhead, and thus the 
 Father in the Son takes the oversight of all things." 
 Orat. iii. 36. Thus iteration is not duplication in 
 respect to God ; though how this is, is the inscrutable 
 Mystery of the Trinity in Unity. Nothing can be 
 named which the Son is in Himself, as distinct from 
 the Father ; but we are told His relation towards the 
 Father and distinct from and beyond that relation, He 
 is but the One God, who is also the Father. Such state- 
 ments are not here intended to explain, but to bring
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY IN UNITY. 323 
 
 home to the mind what it is which faith receives. We 
 say, " Father, Son, and Spirit," a transcendant Three, 
 but when we would abstract a general idea of 
 Them in order to number Them as we number 
 things on earth, our abstraction really does but 
 carry us back to the One Substance. There will be 
 different ways of expressing this, but such seems the 
 meaning of such passages as the following. " Those 
 who taunt us with tritheism must be told that we 
 confess One God not in number, but in nature. For 
 what is one in number is not really one, nor single in 
 nature ; for instance, we call the world one in number, 
 but not one in nature, for we divide it into its elements ; 
 and man again is one in number, but compounded of 
 body and soul. . . . If then we say that God is in nature 
 one, how do they impute number to us, who altogether 
 banish it from that blessed and spiritual nature ? For 
 number belongs to quantity, and number is connected 
 with matter, &c." Basil. Ep. 8, 2. " That which 
 saveth us, is faith, but number has been devised to 
 indicate quantity .... We pronounce Each of the 
 Persons once, but when we would number them up, 
 we do not proceed by an unlearned numeration to the 
 notion of a polytheism/' (vid. the whole passage,) ibid, 
 de Sp. S. c. 18. "Why, passing by the First Cause, 
 does he [S. John] at once discourse to us of the 
 Second? We will decline to speak of 'first' and 
 ( second ; ' for the Godhead is higher than number and 
 succession of times." Chrysost. in Joan. Horn. ii. 3 fin. 
 " In respect of the Adorable and most Royal Trinity, 
 ' first ' and ' second ' have no place; for the Godhead is 
 
 Y 2
 
 324 THE HOLT TRINITY IN UNITY. 
 
 higher than number and times." Isid. Pel. Ep. 3, 18. 
 " He calls," says S. Maximus, commenting on Pseudo- 
 Dionysius, " fecundity, the Father's incomprehensible 
 progression to the production of the Son and the Holy 
 Ghost ; and suitably does he say, ' as a Trinity/ since 
 not number, but glory is expressed in ' The Lord God 
 is one Lord/ " in Dionys. Opp. t. 2. p. 101. " We do 
 not understand ' one ' in the Divine Substance, as in 
 the creatures ; in whom what is properly one is not to 
 be seen ; for what is one in number, as in our case, is 
 not properly one. . . . It is not one in number, or as the 
 beginning of number, any more than It is as magnitude 
 or as the beginning of magnitude. . . . That One is 
 ineffable and indescribable ; since It is itself the cause 
 of all that is one, irdarjs evdSos evoTroiov." Eulog. ap. 
 Phot. 230. p. 864. " Three what ? I answer, Father 
 and Son and Holy Ghost. See, he urges, you have 
 said Three ; but explain Three what ? Nay, do you 
 number, for I have said all about the Three, when I 
 say, Father and Son and Holy Ghost. Not, as there 
 are two men, so are They two Gods ; for there is here 
 something ineffable, which cannot be put into words, 
 viz. that there should both be number, and not 
 number. For see if there does not seem to be number, 
 Father and Son and Holy Spirit, a Trinity. If Three, 
 Three what ? number fails. Then God neither is 
 without number, nor is under number. . . . They 
 imply number, only relatively to Each Other, not in 
 Themselves." August, in Joan. 39, 3 and 4. "We 
 say Three ' Persons/ as many Latins of authority have 
 said in treating the subject, because they found no 
 more suitable way of declaring an idea in words which
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY IN UNITY. 325 
 
 they had without words. Since the Father is not the 
 Son, and the Son not the Father, and the Holy Ghost 
 neither Father nor Son, there are certainly Three ; but 
 when we ask, Three what ? we feel the great poverty of 
 human language. However, we say Three ' Persons,' 
 not for the sake of saying that, but of not saying 
 nothing." Aug. deTrin. v. 10. " Unity is not number, 
 but is itself the principle of all things." Ambros. de 
 Fid. i. n. 19. " That is truly one, in which there is 
 no number, nothing in It beyond That which is. ... 
 There is no diversity in It, no plurality from diversity, 
 no multitude from accidents, and therefore no number 
 .... but unity only. For when God is thrice re- 
 peated, and Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is named, 
 three Unities do not make plurality of number in Him 
 which They are. . . . This repetition of Unities is itera- 
 tion rather than numeration. ... A trine numeration 
 does not make number, which they rather run into who 
 make some difference between the Three.''' Boeth. 
 Trin. unus Deus, p. 959. 
 
 T[ The. last remark is also found in Naz. Orat. 31, 18. 
 Many of these passages are taken from Thomassin 
 de Trin. 17. Petavius, de Trin. iv. 16. fin., quotes 
 St. Anselm as saying, " Though thfire be not 
 many eternities, yet, if we say eternity in eternity, 
 there is but one eternity. And so whatever is said of 
 God's essence, if returned into itself, does not increase 
 quantity, nor admit number. Since there is nothing 
 out of God, when God is born of God." Infinity does 
 not add to infinity ; the treatment of infinities is above 
 us. With this remark I end as I began.
 
 326 UNITY OF EMMANUEL. 
 
 UNITY OF EMMANUEL. 
 
 IT is well known that the illustration in the Athan. 
 Creed, " As the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, 
 so God and man is one Christ/' was taken by the 
 Monophysites to imply that the Divine Nature was 
 made dependent on the flesh, and was influenced and 
 circumscribed by it. Man is partly soul and partly 
 Body ; he is of body and soul, not body and soul ; but 
 Christ is wholly God, and wholly man, 0X09 eo?, 0X05 
 av6 pornos , Orat. iv. 35. He is as simply God as if 
 He were not man, as simply man as if He were not 
 God ; " unus atque idem est," says S. Leo, " et totus 
 hominis filius propter carnem, et totus Dei filius prop- 
 ter unam cum Patre deitatem," Ep. 165, 8. Athan. has 
 anticipated the heresy which denied this doctrine in a 
 very distinct passage written apparently even before 
 the rise of Arianism. " It is the function of the soul," 
 he says, " to contemplate in its thoughts what is within 
 its own body ; but not to operate in things beyond Us 
 own body, or to act by its presence on what is far from 
 the body. Certainly man at a distance never moves 
 or transposes such things ; nor could a man sit at home 
 and think of things in heaven, and thereby move the 
 sun, or turn the heaven round. . . . Not thus is the 
 Word of God in man's nature ; for He was not bound 
 np with the body (o-weSeSero), but rather He hath
 
 UNITY OF EMMAXUEL. 327 
 
 Himself dominion over it, so that He was not in it 
 only, but in all things ; nay, He was external to the 
 whole universe and in the sole Father," Incarn. Y. D. 
 17. The same passage occurs in Serm. Maj. de Fid. 11. 
 
 It could not be otherwise. The Divine Word was 
 not a mere presence or manifestation of God in man, 
 but He was God Himself incarnate. He was still 
 what He had ever been, and will be from first to 
 last, One, one and the same, impassible, immutable, in 
 His auroras, so to speak, as one of the Eternal Trinity. 
 His Divine Nature carried with It on His incarnation 
 that avTorrj? or Personality. So necessary, so cardinal 
 is this truth for the right holding of the great doctrine 
 under consideration, that the Alexandrians, St. Cyril 
 at least, and perhaps St. Athanasius, spoke of there 
 being only One Nature in the Incarnate Lord, by " one 
 Nature " meaning one Person (for Person and Nature 
 could not be divided ; and, if our Lord's Nature was 
 divine, His person was divine also), and by saying 
 " only one," meaning that, in comparison of the Divine 
 Person who had taken flesh, what He had taken was 
 not so much a nature, though it was strictly a nature, 
 as the substance of a manhood which was not substan- 
 tive. 
 
 Whereas the Apostle says, " One Lord Jesus 
 Christ," that unity does not lie in the unity of two na- 
 tures, but in His Person, which brings the two natures 
 together, which is and ever has been indivisible from 
 His Divine Nature, and has absorbed into Itself, and 
 is sovereign over, not destroying thereby, but per- 
 petuating, Its human nature.
 
 328 UNITY OF EMMANUEL. 
 
 U Hence, while it be true to say " Man is God," as 
 well as to say " God is man/' it is not true that " man 
 became God/' or " took on him divinity/' as it is true to 
 say " God became man/' because from first to last the 
 Son and Word is supreme, independent, and one and 
 the same; and it is a first point in all orthodox 
 teaching of the Incarnation to make this clear and 
 definite. He is " Jesus Christ," indeed, but at the same 
 time, " heri, et hodie, ipse et in ssecula ; " He is now, 
 and He was from everlasting. 
 
 ^[ " While He received no hurt (ovBev e/SXttTrrero) 
 Himself by bearing our sins in His body on the tree, we 
 men were redeemed from our affections (iradwv), Orat. 
 iii. 31. And so e/3\a7TTero /j,ev auro? ovSev, Incarn. 
 54, fjirj /SAaTTToyu.ei'O'?, ibid. 34. In these passages 
 avro9 means "in that which is Himself," i.e., in His 
 own Person or Divine Self, auro? being used when the 
 next century would have used " Person." " For the 
 sun, too, which He made and we see, makes its circuit 
 in the sky and is not defiled by touching, &c.," Incarn. 
 17. " As the rays of sun-light would not suffer at 
 all, though filling all things and touching bodies dead 
 and unclean, thus and much more the spiritual virtue 
 of God the Word would suffer nothing in substance 
 nor receive hurt, &c," Euseb. de Laud. Const, p. 536, 
 and 538 ; also Dem. Evang. vii. p. 348. " The insults 
 of the passion even the Godhead bore, but the passion 
 His flesh alone felt ; as we rightly say that a sunbeam 
 or a body of flame can be cut indeed by a sword but 
 not divided. ... I will speak yet more plainly ; the 
 Godhead [divinitas] was fixed with nails, but could not
 
 UNITY OF EMMANUEL. 329 
 
 Itself be pierced, since the flesh was exposed and offered 
 room for the wound, but God remained invisible, &c." 
 Vigil, contr. Eutych. ii. 9, p. 503 (Bibl. Patrum, 
 ed. 1624). " There were five together on the Cross, 
 when Christ was nailed to it ; the sun-light, which first 
 received the nails and the spear, and remained undivided 
 from the Cross and unhurt by the nails, next, &c./' 
 Anast. Hodeg. c. 12, p. 220 (ed. 1606); also p. 222.; 
 vid. also the beautiful passage in Pseudo-Basil : " God 
 in flesh, not working with aught intervening as in the 
 prophets, but having taken to Him a manhood con- 
 natural with Himself (o-vfufrvfj, i. e. joined to His 
 nature), and made one, and, through His flesh akin to 
 us, drawing up to Him all humanity. .... What was 
 the manner of the Godhead in flesh ? as fire in iron, 
 not transitively, but by communication. For the fire 
 does not dart into the iron, but remains there and 
 communicates to it of its own virtue, not impaired by 
 the communication, yet filling wholly its recipient." 
 Basil, t. 2, p. 596, ed. Ben. Also Ruffin. on Symb. 12 ; 
 Cyril, Quod unus,i.v. p. 776 ; Dam. F. 0., iii. 6 fin.; Aug. 
 Serm. 7, p. 26, ed. 1842, Suppl. It is to show at once 
 the intimacy of the union of natures and the absolute 
 sovereignty of the divine, that such strong expressions 
 are in use as God's body, God's death, God's mother, &c. 
 1[ 6eov TJV awfjia, Orat. iii. 31 ; also ad Adelph. 3. 
 ad. Max. 2, and so TTJV Trrw^evcracrav (fxjcnv Beov 6\rjv 
 jevofj-evt/v, c. Apoll. ii. 11. TO 7rd0o<? TOV \6yov, ibid. 16, 
 capl* TOV \6yov, Orat. iii. 34. au>na crofjilas, 53, also $eo? 
 ev a-aptcl, Orat. ii. 10 ; 0eo? ev a-ca^an, ii. 12, and 15 ; 
 ev arapKi, iii. 54 ; Xttyof ev av^aTi, Sent. D. 8 fin.
 
 330 VAPOUR. 
 
 X/>i0"roC ToO 6eov fiov, Ignat. Rom. 6. 6 debs 
 ireirovdev, Melit. ap. Anast. Hodeg. 12. Dei passiones, 
 Tertull. de Carn. Christ. 5. Dei interemptores, ibid. 
 caro Deitatis, Leon. Serin. 65 fin. Deus mortuus et 
 sepultus, Vigil, c. Eut. ii. p. 502. Vid. supr. p. 294. 
 Yet Athan. objects to the phrase, " God suffered in the 
 flesh," i. e. as used by the Apollinarians. Yid. coutr. 
 Apoll. ii. 13 fin. Vid. article pia <f>va-t<;. 
 
 VAPOUR. 
 
 Vid. art. airoppoij.
 
 TWO WILLS IN CHRIST. 331 
 
 TWO WILLS IN CHRIST. 
 
 THE Monothelite question does not come into the range 
 of doctrine included in the foregoing Treatises ; but 
 Athanasius has one passage bearing upon it, to which 
 I have added passages from Anastasius and others. 
 
 " And as to His saying, If it be possible, let the cup 
 pass, observe how, though he thus spake, He rebuked 
 Peter, saying, Thou savourest not the things that be of 
 God, but those that be of men. For He willed what 
 He deprecated, for therefore had He come ; but His 
 was the willing, (since for it He came,) but the terror be- 
 longed to the flesh. Wherefore as man He utters this 
 speech also, and yet both were said by the Same, to 
 show that He was God, willing in Himself, but when 
 He had become man, having a flesh that was in terror. 
 For the sake of this flesh He combined His own will 
 with human weakness, that destroying this affection 
 He might in turn make man undaunted in the thought 
 of death." Orat. iii. 57. 
 
 " I say not, perish the thought, that there are two 
 wills in Christ at variance with each other, as you con- 
 sider, and in opposition ; nor at all a will of flesh, or 
 of passion, or evil. . . But, since it was perfect man 
 that He took on Him, that He might save him whole, 
 and He is perfect in manhood, therefore we call that 
 sovereign disposal of His orders and commands by the
 
 TWO WILLS IN CHRIST. 
 
 name of the Divine will in Christ, and we understand 
 by human will the intellectual soul's power of willing, 
 given it after the image and likeness of God, and 
 breathed into it by God, when it was made, by means 
 of this power to prefer and to obey, and to do the 
 divine will and the divine orders. If then the soul 
 of Christ was destitute of the power of reason, 
 will, and preference, it is not indeed after the image 
 of God, nor consubstantial with our souls .... and 
 Christ cannot be called perfect in manhood. Christ 
 then, being in the form of God, has, according to the 
 Godhead, that lordly will which is common to Father 
 and Holy Ghost ; and, as having taken the form of a 
 servant, He does also the will of His intellectual and 
 
 immaculate soul, &c Else if this will be taken 
 
 away, He will according to the Godhead be subject, 
 and fulfil the Father's will as a servant .... as if there 
 were two wills in the Godhead of Father and of Son, 
 the Father's that of a Lord, the Son's that of a ser- 
 vant." Anast. Hodeg. i. p. 12. 
 
 ^1 It is observable that, as we see elsewhere Athan. 
 speaks of the nature of the Word, and not also of 
 the nature of man as united to Him, but of flesh, hu- 
 manity, &c. (vid. infra art. yut'a <u<m), so here, instead 
 of using the word " will," he speaks of the "Word's 
 willing and His human weakness, terror, &c. In an- 
 other place he says still more pointedly, " The will was 
 of the Godhead alone ; since the whole nature of the 
 Word was manifested in the second Adam's human 
 form and visible flesh." contr. Apoll. ii. 10. Yet else- 
 where, he distinctly expresses the Catholic view ; thus,
 
 TWO WILLS IN CHRIST. 333 
 
 " When He says, ' Father, if it be possible/ &c. and ' the 
 spirit is willing/ &c., He makes mention of two wills, 
 the one human, which belongs to the flesh, the other 
 Divine, which belongs to God ; for the human, because 
 of the weakness of the flesh, prays against the passion, 
 but His divine will is ready." de Incarn. c. Ar. 21. S. 
 Leo on the same passage begins, like Athan. in the first 
 passage, vaguely, but ends, as in Athan. 's second passage, 
 distinctly ; " The first request is one of infirmity, the 
 second of power ; the first He asked in our [charac- 
 ter], the second in His own .... The inferior will 
 gave way to the superior," &c. Serm. 56, 2. vid. a 
 similar passage in Nyssen, Antirrh. adv. Apol. 32. 
 vid. also 31. An obvious objection may be drawn 
 from such passages, as if the will 'f of the flesh " were 
 represented as contrary (vid. above, p. 331) to the 
 will of the Word. It is remarkable, as Petavius ob- 
 serves, Dogm. torn. v. ix. 9, that Athan. compares, Orat. 
 iii. 57, the influence of our Lord's divine will on His 
 human, (vid. the passage from the Incarn. 1. c.) to His 
 rebuke of St. Peter, "Get thee behind Me, &c." vid. 
 supr. Specialties, n. 4. But this is but an analogous 
 instance, not a direct resemblance. The whole of our 
 Lord's prayer is offered by Him as man, because it is 
 a prayer; but the former part expresses the sinless 
 infirmity of our nature, the latter is from His human 
 will expressing its acquiescence in His Father's, that 
 is, in His own Divine Will. " His Will," says S. Greg. 
 Naz. "was not contrary to God, being all deified, 
 o\ov."
 
 334 WISDOM. 
 
 WISDOM. 
 
 If ATHAN. considers that the Eternal Wisdom, one of 
 the proper appellatives of the Son, is that Wisdom 
 which in Prov. ix. 1, viii. 22, &c. is said to be created, 
 and that this creation is to be understood of His taking 
 on Him a created nature. He says, " Wisdom has made 
 herself a house ; it is plain that our body, which it took 
 upon itself to become man, is Wisdom's House." Orat. 
 ii. 44. And he is followed by St. Leo, " ut intra 
 intemerata viscera sedificante sibi sapentia domum, 
 Verbum caro fieret." Leon. Epist. 31, 2. Also Didymus 
 de Trin. iii. 3, p. 337 (ed. '1769) August. Civ. D. xvii. 
 20. Cyril, in Joann. iv. 4, p. 384, 5. Max. Dial. iii. 
 p. 1029 (ap. Theod. ed. Schulz) Hence Clem. Alex. 6 
 X(xyo<? eavTov ^evvq. Strom, v. 3. vid. art. Holy Spirit. 
 But without denying that our Lord is signified in the 
 above passage, as the Prototype, Author, and Pattern 
 of all wisdom, it is more natural to apply it, as Athan. 
 also does, to the attribute or grace called wisdom as 
 displayed in the creation, whether in the original crea- 
 tion or the new. Hence he says, " The Only-begotten 
 and very Wisdom of God is Creator and Framer of all 
 things ; for in Wisdom hast Thou made them all, he 
 says, and the earth is full of Thy creation. But that 
 what came into being might not only be, but be good, 
 it pleased God that His own Wisdom should con-
 
 WISDOM. 335 
 
 descend to the creatures, so as to introduce an impress 
 and semblance of Its Image in all in common and in 
 each, that what was made might be manifestly wise 
 works and worthy of God. 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." Orat. ii. 
 78. 
 
 ^ As Athan. in the above passage considers wisdom as 
 the image of the Creator in the Universe, so elsewhere he 
 explains it of the Church, de Incarn. contr. Ar. 6, if it be 
 his (and so Didym. Trin. iii. 3 fin.), where his teaching 
 about the Word is very much the same as in Orat. ii. 
 56. S. Jerome applies it to the creation of the new 
 man in holiness, " ( Put ye on Christ Jesus -,' for He 
 is the new man, in whom all we believers ought to be 
 clad and attired. For what was not new in the man 
 which was taken on Him by our Saviour ? . . . He there- 
 fore who can imitate His conversation and bring out in 
 himself all virtues, he has put on the new man, and 
 can say with the Apostle, ' Not I, but Christ liveth 
 in me/ . . . Only in great deeds and works the word 
 ' creation ' is used. . . The new man is the great work 
 of God, and excels all other creatures, since he is said to 
 be framed, as the world is said to be, and is created the 
 beginning of God's ways, and in the commencement 
 of all the elements." in Eph. iv. 23, 24. Naz. alludes to 
 the interpretation by which Wisdom is the plan, system,
 
 336 WISDOM. 
 
 or the laws of the Universe, Orat. 30, 2, though he does 
 not so explain it himself. Epiphanius says, " Scrip- 
 ture has nowhere confirmed this application of Prov. 8. 
 22, nor has any Apostle referred it to Christ." (vid. 
 also Basil, contr. Bunom. ii. 20.) He adds, "How 
 many wisdoms of God are there, improperly so called ! 
 but One Wisdom is the Only-begotten, not improperly 
 so called, but in truth .... The very word ' wisdom ' 
 does not oblige me to speak of the Son of God." Haer. 
 69, pp. 743 745. He proceeds to show how it may 
 apply to Him. 
 
 If Didymus argues at length in favour of interpret- 
 ing the passage of created wisdom, Trin. iii. 1. c. He 
 says that the context makes this interpretation neces- 
 sary, as speaking of " the fear of God " being the 
 " beginning " of it, of " doing it," and of " kings and 
 rulers " reigning by means of it. Again it is said that 
 wisdom was with the Creator who was Himself the 
 Son and Word. " The Son and Word, the Framer of all 
 seeing and being able from the first, long suffering and 
 waiting for repentance in the unrighteous and wrong- 
 thinking multitude, when He had finished all, delighted 
 in wisdom which was in His creatures and was glad in 
 it, rejoicing in His own work." p. 336. He contrasts 
 with this the more solemn style used by the sacred 
 writer when he speaks of the Uncreated Wisdom ; 
 VTrep^vws Kal wsirep VTT e/eTrA^e&j? 0av/j,d(ov dvexfrdey- 
 ryerai, e. g. Prov. xxx. 3, p. 338.
 
 THE WORD. 337 
 
 THE WORD 
 
 LOGOS, verbum, being a term already used in the 
 schools of heathen philosophy, was open to various 
 misunderstandings on its appearance in the theology of 
 Revealed teaching. In the Church it was both syno- 
 nymous with and corrective of the term " Son " but 
 heretics had almost as many senses of the term as they 
 had sects. 
 
 51 It 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. 102, n. 1 1 . "If God is the Father of a Word, 
 why is not He who is begotten a Son ? " de Deer. 
 17 : Orat. iv. 12. " 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. 78; 
 and Dionysius, " SffTtv 6 fiev olov Trarrjp 6 vovs TOV \6<yov, 
 Sent. Dion. 23, fin. Petavius discusses this subject 
 accurately with reference to the distinction between 
 Divine generation and Divine Procession, de Trin. vii, 
 14. 
 
 51 But the heretics, says Athan., " dare to separate 
 Word and Son, and to say that the Word is one and 
 the Son another, and that first was the Word and then 
 the Son. Now their presumption takes various forms ; 
 for some say that the man whom the Saviour assumed 
 
 VOL. II. Z
 
 338 THE WORD. 
 
 is the Son ; and others both that the man and the 
 Word then became Son when they were united. And 
 others say that the Word Himself then became Son 
 when He became man ; for from being Word, they say, 
 He became Son, not being Son before, but only Word." 
 Orat. iv. 15. The Valentinians, in their system of 
 Eons, had already divided the Son from the Word ; but 
 they considered the fAovoyevrjs first, the \6yos next. 
 
 The title " Word " implies the ineffable mode of the 
 Son's generation, as distinct from material parallels, 
 vid. Gregory Nyssen, contr. Eunom. iii. p. 107 ; Chry- 
 sostom in Joan. Horn. 2, 4 ; Cyril Alex. Thesaur. 5, 
 p. 37. Also it implies that there is but One Son. 
 
 ^I " As there is one Origin," says Athan., " and there- 
 fore one God, so one is that Substance and Subsistence 
 (ova La KOI vTToaracris} which indeed and truly and really 
 is, and which said Jam that Jam, and not two, that there 
 be not two Origins ; and from the One, a Son in nature 
 and truth is Its proper Word, Its Wisdom, Its Power, 
 and inseparable from It. And as there is not another 
 substance, lest there be two Origins, so the Word 
 which is from that One Substance has no dissolution, 
 nor is a sound significative, but is a substantial Word 
 and substantial Wisdom, which is the true Son. For 
 were He not substantial, God would be speaking into 
 the air, and having a body in nothing different from that 
 of men ; but since He is not man, neither is His Word 
 according to the infirmity of man. For as the Origin 
 is one Substance, so Its Word is one, substantial, and 
 subsisting, and Its Wisdom. For as He is God from 
 God, and Wisdom from the Wise, and Word from the
 
 THE WORD. 339 
 
 Rational, and Son from Father, so is He from Subsis- 
 tence Subsistent, and from Substance Substantial and 
 Substantive, and Being from Being." Orat. iv. 1. 
 
 For the contrast between the Divine Word and the 
 human which is Its shadow, vid. also Orat. iv. 1, above, 
 Iren. Hser. ii. 13, n. 8. Origen. in Joan. t. i., p. 23, 25, 
 Euseb. Demonstr. v. 5, p. 230 ; Cyril. Cat. xi. 10 ; Basil, 
 Horn. div. xvi. 3 ; Nyssen contr. Eunom. xii. p. 350. 
 Orat. Cat. i. p. 478 ; Damasc. F. 0. i. 6 ; August, 
 in Psalm. 44, 5. 
 
 ^J " Men have many words, and after those many, not 
 any one of them all ; for the speaker has ceased, and 
 thereupon his word fails. But God's Word is one and 
 the same, and as it is written, remaineth for ever, not 
 changed, not first one and then another, but existing 
 the same always. For it behoved that God being one, 
 one should be His Image, one His Word, one His Wis- 
 dom." Orat. ii. 36. vid. contr. Gent. 41. ad Ep. Mg. 16. 
 Epiph. Heer. 65. 3. Nyss. in Eun. .xii. p. 349. Origen 
 (in a passage, however, of questionable doctrine) says, 
 ' ' as there are gods many, but to us one God the Father, 
 and many lords, but to us one Lord Jesus Christ, so 
 there are many words, but we pray that in us may exist 
 the Word that was in the beginning, with God, and 
 God," in Joan. torn. ii. 3. " Many things, it is acknow- 
 ledged, does the Father speak to the Son," say the 
 Semi-Arians at Ancyra, "but the words which God 
 speaks to the Son are not sons. They are not sub- 
 stances of God, but vocal energies; but the Son, 
 though a Word, is not such, but, being a Son, is a sub- 
 stance." Epiph. Heer. 73. 12. The Semi-Arians are 
 
 z 2
 
 340 THE WORD. 
 
 here speaking against Sabellianism, which took the 
 same ground here as Arianism. 
 
