L I B R.A RY OF THE U N ' VER.51TY or ILLINOIS^ %8f \m Return this book on or before the Latest Date stamped below. A charge is made on all overdue books. U. of I. Library M JUil ^K) la^z AII6 3 019I« \ \ \ 14685-S SELECT TREATISES OF ST. ATHANASIUS m CONTROVERSY WITH THE ARIANS. FREELY TRANSLATED VY JOHN HENRY Cx^RDINAL NEWMAN, Honorary Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford, and late Fellow of Oriel. VOL. II. BEING AN APPENDIX OF ILLUSTRATIONS. FOURTH EDITION. ILantian : LONGMANS, G R 1^: E N , AND CO. And new YORK: 15, EAST IGtii STIIKIOT. 1 88 8. 0 BIRMINGHAM : MARTIN BILLING, SON, AND CO., PRINTERS, LIVERY STREET. APPEN DIX. CONTENTS. 1. Index of Annotations on Theological Subjects in the foregoing Treatises alphabetically arranged ..... page vii 2. Index of Annotations on Theological Terms in the foregoing Treatises alpliabetically arranged ..... page 844 vii Index of Annotations on Theological Subjects in the foregoing Treatises alphabetically arranged. PAGE Adam ........... 1 Alexander's Encyclical ........ 8 Angels. .......... 7 Antichrist .......... 13 Apostle .......... 16 Arius . . . . . . . . . . .17 The Arians. — 1. Their Ethical Characteristics . . .21 2. The Arian Leaders 26 3. Arian Tenets and Reasonings , . .34: 4. Historical Course of Arianism ... 46 Asteriiis .......... 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 Freedom of our Moral Nature . . . . . .127 Grace of God . . . . . . . • .136 Hand 142 Heresies . • . .143 Heretics . . . . • .150 Hieracas . . . . . . . .156 Homousion, Homneusion . . . . . .155 Hypocrisy, Hypocrites . • . .156 Hypostasis . . . • . . .158 Idolatry of Arinnisiu . . .159 Vlll PAGE l;^'n()i"in(M! jissiinicd (;coiiuinic}ilIy by our Lord . . . 161 lUuHtratioiis ......... 173 Imago ........... 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. Marv Theotocus . . . .210 Mediation 216 Melitius 222 The Two Natures 223 The Nicene Tests 226 Omnipresence of God ........ 235 Paul of Samosati . . 287 Personal Acts and Offices of our Lord ..... 240 Philosophy 243 Priesthood of Christ ........ 245 Private Judgment ........ 247 The Rule of Faith 250 Sabellius .......... 254 Sanctification 267 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 ......... 304 Theognostus . . ^ .310 Tradition ....... 32^ The Holy Trinity in Unity 315 Unity of the Incarnate Son ....... 326 Vapour 330 Two Wills in Christ . . . . . . .331 Wisdom The Word . . . , qq^ Annotations on Theological Subjects in the foregoing Treatises, alphabetically arranged. 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. ^ 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. Yid. 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 should by His power be accorded, that, whereas liis 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. II. 13 0 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 vitso, non de constitutione naturae. Gen. ad Lit. vi. 36. This doctrine came into the controversy with Baius, and Pope S. Pius V. condemned the assertion, Im- mortalitas primi hominis non erat gratise 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 un- troubled and pure, and leaving the dignity of his nature unpractised on," &c. In Joan. p. 75. ALEXANDER. 3 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 does not differ from 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 vocabulary 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 X6709, (Tocj^ia, fjLovoyevrjf;, el/ccop, uTrair/acrfjLa, 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, axwpta-Ta Trpafy/jLara Svo' 6 u to? rrjv Kara iravra ofMOLcorrjra avrov e.K (^vaem aTTO/jba^ofjuevor 81 eaoTrrpov aKTjXiScoTOV fcal efiyjrvxov Oeia^ eiKovor /juecnrevovaa (f)vai^ fxovo^evTny ra^ TTj vTToo-rdaet Bvo ^vaei^. 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 Athana- sius (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, viroaracn^, and that again and again; e.g., rrjv Ihtorpoirov avrov ifiroaTaaiv* tt)^ VTTO(TTacre(o<^ avrov aTrepLspyarrrov' vecorepau rrjf; vTTocrrdaem yeveaLV 7) rov fJLOVoy€VOv<; dvefcSt^jrjro^; vTroaraac^' rrjv rov \6yov viroaracTLV, 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 Letcer in Theodoret differs from the style of the Encyclical; thus, when the latter speaks of ^^opea? rciv yfrv)(^ooVy the former uses the compound ^6opoiTOi6<=;\ Such, too, are 77 ^i\ap')(o<^ Ka\ (j^iXapyvpo^; irpoOecn^^' ')(^pLare/jL7ropLav' (^pevo^afiov^' IStorpOTrov 6iJbocrroL')(oi<^ crvWa^aU' 6er]y6pov<^ dTrocrroXov^' dvrLStacrroXrjv' rrj^ irarpLtcrj^ fjLaievcreco^' (pcXoOeo^; cra^r}veLa' dvooruovpyia^' (})X7}vd(f)Q)v fjLvOcov, It is very difl&cult to suppose that the same hand 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 in Vol. i., supr., in the Prefatory Notice, the following coincidence of words and phrases is ALEXANDER. 5 considered^ on comparing the Encyclical with Athana- sius's acknowledged writings :— Encyclical, ap. Socr. Hist. i. § (3. (Oxf. Ed. 1S44.) 1. p. 6, 1. 2, i^rjXdov, 1 John ii. 19. 2. ibid, dvdpes irapdvo- fJLOL. 3. ibid. 1. 4, e^rfKOov diddaKOVTes diro- (TTaaiav, irpodpofMov TOV ' XvTLXpicTTOV. 4. ibid. Kal i^ovXa/jL-rju ixev CTLCJirfj . 5. ibid, 1. 6, pvirdbarj. 6. ibid, rds aKods. 7. ibid. dKepaiuv. 8. ibid, 1. 14, pTj/adTLa. i). ibid. 1. 15, KaKovoLav. 10. v^^i^Z. 1. 22, &c. The enumeration of Arius'ri tenets 11. p. 7, 1. 1, di^atcrxw- rowres. 12. ibid. 1. 7, rts ydp Atlian. 0pp. (Ed. Benedict. Paris.) 1. atpeaLS vvv t^eXdovaa, Orat. i. § 1. 2. irapdvofjLOL, kc. Orat. iii. § 2 ; Ep. .Eg. 16 ; Hist. Ar. 71, 75, 79. 3. pvv i^eXdovcra, irpodpofxos rod ^ Avtl- Xpio'Tov, Orat, i. § 7. 1. 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, ifiit. ; Apol. c. Ar. 1, init. ; Deer. § 5 ; Serap. i. 1 and 16, ii. 1, m/^., iii. 1, i7iit., iv. 8 ; Mon. 2 ; Epict. 3 fin. ; Max. 1 ; A poll. i. 1, i jiit. 5. Orat. i. § 10 ; Deer. § 2 ; Hist. Ar. 3; Ep. Mg. 11. 6. Orat. i. § 7 and 35 ; Hist. Ar. 56 ; Ep. ^g. 13. 7. Orat. i. § 8, ii. 34, iii. 16 ; Syn. § 20, 32, and 45 ; Ap. c. Ar. 1 ; Ep. .Eg. 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. JKg. 12, more closely than with the Letter to Constantinople. 11. Deer. § 20. 12. 13. ibid, 1. 8, ^evi^eTai. 13. Vid. similar form in Orat. i. § S ; Ep. Mg. 7 ; Epict. 2 ; Ap. c. Ar. 85 ; Hist. Ar. 46, 73, 74, &c. Orat. i. § 35 and 42, ii. 34, 73, and 80, iii. 30, 48; Deer. § 22. 6 Kiicyclical, ap. Socr. HiBt. 1. § 6. (Oxf. Kd. 1844.) H. p. 8, 1.27. Theapo- lofjy here made for the use of Mai. iii. 6, is 16. p. 8,1. 12. The text 1 Tim. iv. 1 in this place, is ALEXANDER. Athan. 0pp. (Ed. Benedict. Paris.) 14. almost mrhatim with that found in Orat. i. § 36. 15. applied to Arians by Athan. also Orat. i. § 8. By whom besides? ANGELS. 7 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 chaunel 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 also are. All this would doubtless have been maintained by Athanasius had there been occasion for saying it. For instance, in commenting on Psalm 49, Dens 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 mystngogues. ^ Ho 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 be 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 ; how 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. ^ The sacred writer^ with us in view^ says^ ' 0 God. who is like unto Thee ? ^ and though he calls those creatures who are partakers {/jberoxov^) 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/^ TroLrjri/cbv clItlov, Orat. ii. § 21; ibid. § 2, iii. 14^ and contr. 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. ttcS? hvvaraL to fCTL^ofxevov KTL^etv j 7] ttcS? o KTL^cov KTL^eraL; Athan. ad Afros, 4 fin. Vid also Scrap, i. 24, 6, iii. 4 ; Orat. ii. 21. As to Angels, vid. August, de Civ. Dei xii. 24; de Trin. iii. 13—18 ; Damasc, F. 0. 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 Valentinus, and Marcion, and Basilides think so, and you are their copyists ; nor will the sun, as being a creature, ever make what is not into what is ; nor will man fashion man, nor stone devise stone, nor wood give growth to wood.'^ The Gnostics who attributed creation to Angels are alluded to in Orat. iii. 12; Bpiph. Ha3r. 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. Taul 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. ^ 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 ayyeXcov fiev Trapa^dvrcov, tov 8e ^AScl/ll irapaicovaavTo^, 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. ^ 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). Also, There were men,'^ says ANGELS. 11 Chrysostom 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. . . . Bu£ 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 cuUus Angelorum. Of course they are not really inconsistent with such texts as 1 Tim. V. 21, Eccl. v. 4. ^ 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 Godspoke,'^ § 14; vid. Monitum Boned, in Hilar. Trin. lib. iv. Thus Athan. does not differ from Augus- tine, vid. infr. art. Scrij)tiire Passages, No. i., p. 266. 12 ANGELS. ^ As to the word worship/^ as denoting the cultus Angcloriun, worship is a very wide term, and has obviously more senses than one. Thus we read in one passage of Scripture that all the congregation . . . worshipped the Lord, and the Ung'^ [David]. S. Augus- tine, as S. Athanasius, Orat. ii. § 23, makes the charac- teristic 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 excessive 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 whoever thought that sacrifice was to be oS'ered, 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 ofi'ered libations to the dead, ye certainly know, who venture on the use of them by night contrary to the laws. . . . But we, 0 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 calKng Arian- ism ^Hhe forerunner of Antichrist, Syn. § 5, 7rp6SpofjLo<^, praBcursor; 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 Athan. Hist. Arian. 