YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY LIBRARY OF FATHERS OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH, ANTERIOR TO THE DIVISION OF THE EAST AND WEST. TRANSLATED BY MEMBERS OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. VET SHALL NOT THY TEACHERS BE REMOVED INTO A CORNER ANY MORE, BUT THINE EYES SHALL SEE THY TEACHERS. Isaiah XXX. 20. OXFORD, JOHN HENRY PARKER; J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. MDCCCXLIV. TO THE MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD WILLIAM LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, PRIMATE OF ALL ENGLAND, FORMERLY REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE DNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, THIS LIBRARY OF ANCIENT BISHOPS, FATHERS, DOCTORS, MARTYRS, CONFESSORS, OF CHRIST'S HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH, is WITH HIS GRACE'S PERMISSION RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED, IN TOKEN OF REVERENCE FOR HIS PERSON AND SACRED OFFICE, AND OF GRATITUDE FOR HIS EPISCOPAL KINDNESS. SELECT TREATISES OF S. ATHANASIUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, IN CONTROVERSY WITH THE ARIANS, CV,2_3 TRANSLATED, WITH NOTES AND INDICES. OXFORD, JOHN HENRY PARKER; J. G. F. AND J. RIVTNGTON, LONDON. MDCCCXLIV. M v. 13 BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD. The Preliminaiy Matter is unavoidably postponed. J. H. N. Bee. 6, 1844. CONTENTS. EPISTLE OF S. ATHANASIUS IN DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION. CHAP. I. INTRODUCTION. The complaint of the Arians against the Nicene Council ; their fickleness ; they are like Jews ; their employment of force instead of reason. Page 1 CHAP. II. CONDUCT OF THE ARIANS TOWARDS THE NICENE COUNCIL. Ignorant as well as irreligious to attempt to reverse an Ecumenical Council ; proceedings at Nicsea; Eusehians then signed what they now complain of; on the unanimity of true teachers, and the process of tradition ; changes of the Arians. 5 CHAP. III. THE MEANING OF THE WORD SON AS APPLIED TO OUR LORD. Two senses of the word, 1. adoptive, 2. substantial. Attempts of Arians to find a third meaning between these ; e.g. that our Lord alone was created immediately by God; Asterius's view; or that our Lord alone partakes the Father. The second and true sense; God begets as He makes, really ; though His creation and generation not like man's; His generation inde pendent of time; generation implies an internal, and therefore an eternal, act in God; explanation of Prov. 8, 22. 10 b 11 CONTENTS. CHAP. IV. PROOF OF THE CATHOLIC SENSE OF THE WORD SON. Power, Word or Reason, and Wisdom, the names of the Son, imply eternity; as well as the Father's title of Fountain. The Arians reply that these do not formally belong to the essence of the Son, hut are names given Him; that God has many words, powers, &c. Why there is but one Son, Word, &c. All the titles ofthe Son coincide in Him. 24 CHAP. V. DEFENCE OF THE COUNCIL'S PHRASES, " FROM THE SUBSTANCE," AND " ONE IN SUBSTANCE." Objection that the phrases are not scriptural; we ought to look at the sense more than the wording. Evasion of the Eusebians as to the phrase " of God," which is in Scripture; their evasion of all explanations but those which the Council selected; which were intended to negative the Arian formulae. Protest against their conveying any material sense. 30 CHAP. VI. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE COUNCIL. Theognostus; Dionysius of Alexandria; Dionysius of Rome; Origen. 43 CHAP. VII. ON THE ARIAN SYMBOL " INGENERATE." This term afterwards adopted by the Arians; and why; three senses of it. A fourth sense. Ingenerate denotes God in contrast to His creatures, not to His Son; Father the scriptural title instead ; Conclusion. 51 APPENDIX. Letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to the People of his Diocese. 59 Note on p. 61. On the meaning of the phrase \\ i-ri^xs iricranus » nla-'ms in the Nicene Anathema. gg CONTENTS. Ill EPISTLE OF S. ATHANASIUS, CONCERNING THE COUNCILS HELD AT ARIMINUM IN ITALY AND AT SELEUCIA IN ISAURIA. CHAP. I. HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. Reasons why two Councils were called. Inconsistency and folly of calling any ; and of the style of the Arian formularies ; occasion of the Nicene Councils. Proceedings at Ariminum; Letter of the Council to Constantius; its decree. Proceedings at Seleueia; reflections on the conduct of the Arians. 73 CHAP. II. HISTORY OF ARIAN OPINIONS. Arius's own sentiments ; his Thalia and Letter to S. Alexander. Corrections by Eusebius and others ; extracts from the works of Asterius. Letter of the Council of Jerusalem. First Creed of Arians at the Dedication at Antioch; second, Lucian's on the same occasion; third, by Theophronius ; fourth, sent into Gaul to Constans; fifth, the Macrostich sent into Ttaly; sixth, at Sirmium ; seventh, at the same place ; and eighth also, as intro duced above in Chapter i; ninth, at Seleucia; tenth, at Constantinople; eleventh, at Antioch. 93 CHAP. III. ON THE SYMBOLS " OF THE SUBSTANCE" AND " ONE IN SUBSTANCE." We must look at the sense not the wording. The offence excited is at the sense; meaning of the Symbols; the question of their not being in Scripture. Those who hesitate only at the latter of the two, are not to be considered Arians. Reasons why " One in substance" better than " Like in substance," yet the latter may be interpreted in a good sense. Ex planation of the rejection of " One in substance" by the Council which condemned Samosatene ; use of the word by Dionysius of Alexandria. Parallel variation in the use of " Ingenerate ;" quotation from S. Ignatius and another. Reasons for using " One in substance ;" objections to it ; examination of the word itself. Further documents of the Council of Ariminum 1 29 Note on Chapter II. Concerning the Confessions at Sirmium. 160 Note on page 147. On the alleged Confession of Antioch against Paul of Samosata. 165 b 2 IV CONTENTS. FOUR DISCOURSES OF S. ATHANASIUS AGAINST THE ARIANS. DISCOURSE I. CHAP. I. INTRODUCTION. Reason for writing ; certain persons indifferent about Ariamsm ; Arians are not Christians, because sectaries always take the name of their founder. 177 CHAP. II. EXTRACTS FROM THE THALIA OF ARIUS. Arius maintains that God became a Father, and the Son was not always; the Son out of nothing; once He was not; He was not before His gene ration ; He was created ; named Wisdom and Word after God's attributes; made that He might make us; one out of many powers of God; alterable; exalted on God's foreknowledge of what He was to be ; not very God; but called so, as others, by participation ; foreign in substance from the Father; does not know or see the Father; does not know Himself. 185 CHAP. III. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. The Arians affect Scripture language, but their doctrine is new, as well as unscriptural. Statement of the Catholic doctrine, that the Son is proper to the Father's Substance, and eternal. Restatement of Arianism in contrast, that He is a creature with a beginning. The controversy comes to this issue, whether one whom we are to believe in as God, can be so in name only, and is merely a creature. What pretence then is there for being indifferent in the controversy? The Arians rely on state patronage, and dare not avow their tenets. 189 CHAP. IV. THAT THE SON IS ETERNAL AND INCREATE. These attributes, being the points in dispute, are first proved by direct texts ' of Scripture.*' Concerning the " Eternal Power" of God in Rom. i. 20. which is shewn to mean the Son. Remarks on the Arian formula, " Once the Son was not," its supporters not daring to speak of" a time when the Son was not." 195 CONTENTS. V CHAP. V. SUBJECT CONTINUED. The objection, that the Son's eternity makes Him co-ordinate with the Father, introduces the subject of His Divine Sonship, as a second proof of His eternity. The word Son is used in a transcendant, but is to be un derstood in a real sense. Since all things partake of the Father in par taking of the Son, He is the whole participation of the Father, that is, He is the Son by nature ; for to be wholly participated is to beget. 200 CHAP. VI. SUBJECT CONTINUED. Third proof of the Son's eternity, viz. from other titles indicative of His consubstantiality ; as the Creator ; as One of the Blessed Trinity ; as Wisdom; as Word; as Image. But if the Son be a perfect Image of the Father, why is He not a Father also ? because God, being perfect, is not the origin of a race. The Father only a Father, because the Only Father ; the Son only a Son because the Only Son. Men are not really fathers and really sons, but shadows of the True. The Son does not become a Father, because He has received from the Father, to be immutable and ever the same. 205 CHAP. VII. OBJECTIONS TO THE FOREGOING PROOF. Whether, in the generation of the Son, God made One that was already, or One that was not. 213 CHAP. VIII. OBJECTIONS CONTINUED. Whether we may decide the questionby the parallel of human sons, which are bom later than their parents. No, for the force of the analogy lies in the idea of connaturality. Time is not involved in the idea of Son, but is adventitious to it, and does not attach to God, because He is without parts and passions. The titles Word and Wisdom guard our thoughts of Him and His Son from this misconception. God not a Father, as a Creator, in posse from eternity, because creation does not relate to the Substance of God, as generation does. 218 vi CONTENTS. CHAP. IX. OBJECTIONS CONTINUED. Whether is the Ingenerate one or two? Inconsistent in Arians to use an unscriptural word ; necessary to define its meaning. Different senses of the word. If it means " without Father," there is but One Ingenerate ; if " without beginning or creation," there are Two. Inconsistency of Asterius. " Ingenerate" is a title of God, not in contrast with the Son, but with creatures, as is " Almighty," or " Lord of powers." " Father" is the truer title, not only as Scriptural, but as implying a Son, and our adoption as sons. 224 CHAP. X. OBJECTIONS CONTINUED. How the Word has free-will, yet without being alterable. He is unalter able because the Image ofthe Father; proved from texts. 230 CHAP. XI. TEXTS EXPLAINED ; AND FIRST, PHIL. ii. 9, 10. Various texts which are alleged against the Catholic doctrine ; e. g. Phil. ii. 9, 10. Whether the words " Wherefore God hath highly exalted" prove moral probation and advancement. Argued against, first, from the force of the word " Son," according to the Regula Fidei; which is inconsistent with such an interpretation. Next, the passage examined. Ecclesiastical sense of" highly exalted," and "gave," and "wherefore;" viz. as being spoken with reference to our Lord's manhood. Secondary sense; viz. as implying the Word's " exaltation" through the Resurrection in the same sense in which Scripture speaks of His descent in the Incarnation; how the phrase does not derogate from the Nature of the Word. 233 CHAP. XII. TEXTS EXPLAINED; SECONDLY, PSALM xiv. 7, 8. Whether the words " therefore," " anointed," &c. imply that the Word has been rewarded. Argued against, first, from the word " fellows" i. e. " par takers." He is anointed with the Spirit in His manhood to sanctify human nature. Therefore the Spirit descended on Him in Jordan, when in the flesh. And for us He is said to sanctify Himself, and in order to give us the glory He has received. The word " wherefore" implies His divinity. " Thou hast loved righteousness," &c. do not imply trial or choice. 046 CONTENTS. VH CHAP. XIII. TEXTS EXPLAINED ; THIRDLY, HEBREWS i. 4. Additional texts brought as objections; e. g. Hebr. i. 4. vii. 22. Whether the word "better" implies likeness to the Angels; and "made" or " become" implies creation. Necessary to consider the circumstances under which Scripture speaks. Difference between " better" and "greater;" texts in proof. "Made" or " become" is a general word. Contrast in Heb. i. 4. between the Son and the Works, iu point of nature. The difference of the punishments under the two Covenants shews the difference of the natures of the Son and the Angels. " Become" relates, not to the Nature of the Word, but to His manhood and office and re lation towards us. Parallel passages in which the term is applied to the Eternal Father. 257 Note on p. 214. On the meaning of the formula «•{)» ytnn6m"i »"* «»» in the Nicene Anathema. 272 DISCOURSE II. CHAP. XIV. TEXTS EXPLAINED ; FOURTHLY, HEBREWS iii. 2. Introduction; the Regula Fidei counter to an Arian sense of the text; which is not supported by the word " servant,-3' nor by "made" which oc curs in it; (how can the Judge be among the " works" which " God will bring into judgment?") nor by "faithful;" and is confuted by the im mediate context, which is about Priesthood ; and by the foregoing passage, which explains the word " faithful" to mean trustworthy, as do 1 Pet. iv. fin. and other texts. On the whole " made" may safely be understood either ofthe divine generation or the human creation. 281 CHAP. XV. TEXTS EXPLAINED ; FIFTHLY, ACTS ii. 36. The Regula Fideimust be observed; "made" applies to our Lord's manhood; and to His manifestation ; and to His office relative to us ; and is relative to the Jews. Parallel instance in Gen. 27, 29, 37. The context con tradicts the Arian interpretation. 297 IL V1U CONTENTS. CHAP. XVI. INTRODUCTORY TO PROVERBS viii. 22. THAT THE SON IS NOT A CREATURE. Arian formula," A creature but not as one ofthe creatures ;' ' but each creature is unlike all other creatures ; and no creature can create. The Word then differs from all creatures in that in which they, though otherwise differing, all agree together, as creatures ; viz. iu being an efficient Cause ; in being the one Divine Medium or Agent in creation; moreover in being the Revealer ofthe Father; and in being the Object of worship. 306 CHAP. XVII. INTRODUCTION TO PROVERBS viii. 22. CONTINUED. Absurdity of supposing a Son or Word created in order to the creation of other creatures; as to the creation being unable to bear God's immediate hand, God condescends to the lowest. Moreover, if the Son a creature, He too could not bear God's hand, and an infinite series of media will be necessary. Objected, that, as Moses who led out the Israelites was a man, so our Lord ; but Moses was not the Agent in creation : — objected again, that unity is found in created ministrations; but all such ministrations are defective and dependent: — again, that He learned to create; yet could God's Wisdom need teaching? and why should He learn, if the Father " worketh hitherto?" If the Son was created to create us, He is for our sake, not we for His. 315 CHAP. XVIII. INTRODUCTION TO PROVERBS viii. 22. CONTINUED. Contrast between the Father's operations immediately and naturally in the Son, instrumentally by the creatures ; Scripture terms illustrative of this. Explanation of these illustrations ; which should be interpreted by the doctrine of the Church; perverse sense put on them by the Arians, refuted. Mystery of Divine Generation. Contrast between God's Word and man's word drawn out at length. Asterius betrayed into holding two Ingenerates; his inconsistency. Baptism how by the Son as well as by the Father. On the Baptism of heretics. Why Arian worse than other heresies. 223 CONTENTS. IX CHAP. XIX. TEXTS EXPLAINED ; SIXTHLY, PROVERBS viii. 22. Proverbs are of a figurative nature, and must be interpreted as such. We must interpret them, and in particular this passage, by the Regula Fidei. " He created Me" not equivalent to " I am a creature." Wisdom a creature so far forth as Its human body. Again, If He is a creature, it is as " a Beginning of ways," an office which, though not an attribute, is a consequence, of a higher and divine nature. And it is " for the works," which implies that the works existed, and therefore much more He, before He was created. Also "the Lord" not the Father "created" Him, which implies the creation was that of a servant. 342 CHAP. XX. TEXTS EXPLAINED ; SIXTHLY, PROVERBS Viii. 22. CONTINUED. Our Lord is said to be created " for the works," i. e. with a particular purpose, which no mere creatures are ever said to be. Parallel of Isai. 49, 5. &c. When His manhood is spoken of, a reason for it is added; not so when His Divine Nature ; texts in proof. 353 CHAP. XXI. TEXTS EXPLAINED ; SIXTHLY, PROVERBS viii. 22. CONTINUED. Our Lord not said in Scripture to be "created," nor the works tobe "begotten." "In the beginning" means, in the case ofthe works, "from the beginning." Scripture passages explained. We are made by God first, begotten next; creatures by nature, sons by grace. Christ begotten first, made or created afterwards. Sense of " First-born of the dead ;" of " First-born among many brethren;" of " First-born of all creation," contrasted with " Only- begotten." Further interpretation of " Beginning of ways," and " for the works," Why a creature could not redeem; why redemption was ne cessary at all. Texts which contrast the Word and the works. 362 CHAP. XXII. TEXTS EXPLAINED ; SIXTHLY, THE CONTEXT OF PROVERBS viii. 22. viz. 22—30. It is right to interpret this passage by the Regula Fidei. " Founded" is used in contrast to superstructure ; and it implies, as in the case of stones in building, previous existence. " Before the world" signifies the divine intention and purpose. Recurrence to Prov. viii. 22. and application of it to created Wisdom as seen in the works. The Son reveals the Father, first by the works, then by the Incarnation. 385 CONTENTS. DISCOURSE III. CHAP. XXIII. TEXTS EXPLAINED ; SEVENTHLY, JOHN xiv. 10. Introduction. The doctrine of the Coinherence. The Father and the Son Each whole and perfect God. They are in Each Other, because then- Substance is One and the Same. They are Each Perfect and have One Substance, because the Second Person is the Son ofthe First. Asterius's evasive explanation of the text under review ; refuted. Since the Son has all that the Father has, He is His Image ; and the Father is the One Only God, because the Son is in the Father. 398 CHAP. XXIV. TEXTS EXPLAINED ; EIGHTHLY, JOHN Xvii. 3. AND THE LIKE. Our Lord's divinity cannot interfere with His Father's prerogatives, as the One God, which were so earnestly upheld by the Son. " One", is used in contrast with false gods and idols, not with the Son, through whom the Father spoke. Our Lord adds His Name to the Father's, as being in cluded in Him. The Father the First, not as if the Son were not First too, but as Origin. 409 CHAP. XXV. TEXTS EXPLAINED ; NINTHLY, JOHN X. 30. Xvii. 11, &C. Arian explanation, that the Son is one with the Father in will and judgment; but so are all good men, nay things inanimate ; contrast of the Son. Oneness between Them is in nature, because there is oneness in operation. Angels not objects of prayer, because they do not work together with God, but the Son; texts quoted. Seeing an Angel, is not seeing God. Arians in fact hold two Gods, and tend to Gentile polytheism. Arian explanation that " The Father and Son are one, as we are one with Christ," is put aside by the Regula Fidei, and shewn invalid by the usage of Scripture in illustrations; the true force of the comparison; force of the terms used. Force of " in us ;" force of " as;" confirmed by S.John. In what sense we are " in God" and His " sons." 414 CONTENTS. xi CHAP. XXVI. INTRODUCTORY TO TEXTS FROM THE GOSPELS ON THE INCARNATION. Enumeration of texts still to be explained. Arians compared to the Jews. We must recur to the Regula Fidei. Our Lord did not come into, but became, man, and therefore had the acts and affections ofthe flesh. The same works divine and human. Thus the flesh was purified, and men were made immortal. Reference to 1 Pet. iv. 1. 436 CHAP. XXVII. TEXTS EXPLAINED ; TENTHLY, MATTHEW XXviii. 18. john iii. 35. &c. These texts intended to preclude the Sabellian notion of the Son ; they fall in with the Catholic doctrine concerning the Son ; they are explained by " so" in John 5, 26. (Anticipation of the next chapter.) Again, they are used with reference to our Lord's human nature; and for our sake, that we might receive and not lose, as receiving in Him. And consistently with other parts of Scripture, which shew that He had the power, &c. before He received it. He was God and man, and His actions are often at once divine and human. 451 CHAP. XXVIII. TEXTS EXPLAINED ; ELEVENTHLY, MARK xiii. 32. AND LUKE ii. 52. Arian explanation of the former text contradicts the Regula Fidei; and the context. Our Lord said that He was ignorant ofthe Day, by reason of His human nature ; from sympathy with man. Jf the Holy Spirit knows the Day, therefore the Son knows ; if the Son knows the Father, therefore He knows the Day; if He has all that is the Father's, therefore know ledge of the Day ; if in the Father, He knows the Day in the Father ; if the Father's Image, He knows the Day; if He created and upholds all things, He knows the Day when they will cease to be. He knows not, as representing us, argued from Matt. 24, 42. As He asked about Lazarus's grave, &c. yet knew, soHeknows; as S. Paul said, " whether in the body I know not," &c. yet knew, so He knows. He said He knew not, for our profit ; that we be not curious, (as in Acts 1 , 7. where on the contrary He did not say He knew not;) that we be not secure and slothful. As the Almighty asks of Adam and of Cain, yet knew, so the Son knows. Again, He also advanced in wisdom, as man; else He made Angels perfect before Himself. He advanced, in that the Godhead was manifested in Him more fully as time went on. 459 Xll CONTENTS. CHAP. XXIX. TEXTS EXPLAINED ; TWELFTHLY, MATTHEW XXvi. 39 ; john xii. 27. &c. Arian inferences are against the Regula Fidei, as before. He wept and the like, as man. Other texts prove Him God. God could not fear. He feared because His flesh feared. 476 CHAP. XXX. OBJECTIONS CONTINUED, AS IN CHAPTERS vii — X. Whether the Son is begotten at the Father's will ? This virtually the same as whether Once He was not ? and used by the Arians to introduce the latter question. The Regula Fidei answers it at once in the negative by contrary texts. The Arians follow the Valentinians in maintaining a precedent will; which really is only exercised by God towards creatures. Instances from Scripture. Inconsistency of Asterius. If the Son by will, there must be another Word before Him. If God is good, or exist, by His will, then is the Son by His will. If He willed to have reason or wisdom, then is His Word and Wisdom at His will. The Son is the Living Will, and has all titles which denote connaturality. That will which the Father has to the Son, the Son has to the Father. The Father wills the Son and the Son wills the Father. 484 DISCOURSE IV. Inteoductory Remakes. 498 Subject I. The doctrine of the Monarchia implies or requires, not negatives, the substantial existence of the Word and Son. §§• 1-5. The substantiality of the Word proved from Scripture. If the One Origin be substantial, Its Word is substantial. Unless the Word and Son be a second Origin, or a work, or an attribute (and so God be compounded), or at the same time Father, or involve a second nature in God He is from God's Substance and distinct from Him. Illustration of John 10, 30. drawn from Deut. 4, 4. 512 CONTENTS. Xiii Subject II. Texts explained against the Arians, viz. Matt, xxviii. 18. Phil. ii. 9. Eph. i. 20. §§¦ 6, 7. When the Word and Son hungered, wept, and was wearied, He acted as our Mediator, taking on Him what was ours, that He might impart to us what was His. 520 Subject III. Comparison of Photinians with Arians. §•8. Arians date the Son's beginning earlier than the Photinians. 521 Subject IV. (Being Subject 1. continued.) §§• 9, 10. Unless Father and Son are two in name only, or as parts and so each imperfect, or two gods, they are consubstantial, one in Godhead, and the Son from the Father. 522 Subject V. (Being Subject 3. continued.) §§. 11, 12. Photinians, like Arians, say that the Word was, not indeed created, but deve loped, to create us ; as if the Diviue silence were a state of inaction, and when God spake by the Word, He acted ; or as if there were a going forth and return of the Word ; a doctrine which implies change and imperfection in Father and Son. 525 Subject VI. The Sabellian doctrine of dilatation and contraction. §§. 13, 14. Such a doctrine precludes all real distinctions of personality in the Divine Nature. Illustration of the Scripture doctrine from 2 Cor. 6, 1 1 , &c. 522 XIV CONTENTS. Subject VII. On the Identity of the Word with the Son, against Photinians antf Samosatenes. §§. 15—24. Since the Word is from God, He must be Son. Since the Son is from everlasting, He must be the Word; else either He is superior to the Word, or the Word is the Father. Texts ofthe New Testament which state the unity of the Son with the Father ; therefore the Son is the Word. Three heretical hypotheses — 1 . That the Man is the Son ; refuted. 2. That the Word and Man together are the Son ; refuted. 3. That the Word became Son on His incarnation ; refuted. Texts of the Old Testament which speak of the Son. If they are merely prophetical, then those concerning the Word may be such also. 531 Subject VIII. (Being Subject 4. continued.) $. 25. Heretical illustration from 1 Cor. 12, 4. refuted. 543 Subject IX. (Being Subject 7. continued.) That the Son is the Co-existing Word, argued from the New Testament. Texts from Old Testament continued; especially Ps. 110, 3. Besides, the Word in Old Testament may be Son in New, as Spirit in Old Testament is Paraclete in New. Objection from Acts 10, 36. urged by the Samosatenes; answered by parallels, such as 1 Cor. 1, 5. Lev. 9, 7. &c. Necessity of the Word's taking flesh, viz. to sanctify, yet without de stroying, the flesh. 545 CORRIGENDA. Page 8. line 14. for for read from 15. note d. vid. p. 311, note i. 27. line 19. for the Word, read a word, note i. line 11. for there be read He be 30. line 8. for which read whom 34. heading, for Synod read Symbol 69. line 18. from fin. for does read does not 80. note r. col. 2. and 191. heading, for Father read fathers 81. note t. circ. fin. for repeats read repents twice 85. and 122. read Germinius 87. line 8. for those read whom 91. note. col. 2. for Ariorum read Arianorum 97. fin. for of Him. . .being read that He. . .was 108. note i. for interpretators read interpreters 119. note n. col. 1. line 18. for the Father's read a father's 124. note y. fin. for Anomcean read the Anomceon 125. note. col. 1. fin. for the read that 130. line 4. insert been after have 149. margin, for Theb. read Heb. 151. line 13. for is read in 155. note f. col. 1. line 6. from fin. for Father read Son 157. note i. col. 2. for mentioned read mentions 174. line 12. from fin. after Grat. 30. add and passim. 176. line 10. omit certainly. 194. line 1 . for who read whom 205. ref. 4. for fimi; read fcom; 21 1 . note, line 7. for even read ever col. 2. line 2. for statement read implication 220. line 6. for as to all such speculations concerning read in attri buting such things to 221. note f. col. 1. for irreligionem read irreligiosam 222. ciro. fin. for Son. . . He read son. . .he 223. note, for is to be read to be 239. note, for humiliabus read humiliatus 243. note, for did so read He did so 244. note k. line 6. for to come read it comes 246. note fin. for Tjyiv read ti^m 253. note fin. for as read in 343. line 10. for . B read ; b 397. heading, for Each read The 413. note. col. 2. init./or singly read simply 440. three times, for drift read scope 453. note. col. 1. line 25. for but read hardly more than 486. note g. col. 2. lines 3 and 6. for as. ..si read which. ..si non In Letters and Numbers. Page 31. note p. for 46. read 40. 81. top margin, add %. 6. 101. line 3. for clerks read clerks T 109. note m. for the same year read next year 157. note i. col. 1. line 4. for ref. 4. read ref. 5. 162. line 10. for A.D. 367. read A.D. 357. 188. ref. 4. /or 3 »vaa! 4 193. ref. 5. /or 5 read 4 194. ref. 2. for 79 rearf 179 210. note. col. 1. for 36. read 30, 20. .; 211. lettering of note, for 1 read f 217. note d. for g reaoJ z 218. note a. for 13. rearf 10. 256. note o. init. for ref. 4. reaoJ ref. 5. 266. ref. 2. /or 144. read 244. 283. note c. fin. and 287. note g. fin. for h rearf i 285. ref. 2. /or 3 read 4 290. ref. 1. for 44. reorf 43. 332. lettering of note, read s 378. note e. fin. for 67. read 56. 393. ref. 2. /or 291. rearf 391. 394. line 4. from fin. and margin, for water read water 5 and for iii. 35. raio? 5 Iii. 35. DISCOURSE II. In the references henceforth made to S. Athanasius's Works in the Notes and margin, the Arabic numerals stand generally for the sections as in the Benedictine Edition ; hitherto § has been prefixed to those numerals which are indicative of sections which are to be found in this Volume. CHAP. XIV. TEXTS EXPLAINED ; FOURTHLY, HEBREWS iii. 2. Introduction; the Regula Fidei counter to an Arian sense of the text; which is not supported by the word " servant," nor by " made" which oc curs in it; (how can the Judge be among the "works" which " God will bring into judgment?") nor by " faithful;" and is confuted by the im mediate context, which is about Priesthood; and by the foregoing passage, which explains the word "faithful" as meaning trustworthy, as do 1. Pet. iv. fin. and other texts. On the whole made may safely be understood either of the divine generation or the human creation. 1. I did indeed think that enough had been said already §. 1. against the hollow professors ' of Arius's madness, whether for ' ?*««'- their refutation or in the truth's behalf, to insure a cessation 127', and repentance of their evil thoughts and words about the note g- Saviour. They, however, for whatever reason, still do not succumb ; but, as swine and dogs wallow * in their own vomit 2 KU\,i- and their own mire, even invent new expedients3 for their ^"at iii. irreligion. Thus they misunderstand the passage in the 1 6. Proverbs, The Lord hath created Me a beginning of His '*""""* ways for His works*, and the words ofthe Apostle, Who teas 22. faithful to Him that made Him, and straightway5 argue, that Heb. 3, the Son of God is a work and a creature. But although they * supr. might have learned from what is said above, had they notj^f ' utterly lost their power of apprehension, that the Son is not 19— 72. from nothing nor in the number of things generate at all,e vid.'"' the Truth witnessing6 it, (for, being God, He cannot be ajj^^ u 35. 282 The Arians, because Christ is man, deny that He is God. Disc, work, and it is impious to call Him a creature, and it is of II- creatures and works that we say, " out of nothing," and "it 1 vid. was not before its generation1,") yet since, as if dreading to 27^'6P" desert their own fiction, they are accustomed to allege the 2 p. 283, aforesaid passages of divine Scripture, which have a good2 meaning, but are by them practised on, let us proceed afresh to take up the question of the sense of these, to remind the faithful, and to shew from each of these passages that they have no knowledge at all of Christianity. Were it otherwise, they Rom. would not have shut themselves up in the unbelief of the present Jews", but would have inquired and learnedb that, John l, whereas In the beginning was ihe Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, in consequence, it was when at the good pleasure of the Father the Word became John l, man, that it was said of Him, as by John, The Word Acts 2 became flesh; so by Peter, He hath made Him Lord and 36- Christ; — as by means of Solomon in the Person ofthe Lord Prov. 8, Himself, The Lord created Me a beginning of His ways for His works; so by Paul, Become so much better than the 3Heb. i, Angels3 ; and again, He made Himself of no reputation, and p. 257. look upon Him the form of a servant4 ; and again, Wherefore, * Phil. 2, jl0iy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Heb. 3, Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Jesus, who was 7f^'stfailhful to Him that made Him5. For all these texts have r. t. the same force and meaning, a religious one, declarative D.Ti." °f t^e divinity of the Word, even those of them which speak humanly concerning Him, as having become the Son of man. 2. But, though this distinction is sufficient for their refuta- a tuv vvv 'lotiSaiuv, means literally £«vt«s, de Decr. 2. supr. p. 4. The " the Jews of this day," as here and Arians are addressed under the name of Orat. i. 8. 10. 38. Orat. ii. 1. b. iii. Jews, 3 ^is-rofxa^oi xa) &%d(imi'l«i- 28. c. But elsewhere this and similar <$««/, Orat. iii. 55. They are said to phrases, as distinctly mean the Arians, be Jewspassim. Their likeness to the being used in contrast to the Jews; Jews is drawn out, Orat. iii. 27. de e. g. rpt tut 'ittiialut. In illud Omn. 5. d. Decr. i. supr. pp. 2—4. It is observable, 'iatiSuu ti n vru.Xa.tci xa) c! viol oStoi, iii. that Eusebius makes » point, on the 52. d.oi tote xa.) ei vim vuv, bent. D. 3. c. contrary,of calling Marcellus a Judaizer rSt vim, ibid. 4. init. (vid. also xa) oi and Jewish, on the ground that he r'm 'iciSmu, i. 8. supr. p. 190. yet vid. denied that Wisdom was more than u ol tots 'loiiSaToi, de Syn, 33.) rSt vov attribute in the Divine Mind, e. g. pp. 'UiHui^ivrut, i. 39. supr. p. 236. 42. c. 62, fin. 65 d. ft 'lciHaiKn via cflpctt, Hist. Arian. b ifarSmi i/latSatct -, and so Wi 19 fin. (vid. also Orat. _iii. 28.) iUirxiv, Orat. iii. 9. de Decr. 7. sunt. lovdatot ot toti . . . .' A^tlavo) vvt 'lov^ai- p. 13 note a. If He be Son and Image, why bring texts as objections ? 283 tion, still, since from a misconception of the Apostle's words, Chap. (to mention them first,) they consider the Word of God to be ^11^ one of the works, because of its being written, Who was faithful to Him that made Him, I have thought it needful to silence this further argument of theirs, taking in hand0, as before, their statement. 3. If then He be not a Son, let Him be called a work, x •> and let all that is said of works be said of Him, nor let Him and Him alone be called Son, and Word, and Wisdom; neither let God be called Father, but only Framer and Creator of things which by Him come to be; and let the creature be Image and Expression of His framing will, and let Him, as they would have it, be without generative ' nature, i ,,,„„,. so that there be neither Word, nor Wisdom, no, nor Image, "*"!['. of His proper substance. For if He be not Son2, neither is note e. He Image d. But if there be not a Son, how then say y°unotem.' that God is a Creator f since all things that come to be are through the Word and in Wisdom, and without This nothing can be, whereas you say He hath not That in and through which He makes all things. For if the Divine Substance be c Dy Kaii/iavovTls trap abrojv to \n[ip,a, " accepting the proposition they offer, " he means that he is engaged in going through certain texts brought against the Catholic view, instead of bringing his own proofs, vid. Orat. i. 37. supr. p. 233. Yet after all it is commonly his way, as here, to start with some general exposition of the Catholic doctrine which the Arian sense of the text in question opposes, and thus to create a prejudice or proof against the latter. vid. Orat. i. 10. 38. 40. init. 53. d. ii. 5. 12. init. 32 — 34. 35. 44. init. which refers to the whole discussion, 18 — 43. 73. 77- iii. 18. init. 36. init. 42. 54. 51. init. &c. On the other hand he makes the ecclesiastical sense the rule of interpretation, roiroi [r£ o-xoTif, the general drift of Scripture doctrine,] taenia, xatovt ^ovio-aptitot a-goo-- ifcuLtiv tSj avayvtufflt 1%s faofftlliffrov ygaip hs, iii'. 28. fin. This illustrates what he means when he says that certain texts have a "good," "pious," "or thodox" sense, i. e. they can be inter preted (in spite, if so be, of appear ances) in harmony with the Kegula Fidei. vid. infr. p. 341 , note h ; also notes on 35. and iii. 58. d i. c. in any true sense of the word "image;" q£, so that He may be ac counted the a.-xupaWaxros ilxtav of the Father, vid. supr. p. 106, note d. The ancient Fathers consider, that the Divine Sonship is the very consequence (so to speak) of the necessity that exists, that One who is Infinite Perfection should subsist again in a Perfect Image of Himself, whichisthedoctrine to which Athan. goes on to allude, and the idea of which (he says) is prior to that of creation. A redundatio in imaginem is synonymous with a generatio Filii. " Naturam et essentiam Deitatis," says Thomassin, "in suo fonte assen- tiuntur omnes esse plenitudinem totius esse. At heec necesse est ut statim exundet nativa fcecunditate sua. Infi nitum enim illud Esse, non Esse tan tum est, sed Esse totum est ; vivere id ipsum est, inteUigere, sapere; opulen- tia? suae, bonitatis, et sapiential rivulos undique spargere ; nee rivulos tantum, sed et fontem et plenitudinem ipsam suam diffandere. Hasc enim demum fcecunditas Deo digna, Deo par est, ut a Fonte bonitatis, non rivulus sed fluinen effluat, nee extra effluat, sed in ipsomet, cum extra nihil sit, quo ilia plenitudo capi possit." de Trin. 19. 1. U 2 284 A Son is implied in the idea of creation, for it is throughHim. Disc, not fruitful itself", but barren, as they hold, as a light that '— lightens not, and a dry fountain, are they not ashamed to speak of His possessing framing energy ? and whereas they deny what is by nature, do they not blush to place before it what is by > Orat. will 2 ? But if He frames things that are external to Him and &j_ ' before were not, by willing them to be, and becomes their Maker, much more will He first be Father of an Offspring from His proper Substance. For if they attribute to God the willing about things which are not, why recognise they not that in God which lies above the will ? now it is a something that sur passes will, that He should be by nature, and should be Father of His proper Word. If then that which comes first, which is according to nature, does not exist, as they would have it in their folly, how can that which is second come to be, which is according to will? for the Word is first, and then the creation. d. On the contrary the Word exists, whatever they affirm, those irreligious ones; for through Him did creation come to be, and God, as being Maker, plainly hath also His framing Word, not external, but proper to Him ; — for this must be repeated. If He has the power of will, and His will is 3 irtm-n- effective 2, and suffices for the consistence of the things that come to be, and His Word is effective2, and a Framer, that 3 Orat. Word must surely be the living Will3 of the Father, and an "iMi!««f energy iQ substance4, and a real Word, in whom all things p. 141. both consist and are excellently governed. No one can even infr. 28. doubt, that He who disposes is prior to the disposition and the things disposed. And thus, as I said, God's creating is second to His begetting ; for Son implies something proper to Him and truly from that blessed and everlasting Substance; but what is from His will, comes into consistence from with out, and is framed through His proper Offspring who is from It. §.3. 5. In the judgment of reason5 then they are guilty of great p'ggg extravagance who say that the Lord is not Son of God, but note k. a work, and it follows that we all of necessity confess that « For xaeitoy'ovos h obo-ia, vid. supr. the yistwis and the xrio-ic contrasted p. 25, note e ymnnxos , Orat. iii. 66. iv. together, Orat. i. 29. vid. supr. p. 18, 4. fin. iyms, i. 14. fin. and Sent. Dion, note o. p. 153, note c. The doctrine in 15. 19. h Qimxh ytviporns, Damasc. the text is shortly expressed, infr. Orat .?'-A' ?-,p-Ti33- &**t*'S- c>'r- Thes. iv. 4 fin. »,' 'Ayovoo xot) invitymos. p. 45. Epiph. Hier. 65. p. 609. b. Vid. er If Scripture teaching plain , why urge terms and phrases? 285 He is Son. And if He be Son, as indeed He is, and a son Chap. is confessed to be, not external to his father, but from him, — — ' - let them not question about the terms, as I said before, which the sacred writers use of the Word Himself, viz. not " to Him that begat Him," but to Him that made Him; for while it is confessed what His nature is, what word is used in such instances need raise no question1- For terms do not ' P- 283> disparage His Nature ; rather that Nature draws2 to Itself "p.^sV, those terms and changes them. For terms are not prior tor- 3- substances, but substances are first, and terms second. Wherefore also when the substance is a work or creature, then the words He made, and He became, and He created, are used of it properly3, and designate the work. But d K"Z'<»s when the Substance is an Offspring and Son, then He made, and He became, and He created, no longer pro perly belong to it, nor designate a work; but He maele we use without question for " He begat." Thus fathers often call the sons born of them their servants, yet without denying the genuineness of their nature ; and often they affectionately call their own servants children, yet without putting out of sight their purchase of them originally ; for they use the one appellation from their authority as being fathers, but in the other they speak from affection. Thus Sara called Abraham lord, though not a servant but a wife ; and while to Philemon the master the Apostle joined Onesimus the servant as a brother, Bethsabe, although mother, called her son servant, saying to his father, Thy servant Solomon ; — l Kings afterwards also Nathan the Prophet came in and repeated ' her words to David, Solomon thy servant. Nor did they ver. 26. care for calling the son a servant, for while David heard it, he recognised the " nature," and while they spoke it, they forgot not the " genuineness," praying that he might be made his father's heir, to whom they gave the name of servant ; for he to David was son by nature. 6. As then, when we read this, we interpret it fairly, without §. 