 ^[ Vid. the article on the Nicene Tests for those ante- 
 Nicene theologians, who, though they undoubtedly were 
 upholders of the Homoiision and good Catholics when 
 they wrote, nevertheless seem to have held that the 
 Word, after existing from eternity, was born to be a 
 Son at the beginning and on the beginning of time, 
 and then became the Creator, the Pattern, the con- 
 servative power of the whole universe. These writers 
 were such as Justin, Tatian, Tertullian, Novatian, &c. 
 There was a parallel theory to theirs, and by which they 
 were apparently influenced, in the heathen and Jewish 
 schools. The view of the Logos as eVSta#eTO<? and as 
 7jy>o<opto9, as the Word conceived and the Word 
 uttered, the Word mental and the Word active and 
 effectual to distinguish the two senses of Logos, 
 thought and speech came from the Stoics, and is 
 found in Philo, and was under certain limitations 
 allowed in Catholic theology. Damasc. F. 0. ii. 
 21. To use, indeed, either of the two absolutely 
 and to the exclusion of the other, would have involved 
 some form of Sabellianism, or Arianism, as the case 
 might be ; but each might correct the defective sense 
 of either. That the use was not oversafe would appear 
 from its history in the Church, into which the above 
 theologians, by their mode of teaching the <yevvr)a-is of 
 the Word, introduce us. Theophilus does not scruple, 
 in teaching it, to use the very terms, endiathetic and 
 prophoric. God made all things out of nothing," he 
 says. ..." Having His own Word endiathetic in His
 
 THE WORD. 341 
 
 own womb, He begat Him together with His own Wis- 
 dom, bringing Him forth before the universe was." 
 Again he speaks of " the Word of God, who also 
 is His Son, who was ever (SiairavTcx;) cndiatkctic in 
 the heart of God, . . . God begat Him to be prophoric, 
 the first-born of all creation." ad Autol. ii. 10, 22. 
 
 While S. Theophilus speaks of our Lord as both en- 
 diathetic and prophoric, S. Cyril seems to consider Him 
 endiathetic,in Joan. i. 4, p. 39, though he also says, " This 
 word of ours, Trpoffropttcbs, is generated from mind and 
 unto mind, and seems to be other than that which stirs in 
 the heart, &c., &c. ... so too the Son of God proceed- 
 ing from the Father without division, is the expression 
 and likeness of what is proper to Him, being a subsistent 
 Word, and living from a Living Father." Thesaur. 
 p. 47. When the Fathers deny that our Lord is the 
 7rpo0opto? ^0709, they only mean that that title is not, 
 even as far as its philosophical idea went, an adequate 
 representative of Him, a word spoken being insubstan- 
 tive, vid. Athan. Orat. ii. 35. Hil. de Syn. 46. Cyr. 
 Catech. xi. 10. Damas. Bp. ii. p. 203, "nee prolativum, 
 ut generationem ei demas," for this was the Arian doc- 
 trine. The first Sirmian Council of the Arians anathema- 
 tizes those who use of the Son either name. So does 
 the Arian Macrostich. ' ' The Son," said Eunomius, " is 
 other than the endiathetic Word, or Word in intellec- 
 tual action, of which partaking and being filled He is 
 called the Prophoric Word, and expressive of the 
 Father's substance, that is, the Son." Cyril in Joan, 
 p. 31. The Gnostics seem to have held the Xtfyo? TT/JO- 
 s. Iren. Haer. ii. 12, n. 5. Marcellus is said by
 
 342 THE WORD. 
 
 Eusebius to have considered our Lord as first the one 
 and then the other. Eccl. Theol. ii. 15. Sabellius 
 thought our Lord the TrpofopiKc?, according to Epiph. 
 Hger. p. 398. cf. Damasc. Hser. 62. Paul of Samosata the 
 evSidQeros. Epiph. Hasr. 65, passim. Eusebius, Eccles. 
 Theol. ii. 17, describes our Lord as the irpofyopiicos 
 while disowning it. 
 
 IT Athan. speaks, contr. Gent, of man as " having " 
 besides grace, of the Giver, also his own natural 
 virtue proper from the Father's Word;" of the 
 mind "seeing the Word, and in Him the Word's 
 Father also," 2 ; of " the way to God being, not as 
 God Himself, above us and far off, or external to 
 us, but in us," 30, &c., &c. vid. also Basil, de Sp. S. 
 n. 19. Athan. also speaks of the seed of Wisdom as 
 being " a reason combined and connatural with every- 
 thing that came into being, which some are wont to 
 call seminal, inanimate indeed and unreasoning and 
 unintelligent, but operating only by external art ac- 
 cording to the science of Him who sowed it." contr. 
 Gent. 40. 
 
 This is drawn out somewhat differently, and very 
 strikingly in contr. Gent. 43, &c. The Word indeed is 
 regarded more as the Governor than as the Life of the 
 world, but He is said to be, 6 7rapaSoo7roio<? ical 0av/j,a- 
 TOTTOio? rot) 6eov ^6709 <j>a>T%(ov fcai faoiroitov .... 
 acrTc3 rrjv ISlav evepyeiav d-Tro&Sou?, &c. 44. Shortly 
 before the Word is spoken of as the Principle of per- 
 manence, 41 fin. 
 
 H " For it was fitting," says Athan. above, "whereas 
 God is One, that His Image should be One also, and
 
 THE WORD. 343 
 
 His Word One, and One His Wisdom. Wherefore I am 
 in wonder how, whereas God is One, these men, after 
 their private notions, introduce many images and 
 wisdoms and words, and say that the Father's proper 
 and natural Word is other than the Son, by whom He 
 even made the Son, and that He who is really Son is 
 but notionally called Word, as vine, and way, and 
 door, and tree of life ; and that He is called Wisdom 
 also only in name, the proper and true Wisdom of the 
 Father, which co-exists ingenerately with Him, being 
 other than the Son, by which He even made the Son, 
 and named Him Wisdom as partaking of Wisdom." 
 Orat. ii. 37. That is, they allowed Him to be really 
 the Son, though they went on to explain away the 
 name, and argued that He was but by a figure the 
 Word, TroXXol \6yoi, since these were, and He was 
 not ovS* e/c 7ro\\a)v efc, Sent. D. 25. Also Ep. 
 .ZEg. 14 ; Origen in Joan. torn. ii. 3 ; Euseb. De- 
 monstr. v. 5, p. 229, fin.; contr. Marc. p. 4, fin.; 
 contr. Sabell. i. p. 4. ; August, in Joan. Tract, i. 8. Also 
 vid. Philo's use of \6yoi for Angels as commented on 
 by Burton, Bampt. Lect. p. 556. The heathens called 
 Mercury by the name of \6yos. Vid. Benedictine note 
 f. in Justin, Ap. i. 21. 
 
 If " If the Wisdom which is in the Father is other 
 than the Lord, Wisdom came into being in Wisdom ; 
 and if God's Word is Wisdom, the Word too has 
 come into being in a Word ; and if God's Word is 
 the Son, the Son too has been made in the Son." 
 Ep. ^Eg. 14. vid. also, Deer. 8, and Orat. iii. 2, 
 64. And so S. Austin, " If the Word of God was
 
 344 THE WORD. 
 
 Himself made, by what other Word was He made ? 
 If you say, that it is the Word of the Word, by whom 
 that Word is made, this I say is the only Son of God. 
 But if you say the Word of the Word, grant that He is 
 not made by whom all things are made ; for He could 
 not be made by means of Himself, by whom are made 
 all things/' in Joan. Tract, i. 11. Vid. a parallel 
 argument with reference to the Holy Spirit. Athan. 
 Serap. i. 25.
 
 ANNOTATIONS 
 
 
 ON GREEK TERMS IN THE FOREGOING TREATISES 
 
 ALPHABETICALLY ARRANGED.
 
 THE 'Ayevvi]rov } OR INGENERATE. 347 
 
 The 'Ayevvyrov, or Ingenerate. 
 
 IT had been usual in the schools of Philosophy, as 
 we contrast Creator and creatures, the Infinite and the 
 finite, the Eternal and the temporal, so in like manner to 
 divide all beings into the Unoriginate or Ingenerate, the 
 avapxa or dyevrjTa, on the one hand, and those on the 
 other which have an origin or beginning. Under the 
 ingenerate, which was a term equivalent to " uncreate," 
 fell, according as particular philosophies or heresies 
 determined, the universe, matter, the soul of man, as 
 well as the Supreme Being, and the Platonic ideas. 
 Again, the Neoplatonists spoke of Three Principles as 
 beyond time, that is, eternal, the Good, Intellect, and 
 the Soul of the world. (Theod. Affect. Cur. ii. p. 750.) 
 Plotinus, however, in his Enneads, seems to make Good 
 the sole apxn ', y ^PX*! wyevvTjTos, (5. Enn. iv. 1,) while 
 Plato says, et're ap^rfv eire apyas (Theod. ibid. p. 749, 
 Tim. p. 48), and in his Phaedrus, p. 246, he calls the 
 soul of man ingenerate or a^kviyrov. The Valentinians 
 (Tertull. contr. Valent. 7, and Epiph. Hser. 31, 10), 
 and Basilides (Epiph. Hser. 24) applied the term to the 
 Supreme God. The word thus selected to denote the 
 First Principle or Cause, seems to have been spelt some- 
 times with one v, sometimes with two. Vid. art. yevrjTo?. 
 ^[ And so too with Christian writers, and with like 
 variety in the spelling, this was the word expressing
 
 348 THE 'A.yevvr)Tov, on INGENERATE. 
 
 the contrast between the First Cause or causes, and all 
 things besides. Ignatius distinctly applies it to our 
 Lord in His Divine Nature, doubling the v in the Cod. 
 Med. " There is One Physician, generate and ingene- 
 rate, . . . from Mary and from God." (Ephes. 7.) vid. 
 Athan. Syn. 47. Theophilus says, o <yevr)To<j KOI 
 TrpocrSe??? ecrrf o 8e dyevrjros ouSe^o? TrpoaSetrat, (ad 
 Autol. ii. 10.) Clement of Alexandria, ev TO dyevtjTov, in 
 contrast to our Lord (Strom, vi. 7, p. 769). Dionysius 
 Alex, even entertains the hypothesis that dyevvrjaia 
 is the very ovcria of God (Euseb. Prsep. vii. 19), which 
 the Arians took advantage of for the purposes of their 
 heresy, (vid. Epiph. Haer. 76,) laying it down as a 
 fundamental axiom that nothing yevvtjTov could be 
 God. Hence Eusebius of Nicomedia, in the beginning 
 of the controversy, rested his heresy on the dictum, 
 ev TO dyevvrjTov, adding ev Se TO vir avrov d\r)6a><;, /cat 
 OVK ef;' ovcrta? avrov. Theod. Hist. i. 5. Eusebius of 
 Csesarea too speaks of the Supreme Being as dyevvijTos 
 KOI To!)v oXcav Troirjrrjs deof. (Ev. Dem. iv. 7, p. 167.) 
 
 The word apxn expressed the same attribute of the 
 Divine Being, and furnished the same handle to the 
 Arian disputant for his denial of our Lord's Divinity. 
 The dp'xr} of all was dvapxos ; how then could our 
 Lord be the ap^n, that is, God, if He was a Son ? 
 But the solution of both forms of the question was 
 obvious, as easy as that of the stock fallacies inserted, 
 half as exercises, half as diversions for the student, to 
 relieve a dry treatise on Logic. It was enough for 
 Catholics to answer that dp^f) had notoriously two 
 meanings, origin and beginning ; that in the philoso-
 
 THE 'AyevvrjTov, OR INGENERATE. 349 
 
 phical schools these senses were understood to go 
 together, but that Christianity had introduced a sepa- 
 ration of them ; that our Lord's Sonship involved His 
 having no beginning because He was God, but His 
 having an origin, because He was Son. And in like 
 manner, the Son of God was, as God, ingenerate, that 
 is without a beginning, and as Son generate, that is, 
 with an origin. 
 
 Thus Clement calls Him avap^of dp^r), and Arius 
 scoffingly dyevvyToyevijs. 
 
 As to the assumption that nothing generate could 
 be God, Athan. maintains on the contrary that our 
 Lord cannot but be God because He is generate, vid. 
 Art. Son,
 
 350 THE ' Aeiyevves. 
 
 The ' 
 
 ATHAN., as the other Fathers, insists strongly on the 
 perfection and the immutability of the Divine Being ; 
 from which it follows that the birth of the Son must 
 have been from eternity, for, if He exists now, He must 
 have existed ever. "' I am the Lord, I change not." It 
 was from dimness and inaccuracy even in orthodox 
 minds, in apprehending this truth, that Arianism arose 
 and had its successes. 
 
 Athan. says, "Never was the substance of the 
 Father incomplete, so that what belonged to it should 
 be added afterwards j on the contrary, whereas it 
 belongs to men to beget in time, from the imperfection 
 of their nature, God's offspring is eternal, for God's 
 nature is ever perfect." Orat. i. 14. (Disc. n. 24.) 
 " Though a parent be distinct in time from his son, as 
 being man, who himself has come into being in time, 
 yet he too would have had his child ever co-existent 
 with him except that his nature was a restraint, and 
 made it impossible. Let these say what is to restrain 
 God from being always Father of the Son ? " Orat. i. 
 26,27; iv. 15. 
 
 "Man," says S. Cyril, inasmuch as He had a 
 beginning of being, also has of necessity a beginning 
 of begetting, as what is from Him is a thing generate, 
 but .... if God's substance transcend time, or
 
 THE 'Aei76W69. 351 
 
 origin, or interval, His generation also will transcend 
 these; nor does it deprive the Divine Nature of the 
 power of generating, that He doth not generate in time. 
 For other than human is the manner of divine gene- 
 ration ; and together with God's existing is His 
 generating implied, and the Son was in Him by gene- 
 ration, nor did His generation precede His existence, 
 but He was always, and that by generation." Thesaur. 
 v. p. 35. vid. also p. 42, and Dialog, 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. Hser. 
 76, p. 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 aa 
 not dre\ri Trporepov, elra re\etov, wa-Trep VO/JLOS rrjs 
 77/xerepa9 fyevveaecas. Orat. 20, 9, fin. In like manner, 
 S. Basil argues against Eunomius, that the Son is 
 reXeto?, because He is the Image, not as if copied, 
 which is a gradual work, but as a ^apaicrr^p, or im- 
 pression 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. 
 
 It follows from this perfection and unchangeableness 
 of the Divine Nature, that, if there is in the begin- 
 ning a gennesis of the Son, it is continual : that is the 
 doctrine of the deiyevves. Athan. says that there is no
 
 352 THE 
 
 Trav\a rrjs yewr/ceas. Orat. iv. 12. Again, " Now man, 
 begotten in time, in time also himself begets the 
 child; and whereas from nothing he came to be, 
 therefore his word 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 and is everlastingly with the Father, as 
 radiance from light." vid. Orat. ii. 35. 
 
 U In other words, by the Divine <yevwrjo-i<; is not meant 
 so much an act, as 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. Hist. i. 4, p. 749, and 
 Eunomius argues that, " if the Son is co-eternal with 
 the Father, the Father was never such in act, evepybs, 
 but was dpyos." Cyril. Thesaur. v. p. 41. S. Cyril 
 answers that works, epya, are made e^aadev, from 
 witliout; but that our Lord 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 
 Svvd/Aei re Kal evepyela iraTrjp. Dial. 2, p. 458. Victo- 
 rinus in like manner says, that God is "potentia et 
 actione Deus sed in aeterna," Adv. Ar. i. 33 ; and he 
 quotes S. Alexander, speaking apparently in answer to 
 Arius, of a " semper generans generatio." And Arius 
 scoffs at deiyevvrjs and dyevvrjro'yeviis. Theod. Hist. i. 
 4, p. 749. And Origen had said, 6 a-wrrjp del <yevvarai. 
 ap. Kouth. Reliq. t. 4, p. 304, and S. Dionysius calls 
 Him the Radiance, dvap^ov KOI deiyeves. Athan. S. D. 
 15. And Athan. " As the Father is good always and by 
 nature, so is He always generative by nature." Orat.
 
 THE 'AfirnW?. 353 
 
 iii. 66. S. Augustine too says, " Semper gignit Pater, 
 et semper nascitur Films." Ep. 238, n. 24. 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 (Kvpiws) 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, reXo?, and is perfect, 
 reXetov." Opusc. 26. Vid. art. Father Almighty. 
 
 Didymus however says, ov/c en ^evvarat,, de Trin. iii. 
 3, p. 338, but with the intention of maintaining our 
 Lord's perfection and eternity, as Hil. Trin. ii. 20. 
 Naz. Orat. 20, 9 fin. Basil, de Sp. S. n. 20 fin. It is 
 remarkable that Pope Gregory too objects to " Semper 
 nascitur " as implying imperfection, and prefers Semper 
 natus est. Moral. 29, 1 ; but this is a question of words. 
 
 VOL. II.
 
 354 
 
 THIS epithet, in its passive sense, as used by St. 
 Paul, Eph. ii. 12, (not in the sense of disowning or 
 denying God, but of being disowned by Him,) is 
 familiar with the Fathers in their denunciation of 
 heretics and heathen, and with the heathen against 
 Christians and others, who refused to worship their 
 country's gods. Of course the active sense of the 
 word is here and there more or less implied in the 
 passive. 
 
 Thus Athan. says of Arius that " he is on all sides 
 
 If 
 
 recognized as godless (atheist,) Arius Orat. i. 4. And 
 of Anomoean Aetius, "Aetius who was surnamed 
 godless," Syn. 6. Asterius too he seems to call 
 atheist, including Valentinus and the heathen, Orat. 
 iii. 64. Eustathius calls the Arians avdpaiTovs ddeovs, 
 who were attempting /cparija-ai rov Oeiov. Theod. Hist. 
 i. 7, p. 760. And Arius complains that Alexander 
 had expelled him and his from Alexandria, <w<? dvdpco- 
 TTOU? adeovs ibid. i. 4. 
 
 H Since Christ was God, to deny Him was to deny 
 God; but again, whereas the Son had revealed the 
 " unknown God/' and destroyed the reign of idols, the 
 denial of the Son was bringing back idolatry and its 
 attendant spiritual ignorance. Thus in the Orat. contr. 
 Gent. 29 fin, written before the Arian controversy,
 
 "A0609, aeeorrp. 355 
 
 he speaks of "the Greek idolatry as full of all 
 Atheism" or ungodliness, and contrasts with it the 
 knowledge of ' ' the Guide and Framer of the Universe, 
 the Father's Word," "that through Him we may 
 discern His Father, and the Greeks may know how far 
 they have separated themselves from the truth." And, 
 Orat. ii. 43, he classes Arians with the Greeks, who, 
 " though they have the name of God in their mouths, 
 incur the charge of Atheism, because they know not 
 the real and true God, the Father of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ." (vid. also Basil, in Eunom. ii. 22.) Shortly 
 afterwards Athan. gives a further reason for the title, 
 observing that Arianism was worse than previous 
 heresies, such as Manicheism, inasmuch as the latter 
 denied the Incarnation, but Arianism tore from God's 
 substance His connatural Word, and, as far as its 
 words went, infringed the perfections and being of the 
 First Cause. And so ad Ep. Mg. 17 fin. he says, 
 that it alone, beyond other heresies, " has been bold 
 against the Godhead Itself in a mad way, ( /uaz/t/covre- 
 pov,) denying that there is a Word, and that the 
 Father was always Father." 
 
 51 In like manner he says, ad Serap. iii. 2, that if 
 a man says " that the Son is a creature, who is Word and 
 Wisdom, and the Impress, 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 (efa>) the Holy Trinity, and 
 
 A a 2
 
 356 
 
 atheists," Serap. iv. 6, "because they do not really 
 believe in the God that is, and there is none other but 
 He." And so again, " As the faith delivered [in the 
 Holy Trinity] is one, and this unites us to God, and he 
 who takes aught from the Trinity, and is baptized in 
 the sole Name of the Father or of the Son, or in Father 
 and Son without the Spirit, gains nothing, but remains 
 empty and incomplete, both he and the professed 
 administrator, (for in the Trinity is the perfection, 
 [initiation,] ) so whoso divides the Son from the Father, 
 or degrades the Spirit to the creatures, hath neither 
 the Son nor the Father, but is an atheist and worse than 
 an infidel and anything but a Christian." Serap. i. 30. 
 ^[ Elsewhere, he speaks more generally, as if Ari- 
 anism introduced " an Atheism or rather Judaism 
 against the Scriptures, being next door to Heathenism, 
 so that its disciple cannot be even named Christian, 
 for all such tenets are contrary to the Scriptures ;" and 
 he makes this the reason why the Nicene Fathers 
 stopped their ears and condemned it, Ep. ^Eg. 13. 
 Moreover, he calls the Arian persecution worse than the 
 pagan cruelties, and therefore " a Babylonian Atheism," 
 Ep. Encycl. 5, as not allowing the Catholics the use 
 of prayer and baptism, with a reference to Dan. vi. 
 11, &c. Thus too he calls Constantius atheist, for his 
 treatment of Hosius, ovre TQV 6ebv <o/3?70ei<? o adeos, 
 Hist. Arian. 45 ; and Nazianzen calls Lucius, on account 
 of his cruelties in Alexandria, " this second Arius, 
 the most copious river of the atheistic fountain." Orat. 
 25, 11. And Palladius, the Imperial officer, is 
 a#eo?. ibid. 12.
 
 "A&-09, dBeorw 357 
 
 ^[ Another reason for the title seems to have lain in 
 the idolatrous character of Arian worship on Us own 
 showing, viz. as paying divine honours to One whom 
 they yet maintained to be a creature. 
 
 ^[ As to other heretics, Eusebius uses the word of 
 Sabellius, Eccl. Theol. p. 63 ; of Marcellus, p. 80 ; of 
 Phantasiasts, p. 64; of Valentinus, p. 114. Basil applies 
 it to Eunomius. 
 
 ^[ As to the heathen, Athan. speaks of the elSwXwv 
 adeor^ra, contr. Gent. 14 and 46 init. Orat. iii. 67, 
 though elsewhere he contrasts apparently atheism with 
 polytheism, Orat. iii. 15 and 16. Nazianz. speaks of 
 the 7ro\v0eo<; aOeta, Orat. 25, 15. vid. also Euseb. Eccl. 
 Theol. p. 73. 
 
 ^f On the other hand, Julian says that Christians 
 preferred " atheism to godliness." vid. Suicer. Thes, in 
 voc. It was a popular imputation upon Christians, as 
 it had been before on philosophers and poets, some of 
 whom better deserved it. On the word as a term of 
 reproach, vid. Voet. Disput. 9. t. 1, pp. 115, &c. 195.
 
 358 
 
 BY alwv, age, seems to be meant duration, or the 
 measure of duration, before or independent of the 
 existence of motion, which is the measure of time. As 
 motion, and therefore time, are creatures, so are the 
 ages. Considered as the measure of duration, an age 
 has a sort of positive existence, though not an ova la or 
 substance, and means the same as "world/' or an 
 existing system of things viewed apart from time and 
 motion, vid. Theodor. in Hebr. i. 2. Our Lord then 
 is the Maker of the ages thus considered, as the 
 Apostle also tells us, Hebr. xi. 3, and God is the King 
 of the ages, 1 Tim. i. 17, or is before all ages, as being 
 eternal, or Trpoaiwvios. However, sometimes the word 
 is synonymous with eternity; "as time is to things 
 which are under time, so ages to things which are 
 everlasting," Daruasc. Fid. Orth. ii. 1, and "ages of 
 ages " stands for eternity ; and then the " ages " or 
 measures of duration, may be supposed to stand for 
 the iSeai or ideas in the Divine Mind, which seems to 
 have been a Platonic or Gnostic notion. Hence 
 Synesius, Hymn iii., addresses the Almighty as almvd- 
 TOK6, parent of the ages. Hence sometimes God 
 Himself is called the Age, Clem. Alex. Hymn. Pasd. iii. 
 fin., or the Age of ages, Pseudo-Dion, de Div. Norn. 5, 
 p. 581, or again, alcovios. Theodoret sums up what 
 has been said thus : " Age is not any subsisting sub-
 
 359 
 
 stance, but is an interval indicative of time, now 
 infinite, when God is spoken of, now commensurate 
 with creation, now with human life." Hser. v. 6. If 
 then, as St. Paul says in Hebr. xi. 3, the Word is Maker 
 of the ages, He is independent of duration altogether ; 
 He does not come to be in time, but is above and beyond 
 it, or eternal, vid. Deer. 18. Elsewhere he says, " The 
 words addressed to the Son in the 144th Psalm, ' Thy 
 kingdom is a kingdom of all ages/ forbid any one to 
 imagine any interval at all in which the Word did not 
 exist. For if every interval is measured by ages, and 
 of all the ages the Word is King and Maker, therefore, 
 whereas no interval at all exists prior to Him, it were 
 madness to say, ' There was once when the Everlasting 
 (altovios) was not.'" Orat. i. 12. And so Alexander; 
 " Is it not unreasonable that He who made times, and 
 ages, and seasons, to all of which belongs 'was not,' 
 should be said not to be ? for, if so, that interval in 
 which they say the Son was not yet begotten by the 
 Father, precedes that Wisdom of God which framed 
 all things/' Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 736. vid. also Basil, 
 de Sp. S. n. 14. Hilar. de Trin. xii. 34. 
 
 The subject is treated of at length in Greg. Nyssen. 
 contr. Eunom. i. t. 2. Append, p. 93 101. Vid. also 
 Ambros. de Fid. i. 8 11. As time measures the 
 material creation, so "ages" were considered to 
 measure the immaterial, as the duration of Angels. 
 This had been a philosophical distinction. Timseus 
 says, ei/cdav e'crrt ^jpovot T&5 ayevvdrat ^povy, ov aiwva 
 TroTayopevopes. Vid. also Philo, p. 298, Quod Deus 
 Immort. 6. Euseb. Laud. C. p. 501. Naz. Orat. 38, 8.
 
 
 SIMPLE^ absolute, untempered, direct; an epithet applied 
 both by Catholics and Arians to the creative Hand of 
 God, as if the very contact of the Infinite with the finite, 
 which creation involves, would extinguish the nascent 
 creature which it was bringing into being. The 
 Arians attempted to find in this doctrine an argument 
 in favour of their own account of our Lord's nature. 
 They said that our Lord was created to be the instru- 
 ment whereby the world could be created without that 
 perilous intervention of the Almighty Hand, which made 
 creation almost impossible. Deer. 8, Orat. ii. 25, 30. 
 Epiph. Hser. 76, p. 951. Cyril. Thes. pp. 150, 241. de 
 Trin.iv. p. 523. Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 21, Orat. ii. 29. 
 But how was it, asked Catholics, that creation was pos- 
 sible at all, that is, in the case of our Lord Himself, on 
 supposing Him a creature ? vid. Deer. 8. Catholics on 
 their side had no difficulty to overcome : they con- 
 sidered that the Creator, by a special and extraor- 
 dinary grace, supplied whatever was necessary for 
 bearing the mighty Hand of God, as also a parallel 
 grace is supplied for receiving safely the great privi- 
 leges of the Gospel, especially the Holy Eucharist. 
 
 " Not as if He were a creature, nor as having any 
 relation in substance with the universe, is He called 
 First-born of it ; but because, when at the beginning
 
 361 
 
 He framed the creatures, He condescended to them 
 that it might be possible for them to come into being. 
 For they could not have endured His untempered 
 nature and His splendour from the Father, unless, 
 condescending by the Father's love for man, He had 
 supported them and taken hold of them and brought 
 them into substance." Orat. ii. 64. 
 
 ^f 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 man was created in 
 Him, not as something external to Him (in spite of the 
 8ia and ev in reference to the first and second creation, 
 In Illud omn. 2). Vid. art. Arian Tenets, &c. and 
 Gent. 47, where the o-vyKardfiaa-is is spoken of.
 