67; his acts are the irpoolfjLLov KoX irapaaicevr] of Antichrist, Hist. Arian. 70, 14 ANTICHRIST. tin., 71 and 80. Constantius is the image, eUcbv, of Antichrist, 74 and 80, and shows the likeness, o/xotco/Ma, 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 ^^prae- cursor Antichristi," p. 89 ; possessed with the spirit of Antichrist, p. 219; 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 praBcursores," Ep. 75, p. 1022; again, Antichrist is whoever 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 Monophysitism, 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 airoaraaLay 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- ANTICHRIST. 15 ditions which, it specifies. It is predicated of the 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. Hser. ii. praef. Of Encratites, ibid. v. fin. Of Eutyches, Ep. Anon. 190 (apud Garner. Diss. v. Theod. p. 901). Pseudo-Justin seems to consider it fulfilled in the Catholics of the fifth century, as being Anti-pelagians, Queest. 22 ; vid. Bened. note in loc. Besides Athanasius, no early author by whom it is referred to the Arians, 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. 10 APOSTLE. APOSTLE. '^The Apostle'^ is the usual title of S. Paul ia antiquity, as the Philosopher^^ at a later date is appropriated to Arisfcotle. ''When 'the Apostle^ is mentioned/^ 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. 6; Peer. §§ 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 (co? iv OoXio) no grave writer, but the Egyptian Sotades, in the character of his music, he writes at great length,'' &c. De Syn. § 15. Again, Orat. i. §§ 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 "Ap6<; Apeue, proceeds, eirua^erco Se ere rj yovv ^Acj^poSirr]^ ofjuXla, 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 then 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. II. c 18 ARIUS. 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. Vid. Suid. ibid. Some read Sotadicos^^ for ^^Socraticos,^^ 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. Athenasus 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 ^Hasciva Thalia with ^'carmina sanctiora,^^ Epigr. vii. 17. Vid. Thaliarchus, ^Hhe master of the feast,^^ Herat. 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 Constantine 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 Constantine 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.^ " 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, fjueXayxoy^'tKoU r)piioaixev7]^ 80^77? Kevri^. Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 741. S. Basil also speaks of the Eunomians as ek XafJbirpav /j.€\ayxo\lav irape- vexQ^vTm, Contr. Eun. ii. 24. Elsewhere he speaks of the Pneumatomachists as worse than )L6eXa7%oXc3z^Te9. 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 guile- less 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 ? Hser. 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 Julianas indignant description of him, /i.?;Se avy]p, ahX avdp(D'TriaK:o<; €VT€\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 tlie temper of the Ante-Nicene Churchy 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 no 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, ^Hhat 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 probation and might have fallen, says, This is what they do not shrink from con- versing about in fall 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 tlte 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. 28 Alexander speaks of the interference^ even by legal process, against himself, of disobedient women^ Sl evTV')(^ia^ yvvaiKapicov ard/crcov a rjTrdrrjcrav, and of the busy and indecent gadding about of the younger, i/c Tov 7r€pLTpo')(^d^€LV ircLCTav d/yviav da/jbivco^;. A p. 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 Nazianzen 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 Ingenerato ; inquire the price of bread, he answers. Greater is the Father, and the Son is subject ; say that a bath would suit you, and he 24 THE ARIANS. defines that the Son is made 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 {(j)av€pco<;) that the Father^s substance was unlike, dvojbbOLo^;, the Son^s. Ibid. i. 1. Epiphanius too, Hser. 76, p. 949, seems to say that the elder Arians held the divine generation in a sense in which Aetius did not ; that is, they were not boldly consistent and definite as he was. Athan. de Decret. § 7, enumerates some of the ^;ttempts 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 ARIANS. 25 abundant proof of their artifices and shuffling. (Vid. art. Sypocrites.) 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 m their use of bribes also. S. Athanasius speaks of them as ScopoSoKot, and of the K€p8o<; t^9 ^iKo')(^priiJLaTLa<; which influenced them, and of the irpodTaaia^ (piXcov. Orat. i. §§ 8, 10, and 53; also ii. § 43. And so S. Hilary speaks of the exemptions from taxes which Constantius granted to the Clergy as a bribe for them to Arianize : You concede taxes as Caesar, 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 26 THE ARIANS. Constantius as hostem 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. Constant, in loc. Liberius says the same, Theod. Hist. ii. 13. And S. Gregory Naz. speaks of (\)LXo^vaov<^ fjuaXkov rj (f)L\oxpio-TOV^. Orat. 21. 21. It is true that, Ep. Mg. 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 mis- belief was a mania and the Eusebians, who cared little for a theory of doctrine or consistency of profession, compared with their own aggrandizement. With these must be included numbers who conformed to Arianism lest they should sufl'er temporal loss. Athan. says, that after Easebius (Nicomed.) had taken up the patronage of the heresy, he made no pro- gress 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, &c. (Vid. CatJioUc 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 ARIANS. 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) comes from him, as many critics have held. He died a martyr^ s death. (Vid. 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; Syu. § 18—20; Orat. i. § 30, 31 ; ii. § 24. fin., 28, 37, 40; iii. § 2, 60 ; Nicgu. 13, 28; Arim. 23 and 24; Disc, 47, 58, 60, 135, 139, 151, 155, 226, according to Bened. Ed., and according to this trans- lation respectively. Asterius and Eusebius of Caesarea 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 Ca)sarea was the historian, to whom we are so much indebted — learned, moderate, liberal, the 28 THE ARIANS. private friend of Constantine^ a Semi-Arian. (Vid. infr., art. Semi-Arianism, and Eusebius,) 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 (Oassar.) answers. " Now/^ says the Caesarean Eusebius, he replies to Asterius, 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 Anomoeans ; the Semi-Arian reaction from them ; and the Court party, called Eusebians or Acacians, from their leaders, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Acacius of Caesarea, 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 TJrsacius, Valens, Germinius, Acacius, Eudoxius, and Patrophilus. He numbers also among the Bishops at THE AEIANS. 29 Ariminum^ Auxentius^ Demopliilus^ and Caius. And at Seleucia^ Uranius^ 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 Constantino and Constantius to secure the triumph of the heresy. He died about the year 343, and was succeeded in the political leadership of the Eusebians by Acacius and Valens. George, whom Athanasius, Gregory Naz., and So- crates, call a Cappadocian, was born, according to Am- mianus, 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 Athan. by his zeal for Arianism and his to Spaarypioi/ ; 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 ARIANS. prietor of the soil and had a claim upon the houses built on it. Ammian. xxii. 11. Epiphanius tells us, Hser. 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 Caesarea, and succeeded him in the see of Caesarea 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 ofjLoovaLov was not a word of Scripture, which is in- directly suggested by Eusebius (Caesar.) in his letter to his people, supr. vol. i. p. 59. His formula was the vague o/jLOLov (like), as the Anomoean was avojxoLov (unlike), as the Semi-Arian was ofiocovo-Lov (like in sub- stance), and the orthodox ofjuoovaLov (one in substance). However, like most of his party, his changes of opinion were considerable. At one time, after professing the Kara Trdvra ofJuoLov, and even the t?)9 avrrj^ ovaLa^;, Soz. iv. 22, he at length avowed the Anomoean doctrine. Ultimately, after Constantius^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 ARIANS. 31 Singidou, are generally mentioned together. They were pupils of Arius, and^ as such, are called young by Athan. ad Episc. Mg. 7 ; and in Apol. contr- Arian. § 13, young in years and mind ; by Hilary, ad Const, i. 5, imperitis et improbis duobus adolescenti- 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 Atha- nasius, 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 iu 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, fiaKpoa- T6^o9, Syn. § 2G. He afterwards passed in succession 32 THE ARIANS. to the sees of Antiocli and Constantinople, and baptised tlie Emperor Valens into the Arian confession. 