4. accounting Solomon a servant because we hear him so called, but a son natural and genuine, so also, if, concerning the Saviour, who is confessed to be in truth the Son, and to be the Word by nature, the sacred writers say, Who was faithful to Him that made Him, or if He say of Himself, 286 If our Lord is called a servant,so is Solomon though a Son Disc. Tlie Ixord created Me, and, I am Thy servant and the Son of Thine handmaid, and the like, let not any on this account 16. ' deny that He is proper1 to the Father and from Him; but, as 1 Ti* ix in the case of Solomon and David, let them have a right rov *r. . ISiiri-.Ta idea of the Father and the Son. For if, though they hear Solomon called a servant, they acknowledge him to be a son, are they not deserving of many deaths ', who, instead of pre serving the same explanation in the instance of the Lord, whenever they hear " Offspring," and " Word," and " Wisdom," forcibly misinterpret and deny the generation, natural and genuine, of the Son from the Father ; but on hearing words and terms proper to a work, forthwith drop down to the notion of His being by nature a work, and deny the Word ; and this, though it is possible, from His having been made man, to refer all these terms to His humanity ? And are Prov. they not proved to be an abomination also unto the Lord, as having diverse weights with them, and with this esti mating those other instances, and with that blaspheming the Lord ? 7. But perhaps they grant that the word servant is used under a certain understanding, but lay stress upon Who made as some great support of their heresy. But this stay of theirs also is but a broken reed ; for if they are aware ofthe 2 P- 6> style of Scripture, they must at once give sentence against8 p. 220, themselves. For as Solomon, though a son, is called a n. 2. Apol. c. f sroXxJ.y.is aireXoiXitai Vixam, vid. " blasphemiis lapidasti," Theodor. ap, Ar.36.e. infr. §. 28. b. " You ought (oitpsiXit) to Concii. 6. (Labbe, t. 6. p. 88.) And S. have your impious tongue cut out," Dionysius, " With these two uncon- the Arian Acacins says to Marcellus, nected words, as with stones, they ap. Epiph. Heer. 72, 7- " And although attempt to hit me (/3«i.X«y) from a all men good and bad adjudge thee to distance." Sent. Dion. 18. Sometimes the agony (discruciandam judicent) of it was a literalism deduced from the all kinds of torture, to the penalty of doctrine in dispute ; as at the Latro- death, or to the flame, &c." says S. cinium, " Cut in two those who assert Ambrose, (as it is generally considered,) two Natures." Concii. Hard. t. 2. p. 81. to a lapsed nun who was said to have Palladius relates a case in which a sort killed her child, de laps. Virg. n. 34. of ordeal became a punishment. Abhot " If Eutyches thinks otherwise than Copres proposed to a Manichee to enter the decrees of the Church, he deserves a fire with him. After Copres had come (SSfos) not only punishment, but the out unharmed, the populace forced the fire." Dioscorus ap. Concii. Chalced. Manichee into it, and then cast him, (Hard. t. 2. p. 100.) In time they ad- burnt as he was, out of the city. Hist, vanced from accounting to doing. The Lausiac. 54. S. Gregory mentions the Emperor Justin proposes to cut out the case of a wizard, who had pretended to heretic Severus's tongue, Evagr. iv. be a monk and had used magical arts 4. Supra p. 53, note f. we find an ad- against a nun, being subsequently vance from allegory to fact ; vid. also burned by the Roman populace. Dial. supr. i. 38. o. infr. iii. 41. il. and i. 4. If our Lord" made;'' so Joseph's,^, sons are said lo bemade.287 servant, so, to repeat what was said above, although parents Chap. call the sons springing from themselves " made" and " created" - and "becoming," for all this they do not deny their nature. Thus Ezekias, as is written in the book of Esaias, said in his prayer, From this day I will make children, who shall is. 38, declare Thy righteousness, O God of my salvation. He ep ' then said, / will make; but the Prophet in that very book 2 Kings 20 18. and the Fourth of Kings, thus speaks, And the sons who js.'39 7. shall come forth of thee. He uses then make for " beget," and he calls them who were to spring from him, made, and no one questions whether the term has reference to a natural offspring. Again, Eve on bearing Cain said, I have gotten Gen. 4, a man from the Lord3; thus she too used gotten for2,:tlfr-44. " brought forth." For, first she saw the child, yet next shenote on said, I have gotten. Nor would any one consider, because' ' of I have gotten, that Cain was purchased from without, instead of being born of her. Again, the Patriarch Jacob said to Joseph, And now thy two sons, Ephraim andG 14. thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil. If then the Word be a work, do you mean that He as well as others will be brought into judgment? and what room is there for judgment, when the Judge is on trial ? who will give to the just their blessing, who to the unworthy their punishment, the Lord, as you must suppose, standing on trial with the rest ? by what law shall He, the Lawgiver, Himself be judged ? These things are proper to the works, to be on trial, to be blessed and to be punished by the Son. Now then fear the Judge, and let Solomon's words convince you. For if God shall bring the works one and all into judgment,; but the Son is not in the number of things put on trial, but rather is Himself the Judge of works one and all, is not the proof clearer than the sun, that the Son is not a work but the "Faithful;' not as having faith,butasclaimingitofothers.2B9 Father's Word, in whom all the works both come to be and Chap. come into judgment ? XIV. 10. Further, if the expression, Whowasfaithful, is a difficulty to them, from the thought that faithful is used of Him as of others, as if He exercises faith and so receives the reward of faith, they must proceed at this rate to find fault with Moses, for saying, God faithful and true1, and with St. Paul for 'not in writing, God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be jj tempted above that ye are able. But when the sacred Apoc. writers spoke thus, they were not thinking of God in a 19 ji. human way, but they acknowledged two senses of the word 1 Cor- faithful in Scripture, first believing, then trustworthy, of ' which the former belongs to man, the latter to God. Thus Abraham was faithful, because he believed God's word ; and God faithful, for, as David says in the Psalm, The Lord is Ps. us, faithful in all His words, or is trustworthy, and cannot lie. ' ept- Again, If any faithful woman have widows, she is so called ITim.5, for her right faith ; but, It is a faithful saying, because TiJ>3 8 what He hath spoken, has a claim on our faith, for it is true, and is not otherwise. Accordingly the words, Who is faithful to Him that made Him, implies no parallel with others, nor means that by having faith He became well-pleasing; but that, being Son of the True God, He too is faithful, and ought to be believed in all He says and does, Himself remaining unalterable and not changed" by in His human economy and fleshly presence. 11. Thus then we may meet these men who are shameless, §. 7. 1> o!r{ii«-T« xa) fiM ikXoitii/nvos ; vid. logue "Atpivtos. Hence, as Athan. supr. p. 23. it was the tendency of here says, ostjjtw //.Um, so against Arianism to consider that in the In- Apollinaris he says, I X'oyos ittfyu-ros carnation some such change actually yiyoti, ftivm hos ii. 7. vid. also ibid. 3. was undergone by the Word, as they circ. init. So S pit tit, iiiptum- 0 3s obx had from the first maintained in the fo, rr^orixajiiv. Naz. Orat. 29, 19. cbrlx abstract was possible ; that whereas itivovaa onw itri. Chrysost. ap. Theodor. He was in nature Tjjjrraf, He was in Eran. p. 47. 0 fo 1/unt 3/ iavrot, xa) 0 fact aWoioi/ttvoi . This was implied in the liiktitt yiyoti if tiptas. Procl. ad Arm. doctrine that His superhuman nature p. 615. ed. 1630. vid. also Maxim. supplied the place of a soul in His man- Opp. t. 2. ed. 1675. ?«{ fo "Sia/iitm xa) hood. Hence the Semi-arian Sirmian yitt/titot SVsj obx fo. p. 286. vid. also Creed anathematizes those who said, tm p. 264. manens id quod erat, factus \iyot Tfovfo bfofzi/ttttixoTK, vid. supr. p. quod non erat. August, cons. Ev. i. 63 119. note o. This doctrine connected fin. Non omiserat quod erat, sed them with the Apollinarian and Euty- coeperat esse quod non erat. Hilar. Trin. chian Schools, to the former of which iii. 16. non amittendo quod suum erat, Athan. compares them, contr. Apoll. i. sed suscipiendo. quod nostrum erat. 12. while, as opposing the latter, Vigil, contr. Eut. i. p. 498. (B. P. ed. Theodoret entitles his first Dia- 1624.) 290 As He was Apostle andPriestonHisincarnatiot>,so"made:' Disc, and from the single expression He made, may shew that they err "' in thinking that the Word of God is a work. But further, since 1 hofy the drift also of the context is orthodox1, shewing the time and note.44' tlie relation to which this expression points, I ought to shew z&xoyiav from it also how the heretics lackreason2; viz. by considering, p- 2' as we have done above, the occasion when it was used and note e. ' . for what purpose. Now the Apostle is not discussing things before the creation when he thus speaks, but when the. Word became flesh ; for thus it is written, Wherefore, hob/ brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession Jesus, who was faithful to Him that made Him. Now when became He Apostle, but when He put on our flesh ? and when became He High Priest of our profession, but when, after offering Himself for us, He raised His Body from the dead, and, as now, Himself brings near and offers to the Father, those who in His faith approach Him, redeeming all, and for all pro pitiating God ? Not then as wishing to signify the Substance of the Word nor His natural generation from the Father, did the Apostle say, Who was faithful to Him that made Him,— (perish the thought ! for the Word is not made, but makes,)-^- 3 *«V«3«but as signifying His descent3 to mankind and High-priesthood p. 268. which did become4, — as one may easily see from the account given ofthe Law and of Aaron. 12. I mean, Aaron was not born a high-priest, but a man ; and in process of time, when God willed, he became a high priest; yet became so, not simply, nor as betokened Exod. by his ordinary garments, but putting over them the 29> 5" ephod, the breastplate, the robe, which the women wrought at God's command, and going in them into the holy place, he offered the sacrifice for the people ; and in them, as it were, mediated between the vision of God and the sacrifices of men. Thus then the Lord also, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word wm God; but when the Father willed that ransoms should be paid for all and to all grace should be given, then truly the Word, as Aaron his robe, so did He take earthly flesh, having Mary for the Mother of His Body as if virgin earth \ that, as a ¦ ati^yao-Tov ym is an allusion to and so Irena>us, Heer. iii. 21. fift Adam's formation from the ground; and Tertullian; " That Virgin Earth, 4 As Aaron was made Priest, so our Lord was " made." 291 High Priest, having He as others an offering, He might Chap. offer Himself to the Father, and cleanse us all from sins in XIY' His own blood, and might rise from the dead. For what §. 8. happened of old was a shadow of this ; and what the Saviour did on His coming, this Aaron shadowed out according to the Law. As then Aaron was the same and did not change by putting on the high-priestly dress1, but remaining the same was only robed, so that, had any one seen him offering, and had said, "Lo, Aaron has this day become high-priest," he had not implied that he then had been born man, for man he was even before he became high-priest, but that he had been made high-priest in his ministry, on putting on the garments made and prepared for the high-priesthood ; in the same way it is possible in the Lord's instance also to understand aright, that He did not become other than Himself on taking the flesh, but, being the same as before, He was robed in it; and the expressions He became and He was made, must not be understood as if the Word, considered as the Word ', were made, but that the Word, being Framer of all, not yet watered by rains, nor impreg nated by showers, from which man was formed in the beginning, from which Christ is now born according to the flesh from a Virgin." adv. Jud. 13. vid. de Cam. Christ. 17. Ex terra virgine Adam, Christus ex virgine. Ambros. in Luc. lib. iv. 7. vid. also the parallel drawn out Serm. 147. App. S. August. and in Proclus Orat. 2. pp. 103, 4. ed. 1630. vid. also Chrysost. t. 3. p. 113. ed. Ben. and Theodotus at Ephesus, "O earth unsown, yet bearing a salutary fruit, 0 Virgin , whosurpassedst the very Paradise of Eden, &c." Cone. Eph. p. 4. (Hard.t.i.p.1643.) AndsoProclus again, "She, the flowering and incorruptible Paradise, in whom the Tree of Life, &c." Orat. 6. p. 227. And Basil of Seleucia, " Hail, full of grace, the amarantine Paradise of Purity , in whom the Tree of Life, &c." Orat. in Annunc. p. 215. and p. 212. " Which, think they, is the harder to believe, that a virgin womb shou Id be with child, or the ground should be animated?" &c. And Hesy- chius, " Garden unsown, Paradise of immortality." Bibl. Patr. Auctar. t. 2. pp. 421,423. k This is one of those distinct and luminous protests by anticipation against Nestorianism, which in con sequence may be abused to the pur poses of the opposite heresy. Such ex pressions as trs^iTtffsjCA&vos rfo lu-GyTa, IxaXucrrsTo, \vo*vtra.p.itos o-wyta, were fa miliar with the Apollinarians, against whom S. Athanasius is, if possible, even more decided. Theodoret objects Hser. v. 11. p. 422. to the word vr£oxti,\vpip.a, as applied to our Lord's manhood, as implying that He had no soul; vid. also Naz. Ep. 102. fin. (ed. 1840.) In Naz. Ep. 101. p. 90. trtt^awirtto-ita is used to denote an Apollinarian idea. Such expressions were taken to imply that Christ was not in nature man, only in some sense human; not a substance, but an appearance; yet S. Athan. (if Athan.) contr. Sabell. Greg. 4. has -ra^avnvriTao-fiitxt and xaXv/zpta, ibid. init. S. Cyril Hieros. xaTawiTao-fjiu, Catech. xii. 26. xiii. 32. after Hebr. 10, 20. and Athan. ad Adelph. 5. e. Theodor. xa.pa,f&aTt\ . contr. Marcell.' p. 54. d. even granting, as is the case, that he is professing to state Marcel- lus's doctrine. He speaks as if Christ's Ztootroios trd$, if the Word retired from it, would be UXoyos, p. 55. c. which surely implies, though not in the force of the term, that Christ was without a soul. vid. also p. 91. a. Hence it is Gibbon's calumny (ch. 47. note 34.) after La Croze, Hist. Christ, des Indel p. 11. that the Arians invented the term hoTo'xos, which the Monophysites, (as well as the Catholics) strenuously held. vid. Garner in Mar. Merc. t. 2. p. 299. If the opposites of connected heresies are connected together, then the doctrinal connection of Arianism and Apollinarianism is shewn in their respective opposition to the heresies of from what occurs in the previous chapter. 293 to battle ; but if the Word became flesh, what ought to have Chap. been said concerning Him when become man, but Who was — L faithful to Him that made Him ? for as it is proper to the Word to have it said of Him, Ln the beginning was the Word, so it is proper to man to become and to be made. Who then, on seeing the Lord as a man walking about, and yet appearing to be God from His works, would not have asked, Who made Him man ? and who again, on such a question, would not have answered, that the Father made Him man, and sent Him to us as High Priest ? 13. And this meaning, and time, and character1, the Apostle 1 h-jsW himself, the writer of the words, Who is faithful lo Him"" that made Him, will best make plain to us, if we attend to what goes before them. For there is one train of thought2, 2«*»a«»- and the passage is all about One and the Same. He writes o^'r. then in the Epistle to the Hebrews thus ; Forasmuch then }• 0rat- as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Heb. 2 Himself likewise took part of the same ; that through death o47~18- He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil ; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily He took not on Him the nature of Angels ; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved Him lo be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted. Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Jesus; who was faith ful to Him that made Him. Who can read this whole §. 9. passage without condemning the Arians, and admiring the blessed Apostle who has spoken so well? for when was Christ made, when became He Apostle, except when, like us, He took part in flesh and blood ? And when became He a merciful and faithful High Priest, except when in all things He was made like unto His brethren ? And then was He !1 Sabellius and Nestorius. Salig Eutych. Croze calls Apollinarianism, " Aria- i ant. Eut. 10. denies the connection, but nismi tradux," Thes. Ep. Lacroz. t. 3. 1 with very little show of reason. La p. 276. 2$)4 He is faithful, as giving ground for feiith, Disc, made like, when He became man, having put upon Him our 1L flesh. Wherefore Paul was writing concerning the Word's human economy, when he said, Who was faithful to Him that made Him, and not concerning His Substance. Have not therefore anymore the madness to say that the Word of God is a work, whereas He is Son by nature Only-begotten; and then had brethren, when He took on Him flesh like ours; which moreover, by Himself offering Himself, He was named and became merciful and faithful, — merciful,because in mercy to us He offered Himself for us, and faithful, not as sharing faith with us, nor as having faith in any one as we have, but as deserving to receive faith in all He says and does, and as offering a faithful sacrifice, one which remains and does not come to nought. For those which were offered according to the Law, had not this faithfulness, passing away with the day and needing a further cleansing; but the Saviour's sacrifice, taking place once, has perfected the whole, and is become faithful as remaining for ever. And Aaron had successors, and in a word the priesthood under the Law exchanged its first ministers as time and death went on; but the Lord having a high priesthood without transition and without suc cession, has become a faithful High Priest, as continuing i or, an- for ever; and faithful too by promise, that He may hear1 and vidmfr no* mislead those who come to Him. iii. 27. 14. This may be also learned from the Epistle of great Peter, 1 Pet. 4, who says, Let them that suffer according to the will of God, commit their souls to a faithful Creator. For He is faithful as not changing, but abiding ever, and rendering what He §. 10. has promised. Now the so-called gods of the Greeks, unworthy the name, are faithful neither in their essence nor in their promises ; for the same are not every where, nay, the local deities come to nought in course of time, and undergi) a natural dissolution; wherefore the Word cries out against vid. Jer. them, that faith is not strong in them, but they are waten 15, 1™ that fail, and there is no faith in them. But the God of all, 32eU20 being °ne ieally and indeed and true> is faithful, who is ever Sept. ' the same, and says, See now, that I, even I am He, and 32e,U39. 1 chanffe not' and therefore His Son is faithful, being ever Mal. 3, the same and unchanging, deceiving neither in His essence nor in His promise ;— as again says the Apostle writing to the as other passages of Scripture shew. 295 Thessalonians, Faithful is He who callelhyou, who also will do Chap. it; for in doing what He promises, He is faithful to His words. ' And he thus writes to the Hebrews as to the word's meanings, 24. " unchangeable ;" If we believe not, yet He abideth faithful; iTim.2, He cannot deny Himself. Therefore reasonably the Apostle, discoursing concerning the bodily presence1 of the Word, says, 1«"i»«™- an Apostle and faithful to Him that made Him, shewing us *Ziat".!~ that, even when made man, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday Heb. 13. and to-day, and for ever is unchangeable. And as the Apostle makes mention in his Epistle of His being made man when mentioning His High Priesthood, so too he kept no long silence about His Godhead, but rather mentions it forthwith, furnishing to us a safeguard on every side, and most of all when he speaks of His humility, that we may forthwith know His loftiness and His majesty which is the Father's. For instance, he says, Moses as a servant, but Christ as a Son; and the Heb. 3, former faithful in. his house, and the latter over the house, ' as having Himself built it, and being its Lord and Framer, and as God sanctifying it. For Moses, a man by nature, became faithful, in believing God who spoke to Him by His Word; but" the Word was not as one of things generate in 0 Hare is a prof est beforehand against own body, or to move by its presence the Monophysite doctrine, but such an- what is far from the body. Certainly ticipations of various heresies are too man at a distance never moves or trans- frequent, as we proceed, to require or poses such things ; nor could a man sit bear notice. It is well known that the at home and think of things in heaven, illustration in the Athan. Creed, " As and thereby move the sun, or turn the the reasonable soul and flesh is one heaven round Not thus is the "Word man, so God and man is one Christ," of God in man's nature ; for He is not was taken by the Monophysites to imply implicated in the body, but rather He that the Divine Nature was made de- hath Himself dominion over it, so that pendent on thefiesh, and was influenced He was not in it only but in all things, and circumscribed by it. Man is partly nay, He was external to the whole uni- soul and partly body ; he is o/body and verse and in the sole Father." Incarn. soul, not body and soul ; but Christ is V. D. 17. The same passage occurs in wholly God, and wholly man, oXos 0tot, Serm. Maj. de Fid. 11. It is remark- Zxos Moa-ieos, infr. Orat. iv. 35. a. He is able that the Monophysites should have as simply God as if He were not man, been forced into tbeir circumscription as simply man as if He were not God ; of the Divine N ature, considering that unus atque idem est, says S. Leo, et Eutyches their Patriarch began with totus hominis filius propter carnem, et asserting for reverence-sake that the In- totus Dei filius propter unam cum Patre carnate Word was not under the laws of deitatem. Ep. 165, 8. Athan. has anti- human nature, vid. supr. p. 243, note i. cipated the heresy which denied this Thisisanotherinstanceoftherunningof doctrine in a very distinct passage opposite heresies into each other, supr. written apparently before the rise even p. 292, note n. Another remarkable in- of Arianism. "It is the function of the stance will be found infr. iii. 43. the soul," he says, " to contemplate in its Agnoita?, a sect of those very Euty- thoughts what is within its own body ; chians, who denied or tended to deny but not to operate in things beyond its our Lord's manhood with a view of pre- 296 " Made" one of many words, used of our Lord as man. Disc, a body, nor as creature in creature, but as God in flesh1, and — LL- Framer of all and Builder in that which was built by Him. «"X" And men are clothed in flesh in order to be and to subsist; vi^ ' but the Word of God was made man in order to sanctify the *fiii! h flesh, and, though He was Lord, was in the form of a servant; *j4; a- , for the whole creature is the Word's servant2, which by Him 0. it ffta- putri, ii. came to be, and was made. ^x'.lt' 15- Hence it holds that the Apostle's expression, He made, «"!>¦¦ does not prove that the Word is made, but that body, which He 8 fin! took like ours; and in consequence He is called our brother, !P- 313- as having become man. But if it has been shewn, that, even ^' ' though the word made be referred to the Very Word, it is used for " begat," what further perverse expedient will they be able to fall upon, now that the present discussion has cleared up the word in every point of view, and shewn that the Son is not a work, but in Substance indeed the Father's offspring, while in the !»«t'i«- Economy, according to the good pleasure3 ofthe Father, He Orat.' was on our behalf made, and consists as man ? For this reason iii. 64. then is it said by the Apostle, Who was faithful to Him thai made Him; and in the Proverbs, even creation is spoken of. For so long as we are confessing that He became man, there is no question about saying, as was observed before, whether " He became," or " He has been made," or " created," or " formed," or " servant," or " son of an handmaid," or " son of man," or " was constituted," or " took His journey," or " bridegroom," or " brother's son," or " brother." All these 4a.igii%«, terms4 happen to be proper to man's nature; and such as 288 r.2. these d° not designate the Substance of the Word, but that He has become man. serving His divinity, being character- ner has contrived to unite a portion ized by holding that He was ignorant, of the opposite heresies of Nestoriui The Lutheran Ubiquism in like man- and Eutyches. CHAP. XV. TEXTS EXPLAINED ; FIFTHLY, ACTS ii. 36. The Regula Fidei must be observed; made applies to our Lord's manhood; and to His manifestation; and to His office relative to us ; and is relative to the Jews. Parallel instance in Gen. 27, 29, 37. The context contradicts the Arian interpretation. 1. The same is the meaning ofthe passage in the Acts which they also allege, that in which Peter says, that He hath made both Lord and Christ that seime Jesus whom ye have crucified. For here too it is not written, " He made for Himself a Son," or " He made Himself a Word," that they should have such notions. If then it has not escaped their memory, that they speak concerning the Son of God, let them make search whether it is any where written, " God made Himself a Son," or " He created for Himself a Word ;" or again, whether it is any where written in plain terms, " The Word is a work or creation ;" and then let them proceed to make their case, the insensate men, that here too they may receive their answer. But if they can produce nothing of the kind, and only catch at such stray expressions as He made and He has been made, it is to be feared lest, from hearing, In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth, and He made the sun and the moon, and He made the sea, they should come in time to call the Word the heaven, and the Light which took place on the first day, and the earth, and each particular thing that has been made, so as to end in resembling the Stoics, as they are called, the one draw ing but their g.od into all things1, the other ranking God's eT™ ' Word with each work in particular; which they have wellZe°on- nigh done already, saying that He is one of His works. 14. ' 2. But here they must have the same answer as before, and §-12. first be told that the Word is a Son, as has been said above 2, 283, ' P' v note c. 298 "Made" refers to the Word's flesh and to His manifestation, Disc, and not a work, and that such terms are not to be understood II- of His Godhead, but the reason and manner of them investi gated. To persons who so inquire, the human economy will plainly present itself, which He undertook for our sake. For Peter, after saying, He hath made Lord and Christ, straight way added, this Jesus whom ye crucified; which makes it plain to any one, even, if so be, to them, provided they attend to the ' axoxov- context1, that not the Substance of the Word, but He accord- e'"" ing to His manhood is said to have been made. For what was crucified but the body ? and how could be signified what was bodily in the Word, except by saying He madef 3. Especially has that word He made, a meaning consistent 2«{$v,p.with orthodoxy2; in that he has not said, as I observed 297 r 2. ' ' ' before, " He made Him Word," but He made Him Lord, a St*xZs nor that in general terms3, but towards us, and in the midst of us, as much as to say, " He manifested Him." And this has Peter himself, starting from this master doctrine, carefully' Acts 2, expressed, when he said to them, Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man manifested of God towards you by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves know. Con sequently the term which he uses in the end, made, this He has explained in the beginning by manifested, for by the signs and wonders which the Lord did, He was manifested to be not merely man, but God in a body and Lord also, the Christ. Such also is the passage in the Gospel according to John 5, John, Therefore the more did the Jews persecute Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His own Father, making Himself equal with God. For the Lord did not then fashion Himself to he God, nor indeed is a made God conceivable, but He mani- Johnio, fested it by the works, saying, Though ye believe not Me, to the believe My works, that ye may know that I am in the Father, letter. an(f the Father in Me. Thus then the Father has made Him Lord and King in the midst of us, and towards us who were once disobedient; and it is plain that He who is now displayed as Lord and King, does not then begin to be King and Lord, but begins to shew His Lordship, and to extend it even over " |Kir« 9n(KTttfinKi. vid. infr. 44. e. 59. b. 71. c. Orat. iii 52 b ' : and to His becoming towards us. 299 the disobedient. If then they suppose that the Saviour was Chap. not Lord and King, even before He became man and endured XV" ¦ the Cross, but then began to be Lord, let them know that§" lSm they are openly reviving the statements of Samosatene. But if, as we have quoted and declared above, He is Lord and King everlasting, seeing that Abraham worships Him as Lord, and Moses says, Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and^en.19, upon Gomorrahbrimstone andfirefrom the Lordoutof heaven; M' and David in the Psalms, The Lord said unto My Lord, Sit^-^o, Thou on My right hand; and, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever Ps.45,7. and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy Kingdom; and, Thy Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom; itPs-145> is plain that even before He became man, He was King and Lord everlasting, being Image and Word of the Father. 1 And the Word being everlasting Lord and King, it is very plain again that Peter said not that the Substance of the Son 1 was made, but spoke of His Lordship over us, which became when He became man, and, redeeming all by the Cross, became Lord of all and King. 4. But if they continue the argument on the ground of its ! being written, He made, not willing that He made should be i taken in the sense of He manifested, either from want of apprehension, or from their Christ-opposing purpose1, lefc1 "¦«»*<'- : them attend to another sound exposition of Peter's words.5""" For he who becomes Lord of others, comes into the possession i of beings already in existence ; but if the Lord is Framer of i all and everlasting King, and when He became man, then |, gained possession of us, here too is a way in which Peter's !i language evidently does not signify that the Substance ofthe i Word is a work, but the after subjection of all things, and 1 the Saviour's Lordship over all which "became." And this * P" 269- coincides with what we said before2; for as we then intro- Serm. ¦ duced the words, Become my God and defence, and thejf^'i 1 Lord became a refuge for the oppressed, and it stood toPs-3i,3- St 07111 1 reason that these expressions do not shew that God isrock , generate, but that His beneficence becomes towards each*;-^.- I individual, the same sense hath the expression of Peter also, defence 1 For the Son of God indeed, being Himself the Word, is§- **• Lord of all; but we once were subject from the first to the slavery of corruption and the curse ofthe Law, then by degrees x2 300 He is made our Lord, when tee become His subjects. Disc, fashioning for ourselves things that were not, weserved, as says n- the blessed Apostle, them which by nature are no Gods, and, Gal.4,8. ignorant of the true God, we preferred things that were not to the truth ; but afterwards, as the ancient people when oppressed in Egvpt, groaned, so, when we too had the Law engrafted in us, and according to the unutterable sighings ofthe Spirit made James our intercession, O Lordour God, take possession of us, then, R0m.' 8 as He became for a house of refuge and a God and defence, 26- so also He became our Lord. Nor did He then begin to he, 13. ' but we began to have Him for our Lord. For upon this God SePt- being good and Father of the Lord, in pity, and desiring to be known by all, makes His own Son put on Him a human body and become man, and be called Jesus, that in this body offering Himself for all, He might deliver all from false worship and corruption, and might Himself become of all Lord and King. 5. His becoming therefore in this way Lord and King, this it is that Peter means by, He hath made Him Lord, and hath sent Christ; as much as to say, that -the Father in making 1 &trxZi Him man, (for to be made belongs to man,) did not simply' make Hiin man, but has made Him in order to His being Lord of all men, and to His hallowing all through the Anoint ing. For though the Word existing in the form of God took a servant's form, yet the assumption of the flesh did not make a servant b of the Word, who was by nature Lord ; but rather, not only was it that emancipation of all humanity which takes place by the Word, but that very Word who was by nature Lord, and was then made man, hath by means of a servant's b obx 'iioiXev Tbv Xoyov though, as he "the flesh is servile, had it not been said supra p. 296. the Word became a united to God the Word." The parallel servant, as far as He was man. He question of ignorance, here touched says the same thing Ep. Mg. 17. So upon, will come under our notice infra, say Naz. Orat. 32. 18. Nyssen. ad Orat. iii. 42— 53. The latter view pre-, Simpl. (t. 2. p. 471.) Cyril. Alex. adv. vailed after the heresy of the Adop- Theodor. p. 223. Hilar, de Trin. xi. tionists, who seem to have made Ambros. 1. Epp. 46, 3. Athan. however " servant" synonymous with " adopted seems to modify the statement (vid. also son." Petavius Incarn. vii. 9. distin- supr. p. 296. &cc.) when he says infra 50. guishes between the essence or (what is " Not that He was servant, but be- called) actus primus and the actus se- cause He took a servants form." cundus; thus water may be considered. Theodoret also denies it, Eran. ii. fin. in its nature cold, though certain AndDamasc. F O. iii. 21. who says, springs are in fact always warm. j 3 Lor'?, t0°k °° ?™ e- S- Gen. 20, 19. Deut. 21, 22. aritatri tSv ofiaX/iHt o-ov. Sept. pendebit kstn. 5, 14 ; 7,10. tibi a regione. Gesen. who also says, It became the Word lo take flesh, yet not be held by death. 303 the ancient dead from out their sepulchres, (for these most of Chap. you have seen,) this is, Thou shalt not leave My soul in hell x and He will swallow up death in victory, and again, God will ' ' wipe away. For the signs which actually took place, shew that He who was in a body was God, and also the Life and Lord of death. For it became the Christ, when giving life to others, Himself not to be detained by death ; but this could not have happened, had He, as you suppose, been a mere1 man. But in : iyiU$ truth He is the Son of God, for men are all subject to death. 8. " Let no one therefore doubt, but the whole house of Israel know assuredly that this Jesus, whom ye saw in shape a man, doing signs and such works, as no one ever yet had done, is Himself the Christ and Lord of all. For though made man, and called Jesus, as we said before, He received no loss by that human passion2, but rather, in being made2*^», man, He is manifested as Lord of quick and dead. For £'2. ' since, as the Apostle said, in the wisdom of God the world iCor.i, by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the fool ishness of preaching to save them that believe. And so, since we men would not acknowledge God through His Word, nor serve the Word of God our natural Master, it pleased God to shew in man His own Lordship, and so to draw all men to Himself. But to do this by a mere man beseemed not* ; lest, having man for our Lord, we should become worshippers of man3. Therefore the Word Himself ^"i- became flesh, and the Father called His Name Jesus, and so made Him Lord and Christ, as much as to say, ' He made Him to rule and to reign;' that while at the Name of Jesus, whom ye crucified, every knee bows, we may ac knowledge as Lord and King both the Son and through Him the Father." 9. The Jews then, most of them f, hearing this, came to $. 17. « In the text tbe Mediatorial Lord- might appear to human eyes^' Trin. i shin is made an office of God the 27- 28. In like manner the Priesthood Word sdll, not as God, but as man. is the office of God in the form of man, SoS A usustine, of judgment; "He supr. p. 292, note m. And so agam none fudge's bvHis div nepJoweSr, not by His but the Eternal Son could be *««*.«., CrnS, and yet man himself will judge, yet He is so called when sent as Creator as the Lord of glory was crucified." and as incarnate, mfr. 64. And lust before, ?' He who believes in < J ¦*«-«•«. vid. «« /«™>*. Act. Me bei eves not in that which He 21. 20. Jenkin on tho Christian Re als lest our h0pe should be in a ligion, vol. 2. ch. 32. Lardner, Jewish Sure butrin iSim who has taken andHeatl .enTest ch. Burton Eccles. on Him the creature, in which He Hist. 1st Cent. p. 50 M. 304 Parallel passage. Disc, themselves and forthwith acknowledged the Christ, as it is n- written in the Acts. But, the Ario-maniacs on the contrary choose to remain Jews, and to contend with Peter ; so let us proceed to place before them some parallel phrases; perhaps it may have some effect upon them, to find what the usage is of divine Scripture. Now that Christ is everlasting Lord and King, has become plain by what has gone before, nor is there a man to doubt about it ; for being Son of God, He must be i P. 312, lite Him1, and being like, He is certainly both Lord and note m. jq^ for jje gayS Himself, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father. On the other hand, that Peter's mere words, He hath, made Him both Lard and Christ, do not imply the Son to be a creature, may be seen from Isaac's blessing, though 2«/ii;J{«, this illustration is but a faint2 one for our subiect. Now he decr. 12 e- ' said to Jacob, Become thou lord over thy brother ; and to Gen.27, Esau, Behold, I have made him thy lord. Now though the word made had implied Jacob's substance and the coming *?*"' into being3, even then it would not be right in them as much ymnetc . . as to imagine the same of the Word of God, for the Son of God is no creature as Jacob was ; besides, they might inquire and so rid themselves of that extravagance. But if they do not understand it of his substance nor of his coming into being, though Jacob was by nature creature and work, is * aliud- not their madness worse than the Devil's4, if what they dare the not ascribe in consequence of a like phrase even to things by tempta- nature generate, that they attach to the Son of God, saying that He is a creature ? For Isaac said Become and / have made, signifying neither the coming into being3 nor the sub stance of Jacob ; (for after thirty years and more from his birth he said this ;) but his authority over his brother, which came to pass subsequently. §. 18. 10. Much more then did Peter say this without meaning that the Substance of the Word was a work ; for he knew Him to be Mat. 16, God's Son, confessing, Thou art the Christ, the Son ofthe Living God; but he meant His Kingdom and Lordship which was formed and came to be according to grace, and was re latively to us. For while saying this, he was not silent about the s«wei- Son of God's everlasting Godhead which is the Father's b; but He had said already, that He had poured the Spirit on us; now to give the Spirit with authority, is not in the power of He who gives, not receives, the Spirit, is no creature. 305 creature or work, but the Spirit is God's Giftg. For the Chap. creatures are hallowed by the Holy Spirit ; but the Son, in xv-' that He is not hallowed by the Spirit but on the contrary Himself the Giver of it to all1, is therefore no creature, butis true Son of the Father. And yet He who gives the Spirit, cl>- xii'- the Same is said also to be made ; that is, to be made among us Lord because of His manhood, while giving the Spirit because He is God's Word. For He ever was and is, as 2 Sftmi Son, so also Lord and Sovereign of all, being like in all**;''" things2 to the Father, and having all that is the Father's3, YiiAafr. as He Himself has said4. p- 31}> note 1. 3 vid. 6 SuS iS^ot. And so more distinctly Dei, nisi Filius, nee Donum Dei, nisi „_ Qr-x S. Ba.sil, o*£gov tou htv ra xtivpttt. tie Sp. Spiritus Sanctus." And elsewhere,;:: i S. 57. and more frequently the later " Exiit, non quomodo natus, sed quo- 4 ';j' Latins, as in the Hymn, " Altissimi modo datus, et ideo non dicitur Filius." j0hni6 Donum Dei ;" and the earlier, e. g. ibid. v. 15. making it, as Petavius jg ' Hil. de Trin. ii. 29. and August. Trin. observes, " His eternal property, ut sic xv. 29. who makes it the personal procedat, tanquam donabile, as being characteristic of the Third Person in Love.'' Trin. vii. 13. §. 20. the Holy Trinity ; " non dicitur Verbum CHAP. XVI. INTRODUCTORY TO PROVERBS viii. 22. THAT THE SON IS NOT A CREATUBE. Arian formula, a creature but not as one of the creatures ; but each creature is unlike all other creatures ; and no creatnre can create. The Word then differs from all creatures in that in which they, though otherwise differing, all agree together, as creatures; viz. in being an efficient cause ; in being the one medium or instrumental agent in creation ; moreover in being the revealer ofthe Father; and in being the object of worship. Disc. 1. Now in the next place let us consider the passage in the — Proverbs, The Lord created Me a beginning of His ways for 22. ' His works" ; although in shewing that the Word is no work, it has been also shewn that He is no creature. For it is the same to say work or creature, so that the proof that He is no work is a proof also that He is no creature. Whereas one may marvel at these men, thus devising excuses to be ir religious, and nothing daunted at the refutations which meet them upon every point. For first they set about deceiving the simple by their questions b, "Did He who is make him 1 supr. that was not or Him that was from Him who was not1?" and, p. 213. "Had you a son, before begetting him2?" And when this 8 eh-|- had been proved worthless, next they invented the question, 3 ch. 9. " Is the Ingenerate one or two3?" Then, when in this they had p. 224. "We have found this text urged texts he handles, forming the chief sub- against the Catholic doctrine in the ject of the Oration henceforth, after an third century to support an Arian introduction which extends down to doctrine, supr. p. 47, note b. Eusebius 44. Nicomed. in his letter to Paulinus, » From the methodical manner in adduces it against Alexander in the which the successive portions of his very beginning of the controversy, foregoing Oration are here referred 1 heod. Hist, i 5. p. 752 Athan. says, to, it would almost seem as if he were "f-W;2"' 21> ,*. a\afte!' *hls ll was answering in course some Arian wort. AD ?