 362 
 
 TRUTH, whether true doctrine or reasoning, means the ob- 
 jective truth in contrast to subjective opinion or private 
 judgment. Sometimes akrjQeia is used by itself, some- 
 times aXrjdelat \6yos, sometimes \6yos (vid. arts. Rule 
 of Faith and op66s). E. g. 6 TT}<? a\f]&eLa^ \6yo<$ eXey^ei, 
 Orat. ii. 35. a>? 6 r^9 a\ri6eias dirfjTei X<yyo9, Ap. c. Ar. 
 36, where it is contrasted with &>? r)9e\ov (vid. above, art. 
 Private Judgment) ; also Serap. ii. 2. Epiphanius ; 6 
 T?79 aX. X. avrnriTTTet, avrw, Hser. 71, p. 830. Eusebius; 6 
 r79 aX. X. y8oa, Eccl. Theol. i. p. 62, and ain^Qk^eraL 
 CLVTW fieya /Solera? 6 TT}? aX. X. ibid. iii. p. 164. And 
 Council of Sardica ; Kara rov T% aX. X. ap. Athan. 
 Apol. contr. Ar. 46, where it seems equivalent to 
 " fairness " or " impartiality." Asterius ; oi r^9 aX. 
 aTTofyaivowrai \o i yiafjLol ) Orat. ii. 37. i. 32. de Syn. 
 18 cir. fin, and so also TO?? aX. Xo7to>iot?, Sent. D. 
 19. And so also, 77 aX. 8t?;Xe7^e, Orat. ii. 18. 77 <j)v<ris 
 Kal 77 aX. " draw the meaning to themselves," 5 init. 
 Toy \6jov SeiKvvvTos, ibid. 3 init. eSeiicvvev 6 
 13 fin. rr;9 aX. etaa?79, 65 init. 60, 
 Trapa TT;? aX'/;0et'<z9, 63, r) d\r)0eia Sel/cwei, 70 init. 
 T?}9 aX. fjiaprvprjcrdar]^, 1 init. TO Tr}9 aX. <j)p6wr)/J,a /tie^aX^- 
 yopelv TrpeTrei, 31 init. and Deer. 17 fin. In some of 
 these instances the words d\i]6eia, Xo709, &c. are almost 
 synonymous with the Regula Fidei; vid. irapa TTJV 
 d\i}6eiav, Orat. ii. 36, and Origen de Princ. Praef. 1 
 and 2.
 
 . 363 
 
 ^f " Had these expositions proceeded from orthodox 
 men (op0o&owv), Hosius," &c. &c. Ep. Mg. 8. And, 
 " Terms do not disparage His Nature ; rather that 
 Nature draws to Itself those terms, and changes them." 
 Orat. ii. 3. Also de Mort. Ar. fin. And vid. Leont. 
 contr. Nest. iii. 41. (p. 581, Canis.) He here seems 
 alluding to the Semi-Arians, Origen, and perhaps the 
 earlier Fathers. 
 
 ^f One of the characteristic points in Athanasius is his 
 constant attention to the sense of doctrine, or the mean- 
 ing of writers, in preference to the very words used. 
 Thus he scarcely uses the symbol opoovaiov, (one in sub- 
 stance,) throughout his Orations, and in the de Synod, 
 acknowledges the Semi-Arians as brethren. Hence 
 Deer. 18, he says, that orthodox doctrine " is revered 
 by all, though expressed in strange language, provided 
 the speaker means religiously, and wishes to convey 
 by it a religious sense." vid. also 21. He says, that 
 Catholics are able to " speak freely," or to expatiate, 
 Trappr)(ria6fj,e()a, " out of Divine Scripture." Orat. i. 
 9. vid. de Sent. Dionys. 20 init. Again : " The 
 devil spoke from Scripture, but was silenced by the 
 Saviour; Paul spoke from profane writers, yet, being 
 a saint, he has a religious meaning." de Syn. 39. 
 Again, speaking of the apparent contrariety between 
 two Councils, " It were unseemly to make the one con- 
 flict with the other, for all their members are fathers ; 
 and it were profane to decide that these spoke well 
 and those ill, for all of them have slept in Christ." 
 43 ; also 47. Again : " Not the phrase, but the 
 meaning and the religious life, is the recommendation 
 of the faithful." ad Ep. ^Bg. 9.
 
 364 AXc>7ia, " 
 
 THIS epithet is used by Athan. against the Arians, 
 as if, by denying the eternity of the Logos (Reason 
 or Word), first, they were denying the Intellectual 
 nature of the Divine Essence ; and, secondly, were for- 
 feiting the source and channel of their own rational 
 nature. 
 
 1. As to the first of these, he says, " Imputing to God's 
 nature an absence of His Word, aXojiav . . . they are 
 most impious/' Orat. i. 14. Again, "Is the God, 
 who is, ever without His rational Word?" Orat. i. 
 24. iv. 4 and 14. Also Sent. D. 16, 23, &c. Serap. 
 ii. 2. Athenag. Leg. 11. Tat. contr. Graec. 5. Hipp, 
 contr. Noet. 10. Nyssen. contr. Eunom. vii. p. 216. 
 Orat. Catech. 1. Naz. Orat. 29, 17 fin. Cyril. Thesaur. 
 xiv. p. 145. (vid. Petav. de Trin. vi. 9.) 
 
 *fi 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 God is wise ; which would be a kind of Sabel- 
 lianism. But, whereas their opponents said that He 
 was but called Word and Wisdom after the attribute, 
 they said that such titles marked, not only a typical 
 resemblance to the attribute, but so full a correspond- 
 ence and (as it were) coincidence in nature with it, that
 
 365 
 
 whatever relation that attribute had to God, such in kind 
 had the Son ; that the attribute was the Son's sym- 
 bol, and not His mere archetype ; that our Lord was 
 eternal and proper to God, because that attribute was 
 so, which was His title, vid. Athan. Ep. Mg. 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 neces- 
 sary issue 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 supposes a light ; or, 
 as Petavius remarks, Trin. vi. 9, as the eternity of the 
 Original involves that of the Image ; TT)? vTroa-rda-ea)*; 
 vrrap-^ovcrr]^, irdvrw<j evOvs etvai Sei TOV ^apaKr^pa real 
 clfcova Tourr)?. Orat. i. 20. vid. also 31. Deer. 13. 
 Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 737. 
 
 If Secondly, he says of the Arians themselves, 
 " Denying the Word of God, Reason have they for- 
 feited." Deer. 2. And again, " If they impute change 
 to the Word, their own reason is in peril." Orat. i. 
 35. Hence Arianism, as denying the Word, is essen- 
 tially madness. " Has not a man lost his mind who en- 
 tertains the thought that God is wordless and wisdom- 
 less 1" Orat. ii. 32. This will help us to understand 
 how it is he calls them dpetopaviTai. vid. art. in voc.
 
 366 
 
 IN Greek and homo in Latin, are used by the Fathers 
 to signify our Lord's manhood and again human 
 nature, with an abruptness which, were it not so fre- 
 quent, would be taken to give some sanction to 
 Nestorianism. 
 
 Thus Athan., speaking of His receipt of grace, says 
 " He, as far as the man, was exalted," Orat. i. 5. 
 " The Word being united to the man" Orat. iv. 7. 
 " Separating the hypostasis of God's Word from the 
 Man from Mary," ibid. 35. " I, the Word, am the 
 Chrism, and that which has the Chrism from Me is the 
 man," ibid. It illustrates this use of the word, that it 
 is also used for human nature ; e. g., " Of that was 
 6 avQpa>7ro<> in want, because of ... the flesh and of 
 death/' Orat. i. 41, vid. also iv. 6. 
 
 If I will set down one or two specimens of the parallel 
 use of homo among the Latins. ' Deus cum homine mis- 
 cetur; hominem induit/ Cypr. Idol. ed. Yen. p. 538. 
 'Assumptus homo in Filium Dei/ Leon. Serm. 28, p. 101. 
 ' Suus [the Word's] homo/ ibid. 22, p. 70. ' Hie homo/ 
 Ep. 31, p. 855. ' Hie homo, quern Deus suscepit.' Aug. 
 Ep. 24, 3. vid. Tract. Theolog. pia <pvo-i<;, fin.
 
 TMV ISlCO/AaTCOV. 367 
 
 TO)V 
 
 SINCE God and man are one Person, we are saved 
 from the confusion which would otherwise follow from 
 the union of two contrary natures. We may say intel- 
 ligibly that God is man and man is God, because the 
 attributes of those two contrary natures of Christ do 
 not rest and abide in, and thereby destroy, each other, 
 but belong to the one Person, and become one because 
 they are His ; and when we say that God becomes man, 
 we mean that the Divine Person becomes man; and 
 when we say that a man is the object of our worship, 
 we mean that He is worshipped who is Himself also 
 truly a man. 
 
 The word " Person," as the received term for ex- 
 pressing this union of natures, is later than Athan., 
 who uses instead " He " and " His," the personal pro- 
 nouns; but no writer can bring out the theological 
 idea more forcibly than he. 
 
 5f OVK aXXov, aXXa rov Kvplov' and so OVK erepov TWOS, 
 Incarn. 18 ; also Orat. i. 45, and iv. 35. Cyril. Thes. 
 p. 197, and Anathem. 11, who defends this phrase 
 against the Orientals. 
 
 ^f tSiov is another word by which Athan. signifies the 
 later word " Person." " For when the flesh suffered, 
 the Word was not external to it ; and therefore is the 
 passion said to be His : and when He did divinely His
 
 368 
 
 TO)I> 
 
 Fathers works, the flesh was not external to Him, but 
 in the body itself did the Lord do them." Orat. Hi. 
 32, 3. 
 
 For 'ISiov, which occurs so frequently in Athan., vid. 
 also Cyril. Anathem. 11. lSioTroiov/j,evov, Orat. iii. 33 
 and 38. ad Epict. 6. fragm. ex Euthym. (t. i. p. 1275, 
 ed. Ben.) Cyril, in Joann. p. 151. And ol/ceiwrai, contr. 
 Apoll. ii. 16, Cyril. Schol. de Incarn. t. v. p. 782, 
 Concil. Eph. t. 1. pp. 1644, 1697, (Hard.) Damasc. 
 F. 0. iii. 3, p. 208, ed. Yen. Vid. Petav. de Incarn. 
 iv. 15. 
 
 For KOIVOV, opposed to iSiov. vid. Orat. iii. 32, 51. 
 Cyril. Epp. p. 23 ; " communem,-" Ambros. de Fid. i. 94. 
 Vid. Orat. iv. 6. This interchange is called theolo- 
 gically the avriSoa-v; or communicatio I8i(ofidrcav. " Be- 
 cause of the perfect union of the flesh which was assumed, 
 and of the Godhead which assumed it, the names are 
 interchanged, so that the human is called from the divine 
 and the divine from the human. Wherefore He who 
 was crucified is called by Paul Lord of glory, and He 
 who is worshipped by all creation of things in heaven, 
 in earth, and under the earth, is named Jesus, &c." 
 Nyssen. in Apoll. t. 2, pp. 697, 8. 
 
 " And on account of this, the properties of the flesh 
 are said to be His, since He was in it, such as to 
 hunger, to thirst, to suffer, to weary, and the like, of 
 which the flesh is capable ; while on the other hand 
 the works proper to the Word Himself, such as to raise 
 the dead, to A restore sight to the blind, and to cure the 
 woman with an issue of blood, He did through His 
 own body. The Word bore the infirmities of the flesh,
 
 rwv l&wpArtffV. 369 
 
 as His own, for His was the flesh ; and the flesh minis- 
 tered to the works of the Godhead, because the Godhead 
 was in it, for the body was God's." Orat. iii. 31. 
 
 " The birth of the flesh is a manifestation of human 
 nature, the bearing of the Virgin a token of divine 
 power. The infancy of a little one is shown in the 
 lowliness of the cradle, the greatness of the Highest is 
 proclaimed by the voices of Angels. He has the rudi- 
 ments of men whom Herod impiously plots to kill, He 
 is the Lord of all whom the Magi delight suppliantly 
 to adore, &c. &c. To hunger, thirst, weary, and sleep 
 are evidently human; but to satisfy five thousand on five 
 loaves, and to give the Samaritanliving water, &c. &c. . ." 
 Leon. Ep. 28. 4. Serm. 51. Ambros. de Fid. ii. n. 58. 
 Nyssen. de Beat. t. 1, p. 767. Cassian. Incarn. vi. 22. 
 Aug. contr. Serm, Ar. c. 8. Plain and easy as such 
 statements seem in this and some parallel notes, they 
 are of the utmost importance in the Nestorian and 
 Eutychian controversies. 
 
 ^[ " If any happen to be scandalized by the swathing 
 bands, and His lying in a manger, and the gradual 
 increase according to the flesh, and the sleeping in a 
 vessel, and the wearying in journeying, and the hunger- 
 ing in due time, and whatever else happen to one who 
 has become really man, let them know that, making a 
 mock of the sufferings, they are denying the nature ; 
 and denying the nature, they do not believe in the 
 economy ; and not believing in the economy, they 
 forfeit the salvation." Procl. ad Armen. p. 2. p. 615, ed. 
 1630. 
 
 Bb
 
 #70 THE 'A.Trapd\\a.KTov. 
 
 The ' 
 
 Unvarying or exact, i. e. Image. This was a word 
 used by the Fathers in the Nicene Council to express 
 the relation of the Son to the Father, and if they even- 
 tually went farther, and adopted the formula of the 
 Homoiision, this was only when they found that the 
 Arians explained its force away. " When the Bishops 
 said that the Word . . . was the Image of the Father, 
 like to Him in all things and a,7rapd\\aKrov , &c. . . . 
 the party of Eusebius were caught whispering to each 
 other that ' like ' &c. were common to us and to the 
 Son, and that it was no difficulty to agree to these . . . 
 So the Bishops were compelled to concentrate the sense 
 of the Scriptures, and to say that the Son is ' consub- 
 stantial/ or ' one in substance/ that is, the same in 
 likeness with the Father." Deer. 20. 
 
 5[ The Eusebian party allowed that our Lord was 
 like, and the image of, the Father, but in the sense in 
 which a picture is like the original, differing from it in 
 substance and in fact. In this sense they even allowed 
 the strong word d7rapd\\aicTos, exact image, which, as 
 I have said, had been used by the Catholics, (vid. 
 Alexander, ap. Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 740,) as by the 
 Semi- Arians afterwards, who even added the words /CUT 
 ovaiav, or "according to substance." Even this strong 
 phrase, however, /car' ova-Lav a7rapd\\aKTO<t eifcoDv, or
 
 THE 'ATraaXXa/eroi/. 371 
 
 0/0,0409, or aTrapaXXatf-ro? Tavrcnrj^, did 
 not appear to the Council an adequate safeguard of the 
 doctrine. Athan. notices, Syn. 53, that " like " ap- 
 plies to qualities rather than to substance. Also Basil. 
 Ep. 8, n. 3. tf In itself it is frequently used of faint 
 similitudes, and falling very far short of the original." 
 Ep. 9, n. 3. Accordingly, the Council determined on 
 the word o^oovcnov as implying, as Athan. Deer. 20 
 expresses it, " the same in likeness/' ravrov ~rf) opouixrei, 
 that the likeness might not be analogical, vid. Cyril. 
 in Joan. 1. iii. p. 302. 
 
 ^f Athan. says that in consistency those who professed 
 the aTrapaXkaKTOv should go further one way or the 
 other. Syn. 38. When they spoke of " like," Athan. 
 says, they could not consistently mean anything short 
 of " likeness of substance," for this is the only true 
 likeness ; and while they used the words aTrapaXXa/ero? 
 eiiccibv, unvarying image, to exclude all essential like- 
 ness, they were imagining instead an image varying 
 utterly from its original. While then he allows it, he is 
 far from satisfied with the phrase o/tioto? /car' ova-iav or 
 6[j,otov<rio<; ; he rejects it on the very ground that when 
 we speak of " like," we imply qualities, not substance. 
 Every image varies from the original because it is an 
 image. Yet he himself frequently uses it, as do other 
 Fathers ; vid. Orat. i. 26, D/CACHO? rijs oiWa<?. And all 
 human terms are imperfect ; and " image " itself is 
 used in Scripture. 
 
 ^[ 'AvrapaXXa/cTo? eliccbv Kar ovaiav was practically the 
 symbol of Semi-Arianism, not because it did not 
 admit of a religious explanation, but because it 
 2 Bb
 
 372 THE 
 
 marked the limit of Semi-Arian approximation to the 
 absolute truth. It was in order to secure the true 
 sense of aTrapaXkaKTov that the Council adopted the 
 word 6/j.oovcrtov, 'A7rapaAAaToi> is accordingly used 
 as a familiar word by Athan. de Deer. supr. 20, 24. 
 Orat. iii. 36. contr. Gent. 41, 46 fin. Provided with 
 a safe evasion of its force, the Arians had no difficulty 
 in saying it after him. Philostorgius ascribes it to 
 Asterius, and Acacius quotes a passage from his writ- 
 ings containing it. (vid. Epiph. Haer. 72, 6.) Acacius 
 at the same time forcibly expresses what is meant by 
 the word, TO eKruirov KOI Tpaves eKf^ajelov rov 6eov T?}? 
 In this he speaks as S. Alexander, TT/V KCLTO, 
 ofiOLOTrjra avrov t'/c (pvcrea><; aTro/Aa^a/iei'o? Theod. 
 Hist. i. 3, p. 740 (as, in the legend, the impression of our 
 Lord's face on the cloth at His passion). Xapa/cr^p, 
 Hebr. i. 3, contains the same idea. " An image not 
 inanimate, not framed by the hand, nor work of art 
 and imagination, (eTrtzWa?,) but a living image, yea, 
 the very life (avroova-a) ; ever preserving the unvary- 
 ing (TO a,Trapd\\aicTov), not in likeness of fashion, but 
 in its very substance." Basil, contr. Eunom. i. 18. 
 The Auctor de Trinitate says, speaking of the word in 
 this very creed, " Will in nothing varying from will 
 (a7rapaAXaTo<?) is the same will ; and power nothing 
 varying from power is the same power; and glory 
 nothing varying from glory is the same glory/' The 
 Macedonian replies, " Unvarying I say, the same I say 
 not.'' Dial. iii. p. 993 (Theod. t. v.), Athan. de Deer. 
 1. c. seems to say the same. That is, in the Catholic 
 sense, the image was not a7rapdXA.atcTos,if. there was any
 
 THE ' A.TTapd\\aKTOV. 373 
 
 difference, if He was not one with Him of whom He was 
 the image, vid. Hil. de Syn. 91. ad Const, ii. 5. And 
 the heretical party saw that it was impossible to deny 
 the O/AOOVJ-IOV and Trept^eo/j^cri?, and yet maintain the 
 airapaXkaicrov, without holding two Grods. Hence the 
 ultimate resolution of the Semi-Arians, partly into 
 orthodox, partly into Anomoeans. 
 
 5f " What sort of faith have they who stand neither 
 to word nor writing, but alter and change everything 
 according to the season ? For if, O Acacius and 
 Eudoxius, you do not decline the faith published at 
 the Dedication, and in it is written that the Son is 
 " Exact Image of God's substance," why is it ye write 
 in Isauria, " we reject ' the Like in substance ' " ? for if 
 the Son is not like the Father in respect of substance, 
 how is He " exact image of the substance ? " But if 
 you are dissatisfied at having written " Exact Image of 
 the substance," how is it that ye anathematize those 
 who say that the Son is Unlike ? for if He be not accord- 
 ing to substance like, He is altogether unlike : and the 
 Unlike cannot be an Image. And if so, then it does 
 not hold that he that hath seen the Son, hath seen the 
 Father, there being then the greatest difference possi- 
 ble between Them, or rather the One being wholly 
 Unlike the Other. And Unlike cannot possibly be 
 called Like. By what artifice then do ye call Unlike 
 like, and consider Like to be unlike, and so pretend to 
 say that the Son is the Father's Image ? for if the Son 
 
 / 
 
 be not like the Father in substance, something is 
 wanting to the Image." Syn. 38.
 
 374 'A-Trai/yacr/za. 
 
 EADIANCE or shine. This is St. Paul's word, Hebr. 
 i. 3, taken from Wisdom vii. 26, and suggesting the 
 " Light from Light " of the Nicene Creed. It is the 
 familiar illustration used by Athan. to convey the idea 
 of the Divine Son ship, as consubstantial and from 
 eternity. He sometimes uses the image of fire, Orat. 
 iv. 2 and 10, but it is still fire and its radiance. 
 However, we find the illustration of fire from fire, 
 Justin. Tryph. 61 Tatian. contr. Graec. 5. At this 
 early day the illustration of radiance might have a 
 Sabellian bearing, as that of fire in Athan/s had an 
 Arian. Hence Justin protests against those who con- 
 sidered the Son as " like the sun's light in the heaven," 
 which " when it sets, goes away with it," whereas it is 
 as " fire kindled from fire." Tryph. 128. Athenagoras, 
 however, like Athanasius, says " as Light from Fire," 
 using also the word aTroppoia, effluence. Vid. also 
 Orig. Periarchon, i. 2, n. 4. Tertull. Apol. 21. Theogn. 
 ap. Athan. Deer. 25.
 
 A-rropporj. 375 
 
 THIS word, though in itself unobjectionable as an 
 expression of the divine <yevvija-i<;, is generally avoided 
 by the Fathers as being interpreted by the Arians in 
 a material sense. " The offspring of men are portions 
 of their fathers/' says Athanasius, "and men aTroppeovtri 
 in begetting, and gain substance in taking food ; but 
 God, being without parts, is Father of a Son without 
 partition or passion, for there is neither airopporj in the 
 Immaterial nor eTripporj, and, being uncompounded by 
 nature, He is Father of One only Son. And He too is 
 the Father's Word, from which may be understood the 
 impassible nature of the Father, in that not even a 
 human word is begotten with passion, much less the 
 Word of God." Deer. 11. 
 
 ^[ S. Cyril, Dial. iv. init. p. 505, speaks of the 
 6pv\\ov/j.6vr] airoppor) ; and disclaims it, Thesaur. 6, 
 p. 43. Athanasius disclaims it, Expos. 1. Orat. i 
 21. So does Alexander, ap. Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 743. 
 On the other hand, Athanasius quotes it in a passage 
 which he adduces from Theognostus, Deer. 25, and 
 from Dionysius, de Sent. D. 22, and Origen uses it, 
 Periarchon, i. 2. It is derived from Wisd. vii. 25. 
 The passage of Theognostus is as follows : 
 ^ " The substance of the Son is not anything gained 
 from without, nor provided out of nothing, but
 
 376 
 
 it sprang from the Father's substance, as the radiance 
 of light, as the vapour of water ; for neither the 
 radiance, nor the vapour, is the water itself or the sun 
 itself, nor is it alien ; but it is an effluence of the 
 Father's substance, which, however, suffers no parti- 
 tion. For as the sun remains the same, and is not 
 impaired by the rays poured forth by it, so neither 
 does the Father's substance suffer change, though it 
 has the Son as an Image of Itself." Deer. 25. 
 "Vapour" is also used in Wisdom vii., Origen, &c. 
 as referred to supr. 
 
 ^[ Hieracas the Manichaean compared the Two Divine 
 Persons to the two lights of one lamp, where the oil 
 is common and the flame double, thus implying a sub- 
 stance distinct from Father and Son of which each 
 partook, or to a flame divided into two by (for in- 
 stance) the papyrus which was commonly used instead 
 of a wick. vid. Hilar. de Trin. vi. 12.
 
 " Apeiopavlrai. 377 
 
 A TITLE of the Arians. " The dumb ass forbade the 
 madness of the prophet," irapafypoviav. On the word 
 *A.peio/u,avtTat, Gibbon observes, "The ordinary appel- 
 lation with which Athanasius and his followers chose 
 to compliment the Arians, was that of Ariomanites," 
 ch. xxi. note 61 . Rather, the name originally was a state 
 title, enjoined by Constantine, vid. Petav. de Trin. i. 8 
 fin. Naz. Orat. 43, 30, p. 794, note e., and thenceforth 
 used by the general Church, e. g. Eustathius of Antioch, 
 ap. Theod. Hist. i. 7. Constant, ap. Concil. t. i. p. 456, 
 Hilar. de Trin. vii. n. 7. note, Julius ap. Athan. Apol. c. 
 Ar. 23. Council of Egypt, ibid. 77. vid. also 6. Phce- 
 badius contr. Arian. 22. Epiph. Haer. 69. 19. (6 /uawcoS??? 
 w A/36to<?.) Greg. Naz. Orat. ii. 37. rrjv 'Apei'ou 
 ovo/jiacrBela-av paviav, and so 6 T??? /Aavla 
 Orat. 43. 30. vid. also Orat. 20. 5. and so Proclus, 
 rrjv'Apeiovftaviav, ad Armen. p. 618 fin. And Athan. 
 e. g. fiavlav 8ta(3o\ov, ad Serap. i. 1. also ad Scrap, i. 
 17 fin. 19 init. 20, 24, 29. ii. 1 fin. iv. 5 init. 6 fin. 15 
 fin. 16 fin. In some of these the denial of the divinity 
 of the Holy Ghost is the madness. In like manner 
 Hilary speaks continually of their " furor," de Trin. 
 i. 17. 
 
 ^[ Several meanings are implied in this title; the 
 real reason for it was the fanatical fury with which it
 
 378 
 
 spread and maintained itself; (cf. on' the other 
 hand, 6 fjLaviKos epaarrj^ rov %picrTov, enthusiastic. 
 Chrysost. in Esai. vi. 1. Horn. iv. 3, t. 6, p. 124.) Thus 
 Athan. contrasts the Arian hatred of the truth, -with 
 the mere worldliness of the Meletians, Ep. ^Eg. 22. 
 Hence they are acre/3et<?, ^ta-jo/ia^ot, and governed by 
 Kaicovoia and KaKo^poavvrf. 
 
 Again, Socrates speaks of it as a flame which 
 ravaged, eVere/uero, provinces and cities, i. 6. And 
 Alexander cries out, & dvoaiov ivfyov Kol dfjierpov 
 fjLavtas. Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 741. vid. also pp. 
 735, 6. 747. And we read much of their eager 
 spirit of proselytism. Theod. ibid. The word mania 
 may be taken to express one aspect of it in English. 
 Their cruelty came into this idea of their " mania /' 
 hence Athan. in one place calls the Arian women, in 
 the tumult under George of Cappadocia, Mcenades. 
 " They, running up and down like Bacchanals and 
 furies, paivaBes KOI epivvve?, thought it a misfortune 
 not to find opportunity for injury, and passed that day 
 in grief in which they could do no harm.-" Hist. Arian. 
 59. Also, "profana Arianorum novitas velut qusedam 
 Bellona aut Furia/' Vincent. Common. 4. Eustathius 
 speaks of ot irapaBo^ot TT}<? apeiov 6vfie\r)<; /ie<70^o/oot. 
 ap. Phot. 225, p. 759. And hence the strange parono- 
 masia of Constantino, 'A/oe?, apeie, with an allusion to 
 Horn. II. v. 31. 
 
 TJ A second reason, or rather sense, of the ap- 
 pellation was what is noted, supr. art. aXojut, that, 
 denying the Word, they have forfeited the gift of 
 reason, e. g. T&V 'Apeio[j.aviT(i)v rrjv d\ojlav. de Sent.
 