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 Confes- sion^^ into the West, though Athan. only mentions Eudoxius, Martyrius, and Macedonius, Syn. § 26. He was afterwards 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 baptised Constantius before his death. He had been excommunicated with Arius in Egypt and at Nicsea, 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 Anomoean 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., where vid. also a notice of the others. Of Mace- donius little is known except his cruelties. Vid. The Arians," p. 311. The Anomceans, 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 at the time when Eudoxius had been obliged to anathe- matise his confession of faith. This was at the time Athan. wrote the Be Syn. 3. Arian Tenets and Reasonings. ^ The idea of Sonship includes in it two main rela- tions viewed as regards paternity^ non-priority of existence and community of nature. As used in theology, it is an analogous and indirect illustration (vid. Illustrations) of the Divine Truth which is the cardinal doctrine of Eevelation, and what has to be determined is the special aspect under which we are intended to view it. For instance, it may be argued that, a son being junior in age to his father, and having a beginning, our Lord is not eternal, but a creature ; or on the contrary, as the Catholic Church, as following Scripture, has ever taught, that, as the Son belongs to God^s very essence and being, therefore, if God is from eternity uncreate, so is He. THE AEIANS. 35 T[ As God created the world out of nothing by an external^ so He gave birth to the Son out of Himself by an internal ; and if this divine generation be^ as it is^ incomprehensible^ so also confessedly is the divine creation. ^ 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 the Supreme Being alone or to His attributes, though from grace or by privilege transferred by Him in an improper sense to the creature. In this sense the Son could claim to be called God, but in no other. % 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 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/ 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.^^ % In what sense then was Son to be predicated of the Divine Nature ? The Catholics said that the true D 2 36 THE ARIANS. meaning of tlie word was consubstantiality (co-essenti- ality) 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. IT But the Arians persisted, maintaining that a son has his orig-in 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 son not only has his origin of existence from his father, but also his nature, and all that is proper to his nature. IT The Arians went on to maintain that to suppose a true Son, was to think of God irreverently, as imply- ing division, change, composition, &c. The Catholics replied that the notion of materiality was quite as foreign from the Divine Essence as time, and as a Divine Sonship could be eternal, in like manner it implied neither composition nor development, o'Vfji/3€^r]Ko^, TrepiBoXr] or irpol^okri, IT 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 He was created, even though a Son. Sonship 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 THE ARIANS. 37 our Lord^s nature^ whether it was divine^ whether He was of one^ of the same^ nature with the Father. IT 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 un- willing 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. vlii. 3. ^ 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 cloak over their heresy, and to calm the indignation and alarm which it roused ; nay, in the case of many of the Semi-Arians, in order to hide the logical consequences of their misbelief from themselves. 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. Anyhow, 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. So7i ; though Arius and Arians proper, and the Anomocans, who spoke out, and had no fear of the Imperial Court, 38 THE ARIANS. 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. ^ 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 what- ever a man might say of the other creatures, such ye hold concerning the Son. For is any one of the crea- tures just what another is, that ye should predicate this of the Son as some prerogative ? Orat. ii. § 19. And so S. Ambrose, Quae enim creatura non sicut alia creatura non est ? Homo non ut Angelus, terra non ut coelum.^^ De Fid. i. n. 130 ; and a similar passage in Nyss. contr. Eun. iii. p. 132, 3. ^ 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. ovofjiara fMopov, Deer. § 16. The title of Image too is not a token of a similar substance, but His name only,^^ Orat. i. § 21 ; and so ii. § 38, where toZ? ovofjiaaL is synonymous with KUT eirLvoLav, as Sent. D. 22, vid. also ibid. § 39 ; Orat. THE ARIAIMS. 39 iii. § ]ly 18; ^^not named Son^ but ever Son/^ iv. § 24, fin. j 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 voOoc^ coairep ovofjLaatt Cyril, de Trin. ii. p. 418. Non base 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. 0pp. 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 vloTTOL^lJbeda a\r}6(jo<;. ^ When the Nicene controversialists maintained, on 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, by reason of His being true Son therefore He was true God. They said that in order to be a true Son it was sufficient to 'partalce of the Father^s nature, that is, to have a certain portion of divinity, ^erovaia ; this all holy beings had, and without it they could not be holy ; of this S. Peter speaks ; but as this participation of the divine nature 40 THE ARIANS. does not make holy beings who possess it God^ neither is the Son God^ though He be Son Kvptco^ koX aXriOod^, And it must be granted that the words Kvplco^; and akfjOw^ are applied by the Fathers themselves to the sonship conveyed in the gifts of regeneration and sanctification. (Arts. Father and Grace.) T[ The Catholics would reply that it was not a ques- tion of the use of terms : anyhow, to have a fierovaia of divinity, as creatures have, is not to have the divine ovcTia, as our Lord has. No ixeTovaia is a proper gennesis, " When God is ivliolly 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 ourselves, but in our God. But that Father, who has life in Himself, begat a Son such, as to have life in Himself, not to become partaker of life, but to be Himself life; and of that life to malie us partahers.'^ Serm. 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 under- stand 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 THE ARIANS. 41 trath the Eusebians made use to deny our Lord^s proper divinity. Atlian. 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 ^'ihe all-powerfal and all-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 alto- gether/^ Contr. Grent. 42. AgSLm, 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 corrup- tion of death, who were, as I said, by nature corrupted, but by the grace of the participation [fieTovaia^) 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, ryevrjrd. This was the sense in which the Arians said that our Lord was Son of God ; whereas, as Athan. says, things generate, being luorhs {SrjfjLLovpyri/jLaTa,) cannot be called generate, except so far as, after their making, they partake of the begotten Son, and are therefore said to have been generated 42 THE ABIANS. 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 ovaia^j 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. Ha3r. 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 OpvXkrjToX ^coval, Xe^eL^, eirr], prjra, sayings in general circulation, which were commonly founded on some particular text ; e.g., Orat. i. § 22, amply providing themselves with words of craft, they used to go about, &c.^^ irepirjp'XpvTo, Vid. vol. i. p. 29, note. Also av(o fcal KCLTCO irepi^epovre^, De Deer. § 13 : to) priT(p leOpvXKrjicaaL ra nTavTa')(pv, Orat. ii. § 18; to nroXvO pvXkr]Tov cr6(f)L(7/jLay Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 14 ; T7)v iro\v6pvW7]Tov ScaXe/CTLKrjVy Nyssen contr. Eun. iii. p. 125 ; Tr]v dpvWov/jLevrjv airopporjv, Cyril. Dial. iv. p. 505 ; Tr]v iTo\vdpvXk7]Tov (fxovrjv, Socr. ii. 43. ^ Eusebius^s letter to Euphration, mentioned Syn. § 17, illustrates their sharp and shallow logic — If they THE ARIANS. 43 co-exist^ liow shall the Father be Father and the Son Son j or how the One firsts 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._, coroplains that Alexander says^ ael 6 Oeo^i ael 6 vlor a/uba irarrjp, a/jua vl6<^, Theod. Hist, i. 4. *^Then their profaneness goes farther/^ says Athan. ; Orat. i. § 14. ^ If it never was, that 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 dSeXcfyol, so did they say the same in the course of the controversy of the Second and Third. Vid. Athan. Scrap, i. 15 ; iv. 2. ^ They contend that the Son and the Father are not in such wise One or Like as the Church preaches, but . . . they say, since what the Father wills, the Son wills also, in all respects concordant, . . . there- fore it is that He and the Father are one.^^ Orat. iii. § 10. ^ The Arians reply, ^ So are the Son and the Father One, and so is the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Father, as we too may become one in Him.^ Orat. iii. § 17. ^ In the Arian Creed of Potamius, Bishop of Lisbon, our Lord is said hominem suscepisse per quem compassus est,^^ which seems to imply that He had no soul distinct from His Divinity. ^^Non passibilis Deus Spiritus,^^ answers Phoobadius, licet in homino suo passus.*^ The Sardican confession also seems to impute this heresy to the Arians. Vid. supr. vol. i. note, p. 116, and infr. art. Easchhis, fin. 44 THE ARIANS. ^ 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 consideration by denying that God was incomprehensible. Arius indeed says in his Thalia that the Son cannot know the Father by comprehension, Kara KaraXrjyjnv : to that which has origin, to conceive how the Unoriginate is, is impossible.''^ Syn. § 15; but on the other hand the doctrine of the Anomoeans, 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 whatso- THE ARIANS. 