™ 7, y the ^IlanS ,about vid- 3lso suPra> PP- 233, 257. infr. Orat. A.D. 350 It is presently explained iii. 26. He does not seem to be trachif! at greater length than any other of the the controversy histoSy Evasions ofthe Arians from first to last. 307 been confuted, straightway they formed another, " Has He Chap. free-will and an alterable nature1 ?" But being forced to give XVI- up this, next they set about saying, Being made so much p. 230. ' better than the Angels"; and when the truth exposed this2°^-^3- pretence, now again, collecting them all together, they think to recommend their heresy by work and creature3. For" ch. 14. they mean those very things over again, and are true to their a° 281' own perverseness, putting into various shapes and turning to 29'r- and fro the same errors, if so be to deceive some by that variousness. Although then abundant proof has been given above of this their reckless expedient, yet, since they make all places sound vvith this passage from the Proverbs, and to many who are ignorant of the faith of Christians, seem to say somewhat, it is necessary to examine separately, He created as well as Who was faithful to Him that made Heb. 3, Him*; that, as in all others, so in this text also, they may be 4 'ohi 14_ proved to have got no further than a fantasy. 2. And first let us see the answers, which they returned §. 19. to Alexander of blessed memory, in the outset, while their heresy was in course of formation. They wrote thus : " He is a creature, but not as one ofthe creatures; a work, but not as one of the works ; an offspring, but not as one of the offsprings0." Let every one consider the profligacy and craft of this heresy ; for knowing the bitterness of its own malignity, it makes an effort to trick itself out with fair words, and says, what indeed it means, that He is a creature, yet thinks to be able to skreen itself by adding, " but not as one of the creatures." However, in thus writing, they rather convict themselves of irreligion ; for if, in your opinion, He is simply a creature, why add the pretenceV *«¦««*- " but not as one of the creatures?" And if He is simply a"'^ work, how " not as one of the works ?" In which we may note 9. see the poison6 of the heresy. For by saying, " offspring, bute p. 177. not as one of the offsprings," they reckon many sons, and one of these they pronounce to be the Lord; so that according to them He is no more Only-begotten, but one out of many- brethren, and is called" offspring and son. ° vid. Arius's letter, supr. p. 97. This rian. IS. vid. also in Eusebius, supr. was the sophism by means of which p. 62, note f. Valens succeeded with the Fathers of d mat xpi/utriiut. The question be- Arminium. vid. S. Jerome in Lucife- tween Catholics and Arians was eius 308 No one creature like any other. Disc. 8. What use then is this pretence1 of saying that He is a t11- t creature and not a creature ? for though ye shall say, Not l,tTe'"as "one of the creatures," I will prove this sophism of yours to be a poor one. For still ye pronounce Him to be one of the creatures ; and whatever a man might say of the other creatures, such ye hold concerning the Son, Matt, ye truly fools and blind. For is any one of the creatures 23,19. just wnat another is% that ye should predicate this ofthe Son as some prerogative f? And all the visible creation was made in six days : — in the first, the light which He called day; in the second the firmament; in the third, gathering together the waters, He bared the dry land, and brought out the various fruits that are in it ; and in the fourth, He made the sun and the moon and all the host of the stars ; and on the fifth, He created the race of living things in the sea, and of birds in the air; and on the sixth, He made the quadrupeds Rom. l,on the earth, and at length man. And the invisible things of Him from the creation ofthe world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made ; and neither the light is as the night, nor the sun as the moon ; nor the irrational as rational man ; nor the Angels as the Thrones, nor the Thrones as the Authorities, yet they are all creatures, but each of the things made according to its kind exists §. 20. and remains in its own substance, as it was made. Let the whether our Lord was a true Son, or p. 211, note f.) 12. d. 23. a. 26. e. the only called Son. " Since they whisper word "real" was used as against them, something about Word and Wisdom as and in opposition to utvsriffTaroe xiya;, only names of the Son, &c." ovofiaru by the Arians, and in consequence pent, supr. p. 25. where vid. note f. failed as a test of orthodox teaching; also p. 218, note a. And so " the title e. g. by Arius, supr. p. 97. by Euseb. of Image is not a token of a similar in Marc. pp. 19, d. 35, b. 161, c. by substance, but His name only," supr. Asterius, infr. 37. by Palladius andSe- p. 210. and so infr. 38. where tois oti- cundus in the Council of Aquileia ap. fian is synonymous with xotr' Wituat, Ambros. Opp. t. 2. p. 791. (ed. Bened.), as Sent. D. 22. f. a. Vid. also 39. b. by Maximinus ap. August, contr. Max. Orat. iii. 1 1, c. 18. d. " not named Son, i. 6. but ever Son," iv. 24. fin. Ep. Mg. « And so S. Ambrose, Quje enim *^"i 6' !' ^e ca^ Him so> an^ mean creaturanonsicutaliacreaturanonest? truly what we say; they say it, but do Homo non ut Angelus, terra non ut not confess it." Chrysost. in Act. Hom. ccelum. de Fid. i. n. 130. and a similar r . -r/'i • ° "."' S£** '*lf""»> passage in Nyss. contr. Eun. iii. p.' 188, Cyril, de Trin. n. p. 418. Nonhajcnuda 3. nomina Ambros. de Fid. i. 17 Yet, t l^lfm,. vid. infr. Orat. iii. 3. init. b nee the Sabelhans equally failed here, iv. 28. init. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. pp. 47. also considering the Sonship as only a b. 73. b. 89. b. 124. a. 129. c. Theodor. Fa&er and ^^4 ' 7h" F^ther iS P- 133" a" EP;Ph- Ha,r. 76. p. 970. *atner, and the Son Son," vid. supr. Cyril. Thes. p. 160. The Word unlike all creatures. 309 Word then be excepted from the works, and as Creator be Chap. restored to the Father, and be confessed to be Son by nature; XYI" or if simply He be a creature, then let Him be assigned the same condition as the rest one with another, and let them as well as He be said every one of them to be " a creature, but not as one of the creatures, offspring or work, but not as one of the works or offsprings." For ye say that an offspring is the same as a work, writing " generated or madeg." For though the Son excel the rest on a comparison, still a creature He is nevertheless, as they are ; since in those which are by nature creatures one may find some excelling others. Star, for instance, differs from star in glory1, and the rest have all of1suPr- them their mutual differences when compared together; yet it follows not for all this that some are lords, and others servants to the superior, nor that some are efficient causes2, ep-3io, others by them come into being, but all have a nature which comes to be and is created, confessing in their own selves their Framer: — as David says in the Psalms, The heavens Ps.19,1. declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handy work ; and as Zorobabel the wise says, All the earth calleth upon the Truth, and the heaven blesseth it : all l Esdr. works shake and tremble at il. 4. But if the whole earth hymns the Framer and the Truth, and blesses, and fears it, and its Framer is the Word, and He Himself says, I am the Truth, it follows that the Word is John not a"creature, but alone proper to the Father, in whom all u' 6" things are disposed, and He is celebrated by all, as Framer; for / was by Him disposing ; and My Father worketh prov. hitherto, and I work. And the word hitherto shews HisSePt.' eternal existence in the Father as the Word; for it is proper J»hn 5, to the Word to work the Father's works and not to be external to Him. But if what the Father worketh, that the§. 21. Son worketh also3, and what the Son createth, that is tb.ef.Orat. s yitttilitTtt ti iro.tiftvT*; as if they xa) hfuXmTov xa) ymtiriv Theod. p. 752. were synonymous ; in opposition to The different words profess to be which the Nicene Creed says, ymniitTa Scriptural, and to explain each other ; ob ««*M*t*. In like manner Arius in " created" being in Prov. 8, 22. his letter to Eusebius uses the words, "made" in the passages considered in «)> yttvM ««#»«.!?, » «{*#?, » *H»- A" last two chapters « appointed or , ri'iLnr Hist n. 750. And to " declared" in Korn. i.4. and "founded" Zander Zetf yM xa) *,i or » established" in Prov. 8 23 which t;ttl?xl,MSL) \£x*,hU. de Syl is discussed infr. 72. &c. vid. also 52. 16. And Eusebius to Paulinus, »ww 310 If the Creator Word a creature, other creatures creators. Disc, creation ofthe Father, and yet the Son be the Father's work IIj . or creature, then either He will work His own self, and will be His own creator, (since what the Father worketh is the Son's work also,) which is absurd and impossible ; or, in that He creates and worketh the things of the Father, He Him self is not a work nor a creature ; for else being Himself an efficient cause", He may cause that to be in the case of things caused, which He Himself has become, or rather He may have no power to cause at all. 5. For how, if, as you hold, He is come of nothing, is He able to frame things that are nothing into being ? or if He, a creature, withal frames a creature, the same will be con ceivable in the case of every creature, viz. the power to frame others. And if this pleases you, what is the need of the Word, seeing that things inferior can be brought to be by things superior ? or at all events, every thing that is brought to be could have heard in the beginning God's words, Become and be made, and so would have been framed. But this is not so written, nor could it be. For none of things which are brought to be is an efficient cause n, but all things were made through the Word : who would not have wrought all things, were He Himself in the number of the creatures. For neither would the Angels be able to frame, since they too are creatures, though Valentinus, and Marcion, and Basilidas think so, and you are their copyists; nor will the sun, as being a creature, ever make what is not into what is; nor will man fashion man, nor stone devise stone, nor wood give growth to wood. But God is He who fashions man in the womb, and fixes the moun tains, and increases wood ; whereas man, as being capable of science, puts together and arranges that material, and works things that are, as he has learned ; and is satisfied if they are but brought to be, and being conscious of what his nature is, §. 22. if he needs aught, knows to ask it of God1. If then God ' p. 17. 11 iromrixov a'lrut, also, p. 309, r. 1. for creation is by the Creator." Hit and infr. 27. and Orat. iii. 14. and Trin. xii. 5. «St tivxra, rl xnli/im contr. Gent. 9 mit. No creature can xriluv; ti «5S Ur!r«t xriliTttr, Athan. create, vid. e.g. about Angels, August, ad Afros. 4 fin. Vid. also Serap. i. 18 dJ,;?61 ^n ¦¦ i" r"-/."1; I?" 24' 6' i!i- 4> e" Th« Gnostics who at- ii . «9 u°o - "' 3" °?nl m ,Ju,-ian' tributed creation t0 Angels are alluded that" ft r i T^ "2eCtS tbe ldea t0 infr- 0tat' i;i- l2- Epiph. Hair. 52. that the Creator should be a creature, 53. 163, &c. Theodor Haer i 1 and 3 If the Word a creature, another Word to create Him. 311 also wrought and compounded out of materials, this indeed is a gentile thought, according to which God is an artificer and not a Maker, but yet even in that case let the Word work the materials, at the bidding and in the service of God1. But if He calls into existence things which existed not by His proper Word, then the Word is not in the number of things non-existing and called; or we have to seek another Word1, through whom He too was called ; for by the Word the things which were not came to be. 6. And if through Him He creates and makes, He is not Himself of things created and made; but rather He is the Word of the Creator God, and is known from the Father's works which He Himself worketh, to be in the Father and the Father in Him, and He that hath seen Him hath seen ihe Father, because the Son's Substance is proper' to the Father, and He in all points like Him1. How then does He create through Him, unless it be His Word and His Wisdom ? and how can He be Word and Wisdom, unless He be the Chap. XVI. vid. John 14, 9. 10. 1 Ta t^tot T>is ov- ff'tas 1 irgoo-TetTTo'ftsvos xa) virav^yut. It is not quite clear that A than, accepts these words in his own person, as has been assumed supr. p. 15, note d. p. 118, note n. Vid. de Decr. 7. and infr. 24. and 31, a. which, as far as they go, are against the use of the word. Also S. Basil objects to b-nov^yos contr. Eunom. ii. 21. and S. Cyril in Joan. p. 48. though S. Basil speaks of Ttt -Tr^to-Tttr- Totrat xvgiov, p. 246, note a. and S. Cyril ofthe Son's vfoTayri, Thesaur. p. 255- Vid. "ministering, vv/t^iTtvtTtt, to the Fatherof all." Just.Tryph.p.72. "The Word become minister, un-tigirvis, of the Creator." Origen Hom. in Joan. p. 61. also Constit. Ap. viii. 12. but Pseudo- Athan. objects to virnotTut, de Comm. Essent. 30. and Athan. apparently, infr. 28. Again, "Whom did He order, pra- cepit f" Iren. Haer. iii. 8. n. 3. " The Father bids, ivTiXXiTai, (allusion to Ps. 33, 9. vid. infr. 31.) the Word ac complishes He who commands, xiXivtot, is tbe Father, He who obeys, vvaxouut, the Son The Father willed, hiiXrwt, the Son did it." Hippol. contr. Noet. 14. on which vid. Fabri- cius's note. S. Hilary speaks of the Son as " subditus per obedientise ob- sequelam." de Syn.51. Vid. pp. 323,4. notes a, b, c. In the last of the three the principle is laid down of what is right and wrong in the use of these expres sions. k " If the Wisdom which is in the Father is other than the Lord, Wisdom came into being in Wisdom ; and if God's Word is Wisdom, the Word too has come into being in a Word ; and if God's Word is the Son, the Son too has been made in the Son." Ep. JEg. 14. vid. also supr. p. 13. and Orat. iii. 2. 64. And so S. Austin, " If the Word of God was Himself made, by what other Word was He made ? If you say, that- it is the Word of the Word, by whom that Word is made, this say I is the only Son of God. But if you say the Word of the Word, grant that He is not made by whom all things are made ; for He could not be made by means of Himself, by whom are made all things." in Joan. Tract, i. 1 1 . Vid. a parallel argument with reference to the Holy Spirit. Serap. i. 25. b. 1 tw xaTot natTa. oftoiortiTa : vid. parallel instances, supr. p. 115, e. to which add, ofioios xuteo voltra, Orat. i. 40. xaTot naVTa xa) iv vao-i, Ep. JEg. 17, c. tov vrxTPts opoiof, Oiat. ii. 17. Orat. iii. 20, a. '¦ not opoios, as the Church preaches, but iis avrt) tiXoum," (vid. Hist. Treat, tr. p. 26G, note d.) also supra p. 155, note g. 312 If theWord,a creature, knows God,allcreaturesdoinpart. Disc, proper offspring of His Substance"1, and did not come to n- be, as others, out of nothing? And whereas all things are from nothing, and are creatures, and the Son, as they say, is one of the creatures too, and of things which once were not, how does He alone reveal the Father, and none else but He know the Father ? For could He, a work, possibly know the Father, then must the Father be also known by all according > vid. p. to the proportion of the measures ' of each : for all of thern are 95- works as He is. But if it be impossible for things generate either to see or to know, for the sight and the knowledge of vid. Ex. Him surpasses all, (since God Himself says, No one shall Matii see My face and live,) yet the Son has declared, No one 27- knoweth the Father, save the Son, therefore the Word is different from things generate, in that He alone knows and John 6, alone sees the Father, as He says, Not that any one hath to the* seen t^e Father, save He. that is from the Father, and no letter. one knoweth the Father save the Son, though Arius think otherwise. How then did He alone know, except that He alone was proper to Him? and how proper, if He were a > creature, and not a true Son from Him ? (For one must not mind saying often the same thing for religion-sake.) Therefore it is irreligious to think that the Son is one of all things ; and blasphemous and unmeaning to call Him " a creature, but not as one of the creatures, and a work, but not as one of the works, an offspring, but not as one of the offsprings;" for how not as one of these, if, as they say, He was not before His 2 vid. generation2? for it is proper to the creatures and works not r!and ' ^° be before their generation, and to subsist out of nothing, p. 276. even though they excel other creatures in glory ; for this difference of one with another will be found in all creatures, 3 Greek which appears in those which are visible3. text dis located m As Sonship is implied in" Image," Decr. 17. And still more pointedly, il/A (supr. p. 283, note d.) so it is implied in dios, evSixiyts, Orat. iv. 24 fin. vid. also "Word" and " Wisdom;" For instance, supr. p. 221, note e. And so " Image" " Especially is it absurd to name the is implied in Sonship ; " being Son- of Word, yet deny Him to be Son, for, if God He must be like Him," supr.',!?. the Word be not from God, reasonably And so " Image" is implied ' 'iiiv'v might they deny Him to be Son ; but if " Word ;" i, r* ,'S,'« slxiti, fas S«i ' He is trom God, how see they not that Xdyos avrov. infr. 82,' d. also 34, cV On what exists from any thing is son of the contrary, the very root of heretical A™inr°mi ^°™ " 1*1, " Orat. iv. 15. error was the denial that these titles ffidf* "" *?} •"'/ \r.'< *°VS *• ^Plied ^ch other, vid. supr. p. 27, urat. in. 29 init. vns tis k » Xeyos ; de note i. p. 41, note e. If the Word a creature, His glory different but in degree. 313 7. Moreover if, as the heretics hold, the Son were creature or Chap work, but not as one of the creatures, because of His excelling XVI- them in glory, it were natural that Scripture should describe §• 23" and display Him by a comparison in His favour with the other works ; for instance, that it should say that He is greater than Archangels, and more honourable than the Thrones, and both brighter than sun and moon, and greater than the heavens. But it does not in fact thus describe Him; but the Father shews Him to be His own proper and only Son, saying, Tliou art My Son, and This is My beloved Son, in whom I am ps. 2,7. well pleased. Accordingly the Angels ministered unto Him, Mat. 3, as being one beyond themselves ; and they worship Him, not as being greater in glory, but as being some one beyond all the creatures, and beyond themselves, and alone the Father's proper Son according to substance '. For if He was worshipped ' vid. as excelling them in glory, each of things subservient ought p' 16' to worship what excels itself. But this is not the case2; for2 vid. creature does not worship creature, but servant Lord, and 02raUh- creature God. Thus Peter the Apostle hinders Cornelius who would worship him, saying, / myself also am a mem. Acts io, And an Angel, when John would worship him in the26- Apocalypse, hinders him, saying, See thou do it not; for /Eev.22, am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the Prophets, and9' of them that keep the sayings of this book: worship God. Therefore to God alone appertains worship, and this the very Angels know, that though they excel other beings in glory, yet they are all creatures and not to be worshipped", " " Worship" is a very wide term, to be offered, except to Him whom the and has obviously more senses than one. sacrificer knew or thought or pretended Thus we read in one passage of Scrip- to be God ?" August, de Civ. Dei, x. 4. ture that "all tbe congregation. ..wor- "Whereas you have called so many shippedtheLord,and Qn tke 0ther hand, the Lord is worshipped even by the Heb. l, Angels; for it is written, Let all the Angels of God worship is. 45, Him; and by all the Gentiles, as Esaias says, The labour of u' Egypt and merchandize of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto Thee, and they shall be Thine; and then, they shall fall down unto Thee, and shall make sup plication unto Thee, saying, Surely God is in Thee, and there is none else, there is no God. And He accepts His disciples' John worship, and certifies them who He is, saying, Call ye Me not al.t.rec. Lord and Master? and ye say well, for so I am. Aud when John Thomas said to Him, My Lord and my God, He allows his words, or rather accepts him instead of hindering him. For He is, as the other Prophets declare, and David says in the Psalm, the Lord of hosts, the Lord of Sabaoth, which is interpreted, the Lord of Armies, and God True and §.24. Almighty, though the Arians burst0 atthe tidings. But He had not been thus worshipped, nor been thus spoken of, were He a creature merely. But now since He is not a creature, but the proper offspring of the Substance of that God who is wor shipped, and His Son by nature, therefore He is worshipped and is believed to be God, and is Lord of armies, and in authority, and Almighty, as the Father is; for He has said John Himself, All things, that the Father hath, are Mine. For it is proper to the Son, to have the things of the Father, and to be such that the Father is seen in Him, and that through Him all things were made, and that the salvation of all comes to pass and consists in Him. ° happyy vvootrit iavrovs . also ad Adelph. also p. 40. T^urt robs oSotras, de Fug. 8. and vid. supr. p. 29, note 1. vid. also 26. init. rpgimwrat, ad Adelph. 8. Hist. o*mp'pnytvatTici,&e&ji\.i>i.xa)o'iappayo7tt, Ar. 68. fin. and literally 72. a. xiimmi' Marcell. ap. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p. 116. iaurovs. In illud Omnia,. 5. CHAP. XVII. INTRODUCTION TO PROVERBS viii. 22. CONTINUED. Absurdity of supposing a Son or Word created in order to the creation of other creatures ; as to the creation being unable to bear God's immediate hand, God condescends to the lowest. Moreover, if the Son a creature, He too could not bear God's hand, and an infinite series of media will be necessary. Objected, that, as Moses who led out the Iraelites was a man, so our Lord ; but Moses was not the Agent in creation : — again, that unity is found in created ministrations, but all such ministrations are defective and depen dent : — again, that He learned to create, yet could God's Wisdom need teaching? and why should He learn, if the Father worketh hitherto? If the Son was created to create us, He is for our sake, not we for His. 1. And here it were well to ask them also this question B, for a still clearer refutation of their heresy ; — Wherefore, when all things are creatures, and all are brought into consistence from nothing, and the Son Himself, according to you, is creature and work, and once was not, wherefore has He -made all things through Him alone, and without Him was made John 1, not one thing? or why is it, when all things are spoken of, that no one thinks the Son is signified in the number, but only things generate ; whereas when Scripture speaks of the Word, it does not understand Him as being in the number of all, but places Him with the Father, as Him in whom providence and salvation for all are wrought and effected by the Father, though all things surely might at the same command have come to be, at which He was brought into being by God alone ? For God is not wearied by commanding •, nor is His ' supr. strength unequal to the making of all things, that He should p' alone create the only Sonb, and need His ministry2 and aid2^- J yov, as , . , , _ p. 12. • These sections 34—36. are very somewhat otherwise explained by b. similar to de Decr. 7, 8. supr. pp. Greg. Naz. pirns ovx if ™ '*«'". 12 14. yet not in wording or order, as Orat. 25, 16. Eunomius understood by is the case with other passages. potoyiths, not pitos yitttiiils but sraji t> ttitos p'mt, also infr. 30. this pitov. It should be observed, however, phrase is synonymous With '<' not as one that this is a sense in which some of the of the creatures," vid. pitet viri pitov, Greek Fathers understand the term, supr p 12. also p. 62. note f. vid. pitas, thus contrasting generation with pro- p 116. note g. though that term is ~ cession, vid. Petav. Trin. vn. il. §. 3. 316 If the Word created to create, weariness in God or pride, Disc, for the framing of the rest. For He lets nothing stand over, ,! which He wills to be done; but He willed only1, and all r.P7. ' things subsisted, and no one hath resisted His will. Why notofc' ^len were not a^ things brought into being by God alone at Bom. 9, that same command, at which the Son came into being ? Or let them tell us, why did all things through Him come to be, who was Himself but generate ? 2. How void of reason! however, they say concerning Him, that " God willing to create generate nature, when He saw 2«*faT«> that it could not endure the untempered2 hand of the Father, and to be created by Him, makes and creates first and alone one only, and calls Him Son and Word, that, through Him as a medium, all things might thereupon be brought to bec." This they not only have said, but they have dared to put it into 3 P- 13- writing, namely, Eusebius, Arius, and Asterius who sacrificed8. §¦ ^5- Is not this a full proof of that irreligion, with which they have drugged themselves with much madness, till they blush not to be intoxicate against the truth? For if they shall assign the toil of making all things as the reason why God made the Son only, the whole creation will cry out against them as saying unworthy things of God; and Esaias too who Ts- 40> has said in Scripture, The Everlasting God, the Lord, the p. 12. ' Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary: there is no searching of His understanding. 3. And if God made the Son alone, as not deigning to make the rest, but committed them to the Son as an assistant, this on the other hand is unworthy of God, for in Him there is * riipos, no pride4- Nay the Lord reproves the thought, when He Mat. io says, Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of Mat. 6, inem shall not fall on the ground without your Father which ' is in heaven. And again, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body titan raimenll Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them.; areyenotmuch better thanlhey? Which of you by taking thought, can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how " Vid. de Decr. §. 8. supr. p. 13. also p. 523. Basil contr. Eunom. ii. 21. Cyril. Thesaur. pp. 150, 241. de Trin. vid. also infra 29. Orat. iv. 11, 12. If God preserves without help, He creates without help. 317 they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: and yet 1 say Chap. unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory, was not arrayed XVU" like one of these. Wherefore if God so clothe the grass ofthe field which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall He not much more clothe you, 0 ye of little faith ? If then it be not unworthy of God to exercise His providence, even down to things so small, a hair of the head, and a sparrow, and the grass ofthe field, also it was not unworthy of Him to make them. For what things are the subjects of His pro vidence, of those He is Maker through His proper Word. Nay a worse absurdity lies before the men who thus speak; for they distinguish1 between the creatures and the framing; > imipo- and consider the latter the work ofthe Father, the creatures '"'as the work of the Son; whereas either all things must be12- fin- brought to be by the Father with the Son, or if all that is generate comes to be through the Son, we must not call Him one of the generated things. 4. Next, their folly maybe exposed thus: — if even the Word §. 26. be of generated nature, how, whereas this nature is too feeble to be God's own handywork2, He alone of all could endure ' abrov^- to be made by the ingenerate and unmitigated3 Substance ^li of God, as ye say? for it follows either that, if He could ™>eyun endure it, all could endure it, or, it being endurable by none, 12— u. it was not endurable by the Word, for you say that He is one ixc;- of generate things. And again, if because generate nature T^most could not endure to be God's own handywork, there arose absolute need of a mediatord, it must follow, that, the Word being generate and a creature, there is need of medium in His framing also, since He too is of that generate nature which endures not to be made of God, but needs a medium. But if some being as a medium be found for Him, then again a fresh mediator is needed for that second, and thus tracing back aud following out, we shall invent a vast crowd of accumulating me diators; and thus it will be impossible that the creation should subsist, as ever wanting a mediator, and that medium not coming into being without another mediator; for all of them d Vid. p. 13. vid. also a similar the succeeding Fathers, that it is im- argument in Epiphanius Ha:r. 76. p. possible and needless to enumerate the 951. but the arguments of Ath. in these instances of agreement. Orations are so generally adopted by 318 Moses one of many servants, the Son noi one of many. Disc, will be of that generate nature which endures not to be made, "• of God alone, as ye say. How abundant is that folly, which obliges them to hold that what has already come into being, admits not of coming ! Or perhaps they opine that they have not even come to be, as still seeking their mediator; for, on i and so the ground of their so irreligious and futile notion1, what is 8? e.e°r would not have subsistence, for want of the medium. §. 27. 5. But again they allege this : — "Behold,through Moses too did He lead the people from Egypt, and through him He gave the Law, yet he was a man ; so that it is possible for like to be brought into being by like." They should veil their faoe when they say this, to save their much shame. For Moses was not sent to frame the world, nor to call into being things which were not, or to fashion men like' himself, but only to be the minister of words to the people, and to King Pharaoh. And this is a very different thing, for to minister is of things generate as of servants, but to frame and to create is of God alone, and of His proper Word and His Wisdom. Wherefore, in the matter of framing, we shall find none but God's Word • for all things are made in Wisdom, and without the Word was made not one thing. But as regards ministra tions there are, not one only, but many out of their whole number, whomever the Lord will send. For there are many Archangels, many Thrones, and Authorities, and Dominions, thousands of thousands, and myriads of myriads, standing - p. 268. before Him2, ministering and ready to be sent. And Ambros.many Prophets, and twelve Apostles, and Paul. And Moses -? ™' himself was not alone, but Aaron with him, and next other m. 106. seventy were filled with the Holy Ghost. And Moses was succeeded by Jesus the son of Nave, and he by the Judges, and they by, not one, but by a number of Kings. If then the Son were a creature and one of things generate, there must have been many such sons, that God might have many such ministers, just as there is a multitude of those others. But if this is not to be seen, but the creatures are many, but the Word one, any one will collect from this, that the Son differs from all, and is not on a level with the creatures, but is 3 HiUns proper3 to the Father. Hence there are not many Words, but one only Word of the one Father, and one Image of the < p. 331, one God4. note p. Each thing isoneinsubstance,theSononealso in perfection. 319 6. " But behold," they say, " there is but one sun1 and one Chap. earth." Let them maintain, senseless as they are, that there is one XVI1, water and one fire, and then they may be told that every thing Eustb. that is brought to be, is one in its own substance2, but forPe™°n- the ministry and service committed to it, by itself it is hot ^supr."' adequate nor sufficient alone. For God said, Let there 6} vid. generate; yet as from a master and artificer has He learned5 Twt to frame, and thus ministered6 to God who taught Him." For J»^-P- thus the Sophist Asterius, having learned to deny the Lord, note i. 320 If He creates,not by Nature, bu t after teaching, how Wisdom? Disc, has dared to write, not observing the absurdity1 which follows. t , II"/ For if framing be a thing to be taught, let them beware lest pa32^7"tlley say that God Himself be a Framer not by nature but by note e. sciencej so as t0 admit of His losing the power. Besides, if the Wisdom of God attained to frame by teaching, how is He still Wisdom, when He needs to learn? and what was He before He learned? For it was not Wisdom, if it needed teaching ; it was surely but some empty thing, and not "'•bcmvUx Wisdom in substance2, but from advancement3 it had the *• *|" name of Wisdom, and will be only so long Wisdom as it can Orat. iv. keep what it has learned. For what has accrued not by any ^oxotri, nature, but from learning, admits of being one time unlearned. P- 16, jjut t0 Speak fjjug 0f the Word of God, is not the part of &. 29. Christians, but of Greeks. For if the power of framing accrues to any one from teaching, these insensate men are • supr. ascribing jealousy and weakness4 to God ; — -jealousy, in that He has not taught many how to frame, so that there may be around Him, as Archangels and Angels many, so framers many ; and weakness, in that He could not make by Himself, ¦'««.«{- but needed a fellow- worker, or under-workers; and that, ^velos' though it has been already shewn that generate nature vid. p. admits of being made by God alone, since they consider the Son to be of such a nature and so made. But God is deficient in nothing: perish the thought! for He has said Is.i, il. Himself, / am full. Nor did the Word become Framer of e> God was not made for us, but rather we for Him, and in Him Col. 1, all things were created. Nor for that we were weak, was 16- He strong and made by the Father alone, that He might frame us by means of Him as an instrument ; perish the thought! it is not so. For though it had seemed good to God not to make things generate, still had the Word been no less with God, and the Father in Him. At the same time, things generate could not without the Word be brought to be; hence they were made through Him, — and reasonably. For since the Word is the Son of God by nature proper to His substance, and is from Him, and iu Him2, as He said Himself, the2 vid. creatures could not have come to be, except through Him. ^40 For as the light enlightens all things by its radiance, and note n. without its radiance nothing would be illuminated, so also the Father, as by a hand", in the Word wrought all things, and * is S>« x"i"s- vlc'- suPr- P- 12. note 27. Clement. Recogn. viii. 43. Clement. z. And so in Orat. iv. 26, a. de Incarn. Hom. xvi. 12. Cyril. Alex, frequently, contr. Arian. 12, a. xsaraiit %s)g too e. g. in Joan. pp. 876, 7. Thesaur. ¦xaTpis. Method, de Creat. ap. Phot. p. 154. Pseudo-Basil. x''S Zapiovoyixh, cod. 235. p. 937. Iren. Heer. iv. 20. contr. Eunom. v. p. 297. Job. ap. Phot. n 1 v 1 fin. and 5. n. 2. and 6. n. 1. 222. p. 582. and August, in Joann. Clement. Protrept. p. 93. (ed. Potter.) 48, 7- though he prefers another use of Tertull. contr. Hennog. 45. Cypr. the word. Testim. ii. 4. Euseb. in Psalm, cviii. 324 The Son, not answers,{as creatures,) butis,the Father's will; Disc, without Him makes nothing. For instance, God said, as Gen ' Moses relates, Let there be light, and Let the waters be 3,9,26. gathered together, and let the dry land appear, and Let Us Ps. 33, make man; as also Holy David in tbe Psalm, He spake and it teas done; He commanded and it stood fast. And He i bnovt- spoke",notthat,asinthecase of men, some under-worker' might hear, and learning the will of Him who spoke might go away and do it ; for this is what is proper to creatures, but it is unseemly so to think or speak of the Word. For the Word of God is Framer and Maker, and He is the Father's Will0. Hence it is that divine Scripture says not that one heard and answered, as to the manner or nature ofthe things which He wished made; but God only said, Let it become, and he adds, And it became ,- for what He thought good and coun selled, that forthwith the Word began to do and to finish. 2. For when God commands others, whether the Angels, or converses with Moses, or promises Abraham, then the hearer Gen.i5, answers. au(j the one says, Whereby shall I know? and the Ex. 4, other, Send some one else; and again, If they ask me, what is ^ 3 His Name, what shall I say to them ? and the Angel said to 13. Zacharias, Thus saith the Lord; and he asked the Lord, O Lord l ii. °f hosts, how long will Thou not have mercy on Jerusalem? v- 12- and waits to hear good words and comfortable. For each of 2™1- P- these has the Mediator2 Word, and the Wisdom of God which notem. makes known the will of the Father. But when that Word note e.' Himself works and creates, then there is no questioning and answer, for the Father is in Him and the Word in the Father; b Vid. de Decr. 9. supr. p. 15. contr. Himself, for He is the Father's Word, Gent. 46. Iren. Haer. iii. 8. n. 3. Origen &c." August, de Trin. i. 26. On this contr. Cels. ii. 9. Tertull. adv. Prax. mystery vid. Petav. Trin. vi. i. 12. fin. Patres Antioch. ap. Routht. 2. c f&ovXn. And so (iovXruri; presently; p. 468. Prosper in Psalm. 148. (149.) and £S««« understand the true Godhead of the Subsistence, as the Saviour Himself teaches when He says, The Father whoiolm dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works which I do; and I and the ^1°' Father are one, and i" in the Father and the Father in Me. 10> 30- Therefore let this Christ-opposing heresy attempt first to divide 2 the examples found in things generate, and say, 2 luxut, "Once the sun was without his radiance," or, "Radiance is not v3\j P'i. proper to the substance of light," or " It is indeed proper, but it is a part of light by division;" and then let it divide2 Reason, and pronounce that it is foreign to mind, or that once it was not, or that it is not proper to its substance, or that it is by division a part of mind. And so of His Ex pression and the Light and the Power, let it be violent with these as in the case of Reason and Radiance; and instead let it imagine what it will3- But if such extravagance be im- 3 Hist. possible for them, are they not greatly beside themselves, tr.P.266, presumptuously intruding into what is higher than things noted. generate and their own nature, and essaying impossibilities4 ? 4Inillud b\ For if in the case of these generate and irrational things mjt. ' offsprings are found which are not parts of the substances §. 34. from which they are, nor subsist with passion, nor impair the substances of their originals, are they not mad again in seek ing and conjecturing parts and passions in the instance of the immaterial and true God, and ascribing divisions to Him who is beyond passion and change, thereby to perplex the ears ofthe simple3 and to pervert them from the Truth ? for* <£*«** who hears of a son but conceives of that which is proper"^'" generation impair the Father's Sub- a statement indeed is not only a contra- T^ stance which is, antecedently to it, diction inthetermsused,butinoundeas, tj. * whole and entire God. Thus there are yet not therefore a contradiction in fact ; n^g f ' two Persons, in Each Other ineffably, unless indeed any one will say thatand ¦ Each being wholly one and the same Di- human words can express in one e- vine Substance, yet not being merely se- formula, or human thought embrace parate aspects of the Same, Each being in one idea, the unknown and infinite God as absolutely as if there were no God. Basil, contr. Eun. i. 10. vid. infr. other Divine Person but Himself. Such p. 333, note u. 328 Son must be taken in Us traditionary sense. Disc, to the father's substance? who heard, in his first catechising1, that God has a Son and has made all things \>y His proper 1 P- 12> notey. Word, but understood it in that sense in which we now note j mean ^ ¦ who on the rise of this odious heresy of the Arians, p. 191, was not at once startled at what he heard, as strange11, and a second sowing besides that Word which had been sown from the beginning? For what is sown in every soul from the begining is that God has a Son, the Word, the Wisdom, the Power, that is, His Image and Radiance; from which it at once follows that He is always; that He is from the Father; that He is like; that He is the eternal offspring of His substance; and there is no idea involved in these of creature or work. But when the man who is an enemy, while men slept, made a second sowing1, of" He is a creature," and "There was once when He was not," and " How can it be ?" thenceforth the wicked heresy of Christ's enemies rose as tares, and forthwith, as bereft of every orthodox thought, as robbers, they go about1 and venture to say, " How can the Son always exist with the Father?" for men come of men and are sons, after a time; and the father is thirty years old, when the son begins to be, being begotten ; and in short of every son of man, it is true that he * p. 276. was not before his generation2." And again they whisper, 3 Orat. " How can the Son be Word, or the Word be God's Image ? l*'«i*au-^or t^!le wor(i or" men is composed of syllables3, and only ™, . signifies the speaker's will, and then is over* and is lost." 2-r° 7. Theythenafresh,asifforgettingtheproofswhichhavebeen §. 35. already urged against them, pierce themselves through with vid. ITin 6, 10 vid. these bonds ofirreligion, and thus argue. But the word of truth 1 Tim. h He here makes the test of the truth distinction to obedience. Serm. 69. 5 init of explicit doctrinal statements to lie in k viotiqyaZfitTai, Edd. Col. Ben. and their not shocking, or their answering Patav. This seems an error of the to the religious sense ofthe Christian. press for mgfe™», infr. aeque introducendum erat Dei Verbum 43. «««.z^«,. Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. exstruotonum vitae. Ut in doloribus 730. *,eit(yia, &c. is used Orat iii. I, pareret, verbum diaboli semen illi fuit ; a. 43 init contra Maria Ac. de Cam. Christ. 