 379 
 
 Dion. init. vid. ibid. 24 fin. Orat. ii. 32. iii. 
 63 throughout. Hence in like manner Athan. 
 speaks of the heathen as mad who did not acknow- 
 ledge God and His Word, contr. Gent. fin. also 23 
 fin. Hence he speaks of etStaXo/iaw'a. contr. Gent. 10. 
 and 21 fin. Again, Incarn. 47, he speaks of the 
 mania of oracles, which belongs rather to the former 
 sense of the word. 
 
 If Other heresies had the word mania applied 
 to them, e. g. that of Valentinus, Athan. Orat. ii. 70. 
 KO,V /j,aivf)Tai. Epiphanius speaks of the tyyiaidfi 
 BiSaa-Ka\ta of the Noetians. Hser. 57. 2. Nazian- 
 zen contrasts the sickness, VO<TOS, of Sabellius with 
 the madness of Arius, Orat. 20. 5; but Athan. 
 says, nalverai f^ev "Apeios, /jbaiverai Se 2a/8eXXto9, Orat. 
 iv. 25. Manea 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. But this note might be 
 prolonged indefinitely.
 
 380 
 
 First principle or beginning. This is a term employed 
 both in expounding the doctrine of the Holy Trinity 
 and in that of the Incarnation. For its employment 
 in the former of these, vid. art. Father Almighty. As to 
 the second, it expresses the great providential office of 
 the Second Person towards the universe, spiritual and 
 material, which He has created. The creature, as such, 
 is insufficient for itself; and He who gave it being gives 
 it also a grace above its nature to enable it to use and 
 enjoy that being well and happily. Nor is it a mere 
 gift of power or health, as a quality, but it is the very 
 Presence of the Word, the Second Person of the 
 Blessed Trinity, in the creature, of which Presence a 
 certain perfection of being and a continuous life is 
 the result. A still more wonderful dispensation or 
 Economy is revealed to us pre-eminently in the Gospel, 
 vid. Deification, Grace, Sanctification, Indwelling, &c. ; 
 but such a grace has been and is exercised in the first 
 instance towards the material and Angelic world, and 
 the title given to the Word in exercising this high 
 Providential office is that of a*]. .Vid. also arts. 
 
 This office of the Word, it is plain, commences from 
 the first moment of creation, and in its very nature 
 implies divinity. It is spoken of in Scripture, viz. in
 
 381 
 
 the Proverbs, " Dominus possedit Me in initio viarum 
 suarum ; " a passage to which the Arians appealed in 
 the controversy more than to any other place in 
 Scripture. It is in refutation of their arguments that 
 Athan. introduces his own grand dissertation upon the 
 sense of apyr). The Arians interpreted it as meaning 
 that the Personal Word and Son of God was the work 
 with which creation commenced, that is, He was the 
 first creature. Athan. lays it down that He was not the 
 beginning in the sense of being the first of the whole 
 number of creatures, but as heading the creation of 
 God. He could not have been the first of all, if He 
 had been one of all. As being an efficax, initium, or an 
 initium that initiates, He is more than a beginning ; 
 He is a cause : He could not initiate, unless He were 
 divine. He entered creation by an act of condescension, 
 in order to associate it with His own greatness. Vid. 
 Orat. ii. 49. And ibid. 60, " He who is before 
 all is not a beginning of all, but is other than all." 
 Yet again, He is a beginning, because He begins the 
 beginning. 
 
 In this there is an analogy to the circumstances of 
 His Incarnation. His inhabiting and vivifying creation 
 implies attributes of the Supreme Being: He could 
 not be by office TT/WTO'TOACO? without first being /uoz/oye- 
 1/779; and in like manner in the Gospel He is able to stoop 
 to be our Mediator, and to be a Priest making atone- 
 ment for us, and to be our brother gaining blessings for 
 us, because, though man, He is more than mere man. 
 vid. Priesthood. Such is the force, as Athan. says, of 
 the ' ' wherefore " in Ps. xliv. ; because He is by
 
 382 
 
 nature God, therefore He was able to be exalted as 
 Mediator. 
 
 In consequence of this close analogy between the 
 circumstances of Creation and Redemption, our Lord 
 is called dp^rj by Athan. in both dispensations. There 
 is an initial grace necessary for the redeemed, if they 
 are to partake of the redemption, as well as for their 
 having a place in creation. Vid. the passages quoted 
 under Spiritual Freedom.
 
 THE 'AT/367TTO?. 383 
 
 The 
 
 THAT is, of a nature capable of change in ethical 
 character. Arius maintained this of our Lord in the 
 strongest language in the earlier statements of his 
 heresy. "On being asked (says Alexander) whether 
 the Word of God is capable of altering, as the devil 
 altered, they scrupled not to say, ' Yes, he is 
 capable. ' ' Socr. i. 6. vid. the anathema at Sirmium 
 on those who said rov \dyov Tpoirrjv VTrofAefjuevij/cora. 
 supr. vol. i. p. Ill, note 4. 
 
 It was indeed difficult, with their opinions, to exclude 
 the notion that change of some kind belonged to Him ; 
 nay, that He was not only in nature rpeTrro?, but in 
 fact d\\oiov/jt,evos. (vid. Deer. 23. Orat. ii. 6.) It 
 would be strange if they stopped short of this, as soon 
 as they came to hold that our Lord's superhuman 
 nature took the place of a soul, and was dependent on 
 the body ; and they scarcely would encumber them- 
 selves with the mystery of a double ^ye^oviKov, when 
 they had thrown aside the "mysterium pietatis." 
 This they seem to have done even in S. Athanasius's 
 lifetime ; for he speaks of them in contr. Apoll. i. 15, as 
 supposing that the Saviour took flesh only, and thus 
 imputing suffering to the impassible Godhead. Vid. 
 also Ambros. de Fid. iii. n. 38. Also an assumption of 
 this tenet seems involved (vid. Macrostich 6,) in the
 
 384 
 
 ground assigned for condemning the Sabellians. vid. 
 supr. vol. i. p. 106. 
 
 This tenet was the connecting point between Arians 
 and Apollinarians. Both held that our Lord was a sort 
 of man made up of a divine being and a brute animal, 
 and what Athan. and other Fathers say against the 
 Apollinarians serves against the Arians also. "ArpeTrTo? 
 fjievwv &c. he says, Orat. ii. 6, against the Arians, 
 and so against Apollinaris he says, 6 ^6709 avOpwrros 
 ryeryove, fjievwv 9eos. ii. 7. vid. also ibid. 3 circ. init. 
 So o peis rjv, Siefteivev' o Be OVK fjv, 7rpoo-eXa(3ev. Naz. 
 Orat. 29, 19. ovcria fjievovaa oirep ecrri. Chrysost. ap. 
 Theodor. Eran. p. 47. o rjv e/iieive 8i" eawrov, Kal o 
 r)6e\if]cr ryeyove Bi ^/ua?. Procl. ad Arm. Ep. ii. p. 615, 
 ed. 1630. vid. also Maxim. Opp. t. 2, ed. 1675. oirep rjv 
 Siapevcov, Kal ^evofievo^ oirep OVK rjv. p. 286. vid. also 
 p. 264. " manens id quod erat, factus quod non erat." 
 August, cons. Ev. i. n. 53 fin. " Non omiserat quod 
 erat, sed cceperat esse quod non erat." Hilar. Trin. 
 iii. 16. " nonamittendo quod suum erat, sed suscipiendo 
 quod nostrum erat." Vigil, contr. Eut. i. 13, p. 498, 
 (Bibl. P. ed. 1624,) and so Leo.
 
 BouX?}, Kara ftovXya-iv. 385 
 
 /caret 
 
 ONE of the arguments, on which the Arians laid most 
 stress in controversy, was the received doctrine, as it 
 may be considered, that our Lord's gennesis was /card 
 TO ftovXypa of the Father. Athanasius says that the 
 doctrine is not only heretical in its application, but in 
 its source, though still not necessarily heretical, viewed 
 in itself. " The phrase/' he says, " is from the here- 
 tics, and the words of heretics are suspicious." Orat. 
 iii. 59 ; and in corroboration he might allege various 
 heterodox writers. E.g. of these, Tatian had said 
 Bf^fuert 7rpo7rr]8a 6 Xctyo?. Gent. 5. Tertullian had said, 
 "Ut prinmm voluit Deus ea edere, ipsum primum pro- 
 tulit Sermonem." adv. Prax. 6. Novatian, " Ex quo, 
 quando ipse voluit, Sermo films natus est." de Trin. 31. 
 And Constit. Apost. TOV trpb alwvwv evbotcia TOV Trarpo? 
 ryevvi/0ei>Ta. vii. 41. Also Pseudo-Clem. "GenuitDeus 
 voluntate praecedente." Recognit. iii. 10. AndEusebius, 
 Kara yvw/jLrjv KOI Trpoaipecriv j3ov\r]0el<i o debs and e'/c T% 
 TOV vrarpo? /3ouXr)9 KOL Sfi/a/uea)?. Dem. iv. 3. Arius, of 
 course, ^eX^/iart /cat /3ov\fj vTre<rTT), ap. Theod. Hist. i. 
 4, p. 750, and supr. vol. i. p. 84, Arius's Creed. 
 
 This is true, but far higher authorities can be cited in . 
 favour of the phrase, so that Athan. feels it necessary to 
 guard and soften his adverse judgment upon it. Hence 
 he says, " If any orthodox believer were to use these 
 
 VOL. II. c c
 
 386 BoiA?}; 
 
 words in simplicity, there would be no cause to be 
 suspicious of them, the orthodox intention prevailing 
 over that somewhat simple use of words." Orat. iii. 
 59 (Disc. n. 49). And, "Had these expositions of theirs 
 proceeded from the great confessor Hosius, Maximinus, 
 Philogonius, Eustathius, Julius, &c. &c." Ep. -ff^g. 8. 
 But, after all, his admissions in favour of the phrase do 
 not go far enough, as the following specimens of the 
 use of it will show : 
 
 S. Ignatius speaks of our Lord as " Son of God 
 according to the will (6e\r]p,a} and power of God." ad 
 Smyrn. 1. S. Justin as "God and Son according to 
 His will, @ov\ijv." Tryph. 127. and "begotten from 
 the Father at His will, 6e\i]<rei." ibid. 61. and he says, 
 8vvd/Ai Kal ftovkf) avTov. ibid. 128. S. Clement, 
 " issuing from the Father's will itself quicker than 
 light." Gent. 10 fin. S. Hippolytus, "Whom God the 
 Father, having willed, jBov\T]6el<;, begat as He willed, w<; 
 f)Qe\'r)(7v." contr. Noet. 16. Origen, etc Oe\ij/j,aro<;. ap. 
 Justin ad. Menn. (in Concil. Const, ii. p. 274, Hard.), 
 vid. also "cum films charitatis etiam voluntatis." 
 Periarch. iv. 28. 
 
 But what is more to the purpose still, Athan. uses 
 the phrase himself, and thereby necessarily sanctions the 
 doctrine which it represents, in one passage in his Dis- 
 courses, viz. in Orat. iii. 31. "Our Lord was ever 
 God/' he says, " and hallowed those to whom He came, 
 arranging all things Kara TO ftovXrjfta rov irarpos." And 
 similarly he says, " Men came into being through the 
 Word, ore avrbs 6 Trarr/p rjOeXrjcre.^ Orat. i. 63. 
 
 51 Now let us consider what the argument was which
 
 BouXi), Kara @ov\r)(riv. 387 
 
 the Arians founded on this phrase, and how it was to 
 be refuted. 
 
 They threw it into the form of a dilemma thus : 
 "Was our Lord's gennesis with or without the 
 Father's will ? If with, then He who willed the Son's 
 existence, could have not willed it, or could unwill. it 
 now ; if without, then it is the blind action of some 
 unknown cause or fate, not the act of the Living 
 Almighty God." If the first of these alternatives 
 was accepted, then followed two conclusions, both 
 contradictory of our Lord's divinity. " God is self- 
 existent; but a son depends on his father's will: 
 God is eternal ; but a son is posterior to his father's 
 will. For both reasons the Son is not God." If the 
 second alternative is taken, then Necessity is sovereign, 
 and God ceases to be. 
 
 This reasoning, which in the first instance they 
 applied to our Lord's gennesis, they proceeded to 
 apply to all His divine acts also. As He was a being 
 depending for his being, life, and powers on the will of 
 the Supreme God, his Maker, so His great works in 
 creation, conservation, and moral governance, in re- 
 demption and sanctification, were all done in obedience 
 to definite commands and fiats of His Almighty Father. 
 Such was the Arian argument, yet it was not very 
 difficult to expose its fallacy, while admitting the tcara 
 TO @ov\r)/j.a to be orthodox; and one can only suppose 
 that A than, in fact found Catholics perplexed and 
 disturbed by the use the Arians made of it, and felt 
 tender towards those who were not clear-headed. It was 
 scarcely more than another form of the original objec- 
 
 cc2
 
 BoiA,?}, Kara 
 
 tion that a son must be posterior to his father, as if 
 the conditions of time existed in eternity. "Sooner" 
 and "later " imply succession, and vanish when time is no 
 longer. It is customary to lay down that with Omnipo- 
 tence to say is to do: "He spake and it was done;" and 
 if in creation, which is a work in time, to determine and 
 to effect is one act, how much more really is succession 
 unknown to the Ancient of days, who is at once the 
 Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End ! Then 
 as to the alternative of the Divine acts being subject 
 to necessity or fate, it is obvious to ask whether the 
 Supreme Being is not good and just, omnipotent, and 
 all-blessed, Kara TO ^ovXr^a, yet could He change 
 His nature ? could He make virtue vice, and vice 
 virtue ? If He cannot destroy Himself, and would not 
 be God if He could or would, why should He cease to 
 be God, if He cannot be, nor can will to be, without a 
 Son ? Such thoughts are as profane as they are un- 
 meaning; and in the presence of them, Athanasius 
 begs God to pardon him, if his Arian opponents 
 force him to entertain them. 
 
 The gennesis, he sr-ys, belongs to the Divine Nature, 
 as the Divine Attributes do, and, as we cannot explain 
 why and how the moral law is what it is, so neither 
 can we understand how Father and Son are what They 
 are. " They say," he observes, " ' Unless the Son has 
 by the Father's will come into being, it follows that 
 the Father had a Son of necessity and against His 
 good pleasure.' Who is it who imposes necessity on 
 Him ? . . . What is contrary to will they see ; but what is 
 greater and transcends it, has escaped their perception.
 
 O, /3ov\r]criv. 389 
 
 For, as what is besides purpose is contrary to will, so 
 what is according to nature transcends and precedes 
 counselling. . . . The Son is not external to the Father, 
 wherefore neither does [the Father] counsel concerning 
 Him, lest He appear to counsel about Himself. As far 
 then as the Son transcends the creature, by so much does 
 what is by nature transcend the will. . . . For let them 
 tell us, that God is good and merciful, does this attach 
 to Him by will or not ? if by will, we must consider 
 that He began to be good, and that His not being 
 good is possible. . . . Moreover, the Father Himself, does 
 He exist, first having counselled, then being pleased, 
 to exist, or before counselling?" Orat. iii. 62, 
 63. 
 
 Thus he makes the question a nugatory one, as if it 
 did not go to the point, and could not be answered, or 
 might be answered either way, as the case might be. 
 Really Nature and Will go together in the Divine 
 Being, but in order, as we regard Him, Nature is first, 
 Will second, and the generation belongs to Nature, 
 not to Will. He says, " Whereas they deny what is 
 by nature, do they not blush to place before it what is 
 by will ? If they attribute to God the willing about 
 things which are not, why recognize 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." Orat. ii. 2. 
 In like manner S. Epiphanius : " He begat Him neither 
 willing, 0&*>v, nor not willing, but in nature, which is 
 
 above will, pov\nv- For He ha8 the nature f th 
 Godhead, neither needing will, nor acting without
 
 390 BouXi), Kara j3ov\r]<Tiv. 
 
 will." User. 69, 26. vid. also Ancor. 51, 'and Ambros. 
 de Fid. iv. 4. Vid. others, as collected in Petav. 
 Trin. vi. 8. 1416. 
 
 
 
 ^[ It would seem then that the phrase "by the 
 Father's will," is only objectionable, as giving rise 
 to interpretations erroneous and dangerous, vid. Deer. 
 18. Hence Athan. says, "It is all one to say 'at 
 will/ and f once He was not.' " Orat. iii. 61. But 
 as this needed not be the interpretation of the phrase, 
 and it is well to keep to what has been received, there- 
 fore, as the earlier Fathers had used it, so did those 
 who came after Arius. Thus Nyssen in the passage 
 in contr. Eun. vii. referred to lower down. And S. 
 Hilary, ' ' Nativitatis perfecta natura est, ut qui ex sub- 
 stantia Dei natus est, etiam ex consilio ejus et volun- 
 tate nascatur." Hilar. Syn. 37. The same father says, 
 "charitate Patris et virtute," in Psalm xci. 8, and "ut 
 voluit qui potuit, ut scit qui genuit." Trin. iii. 4. And 
 he addresses Him as " non invidum bonorum tuorum in 
 Unigeniti tui nativitate." ibid. vi. 21. S. Basil too 
 speaks of our Lord as avro^wrjv /ecu avrod^aOov, " from 
 the quickening Fountain, the Father's goodness, 
 ayaOorrjTos." contr. Eun. ii. 25. And Cassarius calls 
 Him dyd'jrrjv Trar/ao?. Qusest. 39. Vid. Ephrem. Syr. 
 adv. Scrut. E. vi. 1. Oxf. Trans, and note there. Maxi- 
 mus Taurin. says, that God is "per omnipotentiam 
 Pater." Horn, de trad. Symb. p. 270, ed. 1784. vid. also 
 Chrysol. Serm. 61. Ambros. de Fid. iv. 8. Petavius 
 in addition refers to such passages as one just quoted 
 from S. Hilary, speaking of God as not " invidus," so as 
 not to communicate Himself, since He was able. " Si
 
 Boi/X), Kara /3ov\r)<rt,v. 391 
 
 non potuit, infirmus ; si noluit, invidus." August, contr. 
 Maxim, ii. 7. 
 
 Hence, in order to secure the phrase from an 
 heretical tendency, the Fathers adopted two safeguards, 
 both of which are recognized by Athanasius. As 
 regards the relation between the /SouX^a and the 
 ryewi](Tis, they made a distinction between the J3ov\r) 
 7rporjyou/jieL>'r) and the crwS/aoyao?, the precedent and the 
 concomitant will ; and as to the relation between the 
 (3ov\Tj/jia and creation &c., they took care that the Son 
 Himself should be called the f3ov\r) or /3ov\ijfj.a of the 
 Father, vid. supr. Mediation, p. 220. 
 
 ^f As to the precedent will, which Athan. notices, 
 Orat. iii. 60, it has been mentioned in Recogn. Clem, 
 supr. p. 385. For Ptolemy vid. Epiph. Hser. p. 215. 
 Those Catholics who allowed that our Lord was OeXijtrei, 
 explained it as a crvvSpofios QeXrjcris, and not a Trporj- 
 yovfjievij ; as Cyril. Trin. ii. p. 450. And with the 
 same meaning S. Ambrose, "nee voluntas ante Filium 
 nee potestas." de Fid. v. n. 224. And S. Gregory 
 Nyssen, " His immediate union, a/u,e<ro? a-vvdfaia, does 
 not exclude the Father's will, ftovXya-iv, nor does that 
 will separate the Son from the Father." contr. Eunom. 
 vii. p. 206, 7. vid. the whole passage. The alternative 
 which these words, o-vvSpoftos and Trpoijjovfievr], ex- 
 pressed was this ; whether an act of Divine Purpose 
 or Will took place before the gennesis of the Son, or 
 whether both the Will and the gennesis were eternal, 
 as the Divine Nature was eternal. Hence Bull says, 
 with the view of exculpating Novatian, " Cum Filius 
 dicitur ex Patre, quando ipse voluit, nasci, velle illud
 
 392 BouXr), Kara /3ov\rjcnv. 
 
 Patris seternum fuisse intelligendum," Defens. F. N. 
 iii. 8. 8, though Novatian's word quando is against 
 this interpretation. 
 
 ^[ Two distinct meanings may be attached to " by 
 will," (as Dr. Clarke observes, Script. Doct. vol. iv. 
 p. 142, ed. 1738,) either a concurrence or acquiescence, 
 or a positive act. S. Cyril uses it in the former sense, 
 when he calls it avvSpo/jios, as referred to above ; 
 in the latter, when he says that " the Father wills 
 His own subsistence, #6X77x779 eart, but is not what 
 He is from any will, ex fiovXrjaews TWOS" Thes. p. 56 ; 
 Dr. Clarke would apply to ibegennesis the e/c fiovXijaecos, 
 with a view of inferring that the Son was subsequent to 
 a Divine act, i. e. not eternal ; but what Athan. says 
 leads to the conclusion, that it does not matter which 
 sense is taken. He does not meet the Arian objection, 
 " if not by will therefore by necessity," by speaking 
 of a concomitant will, or by merely saying that the 
 Almighty exists or is good, by will, with S. Cyril, but 
 he says that " nature transcends will and necessity 
 also." Accordingly, Petavius is even willing to allow 
 that the etc /SovX?}? is to be ascribed to the <ykvvr}ai<$ in 
 the sense which Dr. Clarke wishes, i.e. he grants that 
 it may precede the ryevvrjcns, i.e. in order, not in time, 
 viz. the succession of our ideas, Trin. vi. 8. 20, 21 ; 
 and follows S. Austin, Trin. xv. 20, in preferring to 
 speak of our Lord rather as " voluntas de voluntate," 
 than, as Athan. is led to do, as the " voluntas Dei." 
 
 5| As to our Lord being the Father's ftov\y}, and 
 thereby the concomitant /BovXrj/Aa, Athan. declares it, 
 Orat. ii. 31 . iii. 63. Thus in the first of these
 
 BouX?}, Kara @ov\r)crcv. 393 
 
 places, " Since the Word is the Son of God by nature, 
 and is from Him and in Him, so the Father without 
 Him works nothing. God said, Let there be light. . . He 
 spoke and it was done. . . . He spoke, not that some un- 
 der- worker might hear and learn His will who spoke, and 
 go away and do it, for the Word is the Father's Will." 
 
 ^[ wo-a ftov\r), supr. Orat. ii. 2. Cyril, in Joan, 
 p. 213. aa Syj/a^u?, Sabell. Greg. 5. tficra eiKwv, 
 Naz. Orat. 30, 20. o>cra evepyeia, Syn. Antioch. ap. 
 Routh, Reliqu. t. 2, p. 469. &>o-a tV^y?, Cyril, in Joan, 
 p. 951. <w<ra o-00/a, Origen. contr. Gels. iii. fin. fwv 
 XOYO?, Origen. ibid. 
 
 ^[ cvyaQov Trarpbs ayaBov ^ov\t]^a. Clem. Peed. iii. 
 p. 309. <ro(f)la, ^/J^CTTO'TT;?, Swa/u?, 0e\r)/u,a TravroKparo- 
 PIKOV. Strom, v. p. 546. " Voluntas et potestas patris." 
 Tertull. Orat. 4. " Natus ex Patre velut quasdam volun- 
 tas ejus ex mente procedens.^ Origen. Periarch. i. 2. 
 6. S. Jerome notices the same interpretation of " by the 
 will of God," in the beginning of Comment, in Ephes. 
 S. Austin on the other hand, as just now referred to, 
 says, " Some divines, to avoid saying that the Only- 
 begotten Word is the Son of the counsel or will of 
 God, have named Him the very Counsel or Will of the 
 Father. But I think it better to speak of Him as 
 Counsel from Counsel, Will from Will, as Substance 
 from Substance, Wisdom from Wisdom." Trin. xv. 20. 
 And so Cassarius, ajaTrrj ef dyaTrr)?. Qu. 39. supr. vid. 
 for other instances Tertullian's Works, Oxf . Tr. Note I. 
 
 If And so Cyril. Thes. p. 54, who uses it expressly, 
 (as has been said above, p. 220,) in contrast to the 
 Kara (3ov\r)aii> of the Arians, though Athan. uses Kara
 
 394 BouA.?}.) Kara /3ov\ij<nv. 
 
 TO /3ov\rj/j.a, also (as in Orat. iii. 31.) : avros rov Trarpo? 
 0e\rjpa says Nyss. contr. Eunom. xii. p. 345. The prin- 
 ciple 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 if one act. 
 
 Tf Yid. de Deer. 9. contr. Gent. 46. Iren. Hasr. 
 iii. 8, n. 3. Origen contr. Gels. 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. art. Mediation. 
 " That the Father speaks and the Son hears, or con- 
 trariwise, that the Son speaks and the Father hears, 
 are expressions for the sameness of nature and the 
 agreement of Father and Son.'' Didym. de Sp. S. 36. 
 " The Father's bidding is not other than His Word ; 
 so that 'I have not spoken of Myself He perhaps 
 meant to be equivalent to ' I was not born from 
 Myself.' For if the Word of the Father speaks, He 
 pronounces Himself, for He is the Father's Word, &c." 
 August, de Trin. i. 26. On this mystery vid. Petav. 
 Trin. vi. 4. 
 
 ^[ " When God commands others, . . . then the hearer 
 answers, . . . for each of these receives the Mediator Word 
 which makes known the will of the Father; but when 
 the Word Himself works and creates, there is no 
 questioning and answer, for the Father is in Him, and 
 the Word in the Father ; but it suffices to will, and 
 the work is done." Orat. ii. 31. Such is the Catho- 
 lic doctrine. For the contrary Arian view, even when 
 it is highest, vid. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. iii. 3 ; (also vid. 
 supra, art. Eusebius.) In the above passage, p. 164,
 
 Bo?;X?}, KaTa BovXrjcriv. 395 
 
 the Father's vev^ara are spoken of, a word common 
 with the Arians. Euseb. ibid. p. 75. de Laud. Const, 
 p. 528. Eunom. Apol. 20 fin. The word is used of 
 the Son's command given to the creation, in Athan. 
 contr. Gent. e. g. 42, 44, &c. S. Cyril. Hier. frequently, 
 as the Arians, uses it of the Father. Catech. x. 5. xi. 
 passim, xv. 25, &c. The difference between the or- 
 thodox and Arian views on this point, is clearly drawn 
 out by S. Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 21.
 
 396 
 
 Offspring. This word is of very frequent occurrence 
 in Athan. He speaks of it, Orat. iv. 3, as virtually 
 Scriptural. " If any one declines to say ' offspring/ 
 and only says that the Word exists with God, let such 
 a one fear lest, declining an expression of Scripture, 
 (TO \ey6fj,evov,} he fall into extravagance, &c." Yet 
 Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 6 8, explicitly disavows the 
 word, as an unscriptural invention of Eunomius. 
 " That the Father begat we are taught in many places : 
 that the Son is an offspring we never heard up to this 
 day, for Scripture says, ' Unto us a child is born, unto 
 us a son is given.' " c. 7. He goes on to say that " it 
 is fearful to give Him names of our own, to whom God 
 has given a name which is above every name /' and 
 observes that offspring is not the word which even a 
 human father would apply to his son, as for instance 
 we read, "Child, (re/cvov,) go into the vineyard/' and 
 " Who art thou, my son ? " moreover that fruits of the 
 earth are called offspring, ("I will not drink of the 
 offspring of this vine/') rarely animated things, except 
 indeed in such instances as, " O generation (offspring) 
 of vipers." Nyssen defends his brother, contr. Eunom. 
 Orat. iii. p. 105. In the Arian formula " an offspring, 
 but not as one of the offsprings," it is synonymous with 
 " work " or " creature." On the other hand Epipha-
 
 397 
 
 nius uses it, e.g. Haer. 76, 8, and Naz. Orat. 29, 2. 
 Eusebius, Demonstr. Ev. iv. 2. Pseudo-Basil, adv. 
 Eunom. iv. p. 280 fin. It may be added, too, that S. 
 Basil seems to have changed his mind, for he uses the 
 Word in Horn, contr. Sabell. t. 2, p. 192. It is 
 remarkable that this Homily in substance (i. e. the 
 contr. Sabell. Greg, which is so like it that it cannot 
 really be another, unless S. Basil copies it) is also given 
 to S. Athan.
 