45 ever we may know of it^ that He too knows ; and what again He^ that you will find without any difierence in us/ Hist. iv. 7. % KaTaXrjyjn^; 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 iSeai, 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, through 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 KaTd\7]y\n<^ be an exact and com- plete 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 rrrepi'xoipriai<^, — vid. in the Thalia, Syn. § 15, the word aveiriinicTOL or to maintain that He was a distinct, and therefore a created, being. On the other hand. Scripture asserts that, as the Holy Spirit which is in God searcheth all things, yea, the deep things,'^ of God, so the Son, as being in the bosom of the Father,^^ alone ^^hath declared Him/^ Vid. Clement. Strom, v. 12. And thus Athan., speaking of Mark xiii. 32, If the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son, and the Father knows the day and the hour, it is plain that the Son too, being in the Father, and knowing the things in tlio Father, Himself 46 THE ARIANS. 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 ; and it is notable as showing in consequence the early date of a formal development of Catholic theology^ which we are apt to assign to the fourth and fifth centuries. Vid. note on p. 47 in the present work, ed. Oxf. The con- troversy which called for this development arose in the middle of the third century^ and incurred the vigilant protest of the Pope of the day as being the issue of a dangerous opinion, founded apparently on the Stoic distinction between the X0709 evhidOero^ and TTpo^opLKo^, and looked on with favour in some Catholic quarters, vid. Tracts Theol., &c., art. iii. p. 137. And thus we are brought to Arianism. ^ 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 ef oucr/a? and 6fioovcno<;, as tests of orthodoxy, and next they anathematised the heretical propositions : and this with the ready adhesion of Constantino. He died in 337. ^ During his later years he had softened towards the Arians, and on his death they gained his son Constan- THE ARIANS. 47 tius^ who tyrannised 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 Con stan tins. ^ 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 ovala^ and the ofioovaco^, (viz., that our Lord was from and in the Divine Essence,) the Semi-Arians maintained the ofMotovaiov, or that He was like the Divine Essence, the political and worldly party of Busebius, Acacius, and Eudoxius, professed vaguely the ofjLOiov Kara iravra, or that our Lord was like God in all things, and the fanatical Anomoeans gained their name because they denied any likeness in Him to God at all. 48 ASTERIUS. ASTERIUS. This writer^ already noticed in art. Avian Leaders, seems according to Athan. to have been hired to write npon 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. Hser. 72, 6.) ^ Like Eusebius, he held (Orat. ii. § 24) that the God of all created His Son as an instrument or organ, or vTTovpyo^y 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. cLKparo^), which, while It created, would have annihi- lated. (Euseb. Demonstr. iv. 4; Eccl. Th. i. 8, 13; PrsBp. 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 of Godhead indivisible. Else, why does the Father through Him create, and in H'im 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 ASTERIUS. 49 the Son was created for creation^ illumination, &c., &c. ; vid. art. Mediation. ^ 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. Eusehius, who speaks of the Word in the poetical tone of Platonism. Also he distinguishes after the manner of the Semi- Arians, between the y€uv7]TLKr] and the 8rj/jLcovpyLKrj hvvafjLi^, Again, the illustration of the Sun (Syn. § 19) is another point of agreement with Eusebius ; vid. Demonstr. iv. 5. ^ And he, like Eusebius, is convicted of Arianism beyond mistake, in whatever words he might cloak his heresy, by his rejection of the doctrine of the 7re/96%a)p77cr^9. 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 ayevvr)To<^, or Ingenerate, to mean that which never came into being, but was always (Orat. i. § 30) ; and then he would argue, that God being wyevvr}To^y and a Son y€vv7]To<=;, our Lord could not be God. H While, with the other Arians, he introduced philo- sophical terms into theology, he with them explained away Scripture. They were accustomed to interpret VOL. II. E 50 ASTERIUS. our Lord's titles, Son/' Word/' Power/' by the secondary senses of sucli 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 gen- nesis also. But in that case the Son is posterior to the Father. ATHANASIUS. 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 authorised catechetical teaching, the fact of a denomi- nation, as men now speak, this is a self-condemnation; and the heretical tenet, whatever it may happen to be, E 2 52 ATHANASIUS. 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, speak- ing of one Ehetorius, an Egyptian, who, as S. Austin tells us, taught that all heresies were in the right path and spoke truth,^^ he says that the impiety of such doctrine is frightful to mention. A poll. i. § 6. This is the explanation of the fierceness of his language, when speaking of the Arians, which to a modern reader may seem superfluous and painful ; the heretics were simply, as Elymas, full of all guile and of all deceit, children of the devil, enemies of all justice,^^ 6eoiJiaj(pL, — by court influence, by violent persecution, by sophistry, seducing, unsettling, per- verting, 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 C83sarea 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 at least many of them, of good promise, as the event proved them to be. He calls some of them brethren and ar^airrjToL (Syn. §§ 41, 43), as Hilary calls them Sanctissimi viri,^^ (Syn. 80, vid. art. Semi-Aiianism infr.) Nor is there ATHANASIUS. 53 any violence in his treatment of Marcellus^ Apollinaris, Hosius^ or Liberius. Vid. art. ^A\r]6eia, 3. And so in the account lie has left ns 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 expressions^ which certainly are to be found in his Orations. ^^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, and 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 tlie 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, hurst 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 Alex- ander, and condemned the Arian heresy/^ 4. His language, in speaking of Constantius, gives opportunity for more words. Up to the year 356, Athanasius had treated Constantius as a member of the Church; but at that date the Eusebian or Court party abandoned the Semi- Arians for the 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. Mg. 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, ^LkG')(^pL(7T0<^J' In the works which follow, Apol. de fuga, § 26 (357), he calls him a 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 in Gribbon, 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, tom. 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 ; luldlst 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 ATHANASIUS. 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 prac- tical 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 Homoeiision, though he is so often represented by the shallow ignorance of modern times to have waged war with other theologians whose views did not difi'er from his own except by a single letter. Those,^^ he says, who accept everything else that was determined at Nicasa, 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 mean, and dispute only about the word.^^ Syn. § 41. [Arim. n. 47.) Vid. arts, o/jlolo^, Semi'ArianSy &c. 6. It arises from the same temper of mind that he is so self-distrustful and subdued in his comments on Scrip- ture and in 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^ 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. 89.) Against their profaneness I wish to urge a further question, bold indeed, but with a religious intent, — be propitious, O Lord ! {Disc. n. 50, p. 197.) The unwearied habits of the religious man is to worship the All (to Trap) in silence, and to hymn God his benefactor with thankful cries .... but since,^^ &c., ApoU. i. init. IF 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 truly 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 Scrap, 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 bo 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. % He set the example of modesty to others. Vid. Basil, in Eunom. ii. 17; Didym. Trin. iii. 3, p. 341; Ephr. Syr. adv. Haer. Serm. 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 rcov iy/cvfc- Xlcov, but Sulpitius speaks of him as a jurisconsult (vid. 'philosophy and ova La), 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, 'Were dotem illam quam Paulus in Episcopo putat esse praocipuam, to SiSaKTCKov ; adeo dilucidus est, acutus, sobrius, adtentus, breviter omnibus modis ad docendum appositus. Nihil habet durum, quod offendit in TertulHano, nihil einheLiC' TLKov, quod vidimus in Hieronymo, nihil operosum, quod in Hilario, nihil laciniosum, quod est in Augustine, atque etiam Chrysostomo, nihil Isocraticos numeros aut Lysias 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 prej&xed to the Orations. 60 THE VICARIOUS ATONEMENT. THE VICARIOUS ATONEMENT. IT Formerly the worlds 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. IT 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 ofier Himself to the Father and cleanse us all from sins in His own blood.''' Orat. ii. § 7. IF 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 [avd fjfjLoov rrjv 6(j)€L\7]v airoSiSov^;), He might by Himself perfect what was wanting in man. Now immortality was wanting to him, and the way to paradise.