17- 1 S T~m ix^'.at XiyoS ixiyXu. This S Leo as Athan. makes « seed" in and the like are usual form* of speecli the parable apply peculiarly to faith in with Athan. and others Thus X f« Distinction between God's Word and man's word. 329 confutes them as follows :-if they were disputing con- Chap. cerning any man, then let them exercise reason in this XVIlr' human way, both concerning His Word and His Son; but if of God who created man, no longer let them entertain human thoughts, but others which are above human nature. For such as is the parent, such of necessity is the offspring- and such as is the Word's Father, such must be also His Word. Now man, begotten in time, in time1 also Himself1 P. ail. begets the child; and whereas from nothing he came to be, therefore his word m also is over3 and continues not. But God • «¦«'- is not as man, as Scripture has said; but is existing3 and is^g'^ ever; therefore also His Word is existing4 and is everlastingly 3 &'£»,' with the Father, as radiance from light. And man's word is ttf^ composed of syllables5, and neither lives nor operates anyP-1^ thing, but is only significant of the speaker's intention, and 'rid. does but go forth and go by, no more to appear, since it was not f e™P- at all before it was spoken ; wherefore the word of man neither5 p- 328. lives nor operates any thing, nor in short is man. And this r' 3' happens to it, as I said before, because man who begets it, has his nature out of nothing. But God's Word is not merely pronounced6, as one may say, nor a sound of accents, nor by6*«^«- His Son is meant His command7; but as radiance from light, f"^ so is He perfect offspring from perfect8. Hence He is God note b. ' also, as being God's Image; for the Word was GW, saysp"o8. Scripture. And man's words avail not for operation; hence noteI- man works not by means of words but of hands, for they have note p.' being, and man's word subsists not. But the Word of God,fohn *» tiX. ioryni X. Ap. contr. Ar. 36. where infr. 65. init. 60. d. lXiy%otTai tragi tms it is contrasted to is nhXot, (vid. Hist. iXnfoias, 63. o. h StXMua hlxvvo-t, 70. Treat.tr.p.266,noted.)alsoSerap.ii.2. init. t>k ix. pagrv^o-ao-tis, 1. init. to Epiphanius; oTnsaX J-MmiWawj, Trie ix. ip^ivtipa piyaXnyogiit trgitrti, 31. p. 830. Eusebius ; o tUs ix. X fioa. Eccl. init. de Decr. 17 fin. In some of these Theol.i. p. 62. d. itniptLyZtrai avTtu piya instances the words ixMua, Xoyos, Sec. /Somas, I t>is ix. X. ibid. iii. p. 164. b. are almost synonymous with the Regula And Council of Sardica ; xaTot tov t'*,s Fidei ; vid. tragi a i~:x c~x : .. .C7Q l~t-».,.~.... T? r\ : c Heb. 4, 12. 13. supr. 5. init. rov Xoyov o*uxwvros,3. init. Cat. i. p. 478. Dam 'iii'ixtmv o Xoyos, 13 fin. *¦»,- &X. iulams, August, in Psalm. 44. Damasc. F. O. i. 6. 5. 330 As profane as to ask how the Son is as how God is. Disc, as the Apostle says, is living and powerful and sharper lhan '— any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul 'and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight; but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him vnth John 1, whom we have to do. He is then Framer of all, and without Him was made not one thing, nor can any thing be made without Him. §. 36. 8. Nor must we ask why the Word of God is not such as our word, considering God is not such as we, as has been before said ; nor again is it right to seek how the word is from God, or how He is God's radiance, or how God begets, and what is the manner of His begetting". For a man must be beside itself to venture on such points ; since a thing ineffable and proper to God's nature, and known to Him alone and to the Son, this he demands to be explained in words. It is all one as if they sought where God is, and how God is, and of what nature the Father is. \ But as to ask such questions is irreligious, and argues an ignorance of God, so it is not holy to venture such questions concerning the generation of the Son of God, nor to measure God and His Wisdom by our own nature and infirmity. Nor is a person at liberty on that account to swerve in his thoughts from the truth, nor, if any one is perplexed in such inquiries, ought he to disbelieve what is written. For it is better in perplexity to be silent and believe, than to disbelieve on account of the perplexity: for he who is perplexed may in some way obtain mercy", n Eusebius has some forcible remarks S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 29. 8. vid. also on this subject in his Eccl. Theol., Hippol. in Noet. 16. Cyril, Cat. xi. 11. though he converts them to an heretical and 19. and Origen, according to Mo- purpose. As, he says, we do not know sheim, Ante Const, p. 619. And in. how God can create out of nothing, so stances in Petav. de Trin. v. 6. §. 2. we are utterly ignorant of the Divine and 3. Generation. We do not understand ° " They who do not pertinaciously innumerable things which lie close to defend their opinion, false and perverse us ; how the soul is joined to the body, though it be, especially when it does how it enters and leaves it, what its not spring from the audacity of their nature, what the nature of Angels. It own presumption, but has come to them is written, He who believes, not he who from parents seduced and lapsed into knows, has eternal life. Divine gene- error, while they seek the truth with ration is as distinct from human, as cautious solicitude, and are prepared to God from man. The sun's radiance correctthemselveswhentheyhavefound itself is but an earthly im age , and gives i t, are by no means to be ranked among us no true idea of that which is above heretics." August. Ep. 43 init vid. all images. Eccl. Theol. i. 12. So has also de Bapt. contr. Don. iv 23 ( Many words of men, One Word of God. 331 because, though he has questioned, he has yet kept quiet; but Chap. when a man is led by his perplexity into forming for himself XVI11" doctrines which beseem not, and utters what is unworthy of God, such daring incurs a sentence without mercy. For in such perplexities divine Scripture is able to afford him some relief, so as to take rightly what is written, and to dwell upon our word as an illustration ; that as it is proper to us and is from us, and not a work1 external to us, so also God's Word1 kv is proper to Him and from Him, and is not a work2; and yet2 *«V« is not like the word of man, or else we must suppose God to be man./ 9. For observe, many and various are men's words which pass away day by day; because those that come before others continue not, but vanish. Now this happens because their authors3 are men, and have seasons which pass away, and3»-«rs£ff ideas which are successive ; and what strikes them first and second, that they utter; so that they have many words, and yet after them all nothing at all remaining; for the speaker ceases, and his word forthwith perishes. But God's Word is one and the same, and, as it is written, The Word of Godride Ps. 119 89 endureth for ever, not changed, not before or after other, ' but existing the same always. For it was fitting, whereas God is One, that His Image should be One also, and His Word One, and One His Wisdomp. Wherefore I am in §. 37. wonder how, whereas God is One, these men introduce, after their private notions4, many images and wisdoms and words', "iimlas and say that the Father's proper and natural Word is other than the Son, by whom He even made the Son", and that P vid. supr. 35. Orat. iv. 1. also pre- g. infr. 39 init. and obi" ix -roXXZt i!s, sently, " He is likeness and image of Sent. D. 25. a. also Ep. Mg. 14. c. the sole and true God, being Himself Origen in Joan. torn. ii. 3. Euseb. sole also," 49. pitos it pita, Orat. iii. Demonstr. v. 5. p. 229 fin. contr. Marc. 21. oXos i'Xou sixit. Sarap. i. 16, a. p. 4 fin. contr. Sabell. init. August, in "The Offspring of the Ingenerate," Joan. Tract i. 8. also vid. Philo's use says St. Hilary, "is One from One, of Xt'yoi for Angels as commented on True from True, Living from Living, by Burton, Bampt. Leet. p. 556. The Perfect from Perfect, Power of Power, heathens called Mercury by the name Wisdom of Wisdom, Glory of Glory." of Xoyos- vid. Benedictine note f. in de Trin. ii. 8. riXnos riXuot yiyivttixit, Justin, Ap. i. 21. ttnvpa rtivpa. Epiph. Haer. p. 495. r This was the point in which Arians " As Light from Light, and Life from and Sabellians agreed, vid. infr. Orat. Life, and Good from Good; so from iv. init. also p. 336, note b. and supr. Eternal Eternal. Nyss. contr. Eunom. p. 41, note e. p. 311, note k. also Sent. i p. 164. App. D. 25. Ep. Mg. 14 fin. Epiph. Hsr. i troXXo) Xiyo,, vid. supr. p. 26, note 72. p. 835. b. z 2 332 Arius and Asterius thought God's wisdom an attribute. Disc. He who is really Son is but notionally ' called Word', as vine, and way, and door, and tree of life; and that He is called 1 xaT ixitolat Wisdom also only in name, the proper and true Wisdom of 2 Ayi«»ij-the Father, which coexist ingenerately2 with Him, being other Eusebd t*lan ^le ^on' ky which He even made the Son, and named Eccl. Him Wisdom as partaking of it. i06e.°d.P 10- This they have not confined to words, but Arius has said in his Thalia, and the Sophist Asterius has written, what we have stated above, as follows : " Blessed Paul said not that he preached Christ, the Power of God or the Wisdom of God, l Cor. but without the addition of the article, God's power and ' ' God's wisdom, thus preaching that the proper Power of God 3 ipipvTot Himself which is natural3 to Him, and co-existent in Him ingenerately, is something besides, generative indeed of Christ, and creative of the whole world, concerning which Eom. i,he teaches in his Epistle to the Romans thus, — The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead. For as no one would say that the Godhead there mentioned was Christ, but the Father Himself, so, as I think, His eternal Power and Godhead also is not the Only Begotten Son, but the Father who begat 4 p. 196, Him*. And he teaches that there is another power and wisdom of God, manifested through Christ." And shortly after the same Asterius says, " However His eternal power 5 p. 328, and wisdom, which truth argues5 to be unoriginate and ingenerate, the same must surely be one. For there are many wisdoms which are one by one created by Him, of whom Christ is the first-born and only-begotten; all how ever equally depend on their Possessor. And all tbe powers are rightly called His who created and uses them: — as the Prophet says that the locust, which came to be a divine punishment of human sins, was called by God Himself not only a power, but a great power; and blessed David in most of the Psalms invites, not the Angels alone, but the Powers to praise God." §.38. 11. Now are they not worthy of all hatred for merely uttering this ? for if, as they hold, He is Son, not because He is begotten « that is, they allowed Him to be but " notionally Word." vid. p. 307, "really Son," and argued that He was d. Son and Word not names taken from the creatures. 333 of the Father and proper to His Substance, but that He is called Word only because of things rational1, and Wisdom because of things gifted with wisdom, and Power because of things gifted with power, surely He must be named a Son because of those who are made sons: and perhaps because there are things existing, He has the gift of existence', that is, in our notions only \ And then after all what is He ? for He is none of these Himself, if they are but Flis names2: and He has but a semblance of being, and is decorated with these names from us. Rather this is some recklessness3 of the devil4, or worse, if they are not unwilling that they should truly subsist themselves, but think that God's Word is but in name. Is not this portentous, to say that Wisdom co-exists with the Father, yet not to say that this is the Christ, but that there are many created powers and wisdoms, of which one is the Lord whom they go on to compare to the caterpillar and locust? and are they not profligate, who, when they hear us Chap. XVIII. * Xoyixa, vid. Ep. Mg. 13 fin. 2 p. 307, note d. atrovoiet in con trast to itrivoia.4 p. 9, note s. ' Of course this line of thought con sistently followed, leads to a kind of Pantheism; for what is the Supreme Being, according to it, but an ideal standard of perfection , the sum total of all that we see excellent in the world in the highest degree, a creation of our minds, without real objective existence ? The true view of our Lord's titles, on the other hand, is that He is That properly and in perfection, of which in measure and degree the creatures partake from and in Him. Vid. supr. p. 29, note k. u xar iir'miav, in idea or notion. This is a phrase of very frequent occur rence, both in Athan. and other writers. We have found it already just above, and p. 96, notee. p. 193. r. 1. also Orat. iv.2,3.deSent.D.2.Ep./Eg.l2,13, 14. It denotes our idea or conception of a thing in contrast to the thing itself. Thus, the sun is to a, savage a bright circle in the sky; a man is a " rational animal," according to a certain process of abstraction ; a herb may be medicine upon one division, food in another ; virtue may be called a mean ; and faith is to one man an argumentative conclusion, to another a moral peculiarity, good or bad. In like manner, the Almighty is in reality most simple and uncompounded, without parts, passions, attributes, or properties; yet we speak of Him as good or holy, or as angry or pleased, denoting some particular aspect in which our infirmity views, in which also it can view, what is infinite and incomprehensible. That is, He is xar iriMianholy ormerciful,being in reality a Unity which is all mercifulness and also all holiness, not in the way of qualities but as one indivisible perfection ; which is too great for us to conceive as It is. And for the very reason that we cannot conceive It simply, we are bound to use thankfully these conceptions, which are our best possible ; since some concep tions, however imperfect,are better than none. They stand for realities which they do not reach, and must be ac cepted for what they do not adequately represent. But when the mind comes to recognise this existing inadequacy, and to distrust itself, it is tempted to rush into the opposite extreme, and to conclude that because it cannot under stand fully, it does not realize any thing, or that its itrivoiai are but IvopaTa. Hence some writers have at least seemed to say that the Divine Being was but called just, good, and true, (vid. Davison's protest in Note at end of Discourses on Prophecy,) aud in like manner the Arians said that our Lord was but called the Son and the Word, not properly, but from some kind of analogy, as being the archetype and representative of all those who are adopted into God's family and gifted with wisdom. 334 If attribute Wisdom really in God, He is of a compound nature. Disc, say that the Word co-exists with the Father, forthwith murmur ""* " Are you not speaking of two Ingenerates ?" yet in speaking themselves of " His Ingenerate Wisdom," do not see that they have already incurred themselves the charge which they so rashly urge against us1? Moreover, what folly is there in that thought of theirs, that the Ingenerate Wisdom co-existing with God is God Himself! for what co-exists does not co-exist with itself, but with some one else, as the Evangelists say of the Lord, that He was together with His disciples; for He was not together with Himself, but with His disciples; — unless indeed they would say that God is of a compound nature, having wisdom a constituent or comple ment of His Substance, ingenerate as well as HimselF, which moreover they pretend to be the framer of the world, that so they may deprive the Son of the framing of it. For there is nothing they would not maintain, sooner than hold true doctrine concerning the Lord. §. 39. 12. For where at all have they found in divine Scripture, or init'40 'fr°m whom have they heard, that there is another Word and another Wisdom besides this Son, that they should frame to themselves such a doctrine? True, indeed, it is written, Jer. 23, Are not My words like fire, and like a hammer that breaketh Prov. l the rock in pieces ? and in the Proverbs, / will make known 23- My words unto you; but these are precepts and commands, which God has spoken to the sacred writers through His proper Ps. 119, and only true Word, concerning which the Psalmist said, / have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I may keep * The Anomcean in Max. Dial. i. a. They do in no sense share divinity be- urges against the Catholic that, if the tween Them ; Each is oXis ©i«. This is Son exists in the Father, God is com- not ditheism or tritheism, for They are pound. Athan. here retorts that As- thesameGod; norisit Sabellianism, for terius speaks of Wisdom as a really They are eternally distinct and sub- existing thing in the Divine Mind. Vid. stantive Persons ; but it is a depth and next note. height beyond our intellect, how what r On this subject vid. Orat. iv. n. 2. is Two in so full a sense can also in so Nothing is more remarkable than the full a sense be One, or how the Divine confident tone in which Atban. accuses Nature does not come under number. Arians as here, and Sabellians in Orat. vid. notes on Orat. iii. 27 and 36. iv. 2. of considering the Divine Nature Thus, " being uncompounded in na- as compound, as if the Catholics were in ture," says Athan. " He is Father of no respect open to such a charge. Nor One Only Son." supr. p. 19. In truth are they ; though in avoiding it, they the distinction into Persons, as Pe- are led to enunciate the most profound tavius remarks, " avails especially to- and ineffable mystery. Vid. supr. p. 326, wards the unity and simplicity of God." note g. The Father is the One Simple vid. de Deo ii. 4, 8. Entire Divine Being, and so is the Son ; Scripture knows but one Word and Son. 335 Thy words. Such words accordingly the Saviour signifies to Chap. be distinct from Himself, when He says in His own person, 2SXHi The words which I have spoken unto you. For certainly such words are not offsprings or sons, nor are there so many words that frame the world, nor so many images of the One God, nor so many who have become men for us, nor as if from many such there were one who has become- flesh, as John says; but as being the only Word of God are those good tidings spoken of Him by John, The Word was made John i, flesh, and all things were made by Him. ^'# 3 13. Wherefore of Him alone, our Lord Jesus Christ, and of His oneness with the Father, are written and set forth the testimonies, both of the Father signifying that the Son is One, and of the sacred writers, aware of this and saying that the Word is One, and that He is Only-Begotten. And His works also are set forth; for all things, visible and invisible, have been brought to be through Him, and withoutSoha i, Him was made not one thing'. But concerning another * or any one else they have not a thought, nor frame to them selves words or wisdoms, of which neither name nor deed are signified by Scripture, but are named by these only. For it is their invention and Christ-opposing surmise1, and they ' i^'""x> wrest the true sense* of the name of the Word and the333,r!3. z Vid. (in addition to what is said Roman Missal. The verse is made to supr. p. 208, note a.) Simon. Hist. Crit. end after "in Him," (thus, ova" h S Comment, pp. 7, 32, 52. Lampe in loc. yiyovst iv avTif) by Epiph. Ancor. 75. Joann. Fabric, in Apocryph. N. T. 1. 1. Hil. in Psalm 148, 4. Ambros.de Fid. p. 384. Petav. de Trin. ii. 6. §. 6. Ed. iii. 6. Nyssen in Eunom. i. p. 84. app. Ben. in Ambros. de Fid. iii. 6. Wet- which favours the Arians. The coun- stein in loc. Wolf. Cur. Phil, in loc. terpart of the ancient reading, which The verse was not ended as we at is very awkward, (" What was made present read it, especially in the East, in Him was life,") is found in August. till the time of S. Chrysostom, accord- loc. cit. and Ambrose in Psalm 36, 35. ing to Simon, vid. in Joann. Hom. v. but he also notices " What was made, init. though as we have seen supra, S. was in Him." de Fid. loc. cit. It is Epiphanius had spoken strongly against remarkable that St. Ambrose attributes the ancient reading. S. Ambrose loc. the present punctuation to the Alex- cit. refers it to the Arians, Lampe refers andrians in loc. Psalm, in spite of it to the Valentinians on the strength Athan.'s and Alexander's,(Theod. Hist. of Iren. Haer. i. 8. n. 5. Theophilus in i.3. p. 733.) nay Cyril's (in loc. Joann.) loc. (if tbe Comment on tbe Gospels is adoption of the ancient. his) understands by obth "an idol," a xaTaXtmTai. vid^supr. p. 10. note referring to 1 Cor. viii. 4. Augustine, s. and so xaraxgwrrixZi , Cyril. Cat.xi. even at so late a date, adopts the old 4. Epiph. Haer. 69, p. 743. 71, p. 831. reading, vid. de Gen. ad lit. v. 29— 31. Euseb. contr. Marc. p. 40. Concii. It was the reading of the Vulgate, even Labb. t. 2. p. 67. and abusive, ibid. at the time it was ruled by the Council p. 210. of Trent to be authentic, and of the 336 Inconsistency of Asterius. Disc. Wisdom, and framing to themselves others, they deny the H' true Word of God, and the real and only Wisdom of the Father, and thereby, miserable men, rival the Manichees. For they too, when they behold the works of God, deny Him the only and true God, and frame to themselves another, whom they can shew neither by work, nor in any §. 40. testimony drawn from the divine oracles. Therefore, if neither in the divine oracles is found another wisdom besides " P- 12> this Son, nor from the fathers' have we heard of any such, note y. . yet they have confessed and written of the Wisdom co-exist ing with the Father ingenerately, proper to Him, and the Framer of the world, this must be the Son who even according to them is eternally co-existent with the Father. For He is Ps. 104, Framer of all, as it is written, In Wisdom hast Thou made 24. them all. 14. Nay, Asterius himself, as if forgetting what he wrote vid. before, afterwards, in Caiaphas's fashion, involuntarily, when J5. 'urging the Greeks, instead of naming many wisdoms, or the caterpillar, confesses but one,in these words ; — "God the Word is one, but many are the things rational; and one is the sub stance and nature of Wisdom, but many are the things wise and beautiful." And soon afterwards he says again : — " Who are 2 orxfias they whom they honour with the title of God's children2? for they will not say that they too are words, nor maintain that there are many wisdoms. For it is not possible, whereas the Word is one, and Wisdom has been set forth as one, to dispense to the multitude of children the Substance of the Word, and to bestow on them the appellation of Wisdom." It is not then at all wonderful, that the Arians should battle with the truth, when they have collisions with their own principles and conflict with each other, at one time saying that there are many wisdoms, at another maintaining one; at one time classing wisdom with the caterpillar, at another saying that it co-exists with the Father and is proper to Him; now that the Father alone is ingenerate, and then again that His Wisdom and His Power are ingenerate also. And they battle with us for saying that the Word of God is ever, yet forget their own doctrines, and say themselves that Wisdom co-exists *££,',' With God ingenerately ". So dizzied2 are they in all these 49^\L^™rM!&--P'taZn™'m Son »«• create»- state> as I think and believe, that the Son is named with 61a, p. the Father, not as if the Father were not all-sufficient, 293 r 2. . ' ' 'not without meaning, and by accident; but, since He is God's Word and proper Wisdom, and being His Radiance, is ever with the Father, therefore it is impossible, if the Father bestows grace, that He should not give it in the Son, for the Son is in the Father as the radiance in the light. For, not as if in need, but as a Father in His own Wisdom hath God founded the earth, and made all things in the Word which is from Him, and in the Son confirms the Holy Laver. For where the Father is, there is the Son, and where the light, there the radiance ; and as what the Father * vid. worketh, He worketh through the Son*, and the Lord Himself 00rat.iii. says, " What I see the Father do, that do I also;" so also 1_15. when baptism is given, whom the Father baptizes, him the 11 and Son baptizes ; and whom the Son baptizes, he is consecrated * Orat *n *^e -^oly Ghost3. And again as when the sun shines, one Hi. 15. might say that the radiance illuminates, for the light is one no e- and indivisible, nor can be detached, so where the Father is or is named, there plainly is the Son also; and is the Father named in Baptism? then must the Son be named with Himd. §. 42. Therefore, when He made His promise to the sacred writers6, p. 3-25, r. 1. d Vid. supr. p. 326, note g. and notes in " Father" is implied " Son," i.e. on iii. 3 — 6. " When the Father is argumentatively as a correlative, vid. mentioned, His Word is with Him, p. 33. note r. The latter accordingly and the Spirit who is in the Son. And Eusebius does not scruple to admit in if the Son be named, in the Son is the Sabell. i. ap. Sirm. t. i. p. 8, a. " Pater Father, and the Spirit is not external statim, ut dictus fuit pater, reqiiirit to the Word." ad Serap. i. 14. and ista vox filium, must be contemplated together with its own light. 17. Whence the Jews, as denying the Son aswell as they,have not the Father either ; for, as having left the Fountain of Bar. 3, Wisdom, as Baruch reproaches them1, they put from them the 1 p' 20 Wisdom springing from it, our Lord Jesus Christ, (for Christ,20?- says the Apostle, is God's power and God's wisdom,) when 24. ' ' they said, We have no king but Ccesar. The Jews then have Jobni9, the penal award of their denial; for their city as well as their reasoning came to nought. And these too hazard the fulness of the mystery, I mean Baptism; for if the conse cration2 is given to us into the Name of Father and Son, and 2 nxtla- they do not confess a true Father, because they deny what is tiation" from Him and like His Substance, and deny also the true Son, and name another of their own framing as created out of nothing, is not the rite administered by them alto gether empty and unprofitable, making a show, but in reality being no help towards religion ? For the Arians do not baptize into Father and Son, but into Creator and creature, and into Maker and work3. And as a creature is other than3pp- 56, the Son, so the Baptism, which is supposed4 to be given by 4,,^. them, is other than the truth, though they pretend to name£»jMo- the Name of the Father and the Son, because ofthe words p. 193' of Scripture. For not he who simply says, " O Lord," gives ^°t ... Baptism; but he who with the Name has also the right 57.twice faith". On this account therefore our Saviour also did not simply command to baptize, but first says, Teach ; and then "Baptize into the Name of Father, and Son,and Holy Ghost;" that the right faith might follow upon learning, and together with faith might come the consecration2 of Baptism. • The prima facie sense of this p. 227. Voss. de Bapt. Disp. 19 and passage if certainly unfavourable to 20. Forbes Instruct. Theol x. 2 3, and the validity of heretical baptism ; vid. 12. Hookers Eccl. Pol. v. 62. j 5-11 ttt subje/t considered at length in ?n A„aa Baptism ,n par .cular v,d. 340 Heretical baptism may be said to pollute. Disc. 18. There are many other heresies too, which use the words ¦ only, but without orthodoxy, as I have said, nor the sound II. f \ faith1, and in consequence the water which they administer byiamb- is unprofitable, as deficient in a religious meaning, so Hist, that he who is sprinkled2 by them is rather polluted' by Treat, irreligion than redeemed. So Gentiles also, though the note t.' name of God is on their lips, incur the charge of Atheism6, * pavn- Decause they know not the real and very God, the Father of Bingh. our Lord Jesus Christ. So Manichees and Phrygians3, and xhiL ^e disciples of Samosatene, though using the Names, never- §• 5- theless are heretics, and the Arians follow in the same course, 3Monta- nists though they read the words of Scripture, and use the Names, yet they too mock those who receive the rite from them, being more irreligious than the other heresies, and advancing beyond them, and making them seem innocent by their own recklessness of speech. For these other heresies lie against the truth in some certain respect, either erring con cerning the Lord's Body, as if He did not take flesh of Mary, or as if He altogether did not die, or become man, but only appeared, and was not truly, and seemed to have a body when He had not, and seemed to have the shape of man, as visions in a dream; but the Arians are without disguise irreligious against the Father Himself. For hearing from the 4 trip- Scriptures that His Godhead is represented in the Son as in p£?328' an imaSe5 they blaspheme, saying, that it is a creature, and notek. everywhere concerning that Image, they carry about 4 with ho', p." them the base word5, " He was not," as mud in a wallet6, and 296, r. 4. instead. t- f f S. Cyprian speaks of those who lincss." vid. Suicer Thes. in voc. It . P prophana aqua polluuntur, Ep. 76 fin. was a popular imputation upon Chris- (ed. Ben.) and of the haereticorum tians, as it had been before on philo- sordida tinctio, Ep. 71 cir. init, S. sophers and poets, some of whom better Optatus speaks of tbe " various and deserved it. On the word as a term of false baptisms, in which the stained reproach vid. Voet. Disput. 9. t. 1. cannot wash a man, the filthy cannot pp. 115, 3- s- Epiphanius, Haer. 69, 25. 14, 19. 22. Such too is the sense and s- Jerome in Isai. 26, 13. Vid. given in the Chaldee, Syriac, and Petav. Trin. ii. 1. Huet. Origenian. ii. Arabic versions, and by the great ma- 2- 23- c.- B- Michael, in loc. Prov. jority of primitive writers. On the other b This passage of Athan. has been hand, Aquila translates Un«n, and use^ by S. Cyril Thesaur. p. 155, d. so read Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 20. fin. vid. also Epiph. Haer. 69, 21. Basil. Nyssen contr. Eunom. i. p. 34. Jerome e°ntr. Eunom. ii. 20. Didym. de Trin. in Is. 26, 13. and the Vulgate translates ui- 3- P- 334, (ed. 1769.) Nyss. contr. possedit. niB is translated "gotten," ?Bun°m- P" 83-,-fpp. 'id. infr. 73 and Gen. 4, 1. after the Sept. and Vulg. 77' °.ut l4 would be an endless labour in the sense of generation, vid. also , ref?f *° such Parallel passages in later Fathers. Proverbs are not to be taken literally. 343 John, saying, These things have I spoken unto you in Chap. proverbs, but the time cometh when I shall no more Veak XIX" unto you m proverbs, but openly. Therefore it is necessary^"16' to unfold the sense0 of what is said, and to seek it as something hidden, and not nakedly to expound as if the meaning were spoken plainly, lest by a false interpretation we wander from the truth. 2. If then what is written be about Angel, or any other of things generate, as concerning one of us who are works, let it be said, creetted Me. But if it be the Wisdom of God, Prov. 8, in whom all things generate have been framed, that speaks22- concerning Itself, what ought we to understand but that He created, means nothing contrary to " He begat?" Nor, as forgetting that He was Creator and Framer, or ignorant of the difference between the Creator and the creatures, does It number Itself among the creatures; but It signifies a certain sense, as in proverbs, not plainly, but latent; which It inspired the sacred writers to use in prophecy, while soon after It doth Itself give the meaning of He created in other vid. but parallel expressions, saying, Wisdom hath made Herself™?™^ a house. Now it is plain that our body is Wisdom's house"1, !• which It took on Itself to become man; hence consistently does John say, The Word was made flesh ; and by Solomon John 1 , Wisdom says of Itself with cautious exactness1, not "Ii'p.298, am a creature," but only The Lord hath created Me a note a. beginning of His ways for His works% yet not " created Me22'.°V' ' that I might have being," nor " because I have a creature's beginning and generation." 3. For in this passage, not as signifying the Substance of His §• 45. " Here, as in so many other places, caro fieret. Leon. Ep. 31, 2. Didym. he is explaining what is obscure or deTrin.iii.3.p.337.(ed.l769.)August. latent in Scripture by means of the Civ. D. xvii. 20. Cyril in Joann. p. 384, Kegula Fidei. "Since the canon of 5. Max. Dial. iii. p. 1029. (ap. Theodor. Scripture is perfect," says Vincentius, ed. Schutz.) vid. supr. p. 196, note d. " and more than sufficient for itself in Hence S. Clement. Alex. 0 Xiyos iavrov all respects, what need of joining to it ytttZ. Strom, v. 3. the ecclesiastical sense ? because from ° The passage is in like manner in- the very depth of Holy Scripture all terpreted of our Lord's human nature men will not take it in one and the by Epiph. Haer. 69, 20 — 25. Basil. same sense, &c. Commonit. 2. Vid. Ep. viii. 8. Naz. Orat. 30, 2. Nyss. especially the first sentence of the fol- contr. Eunom. i. p. 34. et al. Cyril. lowing paragraph, tI hi toiTt x t X. Thesaur. p. 154. Hilar, de Trin. xii. vid. supr. p. 341, note i. 36 — 49. Ambros. deFid.i.15. August. d ut intra intemerata viscera aedifi- de Fid. et Symb. 6. cante sibi Sapientia domum, Verbum 344 " He created Me" not the same as" I was created." yvrls-iav Disc. Godhead, nor His own everlasting and genuine1 generation 2 ' " . from the Father, has the Word spoken by Solomon, but on the other hand His manhood and economy towards us. And, as I said before, He has not said " I am a creature," or " I became a creature," but only He created !. For the creatures, having a created substance, are generate, and are said to be created, and in short the creature is created: but this mere term He created does not necessarily signify the substance or the generation, but indicates something else as f He seems here to say that it is both true that " The Lord created," and yet that the Son was not created. Creatures alone are created, and He was not a creature. Rather something belonging or relating to Him, some thing short of His substance or nature, was created. However, it is a question in controversy whether even His Man hood can be called a creature, though many of the Fathers, (including Athan. in several places,) seem so to call it. The difficulty may be viewed thus ; that our Lord, even in His human nature is the natural, not tbe adopted, Son of God, (to deny which is the error of the Adoptionists,) whereas no creature can be His natural and true Son ; and again that His human nature is worshipped, which would be idolatry, if it were a creature. The question is discussed in Petav. de Incarn. vii. 6. who determines that the human nature, though in itself a created substance, yet viewed as deified in the Word, does not in fact exist as a creature. Vasquez, how ever, considers that our Lord may be called creature, viewed as man, in 3 Thom. Disp. 66. and Baynaud Opp. t. 2. p. 84. expressing his opinion strongly. And Berti de Theol. Disc, xxvii. 5. who adds, however, with Suarez after S. Thomas (in 3 Thom. Disput. 34. Opp. 1. 16. p. 489.) that it is better to abstain from the use of the term. Of the Fathers, S. Jerome notices the doubt, and decides it in favour of the term ; "Since," he says, ""Wisdom in the Proverbs of Solomon speaks of Herself as created a beginning of the ways of God, and many through fear lest they should be obliged to call Christ a creature, deny the whole mystery of Christ, and say that not Christ, but the world's wisdom is meant by this Wisdom, we freely declare, that there is no hazard in calling Him creature, whom we confess with all the confidence of our hope to be " worm," and " man," and " crucified," and " curse." In Eph. ii. 10. He is supported by Athan. infr. 46. Ep. Mg. 17. Expos. F. 3. ad Serap. ii. 8. fin. Naz. Orat. 30, 2. fin. 38, 13. Nyss. in Cant. Hom. 13. t. i. p. 663. init. Cyr. Hom. Pasch. 17, p. 233. Max. Mart. t. 2. p. 265. Damasc. F. 0. iii. 3. Hil. de Trin. xii. 48. Ambros. Psalm. 118. Serm. 5. 25. August. Ep. 187, u. 8. Leon. Serm. 77, 2. Greg. Mor. v. 63. The principal authority on the other side is S. Epiphanius, who ends his argument with the words, " The Holy Church of God worships not a creature, but the Son who is begotten, Father in Son, &c." Ha*. 69, 36. And S. Proclus too speaks of the child of the Virgin as being " Him who is worshipped, not the creature," Orat. v. fin. On the whole it would appear, (1.) that if " creature," like " Son," be a. personal term, He is not a creature j but if it be a word of nature, He is a creature; (2.) that our Lord is a creature in respect to the flesh (vid. infr. 47.); (3.) that since the flesh is infinitely beneath His divinity, it is neither natural nor safe to call Him a creature, (according to St. Thomas's example, "non di cimus, quod jEthiops est albus, sed quod est albus secundum dentes") and (4.) that, if the flesh is worshipped, still itis worshipped as in the Person of the Son, not by a separate act of worship. " A creature worship not we," says Athan. " perish the thought . . . but tbe Lord of creation made flesh, the Word of God ; for though the flesh in itself be a part of creation, yet it has become God's body . . . who so senseless as to say to the Lord, Remove out of the body, that I may worship Thee?" ad Adelph. 3. Epiph. has imitated this passage, Ancor. 51. introducing the illustration of u king and his robe, &c. Only the creatures can be said to be created. 345 coming to pass in Him' of whom it speaks, and not simply Chap. that He who is said to be created, is at once in His Nature rXIX 1 vrt£i and Substance a creature'. And this difference divine J,'UM„ Scripture recognises, saying concerning the creatures, The Ps. 104, earth is full of Thy creation, and the creation itself groan eth^^s together and travailelh together; and in the Apocalypse he 22- says, And the third part of the creatures in the sea died r.ev. 8, which had life; as also Paul says, Every creature of God «'*iTim.4 good, and nothing is to be refused if it be received with4- thanksgiving ; and in the book of Wisdom it is written, Having ordained man through Thy wisdom, that he shoidd^^-9, have dominion over the creatures which Thou hast made. And these, being creatures, are also said to be created, as we may further hear from our Lord, who says, He who createdMzt.19, them, made them male and female; and from Moses in his^°Tt* Song, who writes, Ask now of the days that are past, which Deut. 4, were before thee since the day that God created man upon32' the earth, and from the one side of heaven unto the other. 2 to Xtyopetot xrlZ,iuSat - 2 trivot of the Word; as in Orat. i. 41. obo-ia and ii atfyatroTtis; and ipbo-is and o-agi-, iii. 34. init. and Xoyos and «bj|, 38. init. And He speaks of the Son " taking on Him the economy," infr. 76, d. and of tbe vviorao-ls Tov Xoyov being One with o avfyutrts, iv. 25, c. It is observedp. 291, note k. how this line of teaching might be wrested to the purposes of the Apolli- narian and Eutychian heresies; and, considering Athan.'s most emphatic protests against their errors in his later works, as well as his strong statements in Orat. iii. there is no hazard in this admission. We thus understand how Eutyches came to deny the " two natures." He said that such a doc trine was a new one ; this is not true, for, not to mention other Fathers, Athan. infr. Orat. iv. fin. speaks of our Lord's "invisible nature and visible," (vid. also contr. Apoll. ii. 11, a. infr. 70. iii. 43, c.) and his ordinary use of &t- fyaivos for tbe manhood might quite as plausibly be perverted on the other hand into a defence of Nestorianism ; but still the above peculiarities in his style may be taken to account for the heresy, though they do not excuse the heretic. Vid. also the Ed. Ben. on S. Hilary, praef. p. xliii. who uses natura absolutely for our Lord's Divinity, as contrasted to the dispensatio, and divides His titles into naturalia and assumpta. 346 The word " created" is used in Scripture for renovation. Disc. And Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians, Who is the Image II- of the Invisible God, the First bom of every creature, for in 15—17. Him. were all tilings created that are in heaven, and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created through Him, and for Him, and He is before all. §. 46. 4. That to be called creatures, then, and to be created belongs to things which have by nature a created substance, these passages are sufficient to remind us, though Scripture is full of the like ; on the other hand that the single word He created 1 yi»«> does not simply denote the substance and mode of generation ', Ps. 102, David shews in the Psalm, This shall be written for another generation, and the people that is created shall praise the Ps. 51, Lord; and again, Create in me a clean heart, 0 God; and Eph. 2, Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians says, Having abolished 15, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, for to create in Himself of tuo one new man; and again, Eph. 4, pui ye on the new man, which after God is created in 2 vid. righteousness and true holiness2. For neither David spoke of £yr- any people created in substance, nor prayed to have another p. 156. heart than that he had, but meant renovation according to God and renewal ; nor did Paul signify any two created in substance in the Lord, nor again did he counsel us to put on any other man; but he called the life according to virtue the man after God, and by the created in Christ he meant the two people who are renewed in Him. Such too is the Jer. 31, langUage 0f the book of Jeremiah; The Lord hath created a new salvation for a plantation, in which salvation men shall walk to and froh; and in thus speaking, he does not mean any substance of a creature, but prophesies of the 3 yivepi- renewal of salvation among men, which has taken place3 in p. 268. Christ for us. tW347 **' ^uch ^en fce'ng the difference between "the creatures" r. l. and the single word He created, if you find any where in r.' f.53' divine Scripture the Lord called " creature," produce it and make the most of it; but if it is no where written that He is h vid. also Expos. F. 3. where he woman shall compass a man," is with notices that this is tbe version of the tbe Hebrew, as is the Vulgate. Athan. feeptuagint, Aquila's being " The Lord has preserved Aquila's version in three hath created a new thin? in the woman." other places, in Psalm xxx. 12. lix. 5. Uur own a. new thing in the earth, a lxv. 18. ytvofAt- Our Lord was created only so far as He was man. 347 a creature, only He Himself says about Himself in the Chav. Proverbs, The Lord hath, created Me, shame upon you both on XIX' the ground ofthe distinction aforesaid and for that the diction is like that of proverbs; and accordingly let He created be under stood, not of His being a creature, but of that human nature which became1 His, for to this belongs creation. Indeed is ' it not evidently unfair in you, when David and Paul say He J,"^. created, then indeed not to understand it of the substance and 3. the generation, but the renewal ; yet, when the Lord says He created, to number His substance with the creatures? and again when Scripture says, Wisdom hath built her an house, Prov. 9, she hath hewn out her seven, pillars, to understand house1' allegorically, but to take He created as it stands, and to fasten on it the idea of creature? and neither His being Framer of all has had any weight with you, nor have you feared His being the sole and proper Offspring of the Father, but recklessly, as if you had enlisted against Him, do ye fight, and think less of Him than of men. 6. For the very passage proves that it is only an invention of §. 