 398 THE Yevrjrov, 
 
 The 
 
 IN these Treatises "/evrjrov and yevvrjrbv seem to be 
 one word, whatever distinction was made at a later 
 date. So they were considered by S. Ignatius, by the 
 Neo-Platonists, and by the Arians, who availed them- 
 selves of the equivoque of meaning, in order to pro- 
 nounce our Lord a creature, yevvrj^a, though not as 
 other creatures. So also by Athan. and Basil. Hence 
 perhaps it is that Basil is severe on the application of 
 ryevvrj^a to our Lord, his brother Gregory supporting 
 him. Athanasius on the other hand uses it of our Lord 
 with an explanation. After a time the distinction was 
 made, and this will account for other Fathers, Nazianz. 
 &c., following Athanasius. vid. supr. art. jei/vrj^a. Also 
 Damasc. F. 0. i. 8, p. 135, and Le Quien's note ; also 
 note in Cotelerius, in Ign. Eph. t. 2, p. J 3. 
 
 ^f Athanasius considers that Scripture sanctions the 
 one and the two ; and he considers the one and the 
 same word in its two forms, to have the meaning of 
 Son, but that " Son " admits of a primary sense and of a 
 secondary. He virtually says, " It is true that the 
 Word of God and the creatures whom He has made 
 may both be called yewr/para, but both in a very 
 different sense. Both may be called ' Sons of God/ 
 but the Word of God is true yevvrj/jia by nature, 
 whereas creatures are sons, ^evvrj^ara, only by adoption,
 
 THE Tevrjrbv, Tevvrirov. 399 
 
 and that adoption through a mere ^erova-ia or par- 
 ticipation of the divine nature, which is a gift of grace ; 
 but our Lord possesses the very ovvia of the Father, 
 and is thereby His fulness, and has all His attributes/' 
 
 Hence Athan. says, "Things generate, jevvrjra, cannot 
 receive this name, (God's handiwork though they be,) 
 except so far as, after their making, they partake of 
 the Son who is the True Generate, and are therefore 
 said to have been generated also, not at all in their 
 own nature, but because of their participation of the 
 Son in the Spirit." Orat. i. 56. 
 
 ^f It is by a like neglect of the one v and the two, that 
 our Lord is called /iozwyei/?;?. And Athan. speaks of 
 the yVfft<; of human sons, and of the Divine, de Deer. 
 11 ; and in de Syn. 47, he observes that S. Ignatius 
 calls the Son yevrjTos KOI ayevyros, without a hint about 
 the distinction of roots. Again, one of the original 
 Arian positions was that our Lord was a <yevvrj/j,a a\\' 
 OVK <u? ev TMV <yevvrnj,dT(dv, which Athan. frequently 
 notices and combats, vid. Orat. ii. 19. But instead of 
 answering it by showing that our Lord's epithet should 
 have a double v and creatures a single, he allows 
 yevvij/jLaTcov to be applied to creatures improperly, and 
 only argues that there is a proper sense of it in which 
 it applies to the Word, not as one of a number, as the 
 Arians said, but solely, incommunicably, as being the 
 /jiovoyevtjs. It may be admitted, as evident even from 
 this passage, that though Athan. does not distin- 
 guish between ryevrjrbv and ^evvr^rov, yet he considers 
 jeyewrja-dat or yevvr]/j,a as especially appropriate to the 
 Son, <ye<yovvai, and <yevop.evos to the creation.
 
 400 
 
 THE <yevwr)(Ti<; of the Eternal Son is intimately con- 
 nected with the idea of creation ; so much so that Origen 
 thought that the creation was eternal, because the Son 
 was; and Tertullian thought that the Son was not 
 eternal because the creation was not. 
 
 These were erroneous conclusions, but Catholic 
 theologians allow thus much of truth in them, not that 
 the Creator and the creation were co-eval, but that the 
 mission of the Son to create is included in the gennesis ; 
 so that, as by the Father's teaching the Son " doctum 
 et scientem genuisse " is meant and, as His committing 
 judgment to Him is " judicem ipsum gignere," so the 
 mission to create signifies the gennesis of a Son in 
 eternity who is in time to be Creat.or. vid. Petav. de 
 Trin. viii. 1. 10. Hence S. Augustine says, "In 
 Verbo Unico Dei omnia prsecepta sunt Dei, quas ille 
 gignens dedit nascenti." contr. Max. ii. 14, 9, and still 
 more definitely S. Thomas says, " Importatur in Verbo 
 ratio factiva eorum qua3 Deus facit." Summ. 1, qu. 
 34, art. 3. 
 
 Immediately upon the creation follows the second 
 act, viz. of conservation ; for the Divine Hand is of such 
 incomprehensible force and intensity in operation, that 
 the thing created needs, by the intervention of its 
 Creator, to be enabled to bear creation. "Things
 
 401 
 
 created," says Athanasius, " could not have endured 
 His absolute nature and His splendour from the 
 Father, unless, condescending by the Father's love for 
 man, He had supported them and taken hold of them, 
 and brought them into substance, &c." Orat. ii. 64. 
 vid. 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
 D d
 
 402 
 
 Diabolical. This is Athan/s judgment about the Arians. 
 via. Deer. 5 fin. Orat. ii. 38, 74. iii. 17. Ep. 
 -^Eg. 4 6. de Sent. Dion. 27 fin., where he says, 
 " Who then will continue to call these men Christians, 
 whose leader is the devil, and not rather diabolical ? " 
 and he adds, "not only Christ's foes, ^ptcrro^d^oi,, 
 but diabolical also." Again, " though the diabolical 
 men rave/' Orat. iii. 8. " friends of the devil, and 
 his spirits." ad Ep. ^Eg. 5. 
 
 ^[ In Orat. iii. 8, there seems an allusion to false 
 accusation or lying, which is the proper meaning of the 
 word ; ia(3d\\a)v occurs shortly before. And so in 
 Apol. ad Const, when he calls Magnentius ta/3oAo?, it 
 is as being a traitor, 17; and soon after he says that his 
 accuser was TOV &ia/36\ov rpoirov avaha(3<ov, where the 
 word has no article, and Bta^eB\r)/^ai and SieftXr'jdrjv 
 have preceded ; vid. also Hist. Ar. 52 fin. And so in 
 Sent. D. his speaking of the Arians' " father the devil," 
 3. is explained 4. by TOU<? TrarepcK, SiafiaXXovTwv and 
 
 TT}? 649 TOV eTriCTKOTTOV 8ia^O\7]<J. 
 
 ^[ Another reason of his so accounting them, was 
 their atrocious cruelty towards Catholics; this leads 
 him elsewhere to break out, " new heresy, that has 
 put on the whole devil in irreligious doctrine and con- 
 duct I " Hist. Arian. 66. also Alexander, " diabolical," 
 ap. Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 731. " satanical," ibid. p. 741. 
 vid. also Socr. i. 9, p. 30 fin. Hilar. contr. Const. 17.
 
 403 
 
 WT09 etSot>9 060T97T09, says Athan. Syn. 52. 
 The word e'So?, face or countenance, is generally 
 applied to the Son, as in what follows, and is synony- 
 mous with hypostasis ; but it is remarkable that here 
 as elsewhere it is almost synonymous with ovcria or 
 (f>v(ris. Indeed in one sense nature, substance, and 
 hypostasis, are all synonymous, i. e. as one and all 
 denoting the Una Res, which is Almighty God. 
 They differed, in that the word hypostasis regards 
 the One God as He is the Son. The apparent confusion 
 is useful then as reminding us of this great truth ; vid. 
 art. Mta (f)vais. 
 
 In Orat. iii. 6, first the Son's etSo? is the eiSos of the 
 Father, then the Son is the eZSo? of the Father's God- 
 head, and then in the Son is the eZSo9 of the Father. 
 These expressions are equivalent, if Father and Son 
 are, Each separately, 0X09 #609. S. Greg. Naz. uses the 
 word o-jrLaQia, (Exod. xxxiii. 23, which forms a contrast 
 to eISo9,) for the Divine Works. Orat. 28, 3. 
 
 *([ Vid. alsoinGen.xxxii. 30, 31, Sept., where it is trans- 
 lated "facies," Vulg., though in John v. 37 "species." 
 vid. Justin Tryph. 126. In Orat. iii. 15, 6*809 is also 
 used in composition for " kind." Athan. says as above, 
 " there is but one face of Godhead ; " yet the word is 
 used of the Son as synonymous with (( image." It would 
 D d 2
 
 404 
 
 seem as if there were a certain class of words, all expres- 
 sive of the One Divine Substance, which admit of more 
 appropriate application, either ordinarily or under cir- 
 cumstances, to This or That Divine Person who is also 
 that One Substance. Thus " Being " is more descrip- 
 tive of the Father as the Trrjyr) 6e6r^ro^, and He is said 
 to be " the Being of the Son/' yet the Son is really 
 the One Supreme Being also. On the other hand the 
 word " form," iiopfyrj, and " face/ 7 e!So?, are rather 
 descriptive of the Divine Substance in the Person of 
 the Son, and He is called " the form " and "' the face 
 of the Father," yet there is but one Form and Face of 
 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 e/e 
 [TOU Trarpo?] Svva/jws \6<yo<i, yet shortly before, after 
 mentioning the Two Persons, he adds, Svvapiv Be ptav. 
 contr. Noet. 7 and 11. And thus the word " Sub- 
 sistence," u7Too-TacT49, 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," r) Trarpi/cr) vlov deorrj^, 
 as indeed the word ovaia itself. Other words on the 
 contrary express the Substance in This or That Person 
 only, as " Word," " Image/' &c. The word etSo? also 
 occurs Orat. i. 20. Ep. ^Bg. 17. contr. Sabell. Greg. 8 
 and 12.
 
 405 
 
 Trapoucria. 
 
 THIS phrase or its equivalent is very frequent with 
 Athan. vid. Orat. i. 8, 53, 59, 62 fin. ii. 6, 10, 55, 
 66 twice, 72 fin. iii. 28, 35. Incarn. 20. Sent. D. 
 9. Ep. ^Eg. 4. Scrap, i. 3, 9. vid. also Cyril. Catech. iii. 
 11. xii. 15. xiv. 27, 30. Epiph. Hser. 77, 17. The 
 Eutychians avail themselves of it at the Council of 
 Constantinople, vid. Hard. Cone. t. 2, pp. 164, 236. 
 Instead of it VtS?;/u,ta is used Orat. i. 59, three times ; 
 ^ iii. 30. 
 
 Or prerogative, Orat. ii. 19, iii. 3, iv. 28, literally 
 special, singular. Vid. also Euseb. Eccl. Th. pp. 47, 
 73, 89, 124, 129. Theod. Hist. p. 732. Nyssen. c. 
 Eunom. iii. p. 133. Epiph. Haer. 76, p. 370. Cyr. Thes. 
 p. 160.
 
 406 THE 
 
 The ' 
 
 FROM ef ov/c ovrwv, "out of nothing/' one of the 
 original Arian positions concerning the Son. Theodoret 
 says that they were also called Exacionitas, from the 
 name of their place of meeting, Hasr. iv. 3, and Du 
 Cange confirms it so far as to show that there was a 
 place or quarter of Constantinople called Exocionium 
 or Exacionium. Some have thought that Exucontians 
 and Exocionites are perhaps the same word corrupted. 
 At the same time, since the Arians of Constantinople 
 were of the violent sort who were called by various 
 names, Anomceans, Aetians, Eunomians, Acacians, as 
 well as pure Arians, it is not improbable that, in order 
 to distinguish them from the more moderate heretics, 
 they were also called in Constantinople from Exocio- 
 nium, the district of the great metropolis to which they 
 belonged.
 
 Kar' eTrlvoiav, e-Trivoetv, conception. This is a word 
 very common with Athanasius. It expresses the view 
 taken by the mind of theological realities, whether 
 that view be the true view or not ; thus it is used both 
 in reference to heretical errpr and to Catholic faith. 
 Thus Athan., Orat. i. init., speaks of heresies as eirwoij- 
 craa-ai fjiaviav, implying that there is no objective truth 
 corresponding to those conceptions which they so 
 vehemently insist upon. And Socrates, speaking of 
 the decree of the Council of Alexandria, 362, against 
 Apollinaris ; " for, not originating, eVtt/o;o-az/Te<?, any 
 novel devotion, did they introduce it into the Church, 
 but what from the beginning the Ecclesiastical Tradi- 
 tion declared." Hist. iii. 7. And the Arians allowed 
 what was imputed to them as far as this, that they 
 were strenuous from the first in maintaining that the 
 titles given to our Lord, viz. Word, Wisdom, &c., 
 were not to be taken as expressing literal facts, but 
 were mere names given to Him in honour and as a 
 reward. Thus in the Thalia, " He is conceived in num- 
 berless conceptions, eirivoicus." de Syn. 15. Hence 
 Athan. says they held that " He who is really Son is 
 but Kar eTTivoiav Word, as He is Vine, and Way, and 
 Door and Tree of life, and that He is called Wisdom 
 also only in name (vid. art. 'Ovoftara), the proper and
 
 408 
 
 true Wisdom of the Father, which co-exists ingene- 
 rately with Him, being other than the Son, by which 
 He even made the Son, and named Him Wisdom as 
 partaking of it." Orat. ii. 37. Not that they even 
 allowed Him really to be Son, except in the sense that 
 we are sons of God, that is, because adoption involves 
 a gift of the Spirit, which is a real principle of a new 
 birth. Thus Athan. quotes or charges Arius elsewhere 
 as saying, " 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." Orat. i. 9 ; 
 and just after he contrasts " true " Son with the Arian 
 tenet, Son " by adoption, which is from participation " 
 of the Spirit "and /car' ewdvoiav" vid. also de Sent. 
 D. 2. Ep. ^Eg. 12, 13, 14. Orat. iv. 2. 
 
 The word, however, has also a good meaning and 
 use, as expressive of the nearest approximation in 
 human thought to the supernatural truths of Eevelation, 
 and thus equivalent to economical (vid. art. in voc.). 
 Thus in our thoughts of the Almighty, though He is 
 in reality most simple and uncompounded, without 
 parts, passions, attributes, or properties, we consider 
 Him as good or holy, or as angry or pleased, denoting 
 some particular aspect in which our infirmity views, in 
 which alone it can view, what is infinite and incompre- 
 hensible. That is, He is ar' ejrivoiav holy or merci- 
 ful, being in reality a Unity which is all mercifulness 
 and also all holiness, not in the way of qualities, but as 
 one indivisible Perfection ; which is too great for us to 
 conceive as It is. And for the very reason that we 
 cannot conceive It simply, we are bound to use thank-
 
 . 409 
 
 fully these conceptions, which are true as far as they 
 go, and our best possible; since some conceptions, 
 however imperfect, are better than none. They stand 
 for realities which they do not reach, and must be 
 accepted for what they do not adequately represent. 
 But when the mind comes to recognize this existing 
 inadequacy, and to distrust itself, it is tempted to rush 
 into the opposite extreme, and to conclude that because 
 it cannot understand fully, it does not realize anything, 
 or that its vnivoiai are but ovofiara. 
 
 Vid. Scripture Passages.
 
 410 
 
 Evcrefteia. 
 
 Eu<re/3eta, acre/Seta, &c., here translated piety, &c., 
 stand for orthodoxy throughout, being taken from St. 
 Paul's text, /neya TO T>}<? evcre/3eia<> fivcrrripiov, 1 Tim. 
 iii. 16, iv. 8. " Magnum pietatis mysterium," Vulg. 
 
 E. g. rr/v TT}? atpe<reo)9 acrefteiav, Deer. init. oaov 
 eixre/Sovs <f>povija-a><t 77 'Apeiavrj a'lpeais eaTeprjrat,. ibid. 
 2. Tt eXeiTre S<Sa<7/caXia? et9 evcrefteiav TTJ Ka0o\ifcr} 
 KK\rj<ria Syn. 3. 17 oitcovfAeviKr) cryyoSo? roy "Apetof 
 6^e/3aX6 ou (f>epov(7a TTJV acre/Sziav. Orat. i. 7, e 
 passim. Hence Arius ends his letter to Eusebius Nic. 
 with aA,77#ft>9 Eu<re/3ie. Theod. Hist. i. 4. 
 
 ^[ A curious instance of the force of the word as a 
 turning-point in controversy occurs in a Homily 
 given to S. Basil by Petavius, Fronto Ducasus, Com- 
 befis, Du Pin, Fabricius, and Oudin, doubted of by 
 Tillemont, and rejected by Cave and Garnier, where it 
 is said that the denial of our Lady's perpetual virginity, 
 though ''lovers of Christ do not bear to hear that 
 God's Mother ever ceased to be Virgin," yet " does 
 no injury to the doctrine of religion," wSev r&5 TT}<? 
 vcre/3eia<s 7rapa\v/jiaw6Tai Xo7&>, i.e. (according to the 
 above explanation of the word) to the orthodox view of 
 the Incarnation, vid. Basil. Opp. t. 2, p. 599. vid. on the 
 passage Petav. de Incarn. xiv. 3. 7, and Fronto-Duc. in 
 loc. Pearson refers to this passage, and almost trans-
 
 . 411 
 
 lates the \6yos evcrefteias by "mystery," Apost. Creed, 
 Art. 3. " Although it may be thought sufficient as to the 
 mystery of the Incarnation, that, when our Saviour was 
 conceived and born, His Mother was a Virgin, though 
 whatsoever should have followed after could have no 
 reflective operation upon the first-fruit of her womb 
 . . . yet the peculiar eminency, &c." 
 
 f John of Antioch again furnishes us with a defini- 
 tion of pietas, as meaning obedience to the word of God. 
 He speaks, writing to Proclus, of a letter which 
 evidenced caution and piety, i. e. orthodoxy ; " piety, 
 because you went along the royal way of Divine 
 Scripture in your remarks, rightly confessing the word 
 of truth, not venturing to declare anything of your 
 own authority without Scripture testimonies; caution, 
 because together with divine Scripture you propounded 
 also statements of the Fathers in order to prove what 
 you advanced." ap. Facund. i. 1.
 
 412 
 
 evepyeia. 
 
 evepyeia, 
 
 Operatic Deivirilis, "the Man- God's action." By the 
 word evepyeta is meant in theology the action or opera- 
 tion, the family of acts, which naturally belongs to and 
 discriminates the substance or nature of a thing from 
 that of other things ; and not only the mere operation, 
 but also inclusively the faculty of such operation; as 
 certain nutritive or medicinal qualities adhere, and serve 
 as definitions, to certain plants and minerals, or as the 
 evepyeia and the epyov of a seraph may be viewed as 
 being the adoration of the Holy Trinity. 
 
 This being laid down, it would seem to follow that 
 our Lord, having two natures, has two attendant ep<ya 
 and two evepyeiai, and this in fact is the Catholic doc- 
 trine, whereas the Monothelites maintained He had 
 but one, as if, with the Monophysites, they held but 
 one nature of Christ, the divine and human energies 
 making up one single third energy, neither the one nor 
 the other, for, in the Monophysite creed, God and 
 man made one third and compound being, who would 
 necessarily have one compound energy, and, as will 
 is one kind of energy, one only will. 
 
 This one and only energy of our Lord, as proceeding 
 from what they consider His one, compound nature, 
 they denoted by the orthodox phrase, " evepyeia 
 6eavSpticri," diverting it from its true sense. Catholic
 
 eavSpiicrj evepyeia. 413 
 
 theologians, holding two energies, one for each na- 
 ture, speak of them in three ways, viz. as a divine 
 energy, a human, and a union or concurrence of the 
 two ; this last they call deavSpifcr), but in a sense quite 
 distinct from the use of the word by the Monothe- 
 lites. Sometimes our Lord exerts His divine energia, 
 as when He protects His people; sometimes His 
 human, as when He underwent hunger and thirst; 
 sometimes both at once, as in making clay and restoring 
 sight, or in His suffering for His people ; but in this 
 last instance, there is no intermingling of the divine 
 and the human, and, though it may be spoken of as a 
 double energy, still there are in fact two, not one. 
 
 It is this deavSpttcr) evepyeia that is spoken of in the 
 following passages : 
 
 " And thus when there was need to raise Peter's 
 wife's mother who was sick of a fever, He stretched 
 forth His hand humanly, but He stopped the illness 
 divinely. And in the case of the man blind from the 
 birth, human was the spittle which He gave forth from 
 the flesh, but divinely did He open the eyes through 
 the clay. And in the case of Lazarus, He gave forth 
 a human voice, as man ; but divinely, as God, did He 
 raise Lazarus from the dead." Orat. iii. 32. 
 
 " When He is said to hunger and thirst, and to toil, 
 and not to know, and to sleep, and to weep, and to 
 ask, and to flee, and to be born, and to deprecate the 
 chalice, and in a word to undergo all that belongs to 
 the flesh, let it be said, as is congruous, in each case, 
 1 Christ's then hungering or thirsting far us in the flesh, 
 and saying He did not know, and being buffeted and
 
 414 eav&piKr) evepyeia. 
 
 toiling for us in the flesh, and being exalted too, and 
 born, and growing in the flesh, and fearing and hiding 
 in the flesh, and saying, If it be possible let this chalice 
 pass from Me, and being beaten and receiving gifts 
 for us in the flesh ; and in a word, all such things for us 
 in the flesh,' " &c. Orat. iii. 34. 
 
 " When He touched the leper, it was the man that 
 was seen ; but something beyond man, when He 
 cleansed him, &c." Ambros. Epist. i. 46, n. 7. Hil. 
 Trin. x. 23 fin. vid. Incarnation and Two Natures, and 
 S. Leo's extracts in his Ep. 165. Chrysol. Serm. 34 
 and 35. Paul. ap. Cone. Eph. t. iii. (p. 1620, Labbe.)
 
 415 
 
 VID. Acts v. 39. xxiii. 9. text. rec. This epithet is of 
 very frequent use in Athan., as is %/jtcrTo/ia^o?, in 
 speaking of the Arians, vid. infra passim ; also avn^a- 
 Xopevoi ro3 crcarrjpi. Ep. Encycl. 5. And in the be- 
 ginning of the controversy, Alexander ap. Socr. i. 6 
 p. 10, p. 11, p. 13. Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 729. And so 
 tfeojtid^o? 7\&>crcra. Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 27 fin. 
 ^piarTofjud^wv, in his Ep. 236 init. vid. also Cyril. 
 Thesaur. p. 19, p. 24. 6eo/j.d-^oi is used of other 
 heretic^, e. g. the Manichees, by Greg. Naz. Orat. 45. 
 8. 
 
 ^| The title contains in Athan /s use of it an allusion 
 to the antediluvian giants ; e. g. yiyavTas deo/jLa^ovvra^, 
 Orat. iii. 42. vid. also Naz., of the disorderly bishops 
 during the Arian ascendency. Orat. 43, 26, and Socr. 
 v. 10. Sometimes the mythological giants are spoken 
 of. Orat. ii. 32. In Hist. Arian. 74, he calls Con- 
 stantius a 7/709. 
 
 ^[ \ojo/j.a^a too is used with reference to the divine 
 Xctyo? and the fight against Him, as ^piarofiaxeiv and 
 Thus \o n fop.a-)(etv /j,e\erij(7avTe<;, KOI \OITTOV 
 
 s, eaovrat, fier' oXi'yov vexpol rfj a 
 Serap. iv. 1.
 
 416 COT???. 
 
 (vid. Trinity). 
 
 IP the doctrine of the Holy Trinity admits of being 
 called contrary to reason, this must be on the ground 
 of its being incompatible with some eternal truth, 
 necessary axiom, &c., or with some distinct experience, 
 and not merely because it is in its nature inconceivable 
 and unimaginable ; for if to be inconceivable makes it 
 untrue, then we shall be obliged to deny facts of daily 
 experience, e.g. the action of the muscles which fol- 
 lows upon an act of the will. 
 
 However, clear as this is, the language by which we 
 logically express the doctrine will be difficult to inter- 
 pret and to use intelligently, unless we keep in mind 
 the fundamental truths which constitute the mystery, 
 and use them as a key to such language. 
 
 E.g. the Father's Godhead is the Son's, or is in the 
 Son. Orat. i. 52. r H rrarpLicri avrov 6eorr]s. Orat. i. 
 45, 49. ii. 18, 73. iii. 26. 77 Trarpucrj (Averts avrov. 
 i. 40. TO rrarptKov <o><? o uto?. iii. 53. 77 6e6rr)<; KOI 
 r) Ici6rr)<; rov rrarpos TO elvai rov viov ecru. iii. 5. 
 The Son is worshipped Kara rrjv rrarpiicrjv ISiorrjra. i. 
 42. He has rrjv T% o/ioztocreco? evorrjra. Syn. 45. 
 He is o avTo? ry o/jLoictxrei to the Father. Deer. 20. 
 He has rrfv evdrrjra TT}? (fevaeo)^ fcal rrjv ravrorrjra 
 rov <&>TO<?. Deer. 24. ravrorrjra T% (^ucreto?, Basil, Ep. 
 8, 3. Tr?9 overlap, Cyril, in Joan. iii. p. 302. He is e
 
 060T7/9. 417 
 
 Orat. iv. 1. 77 ovcria avrrj rr)9 oucria? TT)? 
 earn yevvr}/j,a. Syn. 48. And we are told 
 of the prophet e/c/So^o-avro? T-^I/ Trarpuc^v VTroa-raaiv 
 Trepi avrov. Orat. iv. 33. vid. Tract /u'a (frvo-ts, 6 fin. 
 
 ^[ 0ucrt5 seems sometimes in Athanasius to be used, 
 not for ovaia, as would be the ordinary application of 
 the word, but for vTrocrracris or person. Thus he says, 
 " whereas the nature of the Son is less divisible rela- 
 tively to the Father " than radiance is relatively to the 
 sun, ..." wherefore should not He be called con- 
 substantial ?" de Syn. 52. And at least this is an 
 Alexandrian use of the word. It is found in Alexan- 
 der ap. Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 740, and it gives rise to 
 a celebrated question in the Monophysite controversy, 
 as used in S. Cyril's phrase ^la </>y<n? (fea-apKM/mevr). 
 S. Cyril uses the word both for person and for sub- 
 stance successively in the following passage. " Perhaps 
 some one will say, ' How is the Holy and Adorable 
 Trinity distinguished into three Hypostases, yet issues 
 in one nature of Godhead ? ' Because, the Same in 
 substance, necessarily following the difference of natures, 
 recalls the minds of believers to one nature of Godhead." 
 cont^r. Nest. iii. p. 91. In this passage " One nature " 
 stands for one substance ; but " three Natures " is the 
 Oue Eternal Divine Nature viewed in that respect in 
 which He is Three. And so S. Hilary, "naturse ex natura 
 gignente nativitas," de Syn. 17 ; and " essentia de-es- 
 sentia," August de Trin. vii. n. 3, and "de seipso genuit 
 Deus id quod est," de Fid. et Symb. 4. i. e. He is the 
 Adorable #60x775 viewed as begotten. These phrases 
 mean that the Son who is the Divine Substance, is from 
 
 VOL. n. E e
 
 418 
 
 the Father who is the [same] divine substance. As, (to 
 speak of what is analogous, not parallel,) we might say 
 that "man is father of man/' not meaning by man 
 the same individual in both cases, but the same nature, 
 so here we speak, not of the same Person in the two 
 cases, but the same Individuum. All these expressions 
 resolve themselves into the original mystery of the 
 Holy Trinity, that Person and Individuum are not 
 equivalent terms, and we understand them neither 
 more nor less than we understand it. In like manner 
 as regards the Incarnation, when St. Paul says " God 
 was in Christ/' he does not mean absolutely the 
 Divine Nature, which is the proper sense of the word, 
 but the Divine Nature as existing in the Person of the 
 Son. Hence too, (vid. Petav. de Trin. vi. 10. 6.) 
 such phrases as ' ' the Father begat the Son from His 
 substance." And in like manner Athan. just after- 
 wards, speaks of " the Father's Grodhead being in the 
 Son." Orat. i. 52. 
 