^^ Orat. ii. § 66. IT 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 \vTpov irdvrcov, Incarn. V. D. 25, et passim; XvTpov /caOdpcnov, Naz. Orat. 30, 20 fin. IT 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 slain ; 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. Serm. 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 suflBcient instead of ail, 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 flesh 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. 196-8, &c. Procl. Orat. i. p. 63 (ed. 1630); Yigil.- contr. Eutych. V. 9 fin. § 15, &c. ; Greg. Moral, xxiv. init. ; Job. ap. Phot. 222, p. 583. 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 mucli 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 ^v^hen they were at school ? who told them, ^ Abandon creature worship, and then draw near and worship a creature and a work ? ^ But if they them- selves 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 understand it in that sense which we now intend ? who, when the vile Arian heresy began, but at once, on hearing its 64 CATECHISING. teacliers^ was startled, as if they taught strange things ? Orat. ii. § 34. % Hence too Athan.^s phrases fiaOcov ehthaaKev, de Deer. § 1, Orat. iii. 9, ipcoTcovre^; ifidvdavov, 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 confirmed by such passages of the Fathers as the follow- ing, taken in connection and illustration of each other. Thus, to begin with what is implied and introduced to us by the name 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 titley but from Christ we are and are named Christians. But for those who derive the faith which they profess from others^ good reason is it they should bear their name, whose property they have 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. 85. 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. 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 naught 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, Manichaeans, 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. Vid. also Haor. 75, 6 fin. ^'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. 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- F 2 68 CATHOLIC : THE NAME AND THE CLAIM. perly and truly say that there is a ^ Church of evil doers/ I mean the meetings of the here- tics^ the Marcionists^ and Maiiichees, and the rest, the faith hath delivered to thee by way of security the Article, ^ And in One Holy Catholic Church/ that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings ; and 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 recognise the congregation of my own people, were it not called Catholic ? . . . . Certainly that word ^ Catholic ^ is not borrowed from man, which has survived through so many ages, nor has the sound of Marcion or Apelles or Montanus, nor takes heretics for its authors . . Christian is my name, Catholic my surname,^' Pacian. Ep. 1. ^ Athan. seems to allude, Orat. i. § 2, to Catholics being called Athanasians ; supr., vol. i. p. 157. Two distinctions are drawn between such a title in con- troversy as applied to Catholics, and then again to heretics, when they are taken by Catholics as a note against them. S. Augustine says, '^Avians call Catholics Athanasians or Homoiisians, not other CATHOLIC : THE NAME AND THE CLAIM. 69 heretics call them so. But ye not only by Catholics hut also hi] heretics, those who agree with you and those who disagree are called Pelagians ; as even hij heretics 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. Hom. 33 fin. ^ Athan. says that after Eusebiiis 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, ibid. § 52, 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 Churches judgment its force from the Emperor, or his sentence was at all recognised ? Vid. art. Heretics, % Many Councils have been before this, many judg- 70 CATHOLIC: THE NAME AND THE CLAIM. ments of the Churcli, but neitHer the Fathers ever argued with the Emperor about them, nor the Emperor meddled with the concerns of the Church. Paul the Apostle had friends of Ca3sar^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 Antichrist ? 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 eff'ort ? 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 Hosiusto 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, JEig. 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 COINHERENCE. THE COINHERENCE, iTepL')((opr]ai<;y circumincessio or coinherence of the Divine Three with each other, is the test at once against Arianism and Tritheism. Arius denies it in his Thaha, aveirLiiLKTol eavrol^; at viroo-rdaei^. It is the point of doctrine in which Eusebius so seriously fails. Vid. art, Eusehius, 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 j 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 enunciated most intelligibly when we say the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, being one and the same Spirit and Being, are in each other, which is the doctrine of the Trepf-^copT^cr^?. IT 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 COINHEEENCE. 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 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 {fJi€Toxf]) of Him, things generate are sanctified in the Spirit ; but the Son Himself is not Son by participa- tion {/ji€Tov(TLa, vid. art. Arian Tenets, supr. pp. 39 — 42), but is the Father^s proper Ofi'spring. Nor again is the Son in the Father, in the sense of the passage, Li Him we live and move and have our being ; for He, as being from the Fountain 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 con- templates the Son, contemplates what belongs to the 74 THE COINHERENCE. Father's Substance, and knows that the Father is in the Son. For whereas the essential character (elSo?) 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 {lSlov) 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, Vid. art. Trinity ; also. Spirit of God. If The irepL'x^copTjaL^ 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 ques- tion recurs. Is our Lord a distinct being from God, as we are, or not ? he answers in the affirmative, vid. THE COINHEEENCE. 75 infra, art. Eiisehius, whereas Catholics hold that He is literally and numerically one with the Father^ and therefore His Person dwells in the Father's Person by an ineffable unity. And hence the strong language of Pope Dionysius^ supr. vol. i. p. 45, the Holy Ghost must repose and dwell in God/^ i/jLcliiXo'x^copelv tm 6ea> Kol evhiaLTaadai. 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 crea- tures, who are ev fieiiepLafxevoi^^ tottoc^;, with the Son. vid. Serap. iii. 4. Accordingly, one of the first symp- toms 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. II St. Jerome^s figure above might seem inconsistent with S. Athanasius^s disclaimer of material images ; but Athan. only means that such illustrations cannot be taken literally, as if spoken of physical subjects. The Father is the totto^ or locus of the Son, because when we contemplate the Son in His fulness as oXo? ^€09, we only view the Father as Him in whom God the Son is ; our mind for the moment abstracting His Substance which is the Son from Him, and regarding Him merely as Father. Thus Athan. Tr]v Oetav ovaiav Tov Xoyov rjvco/jbeprjv (pvaet tm 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, 76 THE COINHEEENCE. if sucli words may be used. Father and Son are both the same Grod^ 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/^ iv ravTorrjTC Trj<^ ovaim airapoKkdiCTCp, koL tj] fcara (j)vcrtv evorrjTL re Kal o/jlolottjtl, 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 abi- ding 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.'' There is but one Face (elSo?, character) of Godhead, which is also in the Word, and One God, the Father, existing by Himself according as He is above all ; and THE COINHERENCE. 77 appearing in the Son according as He pervades all things; and in the Spirit according as in Him He acts in all things through the Word. 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 AlmigUij, 2. The sanctification which takes place from Father through Son in Holy Ghost.-" Scrap, 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 Svva/jbLV rod irarpo^ irpoepxofJievTjv koL iv Tft> \6^(p ava7ravofjL€vr]Vy 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, do 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-Athan. c. Sab. Greg. 10. 78 THE COINHERENCE. % Since tlie 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 Bach, excepting their being Father and Son. A 7r€pL'x^p7]ai<; of Persons is implied in the Unity of Substance. This is the connection 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 7r€pt')(^coprjcn<; is the Divine yevvrjai^;. 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 thiugs 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 ipya^oaivov rod rrarpo^y ipyd^eaOai koX tov THE COINHERENCE. 79 VLov. in illud Omn. 1. Cum luce nobis prodeat. In Patre totus Filius^ et totus in Verbo Pater/^ Hymn. Brev. in fer. 2. Ath. argues from this oneness of operation tlie oneness of substance. And thus S. Chrysostom thinks it right to argue that if the Father and Son are one Kara rrjv Svpa/jutv, They are one also in ovaia, in Joan. Hom. 61, 2, TertuUian in Prax. 22, and S. Epiphanius, Haer. 57, p. 488, seem to say the same on the same text. Vid. Lampe, Joan. x. 35. And so S. Athan. rpm? ahiaipero<^ rjj ^vaeu, koX /una TavTT]^ rj ivepyeca, Serap. i. 28; ev diXrjfjia irarpo^; fcal VLOV fcal ^ovXrjiia, eirel fcal rj (^vat^ /x/a. 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 essentia," de Sp. ii. 12 fin., and of S. Basil, S)v fjbla evepyeia, tovtcov kol ovoia /x/a, 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 iTepi^(i>pr]ai<;y 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 CUESUS PUBLICUS. OURSUS 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 Constantino to the Bishops summoned to Nicaea, as far as it went. Euseb, Constant, iii. v. 6. The Cursus Pablicus 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 S. 