47. your own to call the Lord creature. For the Lord, knowing His own Substance to be the Only-begotten Wisdom and Offspring of the Father, and other than things generate and natural creatures, says in love to man, The Lord hath created Me a beginning of His ways, as if to say, " My Father hath prepared for Me a body, and has created Me for men in behalf of their salvation." For, as when John says, The Word John 1, was made flesh, we do not conceive the whole Word Himself to be flesh2, but to have put on flesh and become man, and on 3 p- 295, hearing, Christ hath become a curse for us, and He hath Qa\w 3 made Him sin for us alio knew no sin, we do not simply I3- conceive this, that whole Christ has become curse and sin, 5, 21.' but that He has taken on Him the curse which lay against us, (as the Apostle has said, Has redeemed us from the curse, Gal. 3, and has carried, as Esaias has said, our sins, and as Peter ^3 4> has written, has borne them in the body on the wood;) so, if it 1 Pet. is said in the Proverbs He created, we must not conceive ' that the whole Word is in nature a creature, but that He put on the created body1 and that God created Him for our 1 Here he says that, though our as to the flesh, it is not right to call Lord's flesh is created or He is created Him a. creature. This is very much 2 A o 348 He was a creature, as He was a " beginning of ways." Disc, sakes, preparing for Him the created body, as it is written, for — Hl_ USj that in Him we might be capable of being renewed and 1 hotroin- made gods1. 7. What then has deceived you, 0 senseless, to call the Creator a creature ? or whence did you purchase for you this ¦^ropTib-new thought, to make a boast of2 ? For the Proverbs say He m, mir. crea/e(i} i-,^ t]iey ca]] not lne Son creature, but Offspring ; and, according to the distinction in Scripture aforesaid of He created and " creature," they acknowledge, what is by nature proper to the Son, that He is the Only-begotten Wisdom and Framer of the creatures, and when they say He created, they say it not in respect of His Substance, but signify that He was becoming a beginning of many ways; so that He created is in contrast to Offspring, and His being called the Beginning of rrays^ to His being the Only-begotten Word. §.48. For if He is Offspring, how call ye Him creature? for no one says that He begets what Fie creates, nor calls His proper offspring creatures ; and again, if He is Only-begotten, how becomes He beginning ef the ways? for of necessity, if He was created a beginning of all things, He is no longer alone, as having those who were made after Him. 3 izxri 8. For Reuben, when he became a beginning3 of the children, Gen49 wasnot only -begotten, but in time indeed first,but in nature and 3. Sept. relationship one among those who came after him. Therefore if the Word also isa beginning of the ways, He must be such as the ways are, and the ways must be such as the Word, though ' hx* in point of time He be created first of them. For the beginning4 what S. Thomas says, as referred to in bald." Since crispus, or bald, can but p. 344, note f. in the words of the refer to the hair. Still more does this Schools, that iEthiops, albus secundum remark apply in the case of" Sonship," dentes, not est albus. Hut why may which is a personal attribute altogether; not our Lord be so called upon the as is proved, says Petav.de Incarn. vii. principle of the communicatio Idio- 6 fin. by the instance of Adam, who was matum, (infra note on iii. 31.) as He is in all respects a man like Seth, yet not said to be, born of a Virgin, to have a son. Accordingly, we may not call suffered, &c. ? The reason is this :¦ — our Lord, even according to the man- birth, passion, &c. confessedly belong hood, an adopted Son. to His human nature, without adding '¦ i^xht ?W and so in Justin's " according to the flesh;'' bufcreature" Tryph. 61. The Bened. Ed. in loc. notimplyingbumanity, might appear a refers to a similar application of the simple attribute of His Person, if used word to our Lord in Tatian contr. Gent. without limitation. Thus, as S.Thomas 5. Athenag. Ap. 10. Iren. Haer. iv. 20. adds, though we may not absolutely n. 3. Orisen. in Joan.' torn. 1. 39. say iEthiops iste albus, we may say Tertull. adV. Prax. 6. andAmbros.de crispus est," or in like manner, " he is Fid. iii. 7. Yet even a " beginning of ways" must be more than a creature. 349 or initiative of a city is such as the other parts of the city Chap. are, and the members too being joined to it, make the city -XIX' whole and one, as the many members of one body; nor does one part of it make, and another come to be, and is subject to the former, but all the city equally has its govern ment and constitution from its maker. If then the Lord is in such sense created as a beginning of all things, it would follow that He and all other things together make up the unity of the creation, and He neither differs from all others, though He become the beginning of all, nor is He Lord of them, though older in point of time; but He has the same manner of framing and the same Lord as the rest. 9. Nay, if He be a creature, as you hold, how can He be created sole and first at all, so as to be beginning of all ? when it is plain from what has been said, that among the creatures not any is of a constant1 nature and of prior formation, but'w»»«, each has its generation with all the rest, however it may excel D'ote p. others in glory. For as to the separate stars or the great lights, not this appeared first, and that second, but in one day and by the same command, they were all called into being a. And such was the generation of the quadrupeds, and 2pp.263, of birds, and fishes, and cattle, and plants; such too was that ofthe human race after God's Image; for though Adam only was formed out of the earth, yet in him were the means of the succession of the whole race. And from the visible §. 49. creation, we clearly discern that His invisible things also, being understood by the things that are made, are not Rom. l, independent of each other; for it was not first one and then another, but all at once were constituted after their kind. For the Apostle did not number individually, so as to say " whether Angel, or Throne, or Dominion, or Authority," but he mentions together all according to their kind, whether ^Col. Angels, or Archangels, or Principalities: for in this way is the generation of the creatures. If then, as I have said, the Word were creature, He must have been brought into being, not first of them, but with all the other Powers, though in glory He excel the rest ever so much. For so we find it to be in their case, that at once they came to be, with neither first nor second, and they differ from each other in glory, some on the right ofthe throne, some all around, and some on the 350 He could not be "beginning" at all, if not more than "beginning? Disc, left, but one and all praising and standing in service before -the Lord1. •pp.267, 318. 10. Therefore if the Word be creature, He would not be first or beginning of the rest; yet if He be before all, as indeed He is, and is Himself alone First and Son, it does not follow that He is beginning of all things as to His Substance1, for what is the beginning of all is in the number of all. And if He is not such a beginning, then neither is He a creature, but it is very plain that He differs in substance and nature from the creatures, and is other than they, and is Likeness and Image of the sole and true God, being Himself sole also. Hence He is not classed with creatures in Scripture, but David rebukes those who dare even to think of Him as such, Ps.89,7- saying, Who among the gods is like unto the Lord? and Who Bar. 3, is like unto the Lord among the sons of God ? and Baruch, This is our God, and another shall not be reckoned with Him. For the One creates, and the rest are created; and the One is the proper Word and Wisdom of the Father's Substance, and through this Word things which came to be, which before §. 50. existed not, were made. Your famous assertion then, that the Son is a creature, is not true, but is your fantasy only ; nay Solomon convicts you of having these many times misin terpreted him. For He has not called Him creature, but vid. God's Offspring and Wisdom, saying, God in Wisdom hath 3 19'. established the earth, and Wisdom hath built her an house. 9; L 11. And the very passage in question proves your irreligious spirit ; for it is written, The Lord created Me a beginning of His nays for His works. Therefore if He is before all things, yet says He created Me (not " that I might make the works," but) for the works, unless He created relates to some thing later than Himself, He will seem later than the works, finding them on His creation already in existence before Him, for the sake of which He is also brought into being. And 1 He says that, though none could be the number of the creatures." Though "a beginning" of creation, who was a He becomes the "beginning," He is creature, yet still that such a title be- not " a beginning as to Ris substance," longs not to His essence. Itisthe name vid. supr. p. 251, note f. And infr. p. 367, of an office which the Eternal Word where he says " He who is before all, alone can fill. His Divine Sonship is cannot be a beginning of alt, but is both superior and necessary to that other than all," which implies that the office of a " Beginning." Hence it is beginning of all is not other than all. both true (as he says) that " if the Word vid. p. 292, note m. on the Priesthood, is a creature, He is not a beginning ;" and p. 303, note e. and yet that that "beginning" is "in " For the Works" and " the Lord" imply thefiesh. 351 if so, how is He before all things notwithstanding? and how Chap. were all things made through Him and consist in Him? XIX- for behold, you say that the works consisted before Him, for which He is created and sent. But it is not so ; perish the thought! false is the supposition of the heretics. For the Word of God is not creature but Creator ; and says in the manner of proverbs, He created Me when He put on created flesh. 12. And something besides may be understood from the passage itself; for, being Son and having God for His Father, for He is His proper Offspring, yet here He names the Father Lord ; not that He was servant, but because He took a servant's form. For it became Him, on the one hand being the Word from the Father, to call God Father: for this is proper to son towards father; on the other, having come to finish the work, and laken a servant's form, to name the Father Lord. And this difference He Himself has taught by an apt distinction, saying in the Gospels, / thank Thee, O Father, Matt. and then, Lord of heaven and earth. For He calls God ' His Father, but of the creatures He names Him Lord ; as shewing clearly from these words, that, when He put on the creature1, then it was He called the Father Lord. For in the l ™ *«- prayer of David the Holy Spirit marks the same distinction, '?';)' e" saying in the Psalms, Give Thy strength unto Thy Child, and v^t- help the Son of Thine handmaid. For the natural and true Ps'. 86, child of God is one, and the sons of the handmaid, that is, of16- the nature of things generate, are other. Wherefore the One, as Son, has the Father's2 might; but the rest are in need of2 ***¦«<- salvation. (But if, because He was called child3, they idly §"51. raise a point, let them know that both Isaac was named ^wv.i.e. Abraham's child, and the son of the Shunamite was called servant young child.) Reasonably then, we being servants, when He became as we, He too calls the Father Lord, as we do; and this He did from love to man, that we too, being servants by nature, and receiving the Spirit of the Son, might have con fidence to call Him by grace Father, who is by nature our Lord. But as we, in calling the Lord Father, do not deny that servitude which is by nature, (for we are His works, and it is He that hath made us, and not we ourselves,) so when ps. 100, the Son, on taking the servant's form, says, The Lord hath*' 352 As we, servants, call God Father ; so He, Son, calls Him Lord. Disc, created Me a beginning of His tvays, let them not deny the eternity of His Godhead, and that in tlie beginning wa* John 1, l. 3. the Word, and all things were made by Him, and in Him J'g1- *' all things icere createel. CHAP. XX. TEXTS EXPLAINED ; SIXTHLY, PJROVERBS viii. 22. CONTINUED. Our Lord is said to he created " for the works," i. e. with a particular purpose, which no mere creatures are ever said to be. Parallel of Isai. 49, 5. &c. When H is manhood is spoken of, a reason for it is added ; not so when His Divine Nature ; Texts in proof. 1. For the passage in the Proverbs, as I have said before, signifies, not the Substance, but the manhood of the Word; for if He says that He was created for the works, He shews His intention of signifying, not His Substance, but the Economy which took place1 for His works, which comes ' yitopi- second to being. For things which are in formation andyY^r.i. creation are made specially that they may be and exist8, and next they have to do, whatever the Word bids them, as may be seen in the case of all things. For Adam was created, not that He might work, but that first he might be man; for it was after this that he received the command to work. And Noe was created, not because of the ark, but that first he might exist and be a man; for after this he received com mandment to prepare the ark. And the like will be found in every case on inquiring into it; — thus the great Moses first was made a man, and next was entrusted with the govern ment of the people. Therefore here too we must suppose the like; for thou seest, that the Word is not created in order to be, but, In the beginning was the Word, and He is afterwards sent/or the works and the economy towards them. For before the works were made, the Son was ever, nor was there yet need that He should be created; but when the works were created and need arose afterwards of the Economy for their restoration, then it was that the Word took upon Himself - He savs in effect, "Before the thesis, supr. p. 272, would require, but) generation of tbe works, they were not; " is from everlasting," vid. p. 363, note but Christ on the contrary," (not, " was a,. before His generation," as Bull's hypo- 354 Men created that they may be; the Son that He may serve. Disc, this condescension1 and assimilation to the works; which He f-^-has shewn us by the word He created. And through the «/«*«" Prophet Esaias willing to signify the like, He says again: And lsai'4f'now thus saith the Lord, who formed Me from the womb to 5. bept. be His servant, lo gather together Jacob unto Him and Israel, I shall be brought together and be glorified before the Lord. §. 52. 2. See here too, He is formed, not that He may have being, but in order to gather together the tribes, which were in existence before He was formed. For as in the former passage stands He created, so in this He formed; and as there for the works, so here to gather together; so that in every point of view it appears that He created and He formed are said after the Word was. For as before His forming the tribes existed, for whose sake He was formed, so does it appear that the works exist, for which He was created. And when in the beginning was ihe Word, not yet were the works, as I have said before; but when the works were made and the need required, then He created was said; and as if some son, when the servants were lost, and in the hands of the enemy by their own carelessness, and need was urgent, were sent by his father to succour and recover them, 3 p. 291. and on setting out were to put over him tbe like dress2 with them, and should fashion himself as they, lest the capturers, recognising himb as the master, should take to flight and prevent his descending to those who were hidden under the earth by them; and then were any one to inquire of him, why he did so, were to make answer, " My Father thus formed and prepared me for his works," while in thus speaking, he neither implies that he is a servant nor one of the works, nor 3 «?*«» speaks of the beginning of His generation3, but of the subse- m>sV"~ °tuerlt charge given him over the works, — in the same way the p. 304, Lord also, having put over Him our flesh, and being found in fashion as a man, if He were questioned by those who saw Him thus and marvelled, would say, The Lord created b Vid. the well-known passage in t. 2. App. p. 598. ed. Ben. and Jerome S. Ignatius, ad Eph. 19, where the in Matt. 1, 18. who quote it. vid. also devil is said to have been ignorant of Leon. Serm. 22, 3. August. Trin. ix. theVirgioityofMary,andtheNativity 21. Clement. Eclog. Proph. p. 1002. and the Death of Christ ; Orig. Hom. ed. Potter. 6. in Luc. Basil (if Basil.) Hom. in He is created for us, that we may be new-created in Him. 355 Me the beginning of His ways for His works, and He formed Chap. Me lo gather together Israel. xx. 3. This again the Spirit foretels in the Psalms, saying, supr. 20. Thou didst set Him over the works if Thine hands; which Heb. 2, elsewhere the Lord signified of Himself, / am set as King £8 2 6 by Him upon His holy hill of Sion. And as, when He Sept.' shone' in the body upon Sion, He had not His beginning of'Mxa,*- existence or of reign, but being God's Word and everlasting tith^' King, He vouchsafed that His kingdom should shine in aHoly human way in Sion, that redeeming them and us from the Serap. i. sin which reigned in them, He might bring them under 20>c" His Father's Kingdom, so, on being set for ihe works, He is not set for things which did not yet exist, but for such as already were and needed restoration. He created then §. 53. and He formed and He set, having the same meaning, do not denote the beginning of His being, or of His substance as created, but His beneficent renovation which came to pass2 for us. Accordingly, though He thus speaks, yet He2 ympi- taught also that He Himself existed before this, when He 353Pr.i said, Before Abraham was made, I am; and when He Johns, prepared the heavens, I was present with Him; and / wasproy s with Him disposing things. And as He Himself was before 27. 30. Abraham was made, and Israel was made after Abraham, and p ' plainly He exists first and is formed afterwards, and His forming signifies not His beginning of being but His taking manhood, wherein also He collects together the tribes of Israel; so, as being always wilh the Father, He Himself is Framer of the creation, and His works are evidently later than Himself, and He created signifies, not His beginning of being, but the economy which took place for the works, which He effected in the flesh. For it became Him, being other than the works, nay rather their Framer, to take upon Himself their renovation3, that, whereas He is created for us, a p. 251, all things may be now created in Him. For when He said ?j£eay6 He created, He forthwith added the reason, naming thes.. works, that His creation for the works might signify His becoming man for their renovation. 4. And this is usual with divine Scripture0; for when it sig- c 'Uos inr) «-J hiu yiaafif and so Orat. ibid. 30, d. iii. 18, b. And ttis y(aip>is W« !#•&¦«. 356 Scripture never says why He is God, but why He became man. Disc, nifies the fleshly generation of the Son, it adds also the cause1 .— .-r- — for which He became man; but when He speaks or His via. Naz. servants declare any thing of His Godhead, all is said in 3oa2 simple diction, and with an absolute2 sense, and without reason 2 imxs- being added. For He is the Father's Radiance ; and as the Xvpitji Father is, but not for any reason, neither must we seek John l, the reason of that Radiance. Thus it is written, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and y^az- the Word was God ; and the wherefore it assigns not3; but Johni, when the Word was made flesh, then it adds the reason why, saying, And dwelt among us. And again the Apostle saying, Phil. 2, Who being in the form of God, has not introduced the reason, till He took on Him the form of a servant ; for then he con tinues, He humbled Himself unto death, even the death of the cross; for it was for this that He both became flesh and took §. 54. the form of a servant. And the Lord Himself has spoken many things in proverbs; but when giving us notices about * ktroxi- Himself, Fie has spoken absolutely"; / in the Father and the infr"^'. Father in Me, and / and the Father are one, and He that 6°9nio' ^iat^ seen ^e' hath seen tne Father, and I am the Light of 10, 30. the world, and / am the Truth ; not setting down in every ' 12- case the reason, nor the wherefore, lest He should seem second to those things for which He was made. For that reason would needs take precedence of Him, without which not even He Himself had been brought into being. Paul, Bom. 1, for instance, separated an Apostle for the Gospel, which the Lord had promised afore by the Prophets, was thereby made subordinate to the Gospel, of which he was made minister, and John, being chosen to prepare the Lord's way, was made subordinate to the Lord; but the Lord, not being made subordinate to any reason why He should be Word, save only that Fie is the Father's Offspring and Only-begotten Wisdom, when He becomes man, then assigns the reason, wherefore He is about to take flesh. 5. For the need of man preceded His becoming man, apart from which He had not put on flesh3- And what the need d It is the general teaching of the incarnation we became the ground." Fathers that our Lord would not have Athan.deIncarn.V.D.4.vid.Thomassin. been incarnate had not man sinned, at great length de Incarn. ii. 5—11. " Our cause was the occasion of His also Petav. de Incarn. ii. 17, 7—12. descent, and our transgression called Vasquez. in 3 Thom. Disn. x. 4 and forth the Word's love of man. Of His 5. , * He had not been created but for man's need. 357 was for which He became man, He Himself thus signifies, Chap. / came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the xx- will of Him that sent Me. And this is the will of Him which $£$[ hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me, I sit ould lose nothing,but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of My Father, that every one which, seeth the Son and believeth on Him may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up al the last day. And again ; I am come a light Johni2, into Ihe world, that whosoever believeth on Me, should46' not abide in darkness. And again he says; To this end Jolmis, was I born, and for this cause came I into the world,37' that I should bear witness unto ihe truth. And John has written; For this was manifested the Son of God, that i/eUohn3, might destroy the works of the devil. To give a witness/ =- then, and for our sakes to undergo death, to raise man up and loose the works ofthe devil", the Saviour came, and this is the reason of His incarnate presence1. For otherwise a1'1"^*5" TTaaov- ffias. e Two ends of our Lord's Incarna tion are here mentioned ; that He might die for us, and that He might renew us, answering nearly to those specified iu Rom. 4, 25. " who was delivered for our cffences and raised again for our justification." The general object of His coming, including both of these, is treated of in Incarn. 4 — 20. or rather in the whole Tract, and in the two books against Apollinaris. It is diffi cult to make accurate references under the former head, (vid. infr. note on 65 and 67.) without including the latter. " Since all men had to pay the debt of death, on which account especially He came on earth, therefore after giving proofs of His Divinity from His works, next He offered a sacrifice for all, &c." the passage then runs on into the other fruit of His death, ibid. 20. Vid. supr. p. 291. where he speaks of our Lord offering both Himself and us to God , and "offering our flesh," p. 294. and p. 23. Also infr. Orat. iv. 6. " When He is said to hunger, to weep and weary and to cry Eloi, which are human affections, He receives them from us and offers to His Father, interceding for us, that in Him they may be annulled." And so Theodoret, " Whereas He had an im mortal nature, He willed according to equity to put a stop to death's power, taking on Him first from those who were exposed to death a first-fruit; and pre serving this immaculate and guiltless of sin, He surrenders it for .death to seize upon aswell as others, and satiate its in- satiableness ; and then on the ground of its want of equity against that first- fruit, He put a stop to its iniquitous tyranny over others." Eran. iii. p. 196, 7. Vigil. Thaps. contr. Eutych. i. p. 496. (B. P. ed. 1624,) and S. Leo speaks of the whole course of redemption, i. .upon the beginning', and have a beginning of existence aW" connected with an interval ; wherefore also what is said of them, In the beginning He made, is as much as saying of them, "From the beginning He made:" — as the Lord, knowing that which He had made, has taught, when He silenced the Mat.i9, Pharisees, with the words, He which made them from the Creatures from, the Son in the beginning. 363 beginning, made them male and female ; for from some Chap. beginning, when they were not yet, were generate things XXI" brought into being and created. This too the Holy Spirit has signified in the Psalms, saying, Thou, Lord, at the Ts.\02, beginning hast laid the foundation of ihe earth ; and again,25- O think upon Thy congregation which Thou hast purchased Ps. 74, from the beginning ; now it is plain that what takes place at2, the beginning, has a beginning of creation, and that from some beginning God purchased His congregation. And that In the beginning He made, from his saying made, means " began to make," Moses himself shews by saying, after the completion of all things, And God blessed the seventh day Gen. 2, and sanctified it, because that in it He had rested from all ' His work which God began to make1. Therefore the creatures ' tigan began to be made ; but the Word of God, not having begin- tr'"""" ning2 of being, certainly did not begin to be, nor begin to come 2 a^«, to be, but was ever. And the works have their beginning in 0USln- their making, and their beginning precedes their coming to be ; but the Word, not being of things which come to be, rather comes to be Himself the Framer of those which have a beginning. And the being of things generate is measured by their becoming3, and from some beginning doth God begin 3 supr. to make them through the Word, that it may be known thatP\22?> they were not before their generation ; but the Word has His being, in no other beginning or origin4 than the Father a, 4 &iX^ whom they allow to be unoriginate, so that He too exists q^Uvi unoriginately in the Father, being His Offspring, not Hisi.notef. creature. Thus does divine Scripture recognise the difference §. 58. between the Offspring and things made, and shew that the Offspring is a Son, not begun from any beginning, but eternal; but that the thing made, as an external work of the Maker, began to come into being. John therefore delivering divine doctrine6 about the Son, and knowing the difference of thes^,- phrases, said not, " In the beginning became" or " was re made," but In the beginning was the Word; that we might note k. understand " Offspring" by was, and not account of Him • Tn this nassage "was from the of this on Bishop Bull's explanation of beginning" is made equivalent with the Nicene Anathema, supr. p. 272. " was Z before generation," and both especially p. 275. where this passage are contrasted with "without begin- is quoted. ning" or "eternal;" vid. the bearing 2 B 2 26. 364 Texts to shew Disc, by intervals, but believe the Son always and eternally to exist. 3. And with these proofs, why, O Arians, misunderstand the passage in Deuteronomy, and thus venture a fresh act of irreligionb against the Lord, saying that " He is a work," or " creature," or indeed "offspring?" for offspring and work you take to mean the same thing ; but here too you shall be shewn to be as unlearned as you are irreligious. Your first Deut. passage is this, Is not He thy Father that hath bought thee? 32> 6* hath He not made thee and created thee ? And shortly after ibid. 18. in the same Song he says, Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee. Now the meaning conveyed in these passages is very remark able ; for he says not first He begat, lest that term should be taken as indiscriminate with He made, and these men should have a pretence for saying, " Moses tells us indeed that God Gen. l, said from the beginning, Let Us make man, but he soon after says himself, Ofthe Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, as if the terms were indifferent ; for offspring and work are the same." But after the words bought and made, he has added last of all begat, that the sentence might carry its own interpretation ; for in the word made he accurately denotes what belongs to men by nature, to be works and things made; but in the word begat he shews God's lovingkindness b The technical sense of ibo-ifiiia, and almost translates it, Apost. Creed, itijiua, pietas, impietas, for orthodoxy, Art. 3. " Although it may be thought heterodoxy, has been noticed supr. p. 1 , sufficient for the mystery of ihe Incur- note a. and derived from 1 Tim. iii. 16. nation, that, when our Saviour was The word is contrasted ch. iv. 8. with conceived and born, His Mother was the (perhaps Gnostic) " profane and a Virgin, though whatsoever should old-wives fables," and with " bodily have followed after could have no re- exercise." A curious instance of the flective operation upon the first-fruit of force of the word as a turning point in her womb . . . yet the peculiar eminency, controversy occurs in an Homily given &c." John of Antioch furnishes us with to S.Basil by Petavius, Fronto Ducaeus, a definition of orthodoxy, (pietas,) which Combetis, DuPin, Fabricius, and Oudin, isentirely Anglican. He speaks,writing doubted of by Tillemont, and rejected to Proclus, of a letter which evidenced by Cave and Gamier, where it is said caution and piety or orthodoxy ; "or- that the denial of S. Mary's perpetual thodoxy because you went along the virginity, though " lovers of Christ do royal way of Divine Scripture in your not bear to hear that God's Mother ever remarks, rightly confessing the word of ceasedtobeVirgin,"yet"doesnoinjury truth, not venturing to declare any to the doctrine of religion, priitt to} ths thing of your own ability without Scrip- ibo-i/iilas tragaXvpaitiTvi xiytf, i. e. (ac- ture testimonies; caution, because to- cording to the above explanation) to the gether with divine Scripture you pro- doctrine of the Incarnation. Basil. Opp. pounded also statements of tlie Fathers t. 2. p. 599. vid. on the passage Petav. in order to prove what you advanced." de Incarn. xiv. 3. §. 7. and Fronto-Duc. Ap. Facund. i. 1. in loc. Pearson refers to this passage, that men are first made, then begotten. 365 exercised towards men after He had created them. And since Chap. they were ungrateful upon this, thereupon Moses reproaches JE2E1 them, saying first, Do ye thus requite the Lord? and then Deut. adds, Is not He thy Father that hath bought thee? Hath32'6' He not made thee and created thee? And next he says, They sacrificed unto devils, not to Goel, to gods whom ibid. 17. they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not ; of the Bock that begat thee thou art unmindful. For God not only created them to be men, but§. 59. called them to be sons, as having begotten them. For the term begat is here as elsewhere expressive of a Son, as He says by the Prophet, / have begat sons and exalted them; and generally, when Scripture wishes to signify a son, it does so, not by the term created, but undoubtedly by that of begat. 4. And this John seems to say, He gave to them power to John 1, become children of God, even to them that believe on His Name; which were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And here too a cautious distinction1 is appositely observed, for first he says become, '«{««•«- because they are not called sons by nature but by adoption ; pW29s', then he says were begotten, because like the Jews they hadnotea- altogether received the name of son, though the chosen people, as says the Prophet, rebelled against their Benefactor. And this is God's kindness to man, that of whom He is Maker, of them according to grace He afterwards becomes Father also; becomes, that is, when men, His creatures, receive into their hearts, as the Apostle says, the Spirit of His Son, crying, xibba, Father*. And these are they who, having received the 2 P- 57- Word, gained power from Him to become sons of God ; for they could not become sons, being by nature creatures, otherwise, than by receiving the Spirit ofthe natural and true Son. Wherefore, that this might be, The Word became flesh, that He might make man capable of Godhead. 5. This same meaning may be gained also from the Prophet Malachi, who says, Halh not One God created us ? Have we Mal. 2, not all one Father ? for first he puts created, next Father, to shew, as the other writers, that from the beginning we were creatures by nature, and God is our Creator through the Word; but afterwards we were made sons, and thenceforward God the Creator becomes our Father also. Therefore Father 366 We creatures are begotten, when the Son is in us through the Spirit. Disc, is proper to the Son ; and not " creature," but Son is proper —Hi- to the Father. Accordingly this passage also proves, that we are not sons by nature, but the Son who is in usc; and again, that God is not our Father by nature, but of that Gal. 4, Word in us, in whom and because of whom we cry, Abba, 6' Father. And so in like manner, the Father calls them sons in whomsoever He sees His own Son, and says, / begat; since begetting is significant of a Son, aud making is in dicative of the works. And thus it is that we are not begotten Gen. 1, first, but made; for it is written, Let Us make man; but afterwards, on receiving the grace of the Spirit, we are said thenceforth to be begotten also ; just as the great Moses in his Song with an apposite meaning says first He bought, and afterwards He begat; lest, hearing He begat, they might forget that nature of theirs which was from the beginning; but that they might know that from the beginning they are creatures, but when according to grace they are said to be begotten, as sons, still no less than before are men works according to nature. §. 60. 6. And that creature and offspring are not the same, but differ from each other in nature and the signification of the words, the Lord Himself shews even in the Proverbs. For having said, The Lord hath created Me a beginning of His ways; He has added, But before all the hills He begat Me. i Tid. If then the Word were by nature and in His Substance1 a p. 345, creature, and there were no difference between offspring and creature, He would not have added, He begat Me, but had been satisfied with He created, as if that term implied He begat ; but, as the case stands, after saying, He created Me a beginning of His ways for His works, He has added, not simply begat Me, but with the connection of the conjunction But, as guarding thereby the tenn created, when he says, But before all the hills He begat Me. For begat Me suc ceeding in such close connection to created Me, makes the - ch. 20. meaning one, and shews that created is said with an object5, but that begat Me is prior to created Me. For as, if He had said the reverse, " The Lord begat Me," and went on, "But before the hills He created Me," created would certainly c ™» iv Siptv vliv. vid. also supr. 10. fin. iii. 23 — 25. and de Decr. 31 fin. circ. fin. 56. init. and tov iv abroTs ol- also p. 250, ndte d. p. 360, note g. infr. xovvTa xiyov. 61. init. Also Orat. i. 60 notes on 79. The Son begotten first, created afterwards. 367 have preceded begat, so having said first created, and then Chap. added But before all the hills He begat Me, He necessarily **L shews that begat preceded created. For in saying, Before all He begat Me, He intimates that He is other than all things; it having been shewn to be true' in an earlier part of this 'p. 329, Book, that no one creature was made before another, butnote1' all things generate subsisted at once together upon one and the same command -. Therefore neither do the words which 2 p. 349. follow created, also follow begat Me; but in the case of created is added beginning of ways, but of begat Me, He says not, "He begat me as a beginning," but before all He begat Me. But He who is before all is not a beginning of all, but is other than all3 ; but if other than all, (in which " all" » p. 330, the beginning of all is included,) it follows that He is other note h than the creatures; and it becomes a clear point, that the Word, being other than all things and before all, afterwards is created a beginning of the ways for works, because He became man, that, as the Apostle has said, He who is the Beginning and First-born from the dead, in all things might Col. l, have the preeminence. 18' 7. Such then being the difference between created and begat §. 61. Me, and between beginning of ways and before all, God, being first Creator, next, as has been said, becomes Father of men, because of His Word dwelling in them. But in the case of the Word the reverse ; for God, being His Father by nature, becomes afterwards both His Creator and Maker, when the Word puts on that flesh which was created and made, and becomes man. For, as men, receiving the Spirit ofthe Son, become children through Him, so the Word of God, when He Himself puts on the flesh of man, then is said both to be created and to have been made. If then we are by nature sons, then is He by nature creature and work ; but if we become sons by adoption and grace, then has the Word also, when in grace towards us He became man, said, The Lord hath created Me. 8. And in the next place, when He put on a created nature and became like us in body, reasonably was He therefore called both our Brother and First-born d. For though it was after Kom. 8, a Bishop Bull's hypothesis about the section, it only relates to ^oxTo-rixos of sense of JoototIxos *«s w*Anm has been men, (i. ». from the dead,) and is equi- commented on supr. p. 278. As far as valent to the " beginning of ways. Athan.'s discussion proceeds in this 368 Our Lord is First-born, as the Beginning ofthe new creation, Diso. usc that He was made man for us, and our brother by simi- II- litude of body, still He is therefore called and is the First born of us, because, all men being lost according to the transgression of Adam, His flesh before all others was saved 'p. 296, and liberated, as being the Word's Body1; and hence- Orat iii f°rth we> becoming incorporate with It, are saved after Its 31. note, pattern. For in It the Lord becomes our guide to the Johni4, Kingdom of Heaven and to His own Father, saying, I am the way and the door, and "through Me all must enter." Kev. l, Whence also is He said to be First-born from the dead, not that He died before us, for we had died first; but because having undergone death for us and abolished it, He was the first to rise, as man, for our sakes raising His own Body. Henceforth He having risen, we too from Him and because of Him rise in due course from the dead. §. 62. 9. But if He is also called First-born of tlie creation1, still this is not as if He were levelled to the creatures, and only first of them in point of time, (for how should that be, since He is Only-begotten ?) but it is because of the Word's con descension* to the creatures, according to which He hath via. become the Brother of many. For the term Only-begotten Kom. 8, is use(j where there are no brethren, but First-born because B Marcellus seems to have argued o-vynarajiao-ts the Word's descent or against Asterius from the same texts, progress from the Father, and so (Euseb. in Marc. p. 12.) that, since His second birth, as it may be called, Christ is called " first-born from the in the beginning of the world to dead," though others had been recalled create it. But that learned man is to life before Him, therefore He is altogether mistaken. As may be seen called " first-born of creation," not in in Suicer, the Greek Doctors use the point of time, but of dignity, vid. Monta- word of God, even of the Father, with cut. Not. p. 11. Yet Athan. argues respect to His goodness in communi- contrariwise. Orat. iv. 29. eating Himself externally and attend- c Here again, though speaking of the ing to human infirmity, without any first-born of creation, Athan. does but respect at all to a birth or descent from view the phrase as equivalent to " first- another. In Bull's sense of the word, born of the new creation or " brother," Athan. could not have said that the of many ;" and so infr. "first-born senses of Only-begotten and First-horn because of the brotherhood He has were contrary to each other," p. 221. made with many." "ZoyxatTafcwat occurs supr. 51 fin. ofthe S Bp. Bull considers xrvyxardpairis as incarnation. What is meant by it will equivalent to a figurative yivvtins, an be found infr. 78 — 81. viz. that our idea which (vid. supr. p. 279.) seems Lord came "to implant in the crea- quite foreign from Athan. 