 The /iom? deoTrjros is a^ia/pero?. Orat. iv. 1,2. 
 Though in Three Persons, they are not yue/^epto-^eVat, 
 Dion. ap. Basil. Sp. S. n. 72. Athan. Expos. F. 2 ; 
 not aTreppTjry/j.evai, Naz. Orat. 20, 6 ; not atr 
 KOI StecTTraoYiemt, Orat. 23, 6, &c. ; but 
 ev /j.e/j,epia-/jivoi<; 77 #0x779. Orat. 31, 14. 
 
 ^[ Though the Divine Substance is both the Father 
 Ingenerate and also the Only -begotten Son, it is not 
 itself ayevvrjTos or 76^1/77x77; which was the objection 
 urged against the Catholics by Aetius, Epiph. Haer. 
 76. 10. Thus Athan. says, de Deer. 30, "He has 
 given the authority of all things to the Son, and,
 
 419 
 
 having given it, is once more, 7rd\iv, the Lord of all 
 things through the Word." vol. i. p. 52. Again, " the 
 Father having given all things to the Son, has all 
 things once again, irakiv . . . for the Son's Godhead 
 is the Godhead of the Father." Orat. iii. 36 fin. 
 Hence 17 e/c TOW 7rarpo<y et? rbv vlov deoTrjs appeuo-T&x? 
 /cal aStatpereo? rvj^dvei. Expos. F. 2. " Vera et a3terna 
 substantia, in se tota permanens, totam se coeeternsB 
 veritati nativitatis indulsit." Fulgent. Resp. 7. And 
 S. Hilary, " Filius in Patre est et in Filio Pater, 
 non per transfusionem, refusionemque mutuam, sed 
 per viventis naturae perfectam nativitatem." Trin. 
 vii. 31. 
 
 @eoro/co5. 
 Vid. Mary. 
 
 E e 2
 
 420 
 
 " As Aaron did not change," says Athanasius, 
 Orat. ii. 8, " by putting on his High-priest's dress, so 
 that, had any one said, f Lo, Aaron has this day be- 
 come High-priest/ he had not implied that he then had 
 been born man, ... so in the Lord's instance the 
 words ' He became ' and ' He was made ' must not be 
 understood of the Word, considered as the Word," 
 &c. &c. 
 
 This is one of those distinct protests by anticipation 
 against Nestorianism, which in consequence may be 
 abused to the purposes of the opposite heresy. Such 
 expressions as 7repm$e/nez/os TTJV ea6r}ra, eicaXuinero, 
 evBv(rdfjLvo<f o-a>fjLa, were familiar with the Apollinarians, 
 against wh.om S. Athanasius is, if possible, even more 
 decided. Theodoret objects, Haer. v. 11, p. 422, to the 
 word Trpo/eaXv/i/ia, when 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, irapa- 
 TreTacyza 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 sub- 
 stance, but an appearance ; yet S. Athan. (if Athan.) 
 contr. Sabell. Greg. 4. has TrapcnreTrelaa-nevrjv, and 
 KaXvfjm.a, ibid. init. ; S. Cyril Hieros. /raTaTre'racr/ua, 
 Catech. xii. 26. xiii. 32, after Hebr. x. 20, and Athan.
 
 421 
 
 ad Adelph. 5 ; Theodor. TrapcnrtTao-na, Eran. 1, p. 22, 
 and 7rpoK(i\.v/j,/j,a, ibid. p. 23, and adv. Gent.vi. p. 877; 
 and o-roX?}, Eran. 1. c. S. Leo has "caro Christi 
 velamen," Ep. 59, p. 979. vid. also Serm. 22, p. 70. 
 Serm. 25, p. 84.
 
 422 
 
 THE meaning of /cvpiw, when applied to language, on 
 the whole presents no difficulty. It answers to the 
 Latin proprie, and is the contrary to improprie. Thus 
 Athan. says, " When the thing is a work or creature, 
 the words ( He made ' &c. are used of it properly, 
 Kvpiw, when an offspring, then they are no longer 
 used Kvplms." Orat. ii. 3. 
 
 But the word has an inconvenient latitude (vid. art. 
 Father Almighty, fin.). Sometimes it is used in the sense 
 of archetypal or transcendent, as when Athan. says, 
 " The Father is icvptws Father, and the Son Kvplox; Son," 
 Orat. i. 21 ; and in consequence in Their instance alone 
 is the Father always Father and the Son always Son. 
 ibid. Sometimes the word is used of us, and opposed to 
 figuratively, etc /jueracfropas, as in Basil, c. Eunom. ii. 23 ; 
 while Hilary seems to deny that we are sons proprie. 
 Justin says, 6 IAOVOS Xt^o'/zei'o? Kvpiws vlbs, Apol. ii. 6, but 
 here nvpiws seems to be used in reference to the word 
 Kvpiot, Lord, which he has just been using, /cvpioXoyeiv 
 being sometimes used by him as by others in the sense 
 of " naming as Lord," like BeoXoyetv. vid. Tryph. 56. 
 There is a passage in Justin's ad Graec. 2 1, where he 
 (or the writer), when speaking of eyco el/j,i 6 wv, uses 
 the word in the same ambiguous sense; ovSev yap 
 ovopa eVl 6eov KvpioXoyela-dat, SWCLTOV ; as if
 
 to)?. Actyo?. 423 
 
 the Lord, by which " I am " is translated, were a sort 
 of symbol of that proper name of God which cannot 
 be given. 
 
 ^[ On KvpioXoyia, vid. Lumper, Hist. Theol. t. 2, 
 p. 478. 
 
 teal 7rpo<j>opiKO<;. 
 Vid. art. Word.
 
 424 
 
 Meroucria. 
 
 To all creatures in different ways or degrees is it given 
 to participate in the Divine attributes. In these it is 
 that they are able or wise or great or good ; in these 
 they have life, health, strength, well-being, as the case 
 may be. And the All-abounding Son is He through 
 whom this exuberance of blessing comes to them 
 severally. 
 
 They are partakers in their measure, of what He 
 possesses in fulness. From the Father's ovcria which is 
 His too, they have through Him a /uerouo-i'a. Here lies 
 the cardinal difference of doctrine between the Catholic 
 and Arian : Arians maintain that the Son has only 
 that perovo-ia of God, which we too have. Catholics 
 hold Him to be God, and the Source of all divine 
 gifts. The antagonism between Athanasius and 
 Eusebius is the more pointed, by the very strength of 
 the language of the latter. He considers the Son 
 e avrrj^ rfj? 7rarptKr)<; [not overlap, but] /Lteroucr/a?, 
 CLTTO Trrjyfjs, eV [vid. supr. Eusebius'] avrov 
 , 7r\r)pov/jLevov. Eccl. Theol. i.2. But Atha- 
 nasius, ovBe Kara fj,eTOv<rlav avrov, a\\' o\ov tbiov avrov 
 ryevvr][j,a. Orat. iii. 4. 
 
 ^[ Athanasius considers this attribute of communi- 
 cation to be one of the prerogatives of the Second 
 Person in the Divine Trinity. He enlarges on this
 
 Merovcri'a. 425 
 
 doctrine in many places : e. g. " if, as we have said 
 before, the Son is not such by participation, but, while 
 all things generated have, by participation, the grace 
 of God, He is the Father's Wisdom and Word, of 
 which all things partake, it follows that He, being the 
 deifying and enlightening power of the Father, in 
 which all things are deified and quickened, is not alien 
 in substance from the Father, but one in substance. 
 For by partaking of Him, we partake of the Father; 
 inasmuch as the Word is proper to the Father. 
 Whence, if He was Himself too from participation, 
 and not the substantial Godhead and Image of the 
 Father, He would not deify, being deified Himself. 
 For it is not possible that He, who but possesses from 
 participation, should impart of that portion to others, 
 since what He has is not His own, but the Giver's; 
 as what He has received is barely the grace sufficient 
 for Himself." Syn. 51.
 
 426 MM 
 
 Mia 
 
 (of our Lord's godhead and of His manhood.) 
 
 Two natures are united in One Christ, but it does 
 not follow that their union is like any other union of 
 which we have cognizance, such, for instance, as the 
 union of body and soul. Beyond the general fact, that 
 both the Incarnation and other unions are of substances 
 not homogeneous, there is no likeness between it and 
 them. The characteristics and circumstances of the In- 
 carnation are determined by its history. The One Self- 
 existing Personal God created, moulded, assumed, a 
 manhood truly such. He, being from eternity, was in 
 possession and in the fulness of His godhead before man- 
 kind had being. Much more was He already in existence, 
 and in all His attributes, when He became man, and 
 He lost nothing by becoming. All that He ever had 
 continued to be His ; what He took on Himself was 
 only an addition. There was no change ; in His 
 incarnation, He did but put on a garment. That 
 garment was not He, or, as Athan. speaks, awro?, or, as 
 the next century worded it, "His Person." That 
 auro9 was, as it had ever been, one and the same with 
 His Divinity, ovcria, or <y<7K? ; it was this Averts, as one 
 with His Person, which took to Itself a manhood. He 
 had no other Person than He had had from the begin- 
 ning; His manhood had no Personality of its own;
 
 Mia Averts. 427 
 
 it was a second <ucri? but not a second Person ; it never 
 existed till it was His ; for its integrity and complete- 
 ness it depended on Him, the Divine Word. It was 
 one with Him, and, through and in Him, the Divine 
 Word, it was one with the Divine Nature ; it was but 
 indirectly united to It, for the medium of union was 
 the Person of the Word. And, being thus without 
 personality of its own, His human nature was relatively 
 to Himself really what the Arians falsely said that He 
 was relatively to the Father, a -n-epl ainbv, a Trept/SoX^, 
 a o-u/i/3e^7?/co9, a "something else besides His sub- 
 stance," Orat. ii. 45, e. g. an opyavov. Such was His 
 human nature; it might be called an additional attribute; 
 the Word was " made man," not, was made a man. 
 
 Thus Athanasius almost confines the word ova-ia to 
 denote the Word, and seldom speaks of His manhood 
 as a nature; and Cyril, to denote the dependence 
 of the manhood upon His Divine Nature, has even used 
 of the Incarnate Lord the celebrated dictum, pia 
 <j>v<Ti<; TOV 6eov \6yov ffea-apKtofievr). This was Cyril's 
 strong form of protesting against Nestoriauism, which 
 maintained that our Lord's humanity had a person as 
 well as the Divine Word, who assumed it. 
 
 5[ Athan. says, Orat. ii. 45, that our Lord is not a 
 creature, though God, in Prov. viii. 22, is said to have 
 created Him, because to be a creature, He ought to 
 have a created substance, which He had not. Does 
 not this imply that he did not consider His manhood 
 an ovffia ? He says that He who is said to be created, 
 is not at once in His Nature and Substance a creature ; 
 77 Aef i<? -n erepov 8rj\ol irepi etcelvov, Kal ov TO \e}'dfj,evov
 
 428 Mia 
 
 icrL&Gdai 7/8-77 rfj <wret Kal Trj ovcrla KTicr/j.a- As the com- 
 plement of this peculiarity, vid. his constant use of 
 the ovcrla rov \6<yov, when we should use the word 
 " Person/' Does not this corroborate St. Cyril in his 
 statement that the saying " p^ia cpvcris aecTaf>Kw^,kvr\ " 
 belongs to Athanasius ? for whether we say one cavern,- 
 or one ovcrla does not seem to matter. Observe too he 
 speaks of something taking place in Him, Trept e/celvov, 
 i. e. some adjunct or accident, (vid. art. TreptySoX^ and 
 a-vfj./Sefi'tjKos), or, as he says Orat. ii. 8, envelopement 
 or dress. In like manner he presently, ii. 46, speaks of 
 the creation of the Word as like the new-creation of the 
 soul, which is a creation not in substance but in qualities, 
 &c. And ibid. 51, he contrasts the ovcrla and the 
 avdpcoTTivov of the Word ; as in Orat. i. 41, ovcrla and 
 17 dvOpioTroT'T)? ; and cpvcra; and &apj;, iii. 34, init. ; and 
 Xo7o<? and crap, 38, init. And He speaks of the Son 
 " taking on Him the economy," ii. 76, and of the VTTO- 
 crratri? row \6yov being one with o avOpwrros, iv. 35. 
 
 It is plain that this line of teaching might be wrested 
 to the purposes of the Apollinarian and Eutychian 
 heresies ; but, considering Athan/s most emphatic 
 protests against those errors in his later works, as well 
 as his strong statements in Orat. iii., there is no hazard 
 in this admission. We thus understand how Eutyches 
 came to deny the " two natures." He said that such 
 a doctrine was a new one ; this is not true, for, not to 
 mention other Fathers, Athan. infr. Orat. iv. fin. speaks 
 of our Lord's " invisible nature and visible," (vid. also 
 contr. Apoll. ii. 11, Orat. ii. 70, iii. 43,) and his ordi- 
 nary use of avOpuTTos for the manhood might quite
 
 Mia (va-is. Moi/ata. , 429 
 
 as plausibly be perverted on the other hand into a 
 defence of Nestorianism ; but still the above pecu- 
 liarities in his style may be taken to account for the 
 heresy, though they do not excuse the heretic. Vid. 
 also the Ed. Ben. on S. Hilary (prsef. p. xliii.), who uses 
 natura absolutely for our Lord's Divinity, as contrasted 
 to the dispensatio, and divides His titles into naturalia 
 and assumpta. 
 
 Vid. Father Almighty.
 
 430 
 
 THE Arians had a difficulty as to the meaning, in their 
 theology, of the word /Aovoyevrfs. Eunomius decided 
 that it meant, not //.ow>? ryevvrjdels, but <yevvr)6el$ Trapa 
 fjiovov. And of the first Arians also Athan. apparently 
 reports that they considered the Son Only-begotten 
 because He /uoW? was brought into being by God 
 fjiovof. Deer. 7. The Macrostich Confession in like 
 manner interprets fiovoyevr)? by yuoVo9 and /-toW?, Syn. 
 26. (supr. vol. i. p. 107,) i.e. the only one of the 
 creatures who was named " Son," and the Son of 
 one Father (with Eunomius above), in opposition to 
 the TrpoftoXij of the Gnostics, (vid. Acacius in Epiph. 
 Hser. p. 839.) Naz., however, explains pbvws by ov% &>9 
 rd a-w^ara. Orat. 25, 16, vid. the Eusebian distinction 
 between oftoovaios and 6/uotouo-K, Soz. iii. 18, in art. 
 OIAOOIKTLOS infr. It seems, however, that Basil and 
 Gregory Nyssen, (if I understand Petav. rightly, Trin. 
 vii. 11. 3,) consider /iovoyev^? to include viro ^6vov } as if 
 in contrast to the Holy Spirit, whose procession is not 
 from the Father only, or again not a gennesis. 
 
 H If it be asked, what the distinctive words are 
 which are incommunicably the Son's, since so many of 
 His names are given also to the creature, it is obvious 
 to answer, TSi09 f/o? and ^0^07 ez/i)?, which are in 
 Scripture, and the symbols " of the substance," and
 
 431 
 
 "one in substance," used by the Council ; and this is the 
 value of the Council's phrases, that, while they guard 
 the Son's divinity, they allow full scope, without risk 
 of trenching on it, to the Catholic doctrine of the 
 fulness of the Christian privileges, vid. art. Son. 
 For 'A7ft7r^To?, vid. Matt. iii. in Scripture Passages.
 
 432 THE "QfAOlOV. 
 
 The 
 
 GOD is both One and Three ; neither as one nor as the 
 other can we speak of likeness in connexion with 
 Him; for likeness, as Athan. says, relates not to 
 things but to their qualities, and to speak of likeness 
 between Father, Son, and Spirit, is to imply that 
 instead of being One and the Same, they are three 
 distinct beings. Again, so far as they are three, they 
 do but differ from each other, and are not merely 
 unlike ; they agree in nothing, viewed as Persons ; 
 they have not so much likeness as to admit (in the 
 ordinary sense) of numbering. Those things, strictly 
 speaking, alone are like or equal, which are not the 
 same : the Three Divine Persons are not like Each 
 Other, whether viewed as Three or One. 
 
 However, in the difficulty of finding terms, which 
 will serve as a common measure of theological thought 
 for the expression of ideas as to which there is no 
 experimental knowledge or power of conception, and 
 in the necessary use of economical language, both 
 these terms, likeness and equality, have been received 
 in orthodox teaching concerning the Supreme Being. 
 The Athanasian Creed declares that the Three Persons 
 in the Godhead have " aequalis gloria/' and are 
 " co-aequales," and S. Athanasius himself in various 
 places uses the word " like/' though he condemns its
 
 THE "O/J-OIOV. 433 
 
 adoption in the mouth of Arians, as being insufficient 
 to exclude error. 
 
 That is, he accepts it as a word of orthodoxy as far 
 as it goes, while he rejects it as sufficient to serve as 
 a symbol and test. Sufficient it is not, even with the 
 strong additions, which the Semi-Arians made, of o/jioios 
 Kara Travra, o/iOiO? icar ovaiav or o/iotovcrfo?, and 
 cnrapaXXa/cTo? eiK<av, because what is like, is, by the 
 very force of the term, not the same. Thus he says, 
 Syn. 41 and 53, " Only to say ' Like according to sub- 
 stance/ is very far from signifying ' Of the substance ' ' 
 (vid. art. Eusebms) ; thus tin is only like silver, and gilt 
 brass like gold. . . No one disputes that like is not 
 predicated of substances, but of habits and of qualities. 
 Therefore in speaking of Like in substance, we mean 
 Like by participation, Kara ^r ovaiav, and this belongs 
 to creatures, for they by partaking are made like to 
 God . . . not in substance, but in sonship, which we 
 shall partake from Him. ... If then ye speak of the 
 Son as being such by participation, then indeed call 
 Him Like in substance and not in nature God, . . . 
 but if this be extravagant, He must be, not by parti- 
 cipation, but in nature and truth, Son, Light, Wisdom, 
 God; and being so by nature and not by sharing, there- 
 fore He is properly called, not Like in substance with 
 the Father, but One in substance/' that is, not 
 o/zotoucrio?, but 6fj,oovo-io<>, Consubstantial. 
 
 Yet clear and decided as is his language here, never- 
 theless, for some reason, probably from a feeling of 
 charity, as judging it best to inculcate first the revealed 
 truth itself as a mode of introducing to' the faithful 
 
 VOL. n. F f
 
 434 THE "O/JiOlOV. 
 
 and defending the orthodox symbol, and showing its 
 meaning and its necessity, he uses the phrases o/uoto? 
 Kara iravra, and 6/j,oiovcno$ more commonly than 
 ofjioovcrios : this I have noted elsewhere. 
 
 If E. g. opoios Kara Trdvra. " He who is in the 
 Father, and like the Father in all things." Orat. 
 i. 40. " Being the Son of (rod, He must be like 
 Him/' Orat. ii. 17. "The Word is unlike us, and 
 like the Father/' Orat. iii. 20, also i. 21,40, ii. 18, 
 22. Ep. ^Egypt. 17. 
 
 ^f And O/AOIO? Ka'T ovcriav. " . . Unless indeed they 
 give up shame, and say that ' Image ' is not a token 
 of similar substance, but His name only." Orat. i. 
 21. vid. also Orat. i. 20 init. 26. iii. 11, 26, 67. 
 Syn. 38. Alex. Enc. 2. 
 
 ^f Also Athan. says that the Holy Trias is o^oia 
 eavry, instead of using the word 6/ioouo-ta. Serap. i. 17, 
 20, 38; also Cyril. Catech. vi. 7. 
 
 Tf In some of the Arian Creeds we have this almost 
 Catholic formula, ofjuoiov Kara irdvra, introduced by the 
 bye, marking the presence of what may be called the 
 new Semi- Arian school. Of course it might admit of 
 evasion, but in its fulness it included " substance." 
 At Sirniium Constantius inserted the above, Epiph. 
 Heer. 73, 22, in the Confession which occurs supr. 
 vol. i. p. 72. On this occasion Basil subscribed in this 
 form. " I, Basil, Bishop of Ancyra, believe and 
 assent to what is aforewritten, confessing that the Son 
 is like the Father in all things ; and by ' in all things/ 
 not only that He is like in will, but in subsistence, and 
 existence, and being; as divine Scripture teaches,
 
 THE "Quotov. 435 
 
 spirit from spirit, life from life, light from light, God 
 from God, true Son from true, Wisdom from the Wise 
 God and Father ; and once for all, like the Father in 
 all things, as a son is to a father. And if any one 
 says that He is like in a certain respect, Kara ri, as is 
 written afore, he is alien from the Catholic Church, as 
 not confessing the likeness according to divine 
 Scripture/' Epiph. Haer. 73, 22. S. Cyril of Jerusalem 
 uses the Kara rrdvra or ev Tracnv O/JLOIOV, Catech. iv. 7. 
 xi. 4 and 18, and Damasc. F. 0. i. 8, p. 135. 
 
 ^[ S. Athanasius, in saying that like is not used of 
 substance, implies that the proper Arian senses of the 
 o/j,oiov are more natural, and therefore the more pro- 
 bable, if the word came into use. These were, 1. like- 
 ness in will and action, as <rvfj,(j)(i)vUt, of which vid. 
 Orat. iii. 11. 2. likeness to the idea in God's mind in 
 which the Son was created. Cyril. Thesaur. p. 134. 
 3. likeness to the divine act or energy by which 
 He was created. Basil, contr. Eun. iv. p. 282. Cyril. 
 in Joan. c. 5. iii. p. 304. 4. like according to the 
 Scriptures, which of course was but an evasion. 5. like 
 Kara rrdvra, which was, as they understood it, an 
 evasion also. 
 
 1 According to Athanasius, supr. p. 371, the phrase 
 " unvarying image " was, in truth, self-contradictory, 
 for every image varies from the original because it is 
 an image. Yet he himself frequently uses it, as other 
 Fathers, and Orat. i. 26, uses o/zoto? rfc ov<ra<;. 
 
 If As "of the substance" declared that our Lord 
 was uncreate, so " one in substance " declared that He 
 was equal with the Father; no term derived from 
 F f 2
 
 436 THE "OflOlOV. 
 
 " likeness," even "like in substance/' answering for 
 this purpose, for such phrases might all be understood 
 of resemblance or representation, vid. Deer. 23. 
 Hyp. Mel. Hil. Syn. 89. Things that- are like can- 
 not be the same ; whereas Athan. contends for the 
 TCIVTOV rfj ofjL,ouacrL, the same in likeness, Deer. 20. 
 " Una substantia religiose praedicabitur, quas ex 
 nativitatis proprietate et ex naturae similitudine ita 
 indifferens sit, ut una dicatur." Hil. Syn. 67. 
 
 If By " the Son being equal to the Father," is but 
 meant that He is His " unvarying image ; " it does 
 not imply any distinction of substance. " Perfectae 
 aequalitatis significantiam habet similitude." Hil. de 
 Syn. 73. But though He is in all things His Image, 
 this implies some exception, for else He would not be 
 like or equal, but the same. " Non est aequalitas in 
 dissimilibus, nee similitude est intra unum." ibid. 72. 
 Hence He is the Father's image in all things except in 
 being the Father, GIKWV <>vcriKr) /cal d.7rapaX\.aKTo<; 
 Kara irdvra ofjioia rw Trarpl, 7T\rji> 77)9 a<yevvijcria<; ical 
 TT}? TTarpoTrjTcx;. Damasc. de Imag. iii. 18, p. 354. vid. 
 also Basil, contr. Eun. ii. 28. Theod. Inconfus. p. 91. 
 Basil. Ep. 38, 7 fin. For the Son is the Image of the 
 Father, not as Father, but as God. The Arians on the 
 other hand, objecting to the phrase "unvarying image/' 
 asked why the Son was not in consequence a Father, 
 and the beginning of a Oeoyovla. vid. Athan. Orat. i. 
 14, 21. Eunom. in Cyril. Thes. pp. 22, 23. 
 
 ^1" The characteristic of Arianism in all its shapes 
 was the absolute separation of Father from Son. It 
 ^considered Them as two ovaiai, like perhaps, but not
 
 THE "OfjlOlOV. 437 
 
 really one ; this was their version of the phrase re'Aeio9 
 e/c rekeiov. Semi-Arians here agreed with Arians. 
 When the Semi-Arians came nearest to orthodoxy in 
 words, it was the Trepi^copr/o-t? that was the test whether 
 they fell short in words alone, or in their theological 
 view.
 
 438 
 
 'O/xooucrtos. 
 
 THE term 6/^001/0709, one in substance or consubstantial, 
 was accepted as a symbol, for securing the doctrine of 
 our Lord's divinity, first by the infallible authority of 
 the Nicene Council, and next by the experimental 
 assent and consent of Christendom, wrought out in its 
 behalf by the events of the prolonged Arian contro- 
 versy. 
 
 It had had the mischance in the previous century of 
 being used by heretics in their own sense, and of in- 
 curring more or less of suspicion and dislike from the 
 Fathers in the great Council of Antioch, A.D. 264 272, 
 though already in use in the Alexandrian Church ; but, 
 when the momentous point in dispute, the divinity of 
 the Son, was once thoroughly discussed and under- 
 stood, it was forced upon the mind of theologians that 
 the reception or rejection of this term was the differ- 
 ence between Catholic truth and Arianism. 
 