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. Reize. 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^ whicli the Bishops of Aquitaine^ Gaul, and Britain declined, excepting three British by reason of poverty, Snip. ii. 56. Hunneric in Africa, after as- sembling 466 Bishops at Carthage, dismissed them without conveyances, provision, or baggage. Vict. 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. Const, 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 fioval 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 /^dz/o?. 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. G 82 DEFINITIONS. DEFINITIONS. Peom 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 Rulers 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 oflSce of teaching. Each Bishop was in his own place the Doctor Ecclesiae 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 de fide. 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 trae 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 opiaOevra or opoL, definitions, as being boundaries or landmarks. Vid. Athan. Decret. § 2. % 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 iyypa(f)m e^ereOrj with reference to thetn. Thus Damasus, Theod. Hist. v. 10, speaks of that ^^aposto- lical faith, which was set forth in writing by the Fathers in Nicaaa.^^ 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. (e77/3a(/)ft)?, however, sometimes relates to the act of the Bishops in subscribing. Phot, ihid,, 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 rernainetJifor ever and uses against its opposcrs 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, 17; 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 from of old the prophets spoke of Christy and He Him- self 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. H 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. % When 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. supr. vol. i. p. 96), *4t swerves not from it in life or death.'' On this Socrates (Hist. ii. 40) observes, *^ How call you those, who met at Antioch, Fathers, O Eleusius, you who deny their DEFINITIONS. 85 Fathers ? for those who met at Nicgea^ and who 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 ? IT 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. At Sardica indeed the Council writes to Pope Julius, that the Emperors Constantius and Constans had proposed three subjects for its con- sideration : 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 too seem to have wished this as well as themselves; but the Council got into difficulty in con- sequence. 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. However^ from his way of stating the matter^ Sozomen seems to have himself believed that the Council did publish a creed. And^ in fact, a remarkable confession, and a confession attributed to the Council, does exist. Accordingly Athanasius, Eusebius of Vercellae, 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 dis- pleased/^ &c. Tom. ad Antioch. § 5. However, Vigilius of Thapsus repeats the report, contr. Eutych. V. init. IT 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 faithy 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. 14, p. 345. DEFINITIONS. 87 % Aetius of Constantinople at Ciialcedon says that at Ephesus and Chalcedon tlie Fathers did not profess to draw up an exposition of faith, and that Cyril and Leo did but ^'interpret the Creed/^ Cone. Hard. 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 plenitude of the Creed ^^puro et simplici corde.''^ Ep. 31^ p. 857, 8. 88 DEIFICATION. DEIFICATION. The titles whicli "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 (j^ero'xrj) 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. arts. In-dwelling and iierovata, Athanasius insists on this doctrine aofain and aorain. ^ 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, ^ While all things which are made, have by participation {eic iieTovaia^) 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. ^ 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. ^ 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. ^ 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. ^ 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. ix. § 47. ^ 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. ^ 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. We men are made gods by the Word, as being joined to Him through His flesh." ibid. § 34. ^ That He might redeem mankind . . . that He 90 DEIFICATION. might hallow them and make them gods^ the Word became flesh/^ ibid. § 39. IT What is this advance but the deifying and grace imparted from Wisdom to men ? ibid. § 53. Vid. also Adelph. 4; Scrap, i. 24; Cyr. in Joann. p. 74 j Theod. Hist. p. 846 init. ECONOMICAL LANGUAGE. 91 ECONOMICAL LANGUAGE. ^ By Economical/^ I mean language relating to matters beyond tlie 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 statement of revealed 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, in 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 inefi'able 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, and which cannot be adequately ECONOMICAL LANGUAGE. 93 expressed in human words^ it draws from one revealed information what is inconsistent with what it draws from another^ and instead of sayings ^' This collision of dedactions arises from the imperfection of our know- ledge/^ it refuses to accept premisses which are serviceable only in the sense and to the extent in which they are intended. This is acting like a reasoner 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 was parallel to a geometrical cube, should in consequence 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 should forthwith withdraw his faith from algebraical deductions altogether. Vid. art. Trinity, also Illustrations , and others. ^ Sach 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, afjbvhpco^, vid. also a/juvSpa; ii. 17. ^ 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 Scrap, i. 20, and Deer. § 12. And S. Austin^ after an 94 ECONOMICAL LANGUAGE. illustration from the nature of the human mind, pro- ceeds: ^^Par other are these Three and that Trinity. . . When a man hath discovered something in them and stated it, let him not at once suppose that he has dis- covered what is above him/^ &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. IT Scripture is full of mysteries, but they are mys- teries of fact, not of words. Its dark sayings or asnigmata are such, because in the nature of things they cannot be expressed clearly. Hence contrariwise, Oratii. § 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. ^ Nothing is more common in theology than large comparisons which are only parallel to a certain point as regards the matter in hand^ especially since many doctrines do not admit of exact illustrations. Our Lord^s real manhood and imputed sinfulness were alike adjuncts to His Divine Person, which was of an Eternal and Infinite Nature ; and therefore His Manhood may ECONOMICAL LANGUAGE. 95 be compared to an Attribute^ or to an accident^ without meaning that it really was either. The Athan. Creed compares the Hypostatic Union to that of soul and body in one man, which, as taken literally by the Monophysites, became their heresy. Again S. Cyril says, As the Bread of the Eucharist, after the 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 Catholic thinks 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, 1 1, 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. Haer. 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. ViD. arts. Semi'Arianism and Asterius for a notice of the symbol of the o/jlocovctlov, in opposition to the orthodox 6/bioovatop and ovala^; on the one hand^ and to avofioLov on the other. Eusebius is one of the special supporters of this form of heresy. Asterius is another (vid. art. Avian Leaders) ; the statements set down here and under the title Asterius are mainly taken from what we find in their controversial works. IF 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^ ovaia<;)j 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 ovaLas itself is the explanation ; a curious inversion. 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 yvcofjirjv koL irpoaipeaiv, Dem. Ev. iv. 3. (vid. art. BovXrjai^;). And though he insists on our Lord being alone i/c Oeov, yet he VOL. II. ir 98 EUSEBIUS. means in tlie sense whicli Athan. refutes^ Deer. § 7, viz. that He alone was created immediately from God. It is true tliat he plainly condemns with the Nicene Creed the ovK ovTcov 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 generatej^ Eccl. Theol. i. 9 fin. IT 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 handi- work, SrjfjLiovpyrj/jia, of the Perfect, and the wise structure apxf^reKTovrjfjia, 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 ofi*spring, not as the offsprings.^^ E.g. It is not without peril to say recklessly that the Son is generate out of nothing EUSEBIUS. 99 similarlij to the other geiierates.^^ Dem. Ev. v. 1 ; vid. also Eccl. Theol. i. 9, iii. 2. And lie 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 did not constitute more, it is fitting for such a one to complain that He constituted not more suns, and moons, and worlds, and ten thousand other thinofs/^ 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, ^^not from 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 6/jloov(tcop, to hinder the con- fession of the substance " from implying a second substance, which was not obviated or was even encouraged by the oixoiovcnov. The Council of Ancyra, quoting the text As the Father hath life in Himself, H 2 100 EUSEBIUS. so/^ &c.