's meaning, tures a type and semblance of His Wessel, (who, as the present writer now Image;" which is just what is here finds, has preceded him in this judg- maintained against Bull. The whole ment,) in his answer to Cremer, who passage referred to is a comment had made use of Bull for a heterodox on the word o-vyxarifiairis , and begins purpose, observes that Bull " thinks and ends with an introduction of that that Athanasius implies in the word word. Vid. also Gent. 47. of brethren Accordingly it is no where written in the Chap. Scriptures, "the first-born of God," nor "the creature of^L God ; but it ,s Only-begotten and Son and Word and Wisdom, that relate and are proper to the Father*. Thus, We have seen j„hn i His glory, ihe glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father; 14- ' and God sent His Only-begotten Son; and O Lord, Thy1John Word endureth for ever; and In the beginning was the*,*- Word, and the Word was with God; and Christ the Power W U9' of God and the Wisdom of God; and This is My beloved Son; fohn x> and Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God. But first- lCor. born implied the descent1 to the creation1; for of it has HeMa24t-3 been called first-born; and He created implies His grace W-l'e,' towards the works, for for them is He created. If then Hei"X»«- is Only -begotten, as indeed He is, First-born needs some''"'8'"" explanation ; but if He be really First-born, then He is not Only-begotten'. For the same cannot be both Only-begotten and First-born, except in different relations ;— that is, Only- begotten, because of His generation from the Father, as has been said ; and First-born, because of His condescension1 to the creation and the brotherhood which He has made with many. Certainly, those two terms being inconsistent with each other, one should say that the attribute of being Only- begotten has justly the preference2 in the instance of the '^-283, Word, in that there is no other Word, or other Wisdom, but""'6 "' He alone is very Son of the Father. 10. Moreover k, as was before said3,notin connection with any 3p.256. h This passage, which has been we say," observes Photius," that Gre- urged against Bull supr. p. 278, is ad- gory Theologus and Basil the Divine duced against him by Wessel also in drew from this work as from a fount the his answer to Cremer. (Nestorianismus beautiful and clear streams of their Redivivus, p. 223.) All the words own writings which they poured out (says Athan.) which are proper to the against the heresy, I suppose we shall Son, and describe Him fitly, are ex- not be far from the mark." Cod. 140. pressive of what is internal to the And so of S. Cyril and, as far as his Divine Nature, as Begotten, Word, subjects allow, of S. Epiphanius. Wisdom, Glory, Hand, &c. but (as he k We now come to a third and wider adds presently) the first-born, like be- sense of tr^uToroxos, as found (not in ginning of ways, is relative to creation ; Kom. 8,29. and Col. 1 , 18. but) in Col. 1 , and therefore cannot denote our Lord's 15. where by creation Athan. under- essence or Divine subsistence, but some- stands " all things visible and invisible." thing temporal, an office, character, or Asthen/orttetoor-Aswasjustnowtaken the like. to argue that created was used in a > This passage is imitated by Theo- relative and restricted sense, the same doret. in Coloss. i. 15. but the passages is shewn as regards first-born by the from the Fathers referrible to these Ora- words for in Him all things were tions are too many to enumerate. " If created. 370 The First-born of all is not one e/fall. Disc reason, but absolutely1 it is said of Him, The Only-begotten lt- Son which is in the bosom of the Father; but the word First- jg. n ' born has again the creation as a reason in connection with it, Col. 1 which Paul proceeds to say, for in Him all things were 16- created. But if all the creatures were created in Him, He is other than the creatures, and is not a creature, but the §. 63. Creator of the creatures. Not then because He was from the Father was He called First-born, but because in Him the creation came to be m ; and as before the creation He was the Son, through whom was the creation, so also before He was called the First-born of the whole creation not the less was the Word Himself with God and the Word was God. 1 W»«- 11. But this also not understanding, these irreligious1 men misbe- S° about saying, " If He is First-born of all creation, it is plain lievers that He too is one of the creation." Men without under standing ! if He is simply First-born of the whole creation, then Fie is other than the whole creation ; for he says not, " He is First-born above the rest of the creatures," lest He be reckoned to be as one of the creatures, but it is written, of the whole creation, that He may appear other than the creation" Reuben, for instance, is not said to be first-born 1 itroXtXupivas ; supr. p. 261, note d. tokos somewhat differently, as shall be p. 356, r. 2. p. 361, r. 1. and so itrt- mentioned presently. Xvtus Theophylact to express the same " To understand this passage, the distinction in loc. Coloss. Greek idiom must be kept in view, m It would be perhaps better to which differs from the English. As translate " first-born to the creature," the English comparative, so the Greek to give Athan.'s idea ; rris xrinois not superlative implies or admits the ex- being a partitive genitive, or tr^uTOToxos elusion ofthe subject of which it is used, a superlative, (though he presently so from the things with which it is con- considers it,) but a, simple appellative trasted. Thus"Solomoniswiserthanthe and ns xt. a common genitive of re- heathen," implies of course that he was lation, as "tbe king of a country," not a heathen: but the Greeks can say, " the owner of a house." "First-born "Solomon is wisest of the heathen," of creation" is like "author, type, or according to Milton's imitation "the life of creation." As, after calling our fairest of her daughters Eve." Vid. as Lord in His own nature " a light," we regards the very word v^Ztos, John 1, might proceed to say that He was also 15 ; and supr. p. 321, r. 5. also iXiUirn " a light to the creation," or " Arch- i) 'ipt^oo-ht i\ovo-iat 3 Machab. 7, 21. luminary," so He was not only the Accordingly as in the comparative to Eternal Son, but a "Son to creation," obviate this exclusion, we put in the an " archetypal Son." Hence St. word oMer, (ante afto^mmanior omnes,) Paul goes on at once to say, "for in so too in the Greek superlative, "So- Him all things were made," not simply crates is wisest of other heathen." Atha- *' by and for," as at the end of the nasius then says in this passage, that verse ; or as Athan. says here, " be- " first-born of creatures" implies that cause in Him the creation came to be." our Lord was not a creature ; whereas On the distinction of S<« and it, referring it is not said of Him "first-born ofbre- respectively to the first and second thren," lest He should be excluded from creations, vid. In illud Omn. 2. Wessel men, but " first-born among brethren," understands Athan.'s sense of srjws- where among is equivalent to other. Our Lord is First-born in the former and in the new creation. 371 brethren6 Sf^ !??'' ^ °f j3C°b himSelf and *¦ Chap. ^he^h ldren 0 ^ t^ ^ th°Ught t0 b6 SOme other ^side ^L he Anos 1 ° »TGVen Conce™-g the Lord Himself an " W R 7^°K that He may bec°me ^"t-bon, * all, lest He be thought to bear a body other than ours, but among many brethren, because of the likeness of the flesh. Kom. 8, If then the Word also were one of the creatures, Scripture. 29- would have said that He was First-born of other creatures; but now the sacred writers saying that He is First-bom of cm i the whole creation, the Son of God is plainly shewn to be15"' ' other than the whole creation and not a creature. For if He is a creature, He will be First-born of Himself. How then is it possible, O Arians, for Him to be before and after Him self? next, if He is a creature, and the whole creation through Him came to be, and in Him consists, how can He both create the creation and be one of the things which con sist in Him ? 12. Since then such a notion1 is in itself extravagant, it isUwwfc, proved against them by the truth, that He is called First-born among many brethren because of the relationship of the flesh, and First-born from the dead, because the resurrection of the dead is from Him and after Him ; and First-born of the whole creation, because of the Father's love to man, which brought it to pass that in His Word not only all things Col.i, consist, but the creation itself, of which the Apostle speaks, l7- waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God, shall be Eom. 8, delivered one time from the bondage of corruption into the 19- 21- glorious liberty of the children of God9. Of this creation thus delivered, the Lord will be First-born, both of it and of all those who are made children, that by His being called " pov/im, n^aiToToxis pov, trv io-%6; pov, mere man, and that He might be ac- xal a£%9i Tixtott pov Gen. 49, 3. Sept. counted Lord of all creatures and be- Wessel considers that Athaoo. under- lievers, as having created all things, and stands "first-born" to mean "heir," as new created all the predestined. "p. 216. in the case of the Patriarchs ; and he Yet what Athan. says in 64, init. is almost seems to have these words in his surely inconsistent with this. Vid. also mind, (because none other to his purpose contr. Gent. 41, f. where the text Col. occur in the passage,) though Reuben 1, 15. is quoted. was not the heir of Jacob. His inter- P Thus there are two senses in which pretation of the word is, that when the our Lord is " first-born to the crea- Son of God came into tbe world, He tion;" viz. in its first origin, and in its took tbe title of " first-born" or " heir," restoration after man's fall ; as he says " Princeps et Dominus creaturae," more clearly in the next section. p. 322 ; " lest He should be thought a 372 Unless He were First-born, creatures could not have been. Disc, first, those that come after Him may abide1, as depending on -the Word as a beginning1' vhhp!.32,' 13. And I think that the irreligious men themselves will be note q. shamed from such a thought ; for if the case stands not as 2 ' 250 we have said, but they will rule it that He is First-born of note d. the whole creation as in substance3 a creature among creatures, ,. f. ' let them reflect that they will be conceiving Him as brother and fellow of the things without reason and life. For ofthe whole creation these also are parts ; and the First-born must be first indeed in point of time but only thus, and in kind and 4 p. 309. similitude* must be the same with all. How then can they say this without exceeding all measures of irreligion? or who will endure them, if this is their language ? or who can but hate them even imagining such things ? For it is evident to all, that neither for Himself, as being a creature, nor as having any connection according to substance3 with the whole creation, has He been called First-born of it; but because the Word, when at the beginning He framed the creatures, 5 trvyxa- condescended* to things generate, that it might be possible r«/3e0>i- £-Qr tnem to come t0 te, ]7or they could not have endured His « ixoa- untempered6 nature and His splendour from the Father, unless 13 'i. l. condescending5 by the Father's love for man He had supported them and taken hold of them and brought them into sub stance q ; and next, because, by this condescension5 of the Word, the creation too is made a sonr through Him, that He might be in all respects First-born of it, as has. been said, both in creating, and also in being brought for the Heb. l, sake of all into this very world. For so it is written, When He bringeth the First-born into the world, He saith, Let all the Angels of God worship Him. Let Christ's enemies 1 He does not here say with Asterius "Re first-born, in that human nature that God could not create man immedi- is adopted in Him. What is here said ately, for the Word is God, but that He of trgaroroxos is surely larger than did not create him without at the same Wessel's interpretation of the word. time infusing a grace or presence from Rather S. Leo gives S. Athanasius's Himself into his created nature to en- sense; " Human nature has been taken able it to endure His external plastic into so close an union by the Son of hand ; in other words, that he was God, that not only in that Man who is created in Him, not as something ex- the ' first-born of the whole creation,' ternal to Him, (in spite of the iia supr. but even in all His saints is one and notem.) vid.supr.p. 32, note q. and Gent, the same Christ." Serm. 63. 3. i. e. the 47. where the ruyxuTa/ixris is spoken of. title first-born has reference not to our ' As God created Him, in that he Lord as heir, but as representative of created human nature in Him, so is His Brethren. As He is First-born, so Beginning of ways. 373 hear and tear themselves to pieces1, because His coming into Ch the world is what makes Him called First-born of all ; and - A V. XXI. thus the Son is the Father's Only-begotten, because He niw ' alone is from Him, and He is the First-born of creation, because of this adoption of all as sons8. 14. And as He is First-born among brethren and rose from the dead the first fruits of them that slept; so, since it became l Cor. Him in all things to have the preeminence, therefore He is^foi2?' created a beginning of ways, that we, walking along it and 18. entering through Him who says, I am the Way and the Door, and partaking of the- knowledge of the Father, may also hear the words, Blessed are the undefiled in the Way, and Blessed Ps. 119, are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. And thus since j^att> g the truth declares that the Word is not by nature a creature, 8- it is fitting now to say, in what sense He is beginning of*' ways. For when the first way, which was through Adam was lost, and in place of paradise we deviated unto death, and heard the words, Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt Gen. 3, 19. 3 Thus he considers that " first born" is mainly a title, connected with the Incarnation, and also connected with our Lord's office at the creation. (vid. parallel of Priesthood, p. 292, note m. p. 303, note e.) In each economy it has the same meaning; it belongs to Him as the type, idea, or rule on which the creature was made or new-made, and the life by which it is sustained. Both economies are mentioned Incarn. 13, 14. And so iixm xai tvotos vtp)s iqt- t «,. .? uXm **oMovs, and that in the Incarnation, suscepta est ab so the Lord's death Xvt^ ,«>,«.» In- jeternitate mortalitas. Ep. 28. 3. And earn. V. D. 2o. Xvrg., W«e««. JNaz. S. Austin, Utique vulnerable atque Orat 30 20 fin. also supr .9. c. 13, mortale corpus habuit [Christus] contr. b. 14, a. 47, b, c. 55, c. 67, d. In illud Faust, xiv. 2. A Eutychian sect denied Omn. 2 tin. this doctrine (the Aphthartodocetse), 876 that we might reign in Him in heaven. Disc. Himself, perfect what was wanting to man. Now immortality was wanting to him, and the way to paradise. This then is Johnl7, what our Saviour says, I have glorified Thee on ihe earth, I have perfected the work which Thou gavest Me io do ; and John 5, again, The works which the Father hath given Me to per fect, the same works that I do, bear witness of Me; but the works He here says that the Father had given Him to perfect, are those for which He is created, saying in the Proverbs, Tlie Lord hath created Me a beginning of His ways, for His works ; for it is all one to say, The Father hath given Me the works, and The Lord hath created Me for the works. §. 67. 17. When then received He the works to perfect, 0 God's enemies ? for from this also He created will be understood. If ye say, " At the beginning when He brought them into being out of what was not," it is an untruth ; for they were not yet made ; whereas He appears to speak as taking 'ibayis what was already in being. Nor is it pious1 to refer to the time which preceded the Word's becoming flesh, lest His coming should thereupon seem superfluous, since for the sake of these works that coming took place. Therefore it remains for us to say that when He became man, then He took the works. For then He perfected them, by healing our wounds and vouchsafing to us the resurrection from the dead. But if, when the Word became flesh, then were given to Him the works, plainly when He became man, then also 2 p. 375, is He created for the works. Not of His substance2 then is He created indicative, as has many times been said, but of His bodily generation. For then, because the works were become imperfect and mutilated from the transgression, He is said in respect to the body to be created ; that by perfecting them and making them whole, He might present the Church Eph. 5, unto the Father, as the Apostle says, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but holy and without blemish. Mankind then is perfected in Him and restored, as it was made at the beginning, nay, with greater grace. For, on rising from the dead, we shall no longer fear death, but shall ever reign in Christ in the heavens. 18. And this has been done, since the proper Word of God Himself, who is from the Father, has put on the flesh, and No creature, none but the Son, could have undone sin. 377 become man. For if, being a creature, He had become man, Chap. man had remained just what he was, not joined to God; for XXI- how had a work been joined to the Creator by a workc? or What succour had come from like to like, when one as well as other needed itd? And how, were the Word a creature, had He power to undo God's sentence, and lo remit sin, whereas it is written in the Prophets, that this is God's doing? For who is a Godlike unto Thee, that pardoneth iniquiti/, and iviic. 7, passeth by transgression? For whereas God has said, DustG^n3 thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return, men have become l9- mortal ; how then could things generate undo sin ? but the Lord is He who has undone it, as He says Himself, Unless^- the Son shall make you free; and the Son, who made free, 36. ' has shewn in truth that He is no creature, nor one of things generate, but the proper Word and Image of the Father's Substance, who at the beginning sentenced, and alone re- mitteth sins. For since it is said in the Word, Dusl thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return, suitably through the Word Himself and in Him the freedom and the undoing of the condemnation has come to pass. c Vid. p. 15, note e. also p. 251. and p. 303, with notee. " How could we be partakers of that adoption of sons, un less through the Son we had received from Him that communion with Him, unless His Word bad been made flesh, and had communicated it to us." Iren. Hoar. iii. 20. <• " 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 Himself needed it. He was united therefore to us. &e." infr. Orat. iv. 6. vid. also iii. 33 init. " There was need He should be both man and God ; for unless He were man, He could not be killed; unless HewereGod,Hewouldhavebeen thought, not, unwilling 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 o 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 'bro ther' 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 pro pitiation for us all . . . One thing has been found sufficient for all men at once, which was given as the price of ransom of our soul, the holy and most precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He poured out for us all." Basil. in Psalm. 48, n. 4. " One had not been sufficient instead of all, had it been simply a man ; but if Hebe understood 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." Cvril. de rect. fid. p. 132. vid. also Procl. Orat. i. p. 63. (ed. 1630.) Vigil. contr. Eutych. v. p. 529, e. Greg. Moral, xxiv. init. Job. ap. Phot. 222. p. 583. 378 God could have forgiven without the Incarnation, Disc. 19. " Yet," they say, " though the Saviour were a creature, God was able to speak the word only and undo the curse." ^' And so another will tell them in like manner, " Without His coming among us at all, God was able just to speak and undo the curse ;" but we must consider what was expedient for mankind, and not what simply is possible with Godp. He could have destroyed, before the ark of Noah, the then transgressors ; but He did it after the ark. He could too, without Moses, have spoken the word only and have brought the people out of Egypt ; but it profited to do it through Moses. And God was able without the judges, to save His people ; but it was profitable for the people that for a season judges should be raised np to them. The Saviour too might have come among us from the beginning, or on His coming Gal. 4, might not have been delivered to Pilate; but He came at the j'olinlg fulness of the ages, and when sought for said, / am He. 5. For what He does, that is profitable for men, and was not fitting in any other way ; and what is profitable and fitting, vid. for that He provides c. Accordingly He came, not that He 28. ' 'might be ministered unto, but lhat He might minister, and might work our salvation. Certainly He was able to speak the Law from heaven, but He saw that it was expedient to men for Him to speak from Sinai; andthatHe did, that it might be pos sible for Moses to go up, and for them hearing the word near « Vid. also Incarn. 44. In this and so supr. 67. statement Athan. is supported by Naz. f " Was it not in His power, bad Orat. 19, 13. Theodor. adv. Gent. vi. He wished it, even in a day to bring p. 876,7. August, de Trin. xiii. 13. on the whole rain [of the deluge] ? in It is denied in a later age bv S. Anselm, a day, nay in a moment?" Chrysost.. but S. Thomas and the schoolmen side in Gen. Hom. 24, 7. He proceeds to with the Fathers, vid. Petav. Incarn. apply this principle to the pardon of ii. 13. However, it will be observed sin. " Now, while this short portion from what follows that Athan. thought of Holy Lent still remains to you, ye the Incarnation still absolutely essen- shall be able both to wash away your tial for the renewal of human nature sins and to gain much mercy from God. in holiness. In like manner in the For not many days, nor time doth the Incarn. after saying that to accept mere Lord require, but even in these two repentance from sinners would nothave weeks, if we will, shall we make a been fitting, tuXoyot, he continues, great correction of our offences. For " Nor does repentance recover us from if the Ninevites, after shewing a re- our natural state, it does but stop us pentance of three days, He repaid with , from our sins. Had there been but a so much mercy, &c." On the subject fault committed, and not a subsequent of God's power as contrasted with His corruption, repentance had been well; acts, Petavius brings together the but if, &c " 7. That is, we might have statements of the Fathers, de Deo, v. been pardoned, we could not have been 6. flew-made, without the Incarnation; but man's nature could not have been strengthened, 379 them the rather to believe. Moreover, the good reason of what Ch.p. He did may be seen thus ; if God had but spoken, because JBL it was m His power, and so the curse had been undone, the power had been shewn of Him who gave the word, but man had become such as Adam was before the transgression, having received grace from without*, and not having it united to the body; (for he was such when he was placed in Para dise,) nay, perhaps had become worse, because he had learned to transgress. Such then being his condition, had he been seduced by the serpent, there had been fresh need for God to give command and undo the curse; and thus the need had become interminable, and men had remained under «***«- guilt not less than before, as being enslaved to sin; and, d^.V ever sinning, would have ever needed one to pardon them, b< and had never become free, being in themselves flesh, and**'e*« ever worsted by the. Law because ofthe infirmity ofthe flesh. 20. Again, if the Son were a creature, man had remained §. 69. mortal as before, not being joined to God ; for a creature had not joined creatures to God, as seeking itself one to join it1; nor would a portion of the creation have been the^-io", creation's salvation, as needing salvation itself. To provide fin' against this also, He sends His own Son, and He becomes Son of Man, by taking created flesh ; that, since all were under sentence of death, He, being other than them all, might Himself for all offer to death His own body ; and that hence forth, as if all had died through Him, the word of that sen tence might be accomplished, (for all elied in Christ,) and all 2 Cor. 5, 15. 8 Athan. hereseems tosay that Adam amanhas justice if be will; the second in a state of innocence bad but an ex- does more, for by it he also wills, and ternal divine assistance, not an habitual wills so strongly and loves so ardently, grace ; this, however, is contrary to as to overcome the will of the flesh his own statements already referred to, lusting contrariwise to the will of the and the general doctrine ofthe fathers, spirit," c- the motions of the flesh, to be cut away, and with these death Maj. de also was abolished, the companion of sin, as the Lord ?'v' f}'4 Himself says, The prince of this world cometh, and findeth 30. izu nothing in Me; and For this end was He manifested, as iSmmh J°^n has written, that He might destroy the ie:orks of the Ath. et devil. And these being destroyed from out the flesh, we all l John were thus liberated by the relationship of that flesh, and hence- 3> 8- forward are joined, even we, to the Word. And being joined to God, no longer do we abide upon earth; but, as He Himself has said, where He is, there shall we be also; and henceforward we shall fear no longer the serpent, for he was brought to nought when he was assailed by the Saviour in Mat.16, the flesh, and heard Him say, Get thee behind Me, Satan, and thus he is cast out of paradise into the eternal fire. Nor shall we have to watch against woman seducing us, for Mark {n t/le resurrection ihey neither marry nor are given in marriage, but ure as the Angels; and in Christ Jesus it shall Gal. 6, be a new creation, and neither male nor female, but all and ' 'in all Christ; and where Christ is, what fear, what danger §. 70. can still happen ? But this would not have come to pass, had the Word been a creature ; for with a creature the devil, himself a creature, would have ever continued the battle, aud 2 pint man, being between the two "\ had been ever in peril of death, &viiv«o. t havinfr in whom and througli whom he might be joined al.Vers. " . . ,, ,. Lat. to God and delivered from all rear. 3 21. Whence the truth shews us3 lhat the Word is not of notel. 'things generate, but rather Himself their Framer. For therefore did He assume the body generate and human, that having renewed it as its Framer, He might make it godh h h lav™ SioTtiio-n. vid. also ad 245, 348. Orat. iii. 23. fin. 33. init. Adelph. 4. a.' Serap.i.24, e. and p. 360, 34. fin. 38, b. 39, d. 48. fin. 53. For note g. and iii. 33. " The Word was our becoming ho) vid. Orat. iii. 25. made flesh that we, partaking of the ho) xara x,aon. Cyr. in Joan. p. 74. Spirit, might be made gods." supra, p. hoipo^cipiia Orat. iii. 23, c. 41, a. 45 23. "He deified that which He put on." init. ;t{w«p»{M. ibid. &«»^i£a. iii. 48 fin. p. 240. vid. also pp. 23, 151, 236, 53. Theodor. Hist. i. p. 846. init. The Mediator must be true God and true Man. 381 in Himself, and thus might introduce all us into the kingdom Chap. of heaven after His likeness. For man had not been l made X^X' god if joined to a creature, or unless the Son were very1"**" God ; nor had man been brought into the Father's presence, unless He had been His natural and true Word who had put on the body. And as we had not been delivered from sin and the curse, unless it had been by nature human flesh, which the Word put on, (for we should have had nothing common with what was foreign,) so also the man had not been made god, unless the Word who became flesh had been by nature from the Father and true and proper to Him. For therefore the union was of this kind, that He might unite what is man by nature to Him who is in the nature of the Godhead, and his salvation aud deification might be sure. Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to Flis Substance, deny also that He took Irue human flesh2 of Mary Ever-Virgin1 ; for in2 vid. p 345 neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether thenoteg' Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed. But surely He took true flesh, ' Vid. also Athan. Comm. in Luc. ap. have persuaded the Church of God in all Coll. Nov. p. 43. This title, which is ages to believe that she still continued commonly applied to S. Mary by later in the same virginity, and therefore is writers, is found Epiph. Heer. 78, 5. to be acknowledged as the Ever-Virgin Didym. Trin. i. 27. p. 84. Eufin. Fid. Mary." Creed, Art. 3. (vid. supr. p. i. 43. Lepor. ap. Cassian. Incarn. i. 5. 364, "note b.) He adds that " many Leon. Ep. 28, 2. Caasarius has an- have taken the boldness to deny this traTs. Qu. 20. On the doctrine itself truth, because not recorded in the vid. a letter of S. Ambrose and his sacred writ," but " with no success." brethren to Siricius, and the Pope's He replies to the argument from letter in response. (Coust. Ep. Pont, "until" in Matt. 1, 25. by referring p. 669—682.) As we are taught by to Gen. 28, 15. Deut. al, 6. 1 Sam. the predictions of the Prophets that a 15, 35. 2 Sam. 6, 23. Matt. 28, 20. Virsin was to be Mother of the pro- He might also have referred to Psalm mised Messias, so are we assured by 110, 1. 1 Cor. 15, 25. which are the tbe infallible relation ofthe Evangelists, more remarkable, because they were that this Mary "was a Virgin when urged by the school of Marcellus as a she bare Him . . .Neither was the act proof that our Lord's kingdom would of parturition more contradictory to vir- have an end and are explained ginity, than the former of conception, by Euseb. Eccl Theol m. 13 14. Thirdly, we believe the Mother of our Vid. also Cyr. Cat 15, 29; where Lord to have been, not only before and the true meaning of "until (which after His nativity, but also for ever, the may be transferred to Matt. 1, 25.) is mos immaculate and blessed Virgin . . . well brought out. "He who is King ThepTculiareminencyandunparalleled beforeKe subdued His enemies, how nriXe of that Mother, the special shall He not the rather be King afte f™, -and reverence due unto her He has got the mastery over them?" Son and ever pi d by her, the regard vid. also note on S. Thomas's Catena of that Holy Ghost who came upon 0. T. in loc. v.d. also Suicer de Symb. her the Angular goodness and piety of Nioeno-Conrt. p. 231. Spanheim. Dub. Joseph, to whom she was espoused, Evang. 28, 11. 382 Our Lord is God, because the Hand of God. Disc, though Valentinus rave ; and1 the Word was by nature Very rn\ God, though Ariomaniacs rave 2 ; and in that flesh has come 2p! sTf' to pass the beginning3 of our new creation, He being created note q. man for our sake an(j having made for us that new way, as origin, has been said. noted! 22- The Word then is neither creature nor work; for crea- §. 71. ture, thing made, work, are all one; and were He creature and thing made, He would also be work. Accordingly He has not said, " He created Me a work," nor " He made Me with the * p. 345, works," lest He should appear to be in nature and substance1 a creature ; nor, " He created Me to make works," lest, on the other hand, according to the perverseness of the ir- 5 i'eyatot, religious, He should seem as an instrument5 made for our iii. 31. sake. Nor again has He declared, " He created Me before the works," lest, as He really is before all, as an Offspring, so, if created also before the works, He should give " Offspring" and He created the same meaning. But He has said with 6 p. 298, exact discrimination6, for the works; as much as to say, " The Father has made Me into flesh, that I might be man," which again shews that He is not a work but an offspring. For as he who comes into a house, is not part of the house, but is other than the house, so He who is created for the works, must be by nature other than the works. 23. But if otherwise, as you hold, O Arians, the Word of ' p. 311, God be a work, by what7 Hand and Wisdom did He Himself 110 e ' come into being ; for all things that came to be, came by Is 66, 2. the Hand and Wisdom of God, who Himself says, My hand hath made all these things ; and David says in the Psalm, Ps. 102, And Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands ; Ps. 143, and again, in the hundred and forty-second Psalm, / do remember the time past, I muse upon all Thy works, yea I exercise myself in the works of Thy hands. Therefore if by the Hand of God the works are wrought, and it is John l, written that all things were made through the Word, and \ Cor. s, without Him was made not one thing, and again, One Lord Col l Jesus-> through whom are all things, and in Him all things 17. ' consist, it is very plain that the Son cannot be a work, but nohfa3' He is the Hand 8 of God and the Wisdom. This knowing, the martyrs in Babylon, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, Distinction in Scripture between God's Word and Works. 383 arraign the Arian irreligion. For when they say, O all ye Chap. works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord, they recount things in XXI' heaven, things on earth, and the whole creation, as works ; but the Son they name not. For they say not, " Bless, O Word, and praise, O Wisdom ;" to shew that all other things are both praising and are works ; but the Word is not a work nor of those that praise, but is praised with the Father and worshipped and confessed as Godk, being His Word and Wisdom, and ofthe works the Framer. 24. This too the Spirit has declared in the Psalms with a most apposite distinction, tlie Word of the Lord is true, awifPs.33,4. all His works are faithful; as in another Psalm too He says, 0 Lord, how manifold are Thy works J in Wisdom hast]:?' 104, Thou made them all. But if the Word were a work, then §. 72. certainly He as others had been made in Wisdom ; nor would Scripture have distinguished Him from the works, nor while it named them works, evangelised Him as Word and proper Wisdom of God. But, as it is, distinguishing Him from the works, He shews that Wisdom is Framer of the works, and not a work. This distinction Paul also observes, writing to the Hebrews, The Word of God is quick and powerful, Heb. 4, and sharper than any two-edged sword, reaching even to the 12, 13, dividing of soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, neither is there any creation hidden before Him, but all things are naked and open unto the eyes of Him with whom is our account. For behold he calls things generate creation ; but the Son he recognises as the Word of God, as if He were other than the creatures. And again saying, All things are naked and open to the eyes of Him with whom is our account, he signifies that He is other than all of them. For hence it is that He judges, but each of all things generate is bound to give account to Him. And so also, when the whole creation is groaning together with us in order to be set free from the bondage of corruption, the Son is thereby shewn to be other than the creatures. For if He were creature, He too would be k hoXoyovpitos . vid. supr. p. 56, note e. g. p. 42, d. 86, a. 99, d. 122, u. 124, k. also Incam. c. Ar. 3. 19, d. Serap. i. b. &c. xvptXaysTt, In Illud Omn. 6, b. 28. a. 29. d. 31 . d. contr. Sab. Greg, contr. Sab. Greg. §. 4, f. and passim ap. Euseb. contr. Marcell. . 384 Distinction between the Word and the Works. Disc, one of those who groan, and would need one who should '— bring adoption and deliverance to Himself as well as others, TOTl P- And if the whole creation groans together, in behalf of freedom from the bondage of corruption, whereas the Son is not of those that groan nor of those who need freedom, but He it is who gives sonship and freedom to all, saying to the Jews of His time1, The servant remains not in the house fur 3g6 ever, bat the Son remaineth for ever ; if then the Son shall r- 3. make you free, ye shall be free indeed; it is clearer than the nite a.' light from these considerations, that the Word of God is not a yghg68' creature but true Son, and by nature genuine, of the Father. Concerning then The Lord hath created Me a beginning of the ways, this is sufficient, as I think, though in few words, to afford matter to the learned to frame more ample refutations of the Arian heresy. < i CHAP. XXII. TEXTS EXPLAINED; SIXTHLY, THE CONTEXT OF PROVERBS viii. 22. viz. 22 — 30. It is right to interpret this passage by the Regula Fidei. " Founded" is used in contrast to superstructure ; and it implies, as in the case of stones in building, previous existence. " Before the world" signifies the divine intention and purpose. Recurrence to Prov viii. 22. and application of it to created Wisdom as seen in the works. The Son reveals the Father, first by the works, then by the incarnation. 1. But since the heretics, reading the following verse1, take ' " Before the world He founded Me as 18. Word or Son," but simply, He founded Me, to shew again, 6 p. 366, as I have said, that not for His own sake6 but for those who " ' are built upon Him does He here also speak, after the way of proverbs. For this knowing, the Apostle also writes, iCor.3, Other foundation, can no man lay than that is laid, which is 10. 11. what we all read, but not all under- Euseb.EccI.Theol. p.l 77, d. And Mace- stand." Ambros. de Incarn. 14. Non donians, vid. Leont. de Sect. iv. init. recipio quod extra Scripturam de tuo AndMonophysites,"Ihavenotlearned infers. Tertull. Cam. Christ. 7. vid. this from Scripture ; and I have a great also 6. " You departed from inspired fear of saying what it is silent about." Scripture and therefore didst fall from Theod. Eran. p. 215. S. Hilary brings grace."Max.dial.v.29.Hereticsinpar- a number of these instances together ticular professed to be guided by Scrip- with their respective texts, Marcellus, ture. Tertull. Pra?scr. 8. For Gnostics Photinus, Sabellius, Montanus, Manes; vid. Tertullian's grave sarcasm. "Utan- then he continues, " Omnes Scripturas tur haeretici omnes scripturis ejus, sine Scripturas sensu loquuntur, etfidem cujus utuntur etiam mundo." Cam. sine tide pra?tendunt. Seriptura enim Christ. 6. For Arians, vid. supr. p. non in legendo sunt, sed in intelligendo, 178, note c. And so Marcellus, "We neque in praevaricatione sunt std in consider it unsafe to lay down doctrine caritate." ad Const, ii. 9. vid. also concerning things which we have not Hieron. c. Lucif. 27. August. Ep. l?0, learned with exactness from the divine 13. Scriptures." (leg. trig) £t.. p. 341, with orthodoxy3. But since that passage, when scrutinized, note i. the assertion, Immortalitas primi ho- course is here referred to only histo- minis non erat gratia? beneficium sed ricalty. naturalis conditio. His decision of ^™™domthatiscreated,is,nottheSon,butwisdomintheworks.2,9\ has an orthodox sense in every point of view, it may be well Chap. to state what it is; perhaps many words may bring these XXI1' senseless men to shame. Now here I must recur to what has been said before, for what I have to say relates to the same proverb and the same Wisdom. The Word has not called Himself a creature by nature, but has said in proverbs, The Lord created Me ; and He plainly indicates a sense not spoken plainly but latent1, such as we shall be able to find ^-343. by taking away the veil from the proverb. For who, on hearing from the Framing Wisdom, The Lord created Me a beginning of His ways, does not at once question the meaning, reflecting how that creative Wisdom can be created? who on hearing the Only-begotten Son of God say, that He was created a beginning of ways, does not investigate the sense, wondering how the Only-begotten Son can become a Beginning of many others ? for it is a dark saying*; but a man of understanding, says he, shaltfa'"myt*K' understand a proverb and the interpretation, the words of thev- 238, wise and their dark sayings. p0te e- 10. Now the Only-begotten and very Wisdom 3 of God is 5- 6. Creator and Framer of all things ; for in Wisdom hast Thou v- 78. made them all, he says, and the earth is full of Thy creation. 2%.'sept'. But that what came into being might not only be, but be 3 x"f good4, it pleased God that His own Wisdom should con- vid! infr. descend5 to the creatures, so as to introduce au impress and?ot!LOB r lv. 2. semblance6 of Its Image on all in common and on each, that4 supr. what was made might be manifestly wise works and worthy „„t3e2' of God °. For as of the Son of God, considered as the Word, 5 P- 3727 our word is an image, so of the same Son considered as p. 373 Wisdom is the wisdom which is implanted in us an image ; "°*f s- in which wisdom we, having the power of knowledge and 23- Before the world hath He founded Me, since in Its impress the CyriTin works remain settled2 and eternal. Then, lest any, hearing Jo^ concerning the wisdom thus created in the works, should vid. think the true Wisdom, God's Son, to be by nature a creature, ^n"in He has found it necessary to add, Before the mountains, and1™- before the earth, and before the waters, and before all hills vid?*"" He begets Me, that in saying, " before all creation," (for He Jl^'J' includes all the creation under these heads,) He may shew that He is not created together with the works according to Substance. For if He was created for the works, yet is be fore them, it follows that He is in being before He was created. He is not then a creature by nature and substance, but as He Himself has added, an Offspring. But in what differs a creature from an offspring, and how it is distinct by nature, has been shewn in what has gone before. 15. But since He proceeds to say, When He prepared the§. 81. heaven, I was present wilh Him, we ought to know that Hei>J0T' 8> says not this as if without Wisdom the Father prepared the heaven or the clouds above, (for there is no room to doubt that all things are created in Wisdom, and without It was made not even one thing ;) but this is what He says, " All things took place in Me and through Me, and when there was need that Wisdom should be created in the works, l> The whole of this passage might letters signifying and heralding its be illustrated at great length from the Lord and Maker by means of its order contr. Gent, and the Incarn. V. D. vid. and harmony." Gent. 34. " As by look- supr. notes on 79. " The soul as in a ing up to the heaven we have an mirror contemplates the Word the idea of the Word who set it in order, Image of tbe Father, and in Him con- so considering the Word of God, we siders the Father, whose Image the cannot but see God His Father." 