 1" " We were aware," says Eusebius to his people, 
 "that, even among the ancients, some learned and 
 illustrious Bishops and writers have used the term 
 ' one in substance/ in their theological teaching con- 
 cerning the Father and Son." And Athanasius in like 
 manner, ad Afros 6, speaks of " testimony of ancient 
 Bishops about 130 years since;" and in de Syn. 43, 
 of " long before " the Council of Antioch. Tertullian,
 
 439 
 
 Prax. 13 fin., has the translation "unius substantise," 
 (vid. Lucifer de non Pare. p. 218,) as he has " de sub- 
 stantia Patris/' in Prax. 4, and Origen perhaps used the 
 word, vid. Pamph. Apol. 5, and Theognostus and the two 
 Dionysius's, Deer. 25, 26. And before them Clement 
 had spoken of the evw&is T?}? povaSiK'rjsova-ias, "the union 
 of the single substance/' vid. Le Quien in Damasc. Fid. 
 Orth. i. 8. Novatian too has " per subsfcantiae com- 
 munionem/' de Trin. 31. vid. Athan. ad Afros 5, 6. ad 
 Serap. ii. 5. S. Ambrose tells us, that a Letter written 
 by Eusebius of Nicomedia, in which he said, " If we call 
 Him true Son of the Father and uncreate, then are we 
 granting that He is one in substance, bpoovaiov" de- 
 termined the Council on the adoption of the term, de 
 Fid. iii. n. 125. He had disclaimed "of the substance/' 
 in his Letter to Paulinus. Theod. Hist. i. 4. Arius, 
 however, had disclaimed 6/jLoov<riov already, Epiph. 
 Hasr. 69, 7, and again in the Thalia. Gibbon's unte- 
 nable assertion has been already observed upon, vid. 
 Nicene Tests, that the Council was at a loss for a 
 test, and that on Eusebius's " ingenuously confessing 
 that his opoovaios was incompatible with the principles 
 of [his] theological system, the fortunate opportunity 
 was eagerly embraced by the Bishops," as if they were 
 bent at all hazards, and without reference to the real 
 and substantial agreement or disagreement of them- 
 selves and the Arians, to find some word which might 
 accidentally serve to exclude the latter from com- 
 munion. 
 
 ^[ When the Semi- Arians objected that the Council 
 of Antioch, 264 272, determined that the Son is
 
 440 
 
 not consubstantial witli the Father, de Syn. 43 45, 
 Athan. answered in explanation that Paul of Samo- 
 sata took the word in a material sense, as indeed 
 Arius did, calling it the doctrine of Manes and Hiera- 
 cas. S. Basil, contr. Eunom. i. 19, agrees with Athan., 
 but S. Hilary on the contrary reports that Paul him- 
 self accepted it, i.e. in a Sabellian sense, and therefore 
 the Council rejected it. " Male homoiision Samo- 
 satenus confessus est, sed numquid melius Arii nega- 
 verunt?" de Syn. 86. Doubtless, however, both reasons 
 told in causing its rejection. But Montfaucon and 
 Bull consider it a difficulty. Hence, it would seem, the 
 former in his Nova Oollectio, t. ii. p. 19, renders OVKOVV 
 by ergo non ; he had not inserted non in his edition of 
 Athanasius. 
 
 ^[ The objections made to the word o^oovcriov were, 1 . 
 that it was not in Scripture ; 2. that it had been dis- 
 owned by the Antiochene Council against Paul of 
 Samosata; 3. that it was of a material nature, and be- 
 longed to the Manichees ; 4. or that it was of a 
 Sabellian tendency ; 5. that it implied that the divine 
 substance was distinct from God. 
 
 ^[ The Eusebians tried to establish a distinction be- 
 tween ofMoova-iov and 6fj,otov<n,ov, " one in substance " 
 and " like in substance," of this sort ; that the former 
 belonged to things material, and the latter to imma- 
 terial, Soz. iii. 18, a remark which in itself was quite 
 sufficient to justify the Catholics in insisting on the 
 former term. For the heretical party, starting with 
 the notion in which their heresy in all its shades con- 
 sisted, that the Son was a distinct being from the
 
 441 
 
 Father, and appealing to (what might be plausibly 
 maintained) that spirits are incommensurable with one 
 another, or that each is sui similis, concluded that " like 
 in substance " was the only term which would express 
 the relation of the Son to the Father. Here then the 
 word " one in substance " did just enable the Catholics 
 to join issue with them, as exactly expressing what 
 Catholics wished to express, viz. that there was no 
 such distinction between Them as made the term 
 "like"'-' necessary, but that Their relation to Each 
 Other was analogous to that of a material offspring to 
 a material parent, or that as material parent and off- 
 spring are individuals under one common species, so 
 the Eternal Father and Son are Persons under one 
 common individual substance. 
 
 " The East/' says Sozomen, " in spite of its being 
 in dissension after the Antiochene Council " of the De- 
 dication, " and thenceforth openly dissenting from 
 the Nicene faith, in reality, I think, concurred in 
 the sentiment of the majority, and with them con- 
 fessed the Son to be of the Father's substance ; 
 but from contentiousness certain of them fought 
 against the term ' One in substance ; ' some, as I 
 conjecture, having originally objected to the word 
 . . . others from habit . . . others, aware that the 
 resistance was unsuitable, leaned to this side or that to 
 gratify parties ; and many thought it weak to waste 
 themselves in such strife of words, and peaceably held 
 to the Niceue decision." Hist. iii. 13. 
 
 Athan. is very reserved in his use of the word 
 6/u.oovaiov in these three Orations. Indeed I do not
 
 442 ' 
 
 recollect his using it but once, Orat. i. 9, and that 
 in what is almost a confession of faith. Instead he 
 uses oyuoio? Kara irama, o//.oios Kar ova-lav, 
 &c.
 
 443 
 
 THE various titles of the Second Divine Person are 
 at once equivalent and complementary to each other. 
 Son, Word, Image, all imply relation, and suggest and 
 teach that attribute of supereffluence which is one of 
 the perfections of the Divine Being, (vid. Father 
 Almighty.) 
 
 " The Son of God, as may be learnt from the divine 
 oracles themselves, is Himself the Word of God, and 
 the Wisdom, and the Image, and the Hand, and the 
 Power ; for God's Offspring is one, and of the genera- 
 tion from the Father these titles are tokens. For if 
 you say the Son, you have declared what is from the 
 Father by nature ; and if you imagine the Word, you 
 are thinking again of what is from Him, and what is in- 
 separable ; and, speaking of Wisdom, again you mean 
 nothing less, what is not from without, but from Him 
 and in Him ; and if you name the Power and the Hand, 
 again you speak of what is proper to substance ; and, 
 speaking of the Image, you signify the Son ; for what 
 else is like God but the offspring from Him ? Doubt- 
 less the things, which came to be through the Word, 
 these are founded in Wisdom ; and what are laid in 
 Wisdom, these are all made by the Hand, and came to 
 be through the Son/' Deer. 17. 
 
 If As Sonship is implied in "Image" (art. Son), so it
 
 444 'Ovo/uara. 
 
 is implied in "Word " and "Wisdom." For instance, 
 " Especially is it absurd to name the Word, yet deny 
 Him to be Son, for, if the Word be not from God, 
 reasonably might they deny Him to be Son ; but if He 
 is from God, how see they not that what exists from 
 anything is son of him from whom it is ? " Orat. iv. 
 15. Again, ael 0eo? 771; teal vios e'er, Xo7o? wi/. Orat. 
 iii. 29 init. v/o? r/9 ^ 6 \6yos ; de Deer. 1 7. And still 
 more pointedly, el firj vlbs, ov&e Xo'yo?, Orat. iv. 24 fin. 
 And so " Image " is implied in Sonship ; " being Son 
 of God, He must be like Him," ii. 1 7. It is implied 
 in "Word ; " ev rfj IBia elfcovi, i]Ti<; ea-rlv 6 Ao'yo<? avrov. 
 82, also 34 fin. On the contrary, the very root 
 of heretical error was the denial that these titles im- 
 plied each other. 
 
 ^[ All the titles of the Son of God are consistent 
 with each other, and variously represent one and the 
 same Person. " Son " and "Word" denote His de- 
 rivation ; " Word " and " Image," His Likeness ; 
 " Word " and " Wisdom/' His immateriality ; " Wis- 
 dom " and " Hand/' His co-existence. " What else is 
 Like God, but His offspring from Him?" de Deer. 17. 
 "If He is not Son, neither is He Image." Orat. ii. 
 2. "How is there Word and Wisdom, unless there 
 be a proper Offspring of His substance ? " ii. 22. vid. 
 also Orat. i. 20, 21, and at great length Orat. iv. 
 20, &c. vid. also Naz. Orat. 30, 20. Basil, c.ontr. 
 Eunom. i. 18. Hilar. de Trin. vii. 11. August, in 
 Joann. xlviii. 6, and in Psalm 44, (45,) 5. 
 
 ^[ It is sometimes erroneously supposed that such 
 illustrations as these are intended to explain how the
 
 445 
 
 Sacred Mystery in question is possible, whereas they 
 are merely intended to show that the words we use 
 concerning it are not self-contradictory, which is the 
 objection most commonly brought against them. To 
 say that the doctrine of the Son's generation does not 
 trench upon the Father's perfection and immutability, or 
 negative the Son's eternity, seems at first sight incon- 
 sistent with what the words Father and Son mean, till 
 another image is adduced, such as the sun and radiance, 
 in which that alleged inconsistency can be conceived 
 to exist in fact. Here one image corrects another; 
 and the accumulation of images is not, as is often 
 thought, the restless and fruitless effort of the mind to 
 enter into the Mystery, but is a safeguard against any 
 one image, nay, any collection of images, being sup- 
 posed adequate. If it be said that the language used 
 concerning the sun and its radiance is but popular, not 
 philosophical, so again the Catholic language concern- 
 ing the Holy Trinity may, nay, must be economical, 
 not exact, conveying the truth, not in the tongues 
 of angels, but under human modes of thought and 
 speech, vid. supr. articles Illustrations, p. 174, and 
 Economical Language, p. 94. 
 
 ^[ It is a view familiar to the Fathers, 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. 102, 11. "If God is the Father of 
 a Word, why is not He which is begotten a Son ? " 
 de Deer. 17. " If I speak of Wisdom, I speak of 
 His Offspring." Theoph. ad Autolyc. i. 3. " Th* 
 Word, the genuine Son of Mind." Clem. Protrept.
 
 446 
 
 p. 78. One or two additional references are given in 
 the article Word, p. 337. 
 
 ^f It is usual with the Fathers to use the two terms 
 " Son " and " Word " to guard and complete the or- 
 dinary sense of each other. Their doctrine is that our 
 Lord is both, in a certain transcendent, prototypical, 
 and singular sense ; that in that high sense they are 
 coincident with one another ; that they are applied to 
 human things by an accommodation, as far as these 
 are shadows of Him to whom properly they really be- 
 long ; that, being but partially realized on earth, the* 
 ideas gained from the earthly types are but imperfect ; 
 that in consequence if any one of them is used exclu- 
 sively of Him, it tends to introduce wrong ideas re- 
 specting Him ; but that their respective imperfections, 
 as lying on different sides, when used together correct 
 each other. The term Son, used by itself, was abused 
 into Arianism, and the term Word into Sabellianism ; 
 the term Son might be accused of introducing material 
 notions, and the term Word of suggesting imperfection 
 and transitoriness. Each of them corrected the other. 
 " Scripture," says Athan., " joining the two, has said 
 ' Son,' that the natural and true Offspring of the Sub- 
 stance may be preached ; but, that no one may under- 
 stand a human offspring, therefore, signifying His 
 substance a second time, it calls Him Word, and 
 Wisdom, and Radiance." Orat. i. 28. 
 
 Vid. also iv. 8. Euseb. contr. Marc. ii. 4, p. 54. 
 Isid. Pel. Ep. iv. 141. So S. Cyril says that we 
 learn " from His being called Son that He is from 
 Him, TO e avrov; from His being called Wisdom and
 
 447 
 
 Word, that He is in Him," TO ev avry. Thesaur. iv. 
 p. 31. However, S. Athanasius observes, that pro- 
 perly speaking the one term implies the other, i. e. in 
 its fulness. " Since the Son's Being is from the Father, 
 therefore It is in the Father." Orat. iii. 3. " If 
 not Son, not Word either ; and if not Word, not Son. 
 For what is from the Father is Son ; and what is from 
 the Father, but the Word ? &c." Orat. iv. & 24 fin. 
 
 * o 
 
 On the other hand the heretics accused Catholics of 
 inconsistency, or of a union of opposite errors, because 
 they accepted all the Scripture images together. But 
 Vigilius of Thapsus says, that " error bears testimony 
 to truth, and the discordant opinions of misbelievers 
 blend in concordance in the rule of orthodoxy." contr. 
 Eutych. ii. init. " Grande miraculum, ut expugnatione 
 sui veritas confirmetur." ibid. 3. vid. also i. init. 
 and Eulogius, ap. Phot. 225, p. 759. 
 
 ^[ 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 Minister a crea- 
 ture. 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 neces- 
 sarily mysterious and open to misconception. 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 con- 
 naturality and co-equality, which the Arians denied. In 
 like manner he says in a later Discourse, " In the Son
 
 448 
 
 the Father's godhead is beheld. The Emperor's coun- 
 tenance and form are in His Image, and the counte- 
 nance of His Image is in the Emperor. For the Em- 
 peror's likeness in His Image is a definitive likeness, 
 airapaXXaKTos, so that he who looks upon the Image, 
 in it sees the Emperor, and again he who sees the 
 Emperor, recognizes that He is in the Image. The 
 Image then might say, ' I and the Emperor are one/ ' 
 Orat. iii. 5. And thus the Auctor de Trin. refers to 
 " Peter, Paul, and Timothy having three subsistencies 
 and one humanity." i. p. 918. 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. 
 
 ^[ The title " Word " implies the ineffable mode of 
 the Son's generation, as distinct from material parallels, 
 vid. Gregory Nyssen, contr. Eunom. iii. p. 107. Chry- 
 sostom in Joan. Horn. 2. 4. Cyril Alex. Thesaur. 5, 
 p. 37. Also it implies that there is but One Son. vid. 
 Orat. i. 16. "As the Origin is one substance, so its 
 Word and Wisdom are one, substantial and subsisting." 
 Athan. Orat. iv. 1 fin. 
 
 ^[ Vid. passim. All these titles, " Word, Wisdom, 
 Light," &c. serve to guard the title " Son " from 
 any notions of parts or dimensions, e. g. " He is not 
 composed of parts, but being impassible and single, 
 He is impassibly and indivisibly Father of the Son . . .
 
 449 
 
 for ... the Word and Wisdom is neither creature, nor 
 part of Him whose Word He is, nor an offspring 
 passibly begotten." Orat. i. 28. 
 
 ^| As the Arians took the title Son in that part of 
 its earthly sense in which it did not apply to our Lord, 
 so they misinterpreted the title Word also ; which de- 
 noted the Son's immateriality and indivisible presence 
 in the Father, but did not express His perfection, vid. 
 Orat. ii. 34 36. "As our word belongs to us and 
 is from us, and not a work external to us, so also the 
 Word of God is proper to Him and from Him, and is 
 not made, yet not as the word of man, else one must 
 consider God as man. Men have many words/' &c. 
 Orat. ii. 36. vid. art. Word. 
 
 ^[ The name of Image was of great importance in 
 correcting heterodox opinions as to the words Son and 
 Word, which were propagated in the Ante-Nicene 
 times, and in keeping their economical sense in the 
 right direction. A son who had a beginning, and a 
 word which was spoken and over, were in no sense an 
 " Image" of the Eternal and All-perfect God. 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
 g
 
 450 'Opyavov. 
 
 Opyavov, 
 
 Instrument. This word, which is rightly used of our 
 Lord's manhood relatively to His Divine Person 
 ( TOUT&J xpa)/jt,evos op^avw, Orat. iii. 31, and opyavov 
 Trpo? Tr)v evepryeiav KOI TTJV eKXaptyiv TT}? $eo'T7/TO<?, 53), 
 is simply heretical if taken to express the relation of 
 His Divine Person towards His Father. In the latter re- 
 lation the term is inapplicable, unless He " was different 
 from the Father in nature and substance." Deer. 23. 
 vid. Basil, de Sp. S. 19 fin. In this Arians, Socr. i. 6, 
 Eusebius, Eccl. Theol. i. 8, and Anomceans would agree. 
 At the same time, doubtless, some early writers use it 
 of our Lord's Divine Nature, though not in a heretical 
 sense, vid. art. Mediation. 
 
 ^[ As it was abused by the Arians to mean a servant 
 or irjrovpyos, as if our Lord was a mere creature, so it 
 was afterwards used heretically in the doctrine of the 
 Incarnation by the Apollinarians, who looked on our 
 Lord's manhood as merely a manifestation of God. 
 vid. KaraTreraafjia. Thus cr^/na opyavixov in Athan. 
 Apol. i. 2, 15, also a parallel in Euseb. Laud. Const. 
 13, p. 536. However, it is used freely by Athan., 
 e. g. Orat. iii. 31, 53, as above, and Incarn. 8, 9, 43, 44. 
 And he uses the words vrpo? <f>avpa)criv KOI yvwcriv, 41 
 fin., but he also insists upon our Lord's coming being 
 not merely for manifestation, else He might have come
 
 "Opyavov. 451 
 
 in a higher nature, ibid. 8. vid. also 44. It may be added 
 that <f)avepa>cris is a Nestorian as well as Eutychian 
 idea ; vid. Orat. iii. 30, Facund. Tr. Cap. ix. 2, 3, 
 and the Syrian use of parsopa, Asseman. Bibl. Orient, 
 t. 4, p. 219. Thus both parties really denied the 
 Atonement. 
 
 G g 2
 
 452 'O/0005. 
 
 WHAT is strange to ears accustomed to Protestant 
 modes of arguing, S. Athanasius does not simply ex- 
 pound Scripture, rather he vindicates it from the 
 imputation of its teaching any but true doctrine. It is 
 ever bpOos, he says, that is, orthodox ; I mean, he takes 
 it for granted that a tradition exists, as a standard, 
 with which Scripture must, and with which it doubt- 
 less, does agree, and of which it is the written con- 
 firmation and record. 
 
 In Orat. ii. 44, he says, "We have gone through thus 
 much before coming to the passage in the Proverbs, 
 that they may rightly read what admits in truth of a 
 sound (bpdrjv) interpretation," as if the authoritative 
 interpretation required to be applied to Scripture, 
 before we could assume that the doctrine conveyed by 
 it was orthodox. And so yu-er' evaelSeias just below. Such 
 phrases are frequent in Athan. , e. g. rrjv Sidvoiav tuo-e/3?} 
 teal \iav opdrjv, de Deer. 13. /caA-w? real op6a)<s, Orat. iv. 
 31, yeypaTTTat /j,d\a dvayKaia)*;, de Deer. 14. ei/amo?, 
 Orat. ii. 44. iii. 53. rr}v Stdvoiav KK\i]aiacrTucr]v, 
 Orat. i. 44 init. rbv O-KOTTOV rbv KK\rj<riaaTiKbv, Orat. 
 iii. 58. 77 Sidvoia e^ei Trjv alriav evXoyov, iii. 7 fin. 
 vid. also Orat. i. 37 init. 46. ii. 1, 9 init. 12, 53, 
 iii. 1, 18, 19, 35, 37. iv. 30. 
 
 ^| Vid. art. Rule of Faith. This illustrates what he
 
 453 
 
 means when he says that certain texts have a " good/' 
 " pious/' "orthodox " sense, i. e. they can be inter- 
 preted (in spite, if so be, of appearances) in harmony 
 with the Regula Fidei. And so, TO ev rat<t Trapoi/ueu? 
 ov, opdrjv e^ov Kal avro rrjv Bidvoiav. Orat. ii. 44. 
 ravra Trpo? aTroSei^iv opdrjv elvai TTJV rov prjTov 
 Sidvotav. ibid. 77. TO TOIVVV Xeyo/Aevov VTTO rov 
 /j,a/capiov IleTpou opOov. iv. 35. vid. also iii. 7, &c. &c.
 
 454 Over/a, bv. 
 
 OV. 
 
 USIA, substance. The word ova-la in its Greek or 
 Aristotelic sense seems to have stood for an individual 
 substance, numerically one, which is predicable of 
 nothing but itself. Improperly, it stood for a species or 
 genus, vid. Petav. de Trin. iv. 1. 2, but, as Anastasius 
 observes in many places of his Vice dux, Christian 
 theology innovated on the sense of Aristotelic terms. 
 vid. c. 1, p. 20. c. 6, p. 96. c. 9, p. 150. c. 17, p. 308. 
 There is some difficulty in determining how it inno- 
 vated. Anastasius and Theorian, (Hodeg. 6. Legat. ad 
 Arm. pp. 441, 2,) say that it takes ovcria to mean an 
 universal or species, but this is nothing else than the 
 second or improper Greek use. Rather, in speaking of 
 God, it takes the word in a sense of its own, such as we 
 have no example of in creation, of a Being numerically 
 one, subsisting in three persons ; so that the word is a 
 predicable, or in one sense universal, without ceasing 
 to be individual ; in which consists the mystery of the 
 Holy Trinity. However, heretics, who refused the 
 mystery, objected it to Catholics in its primary philoso- 
 phical sense; and then, standing simply for an individual 
 substance, when applied to Father and Son, it either 
 implied the parts of a material subject, or it involved 
 no real distinction of persons, i. e. Sabellianism. The 
 former of these two alternatives is implied in Athan.'s 
 text by the "Greek use;-" the latter by the sam e phrase
 
 Ovaia, ov. 455 
 
 as used by the conforming Semi-Arians, A.D. 363. 
 " Nor, as if any passion were supposed of the ineffable 
 generation, is the term ' substance ' taken by the 
 Fathers, &c. nor according to any Greek use," &c. 
 Socr. iii. 25. Hence such charges against Catholicism 
 on the part of Arians as Alexander protests against, 
 of either Sabellianism or Valentinianism, OVK . . . wajrep 
 2a/8eAAi&> Kal BaXevTtVw So/cet, &c. Theod. Hist. i. 3, 
 p. 743. Hence Paul's argument against the Antio- 
 chene Council in Athan.'s and in Hilary's report. 
 
 5f By the substance of God we mean nothing more 
 or less than God Himself. "If God be simple, as 
 He is, it follows that in saying ' God ' and naming 
 ' Father/ we name nothing as if about ("rrepl) Him, 
 but signify His substance, and that alone." Deer. 22. 
 
 In like manner de Synod. 34. Also Basil, " The 
 substance is not any one of things which do not attach, 
 but is the very being of God." contr. Eunom. i. 10 fin. 
 " The nature of God is no other than Himself, for He 
 is simple and uncompouuded." Cyril Thesaur. p. 59. 
 "When we say the person of the Father, we say nothing 
 else than the substance of the Father." August, de 
 Trin. vii. 6. And so Numenius in Eusebius, " Let no 
 one deride, if I say that the name of the Immaterial is 
 substance and being." Prasp. Evang. xi. 10. 
 
 ^f In many passages Athan. seems to make usia 
 synonymous with hypostasis, but this mode of speaking 
 only shows that the two terms had not their respective 
 meanings so definitely settled and so familiarly re- 
 ceived as afterwards. Its direct meaning is usually 
 substance, though indirectly it came to imply sub-
 
 456 Ova la, ov. 
 
 sistence. He speaks of that Divine Essence which, 
 though also the Almighty Father's, is as simply and 
 entirely the Word's as if it were only His. Nay, even 
 when the Substance of the Father is spoken of in a sort 
 of contrast to that of the Son, as in the phrase ovcria 
 eg ova-la^, (e. g. " His substance is the offspring of the 
 Father's substance." Syn. 48, and e ova-la? ovcnwB^ 
 KOI evovaios, Orat. iv. 1,) harsh as such expressions are, 
 ib is not accurate to say that ovaLa is used for sub- 
 sistence or person, or that two ovc-lai are spoken of 
 (vid. art. <wm), except, that is, by Arians, as Euse- 
 bius (art. Eusebius}. We find (j>vcns rov \6yov, Orat. i. 
 51 init., meaning His usia without including the idea 
 of His Person, vid. art. etSo?. 
 
 Other passages may be brought, in which usia and 
 hypostasis seem to be synonymous, as Orat. iii. 65. 
 " The Apostle proclaims the Son to be the very impress, 
 not of the Father's will, but of His usia, saying, ' the 
 impress of His hypostasis ;' and if the Father's usia and 
 hypostasis is not from will, it is very plain neither is from 
 will what belongs to the Father's hypostasis." And so 
 Orat. iv. 1 . " As there is one Origin, and therefore 
 one God, so one is that substance and subsistence 
 which indeed and truly and really is." And " The 
 Prophet has long since ascribed the Father's hypostasis 
 to Him." Orat. iv. 33. And 17 vTrocrracris oucria, ecrri, 
 
 tcai ov8ev aX\o <rr)fj,aii'6/jievov e'^et r) avro TO ov 
 
 77 <yap uvrocTTacrt? icai rj ovcria uirapj-k ecrrt. ad. Afros, 4. 
 
 For the meaning in the early Fathers of ovaia, 
 uTTo'o-rao-i?, (frvcris, and eZSo?, vid. " Theological Tracts," 
 art. Mt'a
 
 457 
 
 ATHAN. seems to say, Decret. 22, and so de 
 Synod. 34, which is very much the same passage, 
 that there is nothing of quality (-n-epl avrov) in God. 
 Some Fathers, however, seem to say the reverse. 
 E. g. Nazianzen lays down that " neither the immate- 
 riality of God, nor ingenerateness, present to us His 
 substance." Orat. 28, 9. And S. Augustine, arguing 
 on the word ingcnitus, says, that " not everything 
 which is said to be in God is said according to 
 substance/' de Trin. v. 6. And hence, while Athan. 
 in the text denies that there are qualities or the like 
 belonging to Him, jrepl avrbv, it is still common in the 
 Fathers to speak of qualities, as in the passage of S. 
 Gregory just cited, in which the words Trepl 6eov occur. 
 There is no difficulty in reconciling these statements, 
 though it would require more words than could be 
 given to it here. Petavius has treated the subject 
 fully in his workde Deo, i. 7 11, and especially ii. 3. 
 When the Fathers say that there is no difference 
 between the divine ' proprietates ' and essence, they 
 speak of the fact, considering the Almighty as He is ; 
 when they affirm a difference, they speak of Him as 
 contemplated by us, who are unable to grasp the idea 
 of Him as one and simple, but view His Divine nature 
 as if in projection, (if such a word may be used,) and 
 thus divided into substance and quality as man may 
 be divided into genus and difference.
 
 458 Hr,yr). 
 
 Vid. Father Almighty. 
 
 WHAT the Yalentinian 7rpo(3o\rj was, is described in 
 Epiph. Haer. 31, 13. The ^ons, wishing to show 
 thankfulness to God, contributed together (epavura- 
 p<evovs) whatever was most beautiful of each of them, 
 and moulding these several excellencies into one, 
 formed this Issue, 7rpo/3a\ea-0aL 7rp6{3\ti[j,a, to the 
 honour and glory of the Profound, fivOos , and they 
 called this star and flower of the Pleroma, Jesus, &c. 
 And so Tertullian, " a joint contribution, ex aere 
 collatitio, to the honour and glory of the Father, ex 
 omnium defloratione constructum," contr. Yalent. 12. 
 Accordingly Origen protests against the notion of 
 Trpo/SoA?), Periarch. iv. 28, p. 190, and Athanasius Expos. 
 1. The Arian Asterius too considers 7rpo/3o\r] to 
 introduce the notion of TeKvoyovia, Euseb. contr. Marc. 
 i. 4, p. 20. vid. also Epiph. Haer. 72. 7. Yet Eusebius 
 uses the word vrpo/SaXXecr^at, Eccles. Theol. i. 8. On 
 the other hand Tertullian uses it with a protest against 
 the Valentinian sense. Justin has 7rpo{3\rj6ev yevvrj/Aa, 
 Tryph. 62. And Nazianzen calls the Almighty Father 
 7r/oo/3oXei)? of the Holy Spirit. Orat. 29. 2. Arius intro- 
 duces the word into his creed, Syn. 14, as an argu- 
 mentum ad invidiam. Hil. de Trin. vi. 9.
 
 459 
 
 Primogenitus, " First-born." 
 