^ says since the life whicli is ia tlie Father means substance, and the life of the Only-begotten who is begotten from the Father means substance, the word *" so ^ implies a likeness of substance to sub- stance/^ Epiph. H99r. 73, 10 fin. Hence Busebius 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. Praef. ; Praep. Ev. vii. 12, p. 320, and the Holy Spirit a third substance, ibid. 15, p. 325. This it was that made the Latins so suspicious of three hypostases, because the Semi-Arians, as well as they, understood v7r6(TTa(TL<; 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. Prsef. ; not the True God.'' Syn. § 17, Concil. vii. art. 6, p. 409. Vid. also erepov e^x^ovcra to tear ova Lav viroKeiybevov, Dem. Ev. V. 1, p. 215; KaS" iavrov ov(TtcojLievo<;y ibid. iv. 3. And so €T€po<; irapa rov irarepa, Eccl. Theol. i. 20, p. 90 ; and ^corjv cStav e'X^cov, ibid. ; and ^cov koX vcfyeo-rco^ teal rov irarpo^ vTrdp'X^cov eKTo<^, 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 then the Son 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. ^AyevrjTo^ and Marcellus, IT 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,. EUSEBIUS. 101 that the 6/jloovctlov implied a separation or divulsion of the Divine Substance into two, following the line of ar- gument of Paul of Samosata^ 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. tom. i. p. 7 ; de Fide ii. p. 16 ; and apparently his de Incorporali. And so the Semi-Arians at Ancyra, Epiph. Haar. 73, 11, p. 858. And so Meletius, ibid, p. 878 fin., and Cyril Hier. Catech. vii. 5, xi. 18. ov irdOei Trarrjp f^/euojjuevo^y ovtc etc crv/jLirXoKri^^y ov /car ayvoiav, ovk. airop'pevcra^, ov /uLeccoOel^;, ov/c dXkotcoOek, 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. IT The only sense then in which the word ofioovaiov 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 ofioovaiov, for it is but saying tliat ofjLoovcTLov means ofiouovaLov, whereas the two words notoriously were antagonistic to each other. IF It must be observed too that^ though the Semi-Arian o/jLOLovcTLov 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 a7rapdXkaKT0<; elKcbv, ^'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 ofioovauov implies the same in likeness,^^ ravrov ry o/jLoccoaety 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 o/jlolovo-lov, 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 hnage, and as 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 w^as honoured through his image/^ de Eccl. Theol. ii. 23 ; vid. ibid. 7, pp. 109, 111. ^ Accordingly, instead of e| ovata'^, which was the Nicene formula, he held fxerovaia, that is, like to the Father by participation of qualities/^ as a creature may be ; avTrj<^ Tf]<^ TrarptKrjf; [not ovaLa<;, but] fierovcria^, &a7rep airo 7r?777}9, ctt' avrov irpo^eoiJbevr)<^ TrXTjpovfjbevov, Eccl. Theol. i. 2. Whereas Athan. says, ouSe Kara /jLerovaiav avrov, aX)C oXov l8lov avrov yevvrj/jua, Orat. iii. § 4, (Disc. n. 228.) If ye speak of the Son as being merely such by participation^ /jberova-ia, then call Him o/jlolovo-lov,'^ Syn. 53 ; but no, it is for crea- tures to possess God /Jberovo-La, but when God is said to beget, this is all one with enunciating the ovaia^, and a ivliole participation. Vid. Orat. i. § 16. ^ Hence St. Austin says, as quoted supr. Avian 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 he Himself life ; and of that life to maize us partalcers.^^ 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 104 EUSEBIUS. One ingenerate and the Other generate ? Vid. supr. ■Avian tenets. ^ 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 Nicaea, 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/^ Bus. Lett. § 10. Theognis too, another of the Nicene Arians, says the same, according to Philostorgius ; viz. *Hhat God even before^ He begat the Son was a Father, as having the power, Svpa/JLL^;, 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 SvvafjiL<; ; a maker is before his works, but he who says Father, forthwith in Father implies the existence of the Son.''^ Orat. iii. 6. {Disc. n. 231, supr. vol. i. p. 364.) 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. IT 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, ovK ovTcov ; therefore, while it was not impossible, from the nature of the case, for Almighty God to be always Father, it icas 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, ovic optcov and ovfc rjv irplv ysvvrjOfj.'^ Vid, Cyril. Thesaur. 9, p. 67. Dial. ii. p. 460. It has been above shown that Eusebius held with Arians generally 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 brouofht into being: before all creation, eVl acoTTjpia Tcjv 6\o)v, Vid. also Demonstr. iv. 4; Pra3p. vii. 15 ; but especially his remark, not because the Father was not able to create, did He begot the Son, but because those things which were made were not able to sustain the power of the Ingenerate, therefore 106 EUSEBIUS. 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 TVTTo^, elfccbv, and viroypa/jifjia of those things which He is creating, but that He copies the Father^s patterns as an external minister. ^^The Father designed {SL€TV7rov) and prepared with consideration, how, and of what shape, measure, and parts. . . . And He watching [ivaTevt^cop) the Father^s thoughts, and alone beholding the depths in Him, went about the work, subserving the Father's orders {vevfjuacn) . . . As a skilful painter, talcing 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 Easebius 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, €0 /JL6V '\\rv^rj<; Stfcrjv {^iX^) ^^^^^ avrS tgS acofiart ; and at p. 55 he seems to say that, if the Word retired from the ^coottolo^; aap^y the aap^ would be left dXoyos ; vid. also ibid. p. 91. THE FATHER ALMIGHTY. 107 THE FATHER ALMIGHTY. 1. The idea of an Almighty^ All-perfect Beings 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, as soon as that doctrine has been received with the claim and the sanction of its having been revealed. IT 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 plenitudinem totius Esse. At haec necesse est ut statim exundet nativa foecunditate suti. Infinitum enim illud Esse non Esse tantum est sed Esse totum est ; vivere id ipsum est intelligere, sapere ; opulentioe suae, bonitatis, et sapientiae rivulos undique spargere ; nec rivulos tantum, sed et fontem et plenitudinem ipsam suam diff*undere. Haec enim domum fcocun- ditas Deo digna, Deo par est, ut a Fonto bonitatis non rivulus sed fiumen effluat, nec extra efiluat, sed 108 THE FATHER ALMIGHTY. in ipsometj 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 77777^ ^VP^y Serap. ii. 2 ; Orat. i. § 14 fin. ; also Kapiroyovo^ rj ovaLay 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 [icap7roy6vo<^) , 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 iT7]yr] Oeorrjro^, Pseudo-Dion. Div. Nom. ii. 4; Trrjyr] ifc TrrjyTj^;, of the Son, Epiphan. Ancor. 19. And Cyril, If thou take from God His being Father, thou wilt deny the generative power {/capTroyovop) 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 {a^payh) to the Father that He is perfect.-^^ Thesaur. p. 37. Vid. also yevvriTLKo^, Orat. ii. § 2, iii. § 66, iv. § 4 fin. ; wyovo^, i. 14, 19, and Sent. Dion. 15 and 19 ; rj ^vcnicr] yovLfiorr^^j Damasc. F.O. i. 8; d/cap7ro<;, Cyr. Thes. p. 45 ; Epiph. Haer. 65, p. 609 ; also the jevvr]cn<; and the KTLat^ connected together, Orat. i. 29. This doctrine THE FATHER ALMIGHTY. 109 is briefly expressed in Orat. iv. 4^ el ayovo^, /cat av€vepy7]T0<;. 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 nec 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 Grod at all, but KeKoXKriaOat tco irarpl \6yov, Orat. iv. § 3; and Marcellas, according to Euseb ius, spoke of Him as rjucoijuevov tm Oeo) \6yov (vid. (Tv/jL^e/3r]fco^), Athan. protesting on the other hand a^rainst the notion that the Fountain beerat not wisdom from Itself, but acquired it from without,^^ vid. supr. Deer. § 15, and Orat. iv. § 4, and laying down the principle ovSeu ev vrpo? top irarepa, el fjurj to avTov. Orat. iv. 17. ^ But the Son still was m as well dsfrnm the Father, and this union of distinct characteristics in tho Son was signified by S. John by tho word 7rpo9, i. 1, whereas the Sabellians preferred to say eV to) Oeai, Hence 110 THE FATHER ALMIGHTY. Easily o iv avOpcoircp X0709 ov irpo^ avrov elvat Xiyerai aX)C iv avTcp, c. Sabell. 1, fin., but the Divine Son was 7rpo9 Tov debv, not ev tco 0€m. It was in this sense and with this explanation that Catholics held and insisted on the Divine Unity; 01% as they then called it, the Monarcliia : 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 efflaat flumen Deitatis nec extra efflaat/^ 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 Monarcliia 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^aL 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 Omnipotens, qui cum Unigenito Filio tuo et Spiritu Sancto, Unus es Deus instead of the Pater, Filius, Spiritus Sanctus, Unus Deus of the Psalmus Qiiicimque, And so, The Word,^^ says Athan., being the Son of the One God, is referred to Him ofwJiom also He is.''^ Orat. iv. § 1 . 669 avrov ava^eperai, vid. also Nazianz. Orat. 20. 7 ; Damasc. F. O. i. 8, p. 140 ; Theod. Abuc. Opusc. 42, p. 542. And so avd'yerai, Naz. Orat. 42. 15 ; and THE FATHER ALMIGHTY. Ill rjjJba^ avaireiJby^rr] eirl rrjv rod nrarpo^ avOevTiaVy Buseb. 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 Fathor^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 musfc 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. Scrap, i. 28 fin. Naz. Orat. 23. 