45. Saviour is. . -or if not. . .yet from the And Incarn. 11, 41, 42, Prov. 8, too has a consistent sense. For even thus He had delight, si. not as if joy came upon Him, but again as seeing the works made after His own Image; so that even this rejoicing of God is on account of His Image. And how too has the Son delight, except as seeing Himself in the Father? for this is the same as saying, He lhat hath seen Me, hath seen the Johni4, Father, and I am in the Father and the Father in Me. 18. Vain then is your vaunt as is on all sides shewn, O Christ's enemies, and vainly do ye preach k and circulate every where your text, The Lord hath created Me a beginning of His ways, perverting its sense, and publishing, not Solo mon's meaning, but your own comment2- For behold your^'f»"*»« sense is proved to be but a fantasy ; but the passage in thesupr. Proverbs, as well as all that is above said, proves that the P- 255> ' ' note n. Son is not a creature in nature and substance, but the proper Offspring of the Father, true Wisdom and Word, by whom all things were made, and without Him was made not one John 1> thing. k ivitropttivo-art. " The ancients said usingbadlanguagetowardsby-standers, •rop«ivut ' to use bad language,' and and their retorting it." Erasm. Adag. the coarse language of the procession, p. 1158. _He quotes Menander, mptriia. This arose from the custom itrl rSt apa\at tin) tfopviiai ritis of persons in the Bacchanalian cars o-Qotya Xo'iio^oi. DISCOURSE III. CHAP. XXIII. texts explained; seventhly, JOHN xiv. 10. Introduction. The doctrine of the coinherence. The Father and the Son Each whole and perfect God. They are in Each Other, because their Substance is One and the Same. They are Each Perfect and have One Substance, because the Second Person is the Son of the First. Asterius's evasive explanation ofthe text under review ; refuted. Since the Son has all that the Father has, He is His Image ; and the Father is the One God, because the Son is in the Father. §. 1. 1. The Ario-maniacs, as it appears, having once made up their minds to transgress and revolt from the Truth, are strenu- Prov. ous in appropriating the words of Scripture, When the impious Sept.' cometh into a depth of evil, he contemneth; for refutation does not stop them, nor perplexity abash them; but, as Jer.3,3. having a whore's forehead, they refuse to be ashamed before , all men in their irreligion. For whereas the passages which ch. xix. they alleged, The Lord created Sie1, and Made better than *ch.xm. jfo j[ngeisn^ an(j First-born3, and Faithful to Him that made 4ch.xiv! Him*,hnve an orthodox meaningd, and inculcate religiousness 5 p. 341, towards Christ, so it is that these men still, as if bedewed with note 1- the serpent's poison, not seeing what they ought to see, nor ^itivyi- understanding what they read, as if in vomit6 from the depth '""" of their irreligious heart, have next proceeded to disparage our Joimi4, Lord's words, i" in the Father and the Father in Me; saying, " How can the One be contained in the Other and the Other in the One?" or " How at all can the Father who is the greater be contained in the Son who is the less ?" or " What wonder, if the Son is in the Father, considering it is written even of us, ' ffcxipa vtroffTa- The Arians speak of God as material. 399 In Him we live and move and have our being*?" And this Chap. state of mind is consistent with their perverseness1, who think HHi God to be material2, and understand not what is " Trae^'"17' Father" and " True Son," nor " Light Invisible" and " Eternal," j^™™'? and Its "Radiance Invisible," nor " Invisible Subsistence3,"3' and " Immaterial Expression" and " Immaterial Image." "' For had they known, they would not have dishonoured and ridiculed the Lord of glory, nor interpreting things immaterial after a material manner, perverted good words. 2. It were sufficient indeed, on hearing only words which are the Lord's, at once to believe, since the faith of simplicity is better than an elaborate* process of persuasion ; but since4 i**t>- they have endeavoured to make even this passage level with w'as their own heresy, it becomes necessary to expose their per verseness' and to shew the mind of the truth, at least for the security of the faithful. For when it is said, / in the Father and the Father in Me, They are not therefore, as these -suppose, discharged into Each Other, filling the One the Other, as in the case of empty vessels, so that the Son fills the emptiness ofthe Father and the Father that ofthe Sonb, • vid. supr. p. 338, note d. The have above been called in notes to de doctrine of the rtgi%tigtio-i; , which this Syn.) in the Macrostich Creed, is the objection introduces, is the test of or- use of language of this character, viz. thodoxy opposed to Ariamsm. vid. p. " All the Father embosoming the Son," 95, note d. This is seen clearly in the they say, " and all the Son hanging case of Eusebius, whose language ap- and adhering to the Father, and alone proaches to Catholic more nearly than resting on the Father's breast con- Arians in general. After all his strong tinually." supr. p. 116, where vid. note assertions, tbe question recurs, is our h. Lord a distinct being from God, as we b This might seem, but is not, in- are, or not P he answers in the affirm- consistent with S. Jerome as quoted in ative, vid. supr. p. 63, note g. whereas the foregoing note. Athan. does but we believe thai He is literally and nu- mean that such illustrations cannot be merically one with the Father, and taken literally, as if spoken of natural therefore His Person dwells in the subjects. The Father is the towoc or Father's Person by an ineffable union, locus ofthe Son, because when we con- And hence the strong language of Pope template the Son in His fulness as oXos Dionysius, supr. p. 46. " the Holy hos, we do but view the Father as that Ghost must repose and habitate in God, " Person in whom God the Son is ; our mind IptpiXo^to^iTt ri/ ho) xa) iiSiaiTathti. And abstracts His Substance which is the hence the strong figure of S. Jerome, Son for the moment from Him, and re- tin which he is followed by S. Cyril, gards Him merely as Father. Thus Thesaur. p. 51.) "Filius locus est Athan. Triv hlat ovo-iav tov x'oytt mapi. Patris, sicut et Pater locus est Filii." tot .yvit, in avTot wopxiopitris vXxgovpitov. Eccl. Theol. i. 2. words which are the more observable, the nearer they ap proach to the language of Athan. in the text and elsewhere. Vid. infr. by way of contrast, ovhi xara piTovtriat avrov, aXX oXov Idiot avrov yivvrpa. 4. d i. e. Son does not live by the gift of life, for He is life, and does but give it, not receive. S. Hilary uses different language with the same mean ing, " Vita viventis [Filii] in vivo [Patre] est." de Trin. ii. 11. Other modes of expression for the same mys tery are found infr. " the whole being of the Son is proper to the Father's substance;" 3. "the Son's being, be cause from the Father, is therefore in the Father;" ibid, also 6 fin. "the Father's Godhead is the being of the Son." 5. Vid. supr. p. 145, note r. and Didymus » narpxiis h'oTns. p. 82. and S. Basil, i\ov%xu to ilvai. contr.Eunom. ii. 12 fin. Just above Athan. says that " the Son is the fulness of the God head." Thus the Father is the Son's life because the Son is from Him, and the Son the Father's because the Son is in Him. All these are but different ways of signifying the xiyxfywis. Asterius said, the Father in the Son, for His words given Him. 401 retained pleader1 for the heresy. In imitation then of the Jews Chap. so far, he writes as follows ; " It is very plain that He has said, ^^-_ that He is in the Father and the Father again in Him, for So7,"ini". this reason, that neither the word, on which He was discours- §" 60* ing is, as He says, His own, but the Father's, nor the works belong2 to Him, but to the Father who gave Him the power." 2 olxua Now this, if uttered at random by a little child, had been excused from his age ; but when one who bears the title of Sophist, and professes universal knowledge", is the writer, what a serious condemnation does he deserve? And does he not shew himself a stranger to the Apostle3, as being puffed *> p. 131, up with persuasive words of wisdom, and thinking thereby to note d° succeed in deceiving, not understanding himself what he i Tim. saith nor whereof he affirms ? For what the Son has said as 1> 7' proper and suitable to a Son only, who is Word and Wisdom and Image ofthe Father's Substance, that he levels to all the creatures, and makes common to the Son and to them ; and he says, lawless' man, that the Power of the Father receives power, that from this his irreligion it may follow to say that in a Son4 the Son was made a son, and the Word received a4 « «?$,_ Word's authority; and, far from granting that He spoke this ^/^ as a Son, he ranks Him with all things made as having ^pg- }* learned it as they have. For if the Son said, i" am in thep. 31 1;" Father and the Father in Me, because His discourses were note k" not His own words but the Father's, and so of His works, then, since David says, / will hear what the Lord God shall Ps. 83, say in Me, and again Solomon, My words are spoken by God, ' eptl and since Moses was minister of words which were from God, and each of the Prophets spoke not what was his own but what was from God, Thus saith the Lord, and since the works of the Saints, as they professed, were not their own but God's who gave the power, Elias for instance and Eliseus invoking God that He Himself would raise the dead, and Eliseus saying to Naaman, on cleansing him from the leprosy, e vatTa yitaio-xiit irayy.XXipttos . able to "make the worse cause the GorgiasaccoidingtoCicerodefin.il. init. better." Rhet. ii. 24 fin. Vid. Cressol. was the first who ventured in public to Theatr. Ehet. iii. 11. say trpo/SuXXsri, " give me a question." f tra^atopos. infr. 47, c. Hist. Ar. This was the UdyyiXpa ofthe Sophists; 71, 75, 79. Ep. JEg. 16, d. Vid. Stopos. of which Aristotle speaks, ascribing to 2 Thess. 2, 8. Protagoras the " profession" of being 402 The Father is in the Son, because the Son from the Father. Disc, that thou mayest know that there is a God in Lsrael, and Samuel too in the days of the harvest praying to God to vid. 2 Kings grant rain, and the Apostles saying that not in their own 5' 8' 15' power they did miracles but in the Lord's grace, it is plain that, according to Asterius, such a statement must be com mon to all, so that each of them is able to say, / in the Father and the Father in Me ; and as a consequence that He is no longer one Son of God and Word and Wisdom, but, as others, is only one out of many. §. 3. 4. But if the Lord said this, His words would not rightly have been, I in the Father and the Father in Me, but rather, " I too am in the Father and the Father is in Me too," that 1 l£«i?6- He may have nothing proper and by prerogative ', relatively 30g p' to the Father, as a Son, but the same grace in common with note f. all. But it is not so, as they think ; for not understanding ^yvno-iov that He is genuine2 Son from the Father, they bely Him who is such, whom only it befits to say, / in the Father and the Father in Me. For the Son is in the Father, as it is allowed us to know, because the whole Being of the Son is proper to the Father's substance6, as radiance from light, and stream from fountain ; so that whoso sees the Son, sees what is proper to the Father, and knows that the Son's Being, because from the Father, is therefore in the Father. For the Father is in the Son, since the Son is what is from the Father and proper to Him, as in the radiance the sun, and in the word £ Since tbe Father and the Son are is Spirit so is the Son, as the Father the numerically One God, it is but ex- God so is the Son, as the Father Light pressing this in other words to say that so is the Son. From those things tbere- the Father is in the Son and the Son fore which are in the Father, are those in that Father, for all They have and in which is the Son ; that is, of the all They are is common to Each, except- whole Father is born the whole Son; ing Their being Father and Son. A not from other, &c not in part, vipxtigtiirts of Persons is implied in the for in the Son is tlie fulness of Godhead. Unity ot Substance. This is the con- What is in the Father, that too is in nexion of the two texts so often quoted ; the Son ; One from the Other and Both "the Son is in the Father and the One (unum); not Two One Person Father in the Son," because " the Son (unus," vid. however, the language and the Father are one." And the of the Athan. Creed, which expresses cause of this unity and m^x^no-is is itself differently after S. Austin) but the Divine yittno-is. Thus b. jciilary : Either in Other, because not other " The perfect Son of a perfect Father, in Either. The Father in the Son, and of the Ingenerate God the Only- because from Him the Son the Only- begotten Offspring, who from Him who begotten in the Ingenerate, because hath all hath received all , God from God, from the Ingenerate the Only-begotten, Spirit from Spirit, Light from Light, &c. Trin. ii. 4. vid. supr. p. 326, note says confidently, ' The Father in Me g. and I in the Father,' for as the Father One and the same Godhead in Father and Son. 403 the thought, and in the stream the fountain : for whoso thus Chap. XXIII contemplates the Son, contemplates what is proper to the Father's Substance, and knows that the Father is in the Son. For whereas the Faceh 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 Sou'. 5. On this account and reasonably, having said before, /Johnio, and the Father are One, He added, I in the Father and the-, °^auri. Father in Me, by way of shewing the identity1 of Godhead *¦»«, and the unity of Substance. For they are one, not2 as oneD'oter' thing divided into two parts, and these nothing but one, nor §. 4. as one thing twice named, so that the Same becomes at one oratViv. time Father, at another His own Son, for this Sabellius^- holding was judged an heretic. But They are two, because the Father is Father and is not also Son, and the Son is Son and not also Father3; but the nature is one; (for the3infr.H. offspring is not unlike" its parent, for it is his image,) and all that is the Father's, is the Son's1. Wherefore neither is 11 iltov;, face or form. Petavius here prefers the reading Ulov ; horns and to Uiot occur together infr. 6. and 56. i/S« occurs Orat. i. 20, a. de Syn. 52. vid. supr. p. 154, note e. infr. 6. 16. Ep. JEg. 17, c. contr. Sabell. Greg. 8, c. 12, b. d. vid. infr. p. 406, notep, p. 424, note o. ¦ In accordance with note b. supr. Tbomassin observes 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 Fa ther, should be the very essence, sub stance, wisdom, life, and power of the Son." de Trin. 28. 1. S. Cyril adopts Athan.'s language to express this doc trine. " The Son in one place says, that He is in the Father and has the Father again in Him ; for tbe very pecu liarity (lim) of the Father's substance, by nature coming to the Son, shews the Father in Him." in Joan. p. 105. " One is contemplated in the other, and is truly, according to the conna tural and consubstantial." de Trin. vi. p 621. " He has in Him the Son and is again in the Son, because of the identity of substance." in Joann. p. 168. Vid. infra ravTorns obo-ias, 21. -rraroixn h'tTTis tov viov, 26. and 41. and supr. p. 145, note r. vid. also Damasc. F. O. i. 8. pp. 139, 140. k atopoiot ; and SO atopoios xaTtt trdtTa. Orat. i. 6. xar ovo-lav. 17 '. Orat. ii. 43. Tns obo-ias. infr. 14. vid. avopoioTui . infr. 8, e. 1 " We must concei ve of necessity that in the Father is the eternal, the ever lasting, the immortal ; and in Him, not as foreign to Him, but as abiding (ita- vravopsta) in Him as in a Fount and in the Son. When then you would form a conception ofthe Son, learn what are the things in the Father, and believe that they are in the Son too. If the Father is creature or work, -these attri butes are also in the Son, &e He who honours tbe Son, is honouring the Father who sect Him, and he who receives the Son, is receiving with Him the Father, &c." In illud Omn.4. "As the Father is I Am (o liv) so His Word is I Am and God over all." Serap. i. 28, a. " Altogether, there is nothing which the Father has, which is not the Son's; for therefore it is that the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son ; because the things of the Father, these are in the Son, and still the same are understood as in the Father. Thus is understood, ' I and the Father are One ;' since not these things are in Him 404 The Son's is not a second Godhead, but the Father's. Disc, the Son another God, for Fie was not procured1 from without, 1)IU' else were there many, if a godhead be procured foreign from 2 p. 186, the Father's2; for if the Son be other, as an Offspring, still He f" ?* , is the Same as God ; and He and the Father are one iu pro- T>iTa priety and peculiarity3 of nature, and the identity4 of the one r.P{. 'Godhead, as has been said. For the radiance also is light, 5 pine not second to the sun, nor a different light, nor from partici- 6 'doc- pation5 of it, but a whole and proper offspring of it. And +[mTT°f such an offspring is necessarily one light ; and no one would Hes, say that they are two lights6, but sun and radiance two, yet noteV one ^e li^t from the sun enlightening in its radiance all 7 p. 149, things. So also the Godhead of the Son is the Father's; Sparaii'ei whence also it is indivisible ; and thus there is one God and to de none other but He. And so, since they are one, and the Syn. 49. . . p. 149, Godhead itself one, the same things are said of the Son, John l which are said °f the Father, except His being said to be l. Father7 : — for instance8, that He is God, And the Word was 8 ' ' God ; Almighty, Thus saith He which was and is and is lo l Cor. 8, come, the Almighty ; Lord, One Lord Jesus Christ; that He John 8, is Light, / am the Light; that He forgives sins, that ye may i2\ 5 know, He says, that the Son of man hath power upon earth 24. to forgive sins; and so with olher attributes. For all things, 15 °7 'saJs the Son Himself, whatsoever the Father hath, are io. Mine ; and again, And Mine are Thine. And on hearing „*; _ the attributes9 of the Father spoken of Son, we shall thereby a Ta TOV r ' J «aT$s see the Father in the Son ; and we shall contemplate the Son in the Father, when what is said of the Son, is said of the Father also. And why are the attributes of the Father ascribed to the Son, except that the Son is an Offspring from Him ? and why are the Son's attributes proper to the Father, except again because the Son is the proper Offspring of His Substance ? And the Son, being the proper Offspring of the Father's Substance, reasonably says that the Father's at tributes are His own also ; whence suitably and consistently Johnio, with saying, / and ihe Father are One, He adds, that ye 14' io. maV know that 1 am in ihe Father and the Father in Me. and those in the Son, but the things thereby is rightly understood ' He which are in the Father those are in that hath seen Me, hath seen the the Son, and what thou seest in the Father.'" Serap. ii. 2. Father, because thou seest in the Son, As the Image not a second Emperor, so the Son nota second God. 405 6. Moreover, Fie has added this again, He that hath seen Chap. Me, hath seen the Father ; and there is one and the same XX-— sense in these three™ passages. For he who in this sense 9.° " understands that the Son and the Father are one, knows that He is in the Father and the Father in the Son ; for the God head of the Son is the Father's, and it is in the Son ; and whoso enters into this, is convinced that He that hath seen the Son, hath seen the Father; for in the Son is contemplated the Father's Godhead. And we may perceive this at once from the illustration of the Emperor's image. For in the image is the face and form of the Emperor, and in the Emperor is that face which is in the image. For the like ness of the Emperor in the image is unvarying1 ; so that au^fix- person who looks at the image, sees in it the Emperor; andx"*™'' he again who sees the Emperor, recognises that it is he noted.' who is in the image". And from the likeness not differing, to one who after the image wished to view the Emperor, the image might say, " I and the Emperor are one ; for I am in him, and he in me ; and what thou seest in me, that thou beholdest in him, and what thou hast seen in him, that thou beholdest in me0." Accordingly he who worships the image, m Here these three texts, which so Chrysostom's second persecution arose often occur together, are recognised as frcm his interfering with a statue of the "three;" so are they by Eusebius Empress which was so near the Church, Eccl. Theol. iii. 19. and he says that that the acclamations of the people be- Marcellus and " those who Sabellianize fore it disturbed the services. Socr. vi. with him," among whom be included 18. The Seventh Council speaks of Catholics, were in the practice of ad- the images sent by the Emperors into ducing them, hu/.XovtTis ; which bears provinces instead of their coming in incidental testimony to tbe fact that person ; Ducange in v. Lauratum. Vid. the doctrine of the '«rej*%ai{>i«s was ^e a description of the imperial statues and great criterion between orthodox and theii honours in Gothofred, Cod. Theod. Arian. Many instances of the joint t. 5, pp. 346, 7- and in Philostorg. p. 90. use of the three are given supr. p. 229, vid. also Molanus de Imaginibus ed. note g. to which may be added Orat. ii. Paquot, p. 197. 54 init. iii. 16 fin. 67 fin. iv. 17, a. ° Athanasius guards against what is Serap. ii. 9 c. Serm. Maj. de fid. 29. defective in this illustration in the next Cyril.de Trin. p. 554. in Joann. p. 168. chapter, but independent of such ex- Orige'nPeriarch. p. 56. Hil. Trin. ix. 1. planation a mistake as to his meaning Ambros. Hexaem. 6. August, de Cons, would be impossible ; and the passage j£v_ j » affords a good instance of the imperfect n' vid' Basil. Hom. contr. Sab. p. and partial character of all illustrations 192 The honour paid to the Imperial of the Divine Mystery. What it is Statues is well known. " He who taken to symbolize is the unity of the crowns the Statue of the Emperor, of Father and Son, for the Image is not course honours him, whose image he a Second Emperor but the same vid has crowned." Ambros. in Psalm 118, Sabell. Greg. 6. But no one who bowed x. 25 vid. also Chrysost. Hom. on before the Emperor's Statue can be Statues 0 T. pp. 356, &c. fragm. in supposed to have really worshipped Act Cone, vii (t. 4,' p. 89. Hard.) it; whereas our Lord is the Object 406 The Being of Son the Godhead, and from the Substance,ofFather. Disc, in it worships the Emperor also ; for the image is his form1 ,-^r and face. Since then the Son too is the Father's Image, it Mi of those on the other hand who by nature are not true, as the Father and His Word are. And hence the Lord Himself added at once, And Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent. Now j0hni7 had He been a creature, He would not have added this, and 3- ranked Himself with His Creator ; (for what fellowship is there between the True and the not true?) but now by adding Flimself to the Father, He has shewn that He is of the Father's nature ; and He has given us to know that of the True Father He is True Offspring. And John too, as he had ?-£?'*' ....... lotdagt, learned3, so he teaches this, writing in his Epistle, And we sap. are in the True, even in His Son Jesus Christ ; This is the %0ljf'^ True God and eternal life. And when the Prophet says p. 282, concerning the creation, That stretcheth forth the heavens™ f0^ alone, and when God says, / only stretch out the heavens, it £> ?°^4 is made plain to every one, that in the Only is signified also 24. the Word of the Only, in whom all things were made, andj[°hnl> b who worship one whom they them- note d. p. 301, note c. p. 310, note h, selves call a creature, vid. supr. p. 191, infr. p. 423, notes m and n. 2 E 2 z KOt.X.0- VOIOCV 412 As the Father is First yet Only, so the Son First-born yet Only, Disc, without whom was made not one thing. Therefore, if they m- were made through the Word, and yet He says, / Only, and together with that Only is understood the Son, through whom the heavens were made, so also then, if it be said, One God, and I Only, and / the First, in that One and Only aud First 1 fwut. is understood the Word coexisting1, as in the Light the Radiance. 5. And this can be understood of no other than the Word alone. For all other things subsisted out of nothing through the Son, and are greatly different in nature ; but the Son Him self is natural and true Offspring from the Father ; and thus the very passage which these insensates have thought fit to adduce, / the First, in defence of their heresy, doth rather ex pose their perverse spirit2. For God says, I the First and I the Last; if then, as though ranked with the things after Him, He is said to be first of them, so that they come next to Him, then certainly you will have shewn that He Himself precedes the works in time only"; which, to go no further, is extreme irreligion ; but if it is in order to prove that He is not from any, nor any before Him, but that He is Origin and Cause of all things, and to destroy the Gentile fables, that He has said i" the First, it is plain also, that when the Son is called First-born, this is done not for the sake of ranking Him with the creation, but to prove the framing and 3 vid. p. adoption of all things3 through the Son. For as the Father note' e *s ^TSU so also is He both First d, as Image of the First, and c He says that in " I the first" the One God in three ways. It is the doc- question of time does not come in, else trine of the Fathers, that, though we creatures would, come second to the use words expressive of a Trinity, yet Creation, as if His and their duration that God is beyond number, and that admitted of a common measure. "First" Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, though then does not imply succession, but is eternally distinct from each other, can equivalent to £{£»; a word which, as scarcely be viewed together in common, " Father," does uot imply that the Son except as One substance, asif they could is not from eternity. not be generalized into Three Any what- d It is no inconsistency to say that ever ; and as if it were, strictly speak- the Father is first, and the Son first ing, incorrect to speak of a Person, or also, for comparison or number does otherwise than of the Person, whether not enter into this mystery. Since Each of Father, or of Son, or of Spirit. The is oXos hos, Each, as contemplated by question has almost been admitted by our finite reason, at the moment of con- S. Austin, whether it is not possible to templation excludes the Other. Though say that God is One Person, (Trin. we say Three Persons, Person hardly vii. 8.) for He is wholly and en- denotes one abstract idea, certainly not tirely Father, and at the same time as containing under it three individual wholly and entirely Son, and wholly subjects, but it is a term applied to the and entirely Holy Ghost. Some pas- in whom the whole creation are made sons. 413 because the First is in Him, and also Offspring from the Chap. Father, in whom the whole creation is created and adopted : into sonship. sages from tbe Fathers shall be given on that subject, infr. 36 fin. vid. also supr. p. 407, note s. Meanwhile the doctrine here stated will account for such ex pressions as " God from God," i. e. the One God (who is the Son) from the One God (who is the Father); vid. supr. p. 155, note f. Again, ti obo-ta avTn tvis obo-ias Tr)s traTgixrls \o-t) yivvtipa. de Syn. 48, b. "Vid. also infr. Orat. iv. 1 and 2. where he argues against the Sabellian hypothesis as making the Divine Na ture compound, (the Word being a some thing in It,) whereas the Catholic doc trine preserves unity because the Father is the One God simply and entirely, and the Son the One God singly and entirely, (vid. supr. p. 334, note y.) ; the Word not a sound, which is nothing, nor a quality which is unworthy of God, but a substantial Word and a substantial Wisdom. "As," he continues, "tbe Origin is One substance, so Its Word and Wisdom is One, substantial and subsistent; for as from God is God, and from Wise Wisdom, and from rational (Xoyixov) a Word, and from Father a Son, so from a subsistence is He subsistent, and from substance sub stantial and substantive, and from ex isting existing," &c. §- io. CHAP. XXV. TEXTS EXPLAINED; NINTHLY, JOHN X. 30; Xvii. 11, &C Arian explanation, that the Son is one with the Father in will and judgment; hut so are all good men, nay things inanimate ; contrast of the Son. Oneness between Them is in nature, because oneness in operation. Angels not objects of prayer, because they do not work together with God, but the Son ; texts quoted. Seeing an Angel, is not seeing God. Arians in fact hold two Gods, and tend to Gentile polytheism. Arian explanation that the Father and Son are one, as we are one with Christ, is put aside by the Regula Fidei, and shewn invalid by the usage of Scripture in illustrations ; the true force of the comparison ; force of the terms used. Force of " in us ;" force of " as;" confirmed hy S. John. In what sense we are " in God" and His " sons." Disc. l. However here too they introduce their private fictions, and contend that the Son and the Father are not in such wise " one," or " like," as the Church preaches, but, as they themselves would have it". For they say, since what the Father wills, the Son wills also, and is not contrary either in what He thinks or in what He judges, but is in all respects concordant" with Him, declaring doctrines which are the same, and a word consistent and united with the Father's teaching, therefore it is that He and the Father are One ; and some of them have 1 Aste- dared to write as well as say this1. Now what can be more rius, p. 401 init. a as avro) liXevo-i. vid. p. 411, r. 2. and the Arian o-vpptovia has been touched on infr. p. 425, r. 2 " not as you say, but as supr. p. 107, note f. p. 155, note g. we will." Thisis a common phrasewith Besides Origen, Novatian, the Creed Athan. vid. supr. p. 92, note r. and of Lucian, and (if so) S. Hilary, as especially Hist. Tract. O.T. p. 266, note mentioned in the former of these notes, d. (vid. also Sent. Dion. 4, b. 14, b.) "one" is explained as oneness of will by It is bere contrasted to the Church's S. Hippolytus, contr. Noet. 7, where he doctrine, and connected with the word explains John 10, 30. by 17, 22. liie "hos. for which supr. p. 78, note n. the Arians; and, as might be expected, p. 233, note a. Vid. also de Mort. Ar. by Eusebius Eccl. Theol. iii. p. 193. fin. Also contr. Apoll. ii. 5 init. in con- and by Asterius ap. Euseb. contw Marc. trast with the tbayytXixis opos. Apol. pp. 28, 37. Thepassagesof the Fathers contr. Ar.36,d.Vid.also2,f.defug.2,a. in which this text is adduced are col- '' o-vpftotos. vid. infr. 23. supr. p. 148. lected by Maldonat. in loc. If the SonOne with Godbutin will,every obedient creature the Son. 4 1 5 extravagant or irrational than this ? for if therefore the Son Chap. and the Father are One, and if in this way the Word is like XXV' the Father, it follows forthwith" that the Angels'1 too, and the other beings above us, Powers and Authorities, and Thrones and Dominions, and what we see, Sun and Moon, and the Stars, should be sons also, as the Son ; and that it should be said of them too, that they and the Father are one, and that each is God's Image and Word. For what God wills, that will they ; and neither in judging nor in doctrine are they discordant, but in all things are obedient to their Maker. For they would not have preserved their own glory, unless, what the Father willed, that they had willed also. He, for instance, who did not preserve it, but became deranged, heard the words, How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son is. 14 of the morning? 12- 2. But if this be so, how is only He Only-begotten Son and Word and Wisdom ? or how, whereas so many are like the Father, is He only an Image ? for among men too will be found many like the Father, numbers, for instance, of mar tyrs, and before them the Apostles and Prophets, and again before them the Patriarchs. And many now too keep the Saviour's command, being merciful as their Father which is Matt. 5, in heaven, and observing the exhortation, Be ye therefore^- followers of God as dear children, and walk in love, as Christ 1. 2. also hath loved us; many too have become followers of Paul as he also of Christ. And yet no one of these is Word or Wisdom or Only -begotten Son or Image ; nor has aDy one of them had the audacity to say, / and the Father are One, or, I in j0bnio, the Father, and the Father in Me; but it is said of all ofj^ j% them, Who is like unto Thee among the gods, O Lord? audio. who shall be likened to the Lord among the sons of Godf^'J?*- and of Him on the contrary that He only is Image true and 89, 7. natural of the Father. For though we were made after the Image ', and called both image and glory of God, yet not on 1 Aug. our own account still, but for that Image and true Glory of *fj |*m- God inhabiting us, which is His Word, who was for us after wards made flesh, have we this grace of our designation. c ,%.,a. vid. p. 130, note c. also Orat. Thesaur. p. 255 fin. ii 6 b iv 19 c. d. Euseb. contr. Marc. d This argument is found above, p-47 b p 91 b. Cyril. Dial. p. 456. p. 148. vid. also Cyril.de Trin. i. p. 407. 416 Where the Son works, there the Father works in the Son. Disc 3. This their notion then being evidently unseemly and . ' irrational as well as the rest, the likeness and the oneness »• must be referred to the very Substance ofthe Son; for unless it be so taken, He will not be shewn to have any thing beyond things generate, as has been said, nor will He be like the Father, but He will be like the Father's doctrines ; and He differs from the Father, in that the Father is Fathere, but the doctrines and teaching are the Father's. If then in respect to the doctrines and the teaching the Son is like the Father, then the Father according to them will be Father in 1 itra- name only, and the Son will not be an unvarying1 Image, or ™s "x rather will be seen to have no propriety at all or likeness of the Father ; for what likeness or propriety has he who is so utterly different from the Father ? for Paul taught like the \Tr' Saviour, yet was not like Him in substance3- Having then Spoios, such notions, they speak falsely 3; whereas the Son and the p- 210i Father are one in such wise as has been said, and in such note e. 3 ^ibht-wise is the Son like the Father Himself and from Him, as we ' may see and understand son to be towards father, and as we may see the radiance towards the sun. 4. Such then being the Son, therefore when the Son works, " P- 4°6- the Father is the Worker4, and the Son coming to the Saints, the Father is He who cometh in the Sonf, as He has promised e o pit craikg, iraTfy ig-ti. And so, "In the Origin of all and True Cause of the Godhead only, o vraTtip xvp'ms io-t) beings, says, ' Call no one your father •xa-rhp, xa) i vios xvolus vl'os." Serap. i. 16. upon earth, for One is your Father, vid. the whole passage. He speaks of which is in heaven.' " He adds, that " receding from things generate, cast- if He is properly and not metaphori- ing away human images, and ascending calty even our Father, (vid. p. 56, to the Father." supr. p. 153. and of men note k.) much more is He the tarno, " not being in nature and truth bene- too xaTa tpitsiv viov "Vid. also Euseb. factors," Almighty God being Himself contr. Marc. p. 22, c. Eccl. Theol. i. the type and pattern, infr. pp. 427, 8. 12. fin. ii. 6. Marcellus, on the other and note x. Vid. pp. 211, 214, 215. hand, said that our Lord was xvpias and p. 18, uoteo. p. 21 1, note f. p. 212, Xoyos, not xvtlus vias. ibid. ii. 10 fin. note p. And so S. Cyril, vd xvpio-s t'ix- vid. supr. p 3i>7, note d. tov U- iavrov ta hliv iffTlt, vipus Se saTtt f And SO ipyagopitov tau tutpos, ipya- pipvta-tt. Thesaur. p. 133. vtuttip xvp'iws, Z,itrhtt xa) tov vlot. In illud Omn. 1, d. on prt xa) vios' lio-mo xa) vlis xvpias. oti Cum luce nobis prodeat, In Patre totus ph xa) vatiip. Naz. Orat. 29, 5. vid. Filius, et totus in Verbo Pater. Hymn. also 23, 6 fin. 25, 16. vid. also the Brev. in fer. 2. Ath. argues from this whole of Basil, adv. Eun. ii. 23. " One oneness of operation the oneness of sub- mustnot say," he observes, " that these stance. And thus S. Chrysostom on names properly and primarily, xvp'ms the text under review argues that if the xa) trpiuTus belong to men, and are Father and Son are one xara em 2"- given hy us but by a figure xaTaxono-- taptv, They are one also in obo-ia. in tixSs (p. 335, note a.) to God. For our Joan. Hom. 61, 2, d. Tertullian in Lord Jesus Christ, referring us back to Trax. 22. and S. Epiphanius, Hser, 57. The Father and the Son One Source of grace. . 417 when He says, i" and My Father will come, and will make Chap. Our abode with him ; for in the Image is contemplated the yy~ Father, and in the Radiance is the Light. Therefore, as we 23. said just now, when the P'ather gives grace and peace, the Son also gives it, as Paul signifies in every Epistle, writing, Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. For one and the same grace is from the Father in the Son, as the light of the sun and of the radiance is one, and the sun's illumination is effected through the radiance ; and so too when he prays for the Thessalonians, in saying, Now God Himself even our Father, and the Lordi Thess. Jesus Christ, may He direct our way unto you, he has ' ' guarded the unity of the Father and of the Son. For he has not said, " May they direct," as if a double grace were given from two Sources, This and That, but May He direct, to shew that the Father gives it through the Son ; — at which these irreligious ones will not blush, though they well might. For §. 12. if there were no unity, nor the Word the proper Offspring of the Father's Substance, as the radiance of the light, but the Son were divided in nature from the Father, it were sufficient that the Father alone should give, since none of generate things is a partner with his Maker in His givings ; but, as it is, such a mode of giving shews the oneness of the Father and the Son. No one, for instance, would pray to receive from God and the Angels6, or from any other creature, nor would p. 488. seem to say tbe same on the insistsonhisteachingconcemingChrist, same text. vid. Lampe in loc. And so ' through the blood of the Cross,' " &c. S. Athan. rpia; aiiaipiTos Ty tpvo-ei, xa) And Theodoret on Col. 3, 17. says, pia ravms h ivipyua. Serap. i. 28, f. " Following this rule, the Synod of h tiXnpa varpos xa) viov xa) jhovXnpa, Laodicea, with a view to cure this an- i Isaac; and Isaac praying for Jacob, said, May God bless Gen.28, thee and increase thee and multiply thee, and thou shalt be ' p " for many companies of nations, and may He give thee the blessing of Abraham my father. 7. But if it belong to none other than God to bless and to deliver, and none other was the deliverer of Jacob than the Lord Himself, and Him that delivered him the Patriarch besought for his grandsons, evidently none other did he join to God in his prayer, than God's Word, whom therefore he called Angel, because it is He alone who reveals the Father. Which the Apostle also did when he said, Grace unto you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. For thus the blessing was secure, because of the Son's indivisibility1 from the Father, and for that the grace ¦ «W{i- given by Them is one and the same. For though the Father gives it, through the Son is the gift ; and though the Son be said to vouchsafe it, it is the Father who supplies it through and in the Son ; for I thank my God, says the Apostle writing 1 Cor. 1, to the Corinthians, always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you in Christ Jesus. And this one may see in the instance of light and radiance ; for what the 420 Angels are ministers and servants. Disc, light enlightens, that the radiance irradiates ; and what the IIL radiance irradiates, from the light is its enlightenment. So §.14. 1 troitiTi- xot a'lTtov p. 310, note h. 14. s ttio-iro TOV also when the Son is beheld, so is the Father, for He is the Father's radiance ; and thus the Father and the Son are one, 8. But this is not so with things generate and creatures ; for when the Father works, it is not that any Angel works, or any other creature; for none of these is an efficient cause1, but they are of things which come to be ; and moreover being separate and divided from the only God, and other in nature, and being works, they can neither work what God works, nor, as I said before, when God gives grace, can they give grace with Him. Nor, on seeing an Angel would a man say that he had seen the Father ; for Angels, as it is Heb. l, written, are ministering spirits sent forth to minister, and are heralds of gifts given by Him through the Word to those who receive them. And the Angel on his appearance, himself confesses that he has been sent by his Lord2, as Gabriel confessed in the case of Zacharias, and also in the case of Mary, Mother of God1. And he who beholds a Lup. Ephes. Ep. 94. He adds that it, as well as itQpuvoToxos, was used by "the great doctors of the Church." Socrates Hist. vii. 32. says that Origen, in tbe first tome of his Comment on the Romans, (vid. de la Rue in Eom. lib. i. 5. the original is lost,) treated largely of the word ; which implies that it was already in use. " Interpreting," be says, " how horoxos is used, be dis cussed the question at length." Con stantine implies the same in a passage which divines, e. g. Pearson (On the Creed, notes on Art. 3.) have not dwelt upon, (or rather have apparently over looked, in arguing from Ephrem ap. Phot. Cod. 228, p. 776. that the literal phrase " Mother of God" originated in S. Leo,) in which, in pagan language indeed and with a painful allusion, as it would seem, to heathen mythology, he says, " When He had to drawneartoa body of this world, and to tarrj on earth, the need so requiring, He contrived a sort of irregular birth of Himself, vWfiv «»» yitto-it ; for without marriage was there conception, and childbirth, ilXiilvia, of a pure Virgin, and a maid the Mother of God, hov primp, x'oeri." ad Sanct. Coet. p. 480. The idea must have been fa miliar to Christians before it could thus be paralleled or represented, vid. notes on 29, 33 infr. 1 ttis horoxov Manias, vid. also infr. 29, 33. Orat. iv. 32. Incarn. c. Ar. 8, 22. supr. p. 244, note 1. As to the history of this title, Theodoret, who from his party would rather be disin clined towards it, says that " the most ancient (.tcZv iraXat xa) tegoxaXat) he ralds of the orthodox faith taught to name and believe the Mother of the Lord horoxot, according to the Aposto lical tradition." Hser, iv. 12. And John of Antioch, whose championship of Nestorius and quarrel with S. Cyril are well known writes to the former. " This title no ecclesiastical teacher has put aside; those who bave used it are many and eminent, and those who have not used it have not attacked those who used it." Concii. Eph. part i. c. 25. (Labb.) And Alexander, the most obstinate or rather furious of all Nes- torius's adherents, who died in banish ment iu Egypt, fully allows the ancient reception of the word, though only into popular use, from which came what he considers thedoctrinal corruption. "That in festive solemnities, or in preaching and teaching, horoxos should be un guardedly said by the orthodox without explanation, is no blame, because such statements were not dogmatic, nor said with evil meaning. But now after the corruption of the whole world, &c." Appearances ofthe Son in Scripture distinct from those of Angels. 