 ^[ TIpwroTOKos and Primogenitus are not exact equi- 
 valents, though Homer may use TIKTCO for gigno. Primo- 
 genitus is never used in Scripture for Unigenitus. 
 We never read there of the First-born of God, of the 
 Father ; but of the First-born of the creation, whether 
 of the original creation or of the new. 
 
 ^f First-born, or the beginning, is used as an epithet 
 of our Lord five times in Scripture, and in each case it is 
 distinct in meaning from Only-begotten. It is a word 
 of office, not of nature. 1. St. Paul speaks of His 
 becoming, in His incarnation, the " First-born among 
 many brethren," Rom. viii. 29 ; and he connects this 
 act of mercy with their being conformed to His Image, 
 and gifted with grace and glory. 2. He is "the First- 
 born of the dead," Apoc. i. 5. 3. As also in Col. i. 
 18. 4. Col. i. 15. "The First-born of all creation," 
 as quasi the efficient and the formal cause whereby the 
 universe is born into a divine adoption. 5. St. Paul 
 speaks of the Father's "bringing the First-born into 
 the world." To these may be added, Apoc. iii. 14, 
 " the beginning of the [new] creation of God." In 
 none of these passages does the phrase " First-born of 
 God " occur.
 
 460 
 
 ^[ Our Lord is in three distinct respects 
 First-born or Beginning, as the animating Presence 
 of the Universe, as the Life of the Christian Church, 
 as the first fruit and pledge and earnest of the Resur- 
 rection. 
 
 The Word never relates in Scripture to His divine 
 nature itself. " It is nowhere written of Him in the 
 Scriptures 'the First-born of God/ nor 'the crea- 
 tion of God/ but it is the words f the Only be- 
 gotten/ and ' Son/ and ' Word/ and ' Wisdom/ that 
 signify His relation and His belonging to the Father. 
 But ( First-born ' implies descent to the creation. . . . 
 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, 
 and First-born, because of His condescension to the 
 creation, and to the brotherhood which He has ex- 
 tended to many." Orat. ii. 62. 
 
 In like manner Augustine says that we must dis- 
 tinguish between the two titles "Only-begotten and 
 First-born" that the Son may be with the Father 
 Only-begotten, and First-born towards us. vid. Theol. 
 Tracts, Arianism, 9, circ. fin. And St. Thomas 
 says, ft In quantum solus est verus et naturalis Dei 
 Filius, dicitur Unigenitus, . . in quantum vero per 
 assimilationem ad ipsum alii dicuntur filii adoptivi, 
 quasi metaphorice dicitur esse Primogenitus." Part I. 
 41, art. 3, (t. 20.) 
 
 ^[ It would be perhaps better to translate " first- 
 born to the creature," to give Athan/s idea; TT}? 
 not being a partitive genitive, or 7rpa>TOTOo<? a
 
 461 
 
 superlative, (though he also so considers it,) but a 
 simple appellative and T% KTitreox? 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." As, after calling our Lord in 
 His own nature " a light," we might proceed to say 
 that He was also " a light to the creation," or " Arch- 
 luminary," so He was not only the Eternal Son, but a 
 " Son to creation," an ' ' archetypal Son." Hence St. 
 Paul goes on at once to say, " for in Him all things 
 were made," not simply " by and for," as at the end 
 of the verse; or as Athan. says, Orat. ii. 63, " because 
 in Him the creation came to be." On the distinction of 
 Sia and ev, referring respectively to the first and 
 second creations, vid. In illud Omn. 2. 
 
 ^[ " His coming into the world," says Athan., " is 
 what makes Him called c 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 crea- 
 tion/ because of this adoption of all as sons." Thus 
 he considers that " first-born " is mainly a title, con- 
 nected with the Incarnation, and also connected with our 
 Lord's office at the creation, (vid. parallel of Priest- 
 hood, art. in voc.} In each economy it has the same 
 meaning ; it belongs to Him as the type, idea, or 
 rule on which the creature was made or new-made, 
 and the life by which it is sustained. Both economies 
 are mentioned, Incarn. 13, 14. And so eiicwv KOI TUTTO? 
 Trpo? aperjv, Orat. i. 51. (vid. art. Freedom, supr. p. 127.) 
 And TVTTOV Tiva Xa/3oWe<? and viro^pa^ov, iii. 20. vid. 
 also 21. eV avrw rjptv irpOTerinro)fj.evoi. ii. 76, init.
 
 462 
 
 He came TVTTOV elicovos evQeivai. 78, init. rrjv rov 
 apxerinrov r jr\d(7iv dvaartjaaa-Ocu eavrut. contr. Apol. ii. 
 5. Also /farea^payladij/jLev ei? TO dp^ervirov TT}? elxovos. 
 Cyr. in Joan. v. 12, p. 91. olov djro TWOS dpxrjs, Nyss. 
 Catech. 16, p. 504, fin. And so again, as to the original 
 creation, the Word is ISea KOI evepyeia of all material 
 things. Athen. Leg. 10. 77 I8ea . . OTrep \6yov eipij/caori. 
 Clem. Strom, v. 3. I8eav ISeiov /cal dp^rfv \enreov TOV 
 TrpcoroTOKov Trdcrr]<; /cr/o-eo)?. Origen. contr. Gels. 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 n'ot in the Word." August, in Psalm. 44, 5. 
 He elsewhere calls the Son, "ars quaedam omnipotentis 
 atque sapientis Dei, plena omnium ration um viventiuin 
 incommutabilium." de Trin. vi. 11. And so Athan. 
 says TTpwroTOKos et? aTroSet^w rr}? TWV travTwv Sta rov 
 viov orj/jLiovpyias Kai vioTrotijcreci)'?. iii. 9, fin. vid. the con- 
 trast presented to us by the Semi-Arian Eusebius on the 
 passage which Athan. is discussing, (Prov. viii. 22,) as 
 making the Son, not the t'Sea,but the external minister 
 of the Father's ISea (in art. Eusebius, supra). S. Cyril 
 says on the contrary, " The Father shows the Son what 
 He does Himself, not as if setting it before Him drawn 
 out on a tablet, or teaching Him as ignorant ; for He 
 knows all things as God; but as depicting Himself 
 whole in the nature of the Offspring," &c. in Joann. 
 v. 20, p. 222.
 
 'Peuo-ro?. 463 
 
 'PtVCTTOS. 
 
 VID. Deer. 11 de Synod. 51. Orat. i. 15. 16. vid. 
 also Orat. i. 28 Bas. in Eun. ii. 23. pv<nv. ibid. ii. 6. 
 Greg. Naz. Orat. 28. 22. Vid. contr. Gentes, 41, 
 where Athan., without reference to the Arian con- 
 troversy, draws out the contrast between the God- 
 head and human nature. " The nature of things 
 generated," as having its subsistence from nothing, " is 
 of a transitory (peva-ros, melting, dissolving, dissoluble) 
 and feeble and mortal sort, considered by itself; 
 seeing then that it was transitory and had no stay, lest 
 this should come into effect, and it should be resolved 
 into its original nothing, God governs and sustains it 
 all by His own Word, who is Himself God/' and who, 
 he proceeds, 42, " remaining Himself immovable with 
 the Father, moves all things in His own consistence, 
 as in each case it may seem fit to His Father." vid. 
 a, &c.
 
 461 
 
 " CONDESCENSION " of the Son. Vid. " Tracts, 
 Theological, &c.," to which, on a subject too large for 
 a Note, the reader is referred. 
 
 By this term Athanasius expresses that (so to say) 
 stooping from the height of His Infinite Majesty, 
 which is involved in the act of the Almighty's sur- 
 roanding Himself with a created universe. This may 
 of course be sometimes spoken of as the act of the 
 Eternal Father, but is commonly and more naturally 
 ascribed to the Only-begotten Son. Creation was the 
 beginning of this condescension ; but creation was but 
 an inchoate act if without conservation accompanying it. 
 The universe would have come into being oiie moment 
 only to have come to nought the next, from its intrinsic 
 impotence, and moreover from the unendurableness on 
 the part of the finite of contrast with the Infinite, 
 had not the Creator come to it also as a conservator. 
 
 " The Word," says Athanasius, " when in the be- 
 ginning He framed the creatures, condescended to them, 
 that it might be possible for them to come into being. 
 For they could not have endured His absolute, unmi- 
 tigated nature, and His splendour from the Father, 
 unless, condescending with the Father's love for man, 
 He had supported them, and brought them into sub- 
 sistence." Orat. ii. 64. vid. art. a
 
 465 
 
 This conservation lay in a gift over and above na- 
 ture, a gift of grace, a presence of God throughout the 
 vast universe, as a principle of life and strength ; and 
 that Presence is in truth the indwelling in it of the 
 Divine Word and Son, who thereby took His place 
 permanently as if in the rank of creatures, and as their 
 First-born and Head, thereby drawing up the whole 
 circle of creatures into a divine adoption, whereby they 
 are mere works no longer, but sons of God. He has 
 thus, as it were, stamped His Image, His Sonship, upon 
 all things according to their several measures, and 
 became the archetype of creation and its life and 
 goodness. 
 
 As then He is in His nature the Only Son of God, 
 so is He by office First-born of all things and Eldest 
 Son in the world of creatures. Vid. II pwro TOKOS. 
 
 VOL. II.
 
 466 
 
 OR Accident. The point in which Arians and Sabel- 
 lians agreed was that Wisdom was only an attribute, 
 not a Person, in the Divine nature, for both denied 
 the mystery of a Trinity in Unity. Hence St. Atha- 
 nasius charges them with holding the Divine Nature 
 to be compounded of substance and quality or accident, 
 the latter being an envelopement or Trept/JoXr) or Trepl rov 
 6e6v. vid. as quoted below. Deer. 22, and so Syn. 34, 
 ef;tv crv/jiftaivovcrav teal dTroa-vfiftaivovGav. Orat. iii. 65. 
 <rvfji/3a/j,a. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. iii. p. 150. Also Or. ii. 
 38. Serap. i. 26. Naz. Orat. 31, 15 fin. For irepl 
 rov 6ebv, vid. Deer. 22, de Syn. 34. Orat. i. 14. 
 27. ii. 45. iii. 65. 
 
 ^[ Thus Eusebius calls our Lord "the light through- 
 out the universe, moving round (a/j.(f)t,) the Father/' 
 de Laud. Const, i. p. 501. It was a Platonic idea, which 
 he gained from Plotinus ; whom he quotes speaking of 
 his second Principle as " radiance around, from Him 
 indeed, but from one who remains what He was ; as 
 the sun's bright light circling around it, (irepideov,) 
 ever generated from it, while the sun itself never- 
 theless remains." Evang. Praep. xi. 17. vid. Plotin. 4 
 Ennead. iv. c. 16. 
 
 Eusebius could afford to use Platonic language,
 
 . 467 
 
 because he considered our Lord to be external to the 
 Divine Nature j hence he can say, (as Marcellus could 
 not,) by way of accusation against him, crvvQerov 
 eiarrjyev rov Qebv, ovcriav Si%a \6yov crvpfte/BrjKos Se ry 
 ovaia TOV \oyov. Eccl. Theol. ii. 14, p. 121. However, 
 Athan. says the same of the Arians, vid. references, 
 supr. in this Article ; also ad Afros. 8. Basil. Ep. 8, 3. 
 Cyril. Thes. p. 134. For the Sabellians vid. Ath. Orat. 
 iv. 2. perhaps Epiph. Haer. 73. p. 852. and Cyril. 
 Thes. p. 145. Basil, contr. Sabell. 1. Nyssen. App. 
 contr. Eunom. i. p. 67, &c. Max. Cap. de Carit. t. i. 
 p. 445. Damasc. F. 0. i. 13. p. 151. 
 
 " If then any man conceives as if God were com- 
 pound, so as to have accidents in His substance, or 
 any external envelopement, and to be encompassed, or 
 as if there were aught about Him which completes 
 the substance, so that when we say ' God/ or name 
 ' Father,' we do not signify the invisible and incom- 
 prehensible substance, but something about it, then 
 let them complain of the Council's stating that the 
 Son was from the substance of God ; but let them 
 reflect, that in thus considering they commit two 
 blasphemies ; for they make God material, and they 
 falsely say that the Lord is not Son of the very Father, 
 but of what is about Him. But if God be simple, as 
 He is, it follows that in saying ' God ' and naming 
 'Father/ we name nothing as if about Him, but 
 signify His substance itself. 1 " Athan. Deer. 22. 
 
 And so elsewhere, he says, when resisting the 
 Arian and Sabellian notion that the wisdom of God is 
 only a quality in the Divine nature, " In that case God 
 H h 2
 
 will be compounded of substance and quality; for 
 every quality is in a substance. And at this rate, 
 whereas the Divine Unity (//,ora<?) is indivisible, it will 
 be considered compound, being separated into sub- 
 stance and accident." Orat. iv. 2. vid. also Orat. i. 36. 
 This is the common doctrine of the Fathers. Athena- 
 goras, however, speaks of God's goodness as an acci- 
 dent, " as colour to the body," " as flame is ruddy and 
 the sky blue," Legat. 24. This, however, is but a ver- 
 bal difference, for shortly before (23) he speaks of His 
 being, TO oWo>? bv, and His unity of nature, TO //.oyo^ue?, 
 as in the number of eTrio'Vfjifte^rjKOTa avTu>. Eusebius 
 uses the word cru/A/Se/S^/co? in the same way, Demonstr. 
 Evang. iv. 3. And hence St. Cyril, in controversy 
 with the Arians, is led by the course of their objections 
 to observe, " There are cogent reasons for considering 
 these things as accidents, a-vfjufieftrjicoTa, in God, though 
 they be not." Thesaur. p. 263.
 
 THE TeXetoy. 469 
 
 The Te\t.ov. 
 
 "PERFECT from Perfect" is often found in Catholic 
 Creeds, and also, (with an evasion,) in Arian. " The 
 Word who is perfect from the perfect Father." Orat. 
 iii. 52. "As radiance from light, so is He perfect 
 Off-spring from perfect." ii. 35, also iii. 1 circ. fin. 
 " One from One, Perfect from Perfect," &c. Hil. Trin. 
 ii. 8. reXeio? Tfc'Xetoi/ yey6vw)Kev, Epiph. Ha3r. 76, p. 945. 
 Not only the Son but the Father was areXr??, 
 says Athan. ' if the Son were not eternal/ "He is 
 rightly called the eternal Offspring of the Father, for 
 never was the substance of the Father imperfect, that 
 what belongs to it, should be added afterwards. . . . God's 
 Offspring is eternal, because His nature is ever perfect. 
 Orat. i. 14. 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 be a later addition, since God is ever 
 perfect ? " vid. Greg. Nyssen. contr. Eunom. Append, 
 p. 142. Cyril. Thesaur. x. p. 78. Also Origen, as 
 quoted by Marcellus in Euseb. c. Marc. p. 22, el yap del 
 reXeto? 6 #eo<? .... ridva^d\\erai ; &c. As to the Son's 
 perfection, Aetius objects, ap. Epiph. Haer. 76. p. 925, 
 6, that growth and consequent accession from without 
 are essentiallv involved in the idea of Sonship ;
 
 470 THE TeXetoi/. 
 
 whereas S. Greg. Naz. speaks of the Son as not 
 areXr) irporepov, elra re\eiov, wcnrep vopos TT}? ^/aerepa? 
 yevea-ews. Orat. 20, 9 fin. In like manner, S. Basil 
 argues against Eunomius, that the Son is TeXetos, 
 because He is the Image, not as if copied, which is a 
 gradual work, but as a ^apaKTrjp, 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. 
 
 ^f It need scarcely be said, that " perfect from perfect" 
 is a symbol on which the Catholics laid stress, Athan. 
 Orat. ii. 35. Epiph. Hger. 76, p. 945; but it admitted 
 of an evasion. An especial reason for insisting on it in 
 the previous centuries had been the Sabellian doctrine, 
 which considered the title " Word," when applied to our 
 Lord, to be adequately explained by the ordinary sense 
 of the term, as a word spoken by us. vid. on the 
 \6yo<? irpofyopucos, art. Word, a doctrine which led to the 
 dangerous, often heretical, hypothesis that our Lord 
 was first Word, and then Son. In consequence they 
 insisted on His TO -rekeiov, perfection, which became 
 almost synonymous with His personality. Thus the 
 Apollinarians e. g. denied that our Lord was perfect man, 
 because His personality was not human. Athan. contr. 
 Apoll. i. 2. Hence Justin, and Tatian, are earnest in 
 denying that our Lord was a portion divided from the 
 Divine Substance, ov ar' airoTO^v, &c. &c. Just. 
 Tryph. 128. Tatian. contr. Grsec. 5. And Athan. 
 condemns the notion of the Xo70? ev raj 6eu> areXr/?, 
 reXeio?. Orat. iv. 11. The Arians then, as
 
 THE TeXetov. 471 
 
 being the especial opponents of the Sabellians, insisted 
 on nothing so much as our Lord's being a real, living, 
 substantial,^ Word, (vid. Eusebius passim,) and they 
 explained re'Xeioi/ as they explained away " real," art. 
 Arian tenets. "The Father," says Acacius against 
 Marcellus, " begat the Only-begotten, alone alone, and 
 perfect perfect; for there is nothing imperfect in the 
 Father, wherefore neither is there in the Son, but the 
 Son's perfection is the genuine offspring of His 
 perfection, and superperfection." ap. Epiph. Haer. 
 72, 7. TeXeto? then was a relative word, varying 
 with the subject-matter, vid. Damasc. F. 0. i. 8. 
 p. 138.; 
 
 If The Arians considered Father and Son to be two 
 ovaiai, o/iotat, but not o/Moovaiat,. Their characteristic 
 explanation of the word reXeto? was, " distinct," and 
 "independent." When they said that our Lord was 
 perfect God, they meant, " perfect, in that sense in 
 which He is God " i. e. as a secondary divinity. 
 Nay, in one point of view they would use the term of 
 His divine Nature more freely than the Catholics some- 
 times used it. Thus Hippolytus e. g. though of course 
 really holding His perfection from eternity as the Son, 
 yet speaks of His condescension in coming upon earth 
 as if a kind of completion of His Sonship, He becoming 
 thus a Son a second time ; whereas the Arians holding 
 no real condescension or assumption of a really new 
 state, could not hold that our Lord was in any respect 
 essentially other than He had been before the Incarna- 
 tion. " Nor was the Word," says Hippolytus, " before 
 the flesh and by Himself, perfect Son, though being
 
 472 THE 
 
 perfect Word, [as] being Only-begotten ; nor could the 
 flesh subsist by itself without the Word, because that in 
 the Word it has its consistence : thus then He was 
 manifested One perfect Son of God." contr. Noet. 15.
 
 473 
 
 Vid. Trinity. 
 
 THE word rpias, translated Trinity, is first used by 
 Theophilus ad Autol. ii. 15. Gibbon remarks that the 
 doctrine of " a numerical rather than a generical 
 unity," which has been explicitly put forth by the 
 Latin Church, is " favoured by the Latin language ; 
 r/jta? seems to excite the idea of substance, trinitas of 
 qualities." ch. 21. note 74. It is certain that the Latin 
 view of the sacred truth, when perverted, becomes 
 Sabellianism ; and that the Greek, when perverted, 
 becomes Arianism; and we find Arius arising in the East, 
 Sabellius in the West. It is also certain that the word 
 Trinitas is properly abstract ; and expresses rpia? or 
 " a three," only in an ecclesiastical sense. But Gibbon 
 does not seem to observe that Unitas is abstract as 
 well as Trinitas ; and that we might just as well say in 
 consequence, that the Latins held an abstract unity or 
 a unity of qualities, while the Greeks by povas taught 
 the doctrine of " a one " or a numerical unity. " Sin- 
 gularitatem hanc dico, says S. Ambrose, quod Graece 
 (jiovoTr)*; dicitur ; singularitas ad personam pertinet, 
 unitas ad naturam." de Fid. v. 3. It is important, 
 however, to understand, that " Trinity " does not mean 
 the state or condition of being three, as humanity is the 
 condition of being man, but is synonymous with " three
 
 474 
 
 persons." Humanity does not exist and cannot be 
 addressed, but the Holy Trinity is a three, or a unity 
 which exists in three. Apparently from not con- 
 sidering this, Luther and Calvin objected to the word 
 Trinity. "It is a common prayer," says Calvin, " ' Holy 
 Trinity, one God, have mercy on us.' It displeases me, 
 and savours throughout of barbarism." Ep. ad Polon. 
 p. 796. Tract. Theol.
 
 475 
 
 THIS word is made the symbol of the Noetians or 
 Sabellians by both Catholics and Arians, as if their 
 doctrine involved or avowed Patripassianism, or that 
 the Father suffered. Without entering upon the 
 controversy raised by Beausobre (Hist. Manich. iii. 
 6. 7, &c.), Mosheim (Ant. Constant, saec. ii. 68, 
 iii. 32.), and Lardner (Cred. part ii. ch. 41.), on the 
 subject, we may refer to the following passages for the 
 use of the term. It is ascribed to Sabellius, Ammon. 
 in Caten. Joan. i. 1, p. 14; to Sabellius and perhaps 
 Marcellus, Euseb. Eccl. Theol. ii. 5 ; to Marcellus, 
 Cyr. Hier. Catech. xv. 9, also iv. 8, xi. 16; to 
 Sabellians, Athan. Expos. P. 2, and 7 Can. Con- 
 stant, and Greg. Nyssen. contr. Eun. xii. p. 305; to 
 certain heretics, Cyril Alex, in Joann. v. 31, p. 243, 
 Epiph. Hser. 73, 1 1 fin. ; to Praxeas and Montanus, Mar. 
 Merc. p. 128; to Sabellius, Caesar. Dial. i. p. 550; to 
 Noetus, Damasc. Hasr. 57. 
 
 auros eavrov vrarr/p is used by Athan. Orat. iv. 
 2. also vid. Hipp, contr. Noet. 7. Euseb. in Marc, 
 pp. 42, 61, 106, 119, vlov eavrov >yivea6ai. supr. 
 Orat. iii. 4 init. " Ipsum sibi patretn," &c. Auct. 
 Prged. (ap. Sirmond. Opp. t. i. p. 278, ed. Yen.) 
 Mar. Marc. t. 2. p. 128, ed. 1673 as above. Greg. 
 Boet. (ap. Worm. Hist. Sabell. p. 17.) Consult Zach.
 
 476 
 
 et Apoll. ii. 11, (ap. Dach. Spicil. t. i. p. 25.) Porphyry 
 uses auTOTraTwp, but by a strong figure, Cyril, contr. 
 Julian, i. p. 32. vid. Epiphan. in answer to Aetius on this 
 subject, Hser. 76, p. 937. It must be observed that 
 several Catholic fathers seem to countenance such ex- 
 pressions, as Zeno Ver. and Marius Viet., not to say S. 
 Hilary and S. Augustine, vid. Thomassin de Trin. 9. 
 For vloTrdrcop, add to the above references, Nestor. 
 Serm. 12. ap. Mar. Merc. t. 2. p. 87. and Ep. ad 
 Martyr, ap. Bevereg. Synod, t. 2. Not. p. 100. 
 
 X/31C7TO/U 09(05, 
 
 Vid. 
 
 THE END.
 
 CARDINAL NEWMAN'S WORKS. 
 
 1. SERMONS. 
 
 18. PAROCHIAL AND PLAIN SERMONS. (Rivingtons.) 
 9. SERMONS ON SUBJECTS or THE DAY. (Rivingtons.) 
 
 10. UNIVERSITY SERMONS. (Rivingtons.) 
 
 11. SERMONS TO MIXED CONGREGATIONS. (Burns and Oates.) 
 
 12. OCCASIONAL SERMONS. (Burns and Oates.) 
 
 2. TREATISES. 
 
 13. ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. (Rivingtons.) 
 
 14. ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. (Pickering.) 
 
 15. ON THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSITY. (Pickering.) 
 
 16. ON THE DOCTRINE OF ASSENT. (Burns and Oates.) 
 
 3. ESSAYS. 
 
 17. Two ESSAYS ON MIRACLES. 1. Of Scripture. 2. Of Eccle- 
 
 siastical History. (Pickering.) 
 
 18. DISCUSSIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 1. How to accomplish it. 
 
 2. The Antichrist of the Fathers. 3. Scripture and the 
 Creed. 4. Tarn worth Reading-Room. 5. Who's to blame ? 
 6. An Argument for Christianity. (Pickering.) 
 19,20. ESSAYS CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL. Two VOLUMES WITH 
 NOTES. 1. Poetry. 2. Rationalism. 3. Apostolical Tra- 
 dition. 4. De la Mennais. 5. Palmer on Faith and Unity. 
 6. St. Ignatius. 7. Prospects of the Anglican Church. 
 8. The Anglo-American Church. 9. Countess of Hunt- 
 ingdon. 10. Catholicity of the Anglican Church. 1 1. 
 The Antichrist of Protestants. 12. Milman's Christianity. 
 13. Reformation of the Eleventh Century. 14. Private 
 Judgment. 15. Davison. 16. Keble. (Pickering.)
 
 4. HISTORICAL. 
 
 2123. THREE VOLUMES. 1. The Turks. 2. Cicero. 3. Apol- 
 lonius. 4. Primitive Christianity. 5. Church, of the 
 Fathers. 6. St. Chrysostom. 7. Theodoret. 8. St. 
 Benedict. 9. Benedictine Schools. 10. Universities. 
 11. Northmen and Normans. 12. Medieval Oxford. 13. 
 Convocation of Canterbury. (Pickering.) 
 
 5. THEOLOGICAL. 
 
 24. THE ARIANS or THE FOURTH CENTURY. (Pickering.) 
 25, 26. ANNOTATED TRANSLATION OF ATHANASIUS. Two VOLUMES. 
 
 (Pickering.) 
 
 27. TRACTS. 1. Dissertatiunculae. 2. On the Text of the 
 Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius. 3. Doctrinal Causes of 
 Arianism. 4. Apollinarianism. 5. St. Cyril's Formula. 
 6. Ordo de Tempore. 7. Douay Version of Scripture. 
 (Pickering.) 
 
 6. POLEMICAL. 
 
 28, 29. VIA MEDIA. Two VOLUMES WITH NOTES. 1. Vol. Pro- 
 phetical Office of the Church. 2. Vol. Occasional Letters 
 and Tracts. (Pickering.) 
 
 30, 31. DIFFICULTIES OF ANGLICANS. Two VOLUMES. 1. Vol. 
 Twelve Lectures. 2. Vol. Letters to Dr. Pusey con- 
 cerning the Bl. Virgin, and to the Duke of Norfolk in 
 Defence of the Pope and Council. (Burns and Oates, and 
 Pickering.) 
 
 32. PRESENT POSITION OF CATHOLICS IN ENGLAND. (Burns 
 
 and Oates.) 
 
 33. APOLOGIA PRO VITA Sul. (Longmans.) 
 
 7. LITERARY. 
 
 34. VERSES ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS. (Burns and Oates.) 
 
 35. Loss AND GAIN. (Burns and Oates, and Pickering.) 
 
 36. CALLISTA. (Burns and Oates.) 
 
 *fi It is scarcely necessary to say that the Author submits all that 
 he has written to the judgment of the Church, whose gift and 
 prerogative it is to determine what is true and what is false in 
 religious teaching.
 
 LONDON: 
 
 GILBERT AND RIVINGTOK, PRINTERS, 
 ST. JOHN'S SQUARE.
 
 ~V4ttiA111 
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which it was borrowed. 
 
 1 
 
 AUfi26l9 
 
 I