8. Bas. Ilom. 24, init. Nyssen. Orat. Cat. 3, p. 481. The Father is itnition, €vct)cn<;,'' says S. Greg. Naz., from whom and unto whom are the other Two.'' Orat. 42. 15; also Orat. 20. 7, 112 THE FATHER ALMIGHTY. and Epiph. Haar. 57^ 5. TertuUian^ 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. Irenaeus 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 Monarchia/^ 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, Haer. 42, 3^ or as Augustine says, the good, the just, and the wicked, which may be taken to mean nearly the same thing. Hser. 22. The Apostolical Canons denounce those who baptise into Three TJnoriginate ; vid. also Athan. Tom. ad Antioch. 5; Naz. Orat. 20. 6. Basil denies rpet? ap^iKal v7ro(7Td(T€L<;, de Sp. S. § 38. % 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, ayevijro^, 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. 8, 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 [irpoaeaTL), 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 T had not yet named the Father, He had been fully comprehended in the Son,'' &c. Sent. D. 1 7, vid. art. GoinlLerence. IT 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 Sabell. i. (ap. Sirm. t. i. p. 8.) Pater statim, ut dictus fuit pater, requirit ista vox filium," &c. ; but in that passage no 7repL-)(^cop7]o-L<; is implied, which is the orthodox doctrine. Yet Petavius observes as to the very ivord 7repLX(f^prjaL<; 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. I 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 0€ov(7iv vlov, Vid. also Euseb. contr. Marc. i. 4, p. 22. Eccl. THE FATHER ALMIGHTY. 119 Theol. i. 12 fin.; ii. 6. Marcellus^ on the other liand, contrasting Son and Word, said that our Lord was KvpLQ)<; X6yo<^j not Kvpico^ vl6<;, ibid. ii. 10 fin. S. Basil says in like manner that, though God is Father Kvplco^ (properly), yet it comes to the same thing though we were to say that He is rpoiTLKm and eic fieTa(^opa<^, 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 r/evvr](Ti<=; implies two things — passion, and relationship, OLKeiCDai^ (f)va€a)^ ; 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 THE FLESH. THE 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 Fleshy 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 not Sinlessness appeared in the nature luhich had sinned, how was sin condemned in the flesh ? in A poll. ii. G. ^^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, ivhereas He is life and life-giving, He might destroy the corruption THE 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 naturae erab ejus caro quam nostra_, nee alio illi quam ca3teris hominibus anima est inspirata principio^ quae excellevet^ non diversitate generis, sed sublimitate virtutis.-'^ Ep. 35 fin.; vid. also Ep. 28, 3; Ep. 31, 2; Ep. 165, 9; Serra. 22, 2, and 25, 5. 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 ivill, 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 i\iQ f elicit If 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 rr^v (f)vo-LV of the flesh a/jbaprLav, koI ov rrjv irpa^tv, contr. Apoll. i. 12 fin., or cj^vcrLfcrjv elvau ti^v a/jLaprlav, 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. 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 {Srjfjbcovpyo^), 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 Ho, ^ the Son of God camo to 122 THE FLESH. 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 deaths that nature 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. H As, since the flesh has become the all-quickening 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 tyrannised 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 Rect. Fid. p. 18. Vid. art. Specialties. USE OF FORCE IN RELIGION. 123 USE OP FORCE IN RELIGION. ^^In no long time/' says Atlian._, ihej 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 governor^ with an allusion per- haps to Acts xxiii. 22, 2ij &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, 45 ; 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 ivills 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 tlie 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. J^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 subordination 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 : % Who comprehends not the craft of these God- assailants ? who but would stone such madmen ? ovk Gv KaraXiOcioo-eLevJ^ 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 l3aWea6coaav nrapa TrdvToyv/^ 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. Yid. 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, and 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 lie will he stoned and crushed ; for the wicked shall be miserably destroyed. For as stones for tlie bestial are true ivords 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 Eoman 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 [coc^eCKe^^) to have your impious tongue cut out/^ the Arian Acacius says to Marcellus, ap. Epiph. Haer. 72, 7. ^^If Eutyches thinks otherwise than the decrees of the Church, he deserves {d^io<^) not only punishment, but the fire,^^ says the Monophysite. 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.) After- wards 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 Manichee to enter a fire with him. After Copres had come out unharmed, the populace forced the Manichee into it, and then cast him, burnt as he was, out of the city. Hist. Lausiac. 54. S. Gregory mentions the case of a wizard, who had pretended to be a monk, and had used magical arts against a nun, being subsequently burned by the Roman populace. Dial. i. 4. FREEDOM OF OUR MORAL NATURE. 127 FREEDOM OP OUR MORAL NATURE. Thip^ it need hardly be said, is one 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, firsts 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. {Vise. n. 84) T[ Vid. Athan. de Incarn. § 13, 14 ; vid. also Gent. 41 fin. Cum justitia nulla esset in terra, docto- rem misit, quasi vivara legem.^^ 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. 108; 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 irpwroroKo^, in the visible universe. 128 FREEDOM OF OUR MORAL NATURE. Vid. a beautiful passage^ contr. Gent. 42, &c. Again^ He made them [men] after His own image^ impart- ing to tliem of the power of His own Word^ that, having as it were certain shadows of the Word, and becoming rational, \oyL/col, they might be enabled to continue in blessedness.-'^ Incarn. 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, and 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 /jblfjirjo-iv. Orat. iii. § 19. {Disc, n. 252 ; ) Clem. Alex. Tcop eiKovcov Ta9 fiev eKrpeTrojuievov^y ra? 8e /ijLifjLov/jievov<;. Paedag. i. 3, p. 102, ed. Pott, and fiifiTjaei rov voo^ etceivov, Naz. Ep. 102, p. 95 (ed. Ben.). Vid. Leo in various places, infra, p. 190, art. Incarnation; ut imitatores operum, factores sermonum, &c. Iren. H^r. 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 rrjv avrov /jbL/jirjcnv. 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 {(f>popovPTo<^) 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 Him as from a teacher. And, it being so with us, sin has not lost^its reign over the flesh, being inherent and not cast out of it." Orat. ii. § 56. {Disc, n. 180.) And this is necessary, he goes on to say, that we might have ekevOepov to ^povrjijia,'^ IT He speaks, contr. Gent., of man having the grace of the Giver, and his own virtue from the Fathei'^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 minds into another intellect ; 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 or 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 ap'x/j, 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^v (vid. art. ap'xrj) 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 {iXevOepcav), . . . Therefore came the Son of God by Himself to establish [the flesh] in His own nature from a new beginning {ap^v) 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) ; via. arts. Incarnation and Sanctijication, 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. ^ ^^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 j 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. Irenasus, 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.^^ Haer. iii. 19, n. 1. He took part of flesh and blood, that FREEDOM OF OUR MORAL NATURE. 133 is, He became man, wliereas He was Life by nature, . * . that uniting Himself to tlie corruptible flesh according to the measure of its own nature, ineflFably, 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, re-fashioning 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, passhn. ^ Vid. Naz. Epp. ad Cled. 1 and 2 (101, 102, ed. Ben.); Nyssen. ad Theoph. in ApoU. p. 696. " Generatio Christi origo est populi Christiani,^^ says S. Leo ; for whoso is regenerated in Christ,'' he continues, ^^has no longer the propagation from a carnal father, but the germination of a Saviour, who therefore was made Son of man, that we might be sons of God.^^ Serm. 26, 2. Multum fuit a Christo recepisse 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. ^^Haec est nativitas nova dum homo nascitur in Deo ; in quo homiue 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. IT Such is the channel and mode in which spiritual life and freedom is given to us. Our Lord Himself, 134 TREEDOM OF OUR MORAL NATURE. according to the Holy Fathers^ is ihe ap')(r} of the new creation to each individual Christian. If it be asked of them. What real connection 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 {avafjulyvvo-Lv) 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. Hom. 82. 5. in Matt. And just before, ^^It sufficed not for Him to be made man, to be scourged, to be sacrificed ; but He unites Himself to us {dva