421 vision of Angels, knows that he has seen the Angel and not Chap. God. For Zacharias saw an Angel ; and Esaias saw the XXY' Lord. Manoe, the father of Samson, saw an Angel ; but Moses beheld God. Gideon saw an Angel, but to Abraham appeared God. And neither he who saw God, beheld an Angel, nor he who saw an Angel, considered that he saw God; for greatly, or rather wholly, do things by nature generate differ from God the Creator. But if at any time, when the Angel was seen, he who saw it heard God's voice, as took place at the bush ; for the Angel of the Lord was vii. seen in a flame of fire out ofthe bush, and the Lord called ^g' Moses out of the bush, saying, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, yet was not the Angel the God of Abraham, but in the Angel God spoke. And what was seen was an Angel ; but God spoke in him1. For as He spoke to Moses in the 'p. 418, pillar of a cloud in the tabernacle, so also God appears and no e ' speaks in Angels. So again to the son of Nave He spake by an Angel. But what God speaks, it is very plain He speaks through the Word, and not through another. And the Word, as being not separate from the Father, nor unlike2 -ivlpoios and foreign to the Father's Substance,what He works,those are the Father's works, and His framing of all things is one with His ; and what the Son gives, that is the Father's gift. And he who hath seen the Son, knows that, in seeing Him, he has seen, not Angel, nor one merely greater than Angels, nor in short any creature, but the Father Himself. And he who hears the Word, knows that he hears the Father ; as he who is irradiated by the radiance, knows that he is enlightened by the sun. 9. For divine Scripture wishing us thus to understand the§- 15. matter, has given such illustrations, as we have said above, from which we are able both to press the traiterous Jews, and to refute the allegation of Gentiles who maintain and think, on account ofthe Trinity, that we profess many godsk. For, as the illustration shews, we do not introduce three Origins or three Fathers, as the followers of Marcion and Manichseus; since we have not suggested the image of three suns, but sun k Serap. 1, 28 fin. Naz. Orat. 23, 8. Catech. 3. p. 481. Basil. Hom. 24 init. Nyssen. Orat. 422 The Father pervades all in the Son, acts in all in the Spirit. Disc, and radiance. And one is the light from the sun in the ra in - diance ; and so we know of but one origin ; and the All-framing 1 Tpixot Word we profess to have no other manner1 of godhead, than that of the Only God, because He is born from Him. Rather then will the Ario-maniacs with reason incur the charge of 2 infr. §. polytheism or else of atheism2, because they idly talk of the J&s 14 ®ou as extemai and a creature, and again the Spirit as from o. nothing. For either they will say that the Word is not God; 3 p. 423, or saying that He is God3, because it is so written, but not and n. proper to the Father's Substance, they will introduce many i\npo- because of their difference of kind4; (unless forsooth they " is shall dare to say that by participation only, He, as all things else, is called God ; though, if this be their sentiment, their irreligion is the same, since they consider the Word as one 5Vva tSv among all things5.) But let this never even come into our mind. fn™" For there is but one face b of Godhead, which is also in the kind or Word ; and one God, the Father, existing by Himself according as He is above all, and appearing in the Son according as He pervades all things, and in the Spirit ac cording as in Him He acts in all things through the Word1. For thus we confess God to be one through the Trinity, and we say that it is much more religious than the god- 7 ^ Orat. iv. things of nature as images and illustrations for mankind; 33 nut. an(j tnjs it does, that from these physical objects the moral 8 « lx impulses" of man may be explained ; and thus their conduct 0!"i'l_ shewn to be either bad or righteous. For instance, in the fflcas xt- tipara case 0f iae had, as when it charges, Be ye not like to horse Ps.32, ajKi mule which have no understanding. Or as when it 49, 20. says, complaining of those who have become such, Man, i ttpupyd^iohti vid. p. 328, note k. it is otherwise explained as embracing p. 386, r. 5. p. 399, c. 4. infr. 43 init. various kinds of bad books, in Ortlob. Orat. iv. 33 init. Serap. i. 15 fin. 1 7, d. Dissert, ap. Thesaur. Nov. Theol.'-Fhil. 18, e. trtpUpya in Acts 19, 19. is in N. T. t.' 2. generally interpreted of magic, though Our moral excellences are but imitations of God's attributes. 427 being in honour, hath no understanding, but is compared Chap. unto the beasts that perish. And again, They were as fed xxv" horses in ihe morning. And the Saviour to expose Herod Jer'5'8- said, Tell that fox ; but, on the other hand, charged His Luke disciples, Behold I send you forth as sheep in ihe midst of^'Jt2' wolves; be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as10>16- doves. And He said this, not that we may become in nature beasts of burden, or become serpents and doves ; for He hath not so made us Himself, and therefore nature does not allow of it ; but that we might eschew the irrational motions of the one, and being aware of the wisdom of that other animal, might not be deceived by it, and might take on us the meek ness of the dove. Again, taking patterns for man from §. 19. divine subjects, the Saviour says; Be ye merciful, as yourLxAee, Father which is iu heaven is merciful; aud, Be ye perfect, \[^ 5 as your heavenly Father is perfect. And He said this too,48- not that we might become such as the Father ; for to become, as tbe Father, is impossible for us creatures, who have been brought to be out of nothing ; but as He charged us, Be ye not like to horse, not lest we should become as draught animals, but that we ought not imitate their want of reason, so, not that we might become as God, did He say, Be ye merciful as your Father, but that looking at His beneficent acts, what we do well, we might do, not for men's sake, but for His sake, so that from Him and not from men we may have the reward. For as, although there be one Son by nature, True and Only-begotten, we too become sons, not as He in nature and truth, but according to the grace of Him that calleth, and though we are men from the earth, are yet called gods1, not as the True God or His1""''- Word, but as has pleased God who has given us that grace ; r.'i. ' so also, as God do we become merciful, not by being made equal to God, nor becoming in nature and truth benefactors, (for it is not our gift2 to benefit but belongs to God,) but in 2 «WS order that what has accrued to us from God Himself by grace, these things we may impart to others, without making dis tinctions, but largely towards all extending our kind service. For only in this way can we any how become imitators, in no other, when we minister to others what comes from Him. 16. And as we put a fair and orthodox3 sense upon these 3p-34i, .-. ^ note i. 2 f2 428 We become like the Father and Son as our nature admits. Disc, texts, such again is the sense of the passage in John. For — he does not say, that, as the Son is in the Father, such we must become: — whence could it be? when He is God's Word and Wisdom, and we were fashioned out of the earth, and He is by nature and substance Word and true God, (for thus 5 J2QU sPea^s John, We know that the Son of God is come, and He hath given us an understanding to know Him lhat is True, and we etre in Him that is True, even in His Son Jesus Christ; this is the true God and eternal life;) and we are made sons through Him by adoption and grace, as partaking John 1, 0f pr^s Spirit, (for as many as received Him, he says, to them gave He power to become children of God, even lo them that believe on His Name,) and therefore also He is the Truth, lb. 14,6. (saying, I am the Truth, and in His address to His Father, lb. 17, He said, Sanctify them through Thy Truth, Thy Word is ' UdpiTo, Truth;) but we by imitation' become virtuous1 and sons: — so «•««*- therefore not that we might become such as He, did He say Clem, that they may be one as We are; but that as He, being the Ep™' Word, is in His proper Father, so that we too, taking §. 20. an exemplar* and looking at Him, might become one "w" towards each other in concord and oneness of spirit, nor be at variance as the Corinthians, but mind the same thing, as those five thousand in the Acts, who were as one. For it is as sons, not as the Son ; as gods, not as He Himself; and not as the Father, but merciful as the Father. And, as has been said, by so becoming one, as the Father and the Son, we shall be such, not as the Father is by nature in the Son and the Son in the Father, but according to our own i™**'i'i- nature, and as it is possible for us thence to be moulded3 aud to learn how we ought to be one, just as we learned also to be merciful. For like things are naturally one with like; 349.313'fhus all flesh is ranked together in kind4; but the Word is unlike us and like the Father. And therefore, while He is in nature and truth one with His own Father, we, as being ' xaTtt pipwrit. Clem. Alex. tZv ii- Serm. 101,6. mediator non solum per xotojv Tas pit IxTpivopUevs. Tas o% pipov- adjutorium, verum etiam per exem- pivovs. Pajdag. i. 3. p. 102. ed. Pott. plum. August. Trin. iv. 17. also ix.21. ptprtoit tov vols ixutov Naz. Ep. 102. and Eusebius, though with an heretical p. 95. (Ed. Ben.) ut exemplum seque- meaning, xaTa t>)» avTov pipwit. Eccl.' rentur imitando. Leo in various places, Theol. iii. 19, a. For inward grace as supr.p.357,notee. utimitatoresoperum, opposed to teaching, vid. supr. p. 360, factorum,sermonum,&c. Iren.Hser.v.l. note g, and p. 393, note e. exemplum verum et adjutorium. August. atctt- O-iTOS We attain moral unity by contemplating God's real unity. 429 of one kind1 with each other, (for from one were all made, and Chap. one is the nature of all men,) become one with each other in XXV- good disposition2, having as our copy3 the Son's natural unity 'J^!' with the Father. For as He taught us meekness from Him- 26(W- self, saying, Learn of Me, for T am meek and lowly in heart, f*"u> not that we may become equal to Him, which is impossible, aWi«/, but that looking towards Him, we may remain meek continually, l'^°H so also here, wishing that our good disposition towards each Mon. other should be true and firm and indissoluble, from Himself Hipp. 0. taking the pattern, He says, that they may be one as We are,f°et- 7- whose oneness is indivisible4; that is, that they learning from y,appit us of that indivisible Nature, may preserve in like manner4 & agreement one with another. And this imitation of things which are in nature is especially safe for man, as has been said; for, since they remain and never change, whereas the conduct of men is very changeable, one may look to what is unchange able by nature, and avoid what is bad and remodel5 himself5 ««». on what is best. ""' 17. And for this reason also the words that they may be one in ?7s,have an orthodox sense. If, for instance, it were possible for §. 2 1 . us to become as the Son in the Father, the words ought to run, " that they may be one in Thee," as the Son is in the Father; but, as it is, He has not said this; but by saying in Us He has pointed out the distance and difference; that He indeed is Only in the Only Father, as Only Word and Wisdom ; but we in the Son, and through Him in the Father. And thus speaking, He meant this only, "By Our unity may they also be so one with each other, as We are one in nature and truth ; for otherwise they could not be one, except by learning unity in Us." And that in Us has this signification, we may learn from Paul, who says, These things I have in a figure transferred to myself an el ] Cor. 4, to Apollos, that ye may learn in us not to be puffed up above thai is written. The words in Us then, are not " in the Father," as the Son is in Him; but imply an example and image, instead of saying, " Let them learn of Us." For as Paul to the Corinthians, so is the oneness of the Son and the Father a pattern3 and lesson to all, by which they may learn, looking to that natural unity of the Father and the Son, how they themselves ought to be one in spirit towards each other. Or if it needs to account for the phrase otherwise, the words 430 We are in the Son as man, and the Son is in the Father as God. Disc, in Us may mean the same as saying, that in the power ofthe — — — Father and the Son they may be one, speaking the same 1 Cor. l, things; for without God this is impossible. And this mode Ps 60 °f sPeech also we may find in the divine writings, as In God 12; 18, will we do great acts; and In God I shall leap over the 29-44 7. ' ' ' 'wall; and In Thee will we tread denvn our enemies'. Therefore it is plain, that in the Name of Father and Son we shall be able, becoming one, to hold firm the bond of charity. 18. For, dwelling still on the same thought, the Lord says, And the glory which Thou gavest Me, I have given to them, that Ihey may be one as We are one. Suitably has He here too said, not, "that they may be in Thee as I am," but as 1 tavTo- We are; now he who says as1, signifies not identity1, but an §"22 imaSe and example of the matter in hand. The Word then has the real and true identity of nature with the Father; but to us it is given to imitate it, as has been said; for He immediately adds, I in them and Thou in Me; that they may be made perfect in one. Here at length the Lord asks something greater and more perfect for us; for it is plain that 2 yiyotit'ia us the Word came to be*, for He has put on our body. p.57rJ.^w^ Thou Father in Me; " for I am Thy Word, and since Thou art in Me, because I am Thy Word, and I in them because of the body, and because of Thee the salvation of men is perfected in Me, therefore I ask that they also may become one, according to the body that is in Me and accord ing to its perfection ; that they too may become perfect, having 3 iis abTo oneness with It, and having become one in It3; that, as if all were carried by Me, all may be one body and one spirit, and vid.Eph.may grow up unto a perfect man." For we all, partaking of the Same, become one body, having the one Lord in our selves. The passage then having this meaning, still more 4 ixxo- plainly is refuted the heterodoxy 4 of Christ's enemies. I repeat 5 iZoXt-it 5 ^ He had SSL^ simply and absolutely5 " that they may be xvpivms, 0ne in Thee," or " that they and I may be one in Thee," God's p. 370, enemies had had some plea, though a shameless one; but in BOte ]- fact He has not spoken simply, but, As Thou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee, lhat they may be all one. 5 vid. Olear. de Styl. N. T. p. 4. (ed. « This remark which comes in abruptly 1702.) is pursued presently, vid. pp. 431, 432. Analogy is not direct similitude. 431 19. Moreover, using the word as, He signifies those who Chap. become distantly as He is in the Father ; distantly not in XXV' place but in nature ; for in place nothing is far from God", hut in nature only all things are far from Him. And, as I said before, whoso uses the particle as implies, not identity, nor equality, but a pattern of the matter in question, viewed in a, certain respect \ Indeed we may learn also from our Saviour §. 23. Himself, when He says, For as Jonas was three days and three Matt. nights in the wheile's belly, so shall the Son of man be three12' 40' days and three nights in the heart of the earth. For Jonas was not as the Saviour, nor did Jonas go down to hell ; nor was the whale hell ; nor did Jonas, when swallowed up, bring up those who had before been swallowed by the whale, but he alone came forth, when the whale was bidden. There fore there is no identity nor equality signified in the term as, but one thing and another; and it shews a certain kind7 of u vid. p. 18, note n. which is ex plained by tbe present passage. When Ath. there says, "without all in nature," he must mean as here " far from all things in nature." He says here dis tinctly " in place nothing is far from God." S. Clement, loc. cit. gives the same explanation, a3 there noticed. It is observable that the contr. Sab. Greg. (which the Benedictines consider not Athan.'s.) speaks as Athan. supr. p. 18. " not by being co-extensive with all things, does God fill all; for this be longs to bodies, as air ; but He com prehends all as a power, for He is an incorporeal, invisible power, not en circling, not encircled." 10, Eusebius says the same thing, Deum circumdat nihil, circumdat Deus omnia non cor- poraliter ; virtute enim incorporali adest omnibus, &c. de Incorpor. i. init. ap. Sirm. Op. p. 68. vid. S. Ambros. Quo modo creatura in Deo esse potest, &c. de Fid. i. 106. and supr. p. 399. note b. " * vid. Glass. Phil. Sacr. iii. 5. can. 27. and Dettmars de Theol. Orig. ap. Lumper. Hist. Patr. 1. 10, p. 212. Vid. also supr. p. 359, note f. y opottTnTa trtos. and so at the end of 22. xaTa ti hai^ovpitot. " Even when the analogy is solid and well-founded, we are liable to fall into error, if we suppose it to extend farther than it really does Thus because a just analogy has been discerned between the metropolis of a country, and the heart in the animal body, it has been sometimes contended that its increased size is a disease, that it may impede some of its most important functions, or even be the means of its dissolution." Copleston on Predestination, p. 129. Shortly before the author says, " A re markable example of this kind is that argument of Toplady against Freewill, who, after quoting the text, ' Ye also as lively stones are built up a spiritual house,' triumphantly exclaims, ' This is giving Free-will a stab under the fifth rib, for can stones hew themselves, and build themselves into a regular house?''' p. 126. The principle here laid down, in accordance with S. Athan., of course admits of being made an ex cuse for denying the orthodox meaning of" Word, Wisdom, &c." under pre tence that the figurative terms are not confined by the Church within their proper limits ; but here the question is about tbe matter of fact, which inter pretation is right, the Church's or the objector's. Thus a later writer says, " The most important words of the N. T. have not only received an in delibly false stamp from the hands of the old Schoolmen, but those words having, since the Reformation, become common property in the language of the country, are, as it were, thickly in- crusted with the most vague, incorrect, and vulgar notions .... Any word .... if habitually repeated in connexion with 432TheWordperfectsandimmortalizeshum.annatureby assuming it. Disc, parallel in the case of Jonas, on account ofthe three days. In like manner then we too, when the Lord says as, neither become as the Son in the Father, nor as the Father is in the Son. For we become one as the Father and the Son iu mind and 1 e-vpipo, agreement1 of spirit, and the Saviour will be as Jonas in the pf 414 earth ; but as the Saviour is not Jonas, nor, as he was swallowed note b. ap5 so did the Saviour descend into hell, but it is but a parallel2, xa)axxeV& like manner, if we too become one, as the Son in the Father, we shall not be as the Son, nor equal to Him ; for He and we are but parallel 2. For on this account is the word ets applied to us ; since things differing from others in 3Cyril in nature, become as they, when viewed in a certain relation3. 227 20. Wherefore the Son Himself, simply and without any &c. condition is in the Father; for this attribute He has by nature; but for us, to whom it is not natural, there is needed an image and example, that He may say of us, As Thou in Me, and I in Thee. " And when they shall be so perfected," He says, " then the world knows that Thou hast sent Me, for unless I had come and borne this their body, no one of them had been perfected, but one and all had remained 'p. 374, corruptible4. Work Thou then in them, O Father; andasThou note '' hast given to Me to bear this, grant to them Thy Spirit, that they too in It may become one, and may be perfected in Me. For their perfecting shews that Thy Word has sojourned among them ; and the world seeing them perfect and full of 5 h*P <•- God 5, will believe altogether that Thou hast sent Me, and I p^ovpttovs . p. 380, have sojourned here. For whence is this their perfecting, note h. but tjjat j^ rj-ij^. yy-Q^ having borne their body, and become man, have perfected the work, which Thou gavest Me, 0 Father ? And the work is perfected, because men, redeemed certain notions, will appeaT to reject beginning of the foregoing note, follows all other significations, as it were, by a S. Athanasius: "Analogy does not natural power." Heresy and Orthod. mean the similarity of two things, but pp. 21^ 47. Elsewhere he speaks of the similarity or sameness of two re words " which were used in a language lations. . . -Things most unlike and dia- now dead to represent objects .which cordant in their nature may be strictly are now supposed to express figuratively analogous to one another. Thus a cer- something spiritual and quite beyond tain proposition may be called the basis the knowledge and comprehension of of a system. .. .it serves a similar office man." p. 96. Of course Ath. assumes and purpose the system rests upon that, since the figures and parallels it ; it is useless to proceed with the ar- given us in Scripture have but a partial gument till this is well established: if application, therefore there is given us this were removed, the system must also an interpreter to apply them. fall." On Predest. pp. 122, 3. z Here too the writer quoted in the We are in God by means ofthe gift ofthe Spirit. 433 from sin, no longer remain dead; but being made gods1, have Chap in each other, by looking at Me, the bond of charity V 21. We then, by way of giving a rude3 view of the r. 4. ( ' expressions in this passage, have been led into many words; §¦ 24. but blessed John in his Epistle will shew the sense of the ^'"'J~'" words, concisely and much more perfectly than we can. And ay**™, he will both disprove the interpretation of these irreligious men, fin". and will teach how we become in God and God in us; andhow3 ***¦'»- again we become One in Him, and how far the Son differs in nature from us, and will stop the Arians from any longer thinking that they shall be as the Son, lest they hear it said to them, Thou art a man and not God, and, Stretch not Ez.28,2. thyself, being poor, beside the rich. John then thus writes ; 23r°4 Hereby know we that we dwell in Him and He in us, Uohn4, because He hath given us of His Spirit. Therefore because of the grace of the Spirit which has been given to us, in Him we come to be, and He in us4; and since it is the Spirit 4 p- 430, of God, therefore through His becoming in us, reasonably are we, as having the Spirit, considered to be in God, and thus is God in us. Not then as the Son in the Father, so also we become in the Father ; for the Son does not merely partake the Spirit, that therefore He too may be in the Father; nor does He receive the Spirit, but rather He supplies It Himself to all ; and the Spirit does not unite the Word to the Father, but rather the Spirit receives from the Word\ And the Son is in the Father, as His proper Word and Radiance ; but we, apart from the Spirit, are strange and distant from God, and by the participation of the Spirit we are knit into the God head ; so that our being in the Father is not ours, but is the Spirit's which is in us and abides in us, while by the true confession we preserve It in us, John again saying, Whosoever 1 John4, shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in God. 22. What then is our likeness and equality to the Son ? rather, are not the Arians confuted on every side? and espe cially by John, that the Son is in the Father in one way, and we become in Him in another, and that neither we shall ever be as He, nor is the Word as we ; except they shall dare, as "vid. the end of this section and 25 init. xvi. 24. Epiph. Ancor. 67 init. Cyril supr. pp. 202, 3. also Cyril Hier. Cat. in Joan. pp. 929, 930. 434 The grace ofthe Spirit irrevocable and abiding. Disc commonly, so now to say, that the Son also by participation — of the Spirit and by improvement of conductb became Him self also in the Father. But here again is an excess of irre- ligion, even in admitting the thought. For He, as has been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit hath, He hath §. 25. from1 the Word. The Saviour, then, saying of us, As Thou, *"?"' Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they, too may be one r. 1. in Us, does not signify that we were to have identity with Him; for this was shewn from the instance of Jonas; but it is a request to the Father, as John has written, that the Spirit should be vouchsafed through Him to those who. believe, through whom we are found to be in God, and in this respect to be united in Him. For since the Word is in 2 »» the Father, and the Spirit is given from2 the Word, He wills that we should receive the Spirit, that, when we receive It, thus having the Spirit of the Word which is in the Father, we too may be found on account of the Spirit to become One in the Word, and through Him in the Father. 23. And if He say, as we, this again is only a request that such grace of the Spirit as is given to the disciples may be 3 p. 372, without failure or revocation3. For what the Word has in ixUrk the way of nature4, as I said, in the Father, that He wishes V"'™. to be given to us through the Spirit irrevocably'; which the p. 56, Apostle knowing, said, Who shall separate us from the love Komi's °f Christ ? for the gifts of God and grace of His calling are 35. without repentance. It is the Spirit then which is in God, 29/ ' and not we viewed in our own selves ; and as we are sons and 0 hoi, godss because ofthe Word in us6, so we shall be in the Son and note h.' in ^e Father, and we shall be accounted7 to have become one 6 p- 366, in Son and in Father, because that that Spirit is in us, which "•mpifh- is in the Word which is in the Father. When then a man sipita fa]]s from ^ne Spirit for any wickedness, if he repent upon 8 supr. his fall, the grace remains irrevocably to such as are willing8; p> ' otherwise he who has fallen is no longer in God, (because that Holy Spirit and Paraclete which is in God has deserted him,) but the sinner shall be in him to whom he has subjected himself, as took place in Saul's instance ; for the Spirit of l Kings God departed from him and an evil spirit afflicted him. God's 16, 14. * /iiXTituo-u neafaus, and so ad Afros, it is rather some external advance. Tpoirm fitXTioms. 8. Supr. pp. 234, 242. All this the Arians cannot bear to hear. 435 enemies hearing this ought to be henceforth abashed, and no Chap. longer to feign themselves equal to God. But they neither '- understand (for Me irreligious, he saith, does not understand?™. knowledge) nor endure religious words, but find them heavy V0Sr,Ath. even to hear. «»&¦«, Sept. CHAP. XXVI. INTRODUCTORY TO TEXTS FROM THE GOSPELS ON THE INCARNATION. Enumeration of texts still to be explained Arians compared to the Jews. We must recur to the Regula Fidei. Our Lord did not come into, but became, man, and therefore had the acts and affections of the flesh. The same works divine and human. Thus the flesh was purified, and men were made immortal. Reference to 1 Pet. iv. 1 . Disc. l. For behold, as if not wearied in their words of irreligion, - — — but with hardened Pharaoh, while they hear and see the Sa- i va™- vi°urs human attributes in the Gospels a, they have utterly xr.s hi- forgotten, like Samosatene, the Son's paternal Godhead1, and "400, with arrogant and audacious tongue they say, " How can the note d. gon De from the Father by nature, and be like Him in sub- i-opoios stance2,who says, All power is given unto Me ; nnd The Father xaT ov- jurfgefh n0 matl} but hath committed all judgment unto the Mat.28, Son; and The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all i8: . things into His hand; he that believeth in the Son hath John 5, J . 22. everlasting life; and again, All things are delivered unto 35 36.' Me of My Father, and no one knoweth the Father save the Mat. 11, Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him; and 27. John 6 again, All that the Father hath given unto Me, shall come 3-7V ss to ^e 3'" ^n t*1*s *key" observe, " If He was, as ye say, Son 35—41. by nature, He had no need to receive, but He had by nature as a Son." 2. " Or how can He "be the natural and true Power of the Jobni2, Father, who near upon the season of the passion says, Now is My soul troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save Me from this hour; but for this came I unto this hour. Father, glorify Thy Name. Then came there a voice from heaven, a This Oration alone, and this en- objections which remain chiefly relate tirely, treats of texts from the Gospels ; to our Lord's economy for us. Hence hitherto from the Gospel according to they lead Athan. to treat more difl- St. John, and now chiefly from the first tinctly of the doctrine of the Incarna- three. Erom the subject of these por- tion, and to anticipate a refutation of tions of Scripture, it follows that the both Nestorius and Eutyches. Texts from the Gospels urged against our Lord's Divinity. 437 saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. Chap. And He said the same another time; Father, if it be possible, XXVI- let this cup pass from Me ; and When Jesus had thus said, He 39! ' ' was troubled in. spirit and testified and said, Verily, ver iiy, J°hn13' I say unto you, that one of you shall betray Me1 ." Then these J infr. §§. perverse3 men argue ; " If He were Power, He had not feared, 53 ' xaxe- but rather He had supplied power to others." Hm> 3. Further they say; " If He were by nature the true and proper Wisdom of the Father, how is it written, And Jesus Luke 2, 52 increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man3? In like manner, when He had come into the3infr.§§. parts of Cassarea Philippi, He asked the disciples whom menjyiat-1g said that He was; and when He was at Bethany He asked'3- , John 11, where Lazarus lay; and He said besides to His disciples, 34. How many loaves have ije4? How then," say they, " is He|^rk6' Wisdom, who increased in wisdom, and was ignorant of what' infr. He asked of others ?" 4. This too they urge ; " How can He be the proper Word of the Father, without whom the Father never was, through whom He makes all things, as ye think, who said upon the Cross, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me ? and Mat.27, before that had prayed, Glorify Thy Name, and, O Father, j0jjnl2 glorify Thou Me with the glory which I had with T/;ee28;i7, before the world was. And He used to pray in the deserts and charge His disciples to pray lest they should enter into temptation ; and, The spirit indeed is willing, He said, but Mzx.26, thefiesh is weak. And, Of that day and that hour knoweth ^'^ no man, no, nor the Angels, neither the Son5." Upon this again 13, 32. Jinfr. §&. say the miserable men, " If the Son were, according to your 42—50". interpretation6, eternally existent with God, He had not been j?'"™"; ignorant of the Day, but had known as Word; nor had 53, c. been forsaken as being co-existent; nor had asked to receive ^7'd- glory, as having it in the Father ; nor would have prayed at all; for, being the Word, He had needed nothing; but since He is a creature and one of things generate, therefore He thus spoke, and needed what He had not ; for it is proper to creatures to require and to need what they have not." 5. This then is what the irreligious men allege in their §• 27. discourses ; and! if they thus argue, they might consistently speak yet more daringly ; " Why in the first instance did the 438 Comparison ofthe Arians with the Jews. Disc. Word become flesh ?" and they might add; " For howcouldHe, — being G od, become man ?" or, " How could the Immaterial bear a body ?" or they might speak with Caiaphas still more Judaically, " Wherefore at all did Christ, being a man, make Himself ¦pp. 2. God1?" for this and the like the Jews then muttered when ' they saw, and now the Ario-maniacs disbelieve when they read, and have fallen away into blasphemies. If then a man should carefully parallel the words of these and those, he will of a certainty find them both arriving at the same unbelief, and the daring of their irreligion equal, and their dispute with us a common one. For the Jews said ; " How, being a man, can He be God ?" And the Arians, " If He were very God from God, how could He become man?" And the Jews were offended then and mocked, saying, " Had He been Son of God, He had not endured the Cross ;" and the Arians standing over against them, urge upon us, " How dare ye say that He is the Word proper to the Father's Substance, who had a body, so as to endure all this ?" Next, while the Jews sought to kill the Lord, because He said that God was His proper Father and made Himself equal to Him, as working what the Father works, the Arians also, not only have learned to deny, both that He is equal to God and that God is the proper and natural Father of the Word, but those who hold this they John 6, seek to kill. Again, whereas the Jews said, " Is not this the 42;8,58. gon qf, josep]tj whose father and mother we know? how then is it. that He saith, Before Abraham was, I am, and I came down from heaven ?" the Arians on the other hand make response b and say conformably, " How can He be Word or God who slept as man, and wept, and inquired ?" Thus both parties deny the Eternity and Godhead ofthe Word in con sequence of those human attributes which the Saviour took on Him by reason of that fiesh which He bore. §. 28. 6. Extravagance then like this being Judaic, and Judaic after the mind of Judas the traitor, let them openly confess themselves scholars of Caiaphas and Herod, instead of cloking Judaism with the name of Christianity, and let them deny outright, as we have said before, the Saviour's appearance in 2 " and He only appeared in a man, it were nothing strange, nor note g! had those who saw Flim been startled, saying, Whence is He? and wherefore dost Thou, being a man, make Thyself God ? for they were familiar with the idea, from the words, And the sad Word of ihe Lord came to the Prophets5 one by one. But nai.adnow) since the Word of God, by whom all things came to he, Max. 2. endured to become also Son of man, and humbled Himself, taking a servant's form, therefore to the Jews the Cross of. l Cor. l, Christ is a scandal, but to us Christ is God's power and God's wisdom; for the Word, as John says, became flesh; (it being 6infr.iv.the custom6 of Scripture to call man by the name oi flesh, Joel 2, as it says by Joel the Prophet, I will pour out My Spirit p8- upon all flesh; and as Daniel said to Astyages, / may not Dr. 5. worship idols made with, hands, but the Living God, who hath created the heaven and the earth, and hath sovereignly over §• 31. all fiesh; for both he and Joel call mankind flesh.) Of old time He was wont to come to the Saints individually, and W«i; to hallow those who rightly ' received Him ; but neither, on p. 236, their birth, was it said that He had become man, nor, when note c. they suffered, was it said that He Himself suffered. But when He came* among us ftomMary once in fulness ofthe ages for the abolition of sin, (for so it was pleasing to the Father, He used the body as His instrument. 443 to send His own Son made of a woman, made under the Chap. Law,) then it is said, that He took flesh and became man, p?~YL and in that flesh He suffered for us, (as Peter says, Christ 1 Pet.4,' therefore having suffered for us in thefiesh,) that it might be1- shewn, and that all might believe, that whereas Fie was ever God, and hallowed those to whom He came, and ordered all things according to the Father's will', afterwards for our sakes He became man, and bodily, as the Apostle says, the Godhead Col.2,9. dwelt in the flesh ; as much as to say, " Being God, He had His own body, and using this as an instrument8, He became man for our sakes." 9. And on account of this, the properties of the flesh, are said to be His, since He was in it, such as lo hunger, to thirst, to suffer, to weary, and the like, of which the flesh is capable ; while on the other hand the works proper to the Word Himself, such as to raise the dead, to restore sight to the blind, and to cure the woman with an issue of blood, He did through His own body\ And the Word bore the fxaraTg- (lavXtjpa. vid. Orat. i. 63. infr. £ tovtoj %pojpstcs opyatat infr. 42. p. 490, notes m and n. "When God com- and epyavov trpos Ttjt ivipyuav xa) Ttjv mands others, then the bearer answers, 'ixXap-^iv Tm fiirnTcs. 53. This was a for each of these has the Mediator word much used afterwards by the Apol- Word which makes known the will of linarians, who looked on our Lord's the Father ; but when the Word Him- manhood as merely a manifestation of self works and creates, there is no God. vid. p. 291, note k. vid. px,\>ut is the $ivXM of the fused with its heretical application to Father, ibid, note c. For the contrary our Lord's Divine Nature, vid. Basil Arian view, even when it is highest, de Sp. S. n. 19 fin. of which supr. p. vid. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. iii. 3. quoted 118, note n. It may be added that tpa- supr. p. 373, note s. In that passage tipmo-is is a Nestorian as well as Euty- the Father's vsvpara are spoken of, a chian idea; vid. p. 442, r. 4. Facund. word common with the Arians. Euseb. Tr. Cap. ix. 2, 3. and the Syrian use of ibid. p. 75, a. de Laud. Const, p. 528, parsopa Asseman. B. O. t. 4. p. 219. c. Eunom. Apol. 20 fin. The word is Thus both parties really denied the used of the Son's command given to Atonement, vid. supr. p. 267, note 1. the creation, in Athan. contr. Gent. p. 292, note m. e. g. 42, 44,46. S. Cyril. Hier. fie- h Orat. iv. 6. and fragm. ex Euthym. quently as the Arians, uses it of the p. 1275. ed. Ben. This interchange is Father. Catech. x. 5. xi. passim, xv. 25, called theologically the itTiieo-is or com- &c. The difference between the or- municatio UmpaTat. " Because of the thodox and Arian views on this poiut, perfect union of thefiesh which was as- is clearly drawn' oat by S. Basil contr. sumed, and of the Godhead which as- Eunom. i.21. sumed it, the names are interchanged, 2 g2 444 He took on Him the infirmities of the flesh. Disc, infirmities of the flesh, as His own, for His was- the flesh: III , ,- , ' and the flesh ministered : to the works ofthe Godhead, because the Godhead was in it, for the body was God's1. Aud well Is. 53, 4. has the Prophet said carried; and has not said, " He re- - ihoa- niedied2 our infirmities, lest, as being external to the body, and only healing it, as He has always done, He should leave men subject still to death; but He carries our infirmities, and 3mtor, jje jJimSelf bears our sins, that it might be shewn that He 446, r. 5. became man for us, and that the body which in Him bore p.S254. them, was His proper body ; and, while He received no hurt11 l Pet. 2, Himself by bearing our sins in His body on the tree, as Peter speaks, we men were redeemed from our own affections3, aud §. 32. were filledwith the righteousness4 of the Word. Whence it was so that the human is called from the divine and the divine from the human. Wherefore He who was crucified is called by Paul Lord of glory, and He who is worshipped by all creation of things in heaven, in earth, and under the earth is named Jesus, &c." Nyssen. in Apoll. t. 2. pp. 697, 8. Leon. Ep. 28, 51. Ambros. defid. ii. 58. Nyssen. de Beat. p. 767- Cassian. Incarn. vi. 22. Aug. contr. Serm. Ar. c. 8 init, Plain and easy as such statements seem in this and some following notes, they are of tbe utmost importance in the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies. ' hov wt o-axpa. also ad Adelph. 3. ad Max. 2. and so tm -z-Ttxixsvo-ao-av ipvtrtv hov oXtit yivopivm. c. Apoll. ii. 11. to Katies tov Xoyov ibid. 16, c. ru- not been made god4; and again, had not the properties of the flesh been ascribed to the Word, man had not been thoroughly <• p. 254, delivered from them5 ; but though they had ceased for a little n0t|fio while, as I said before, still sin had remained in him and note g'. corruption, as was the case with mankind before Him ; and u'0te e' f°r this reason: — Many for instance have been made holy and p. 447, clean from all sin; nay, Jeremias was hallowed' even from note u. 0 ovx tiXXev, aXXa tov xvpiov' and so and denying the nature, they do not ovx Wipov tivos, Incarn. 18 ; also Orat. believe in the economy; and not be- i. 45. supr. p. 244. and Orat. iv. 35. lieving in the economy, they forfeit the Cyril. Thes. p. 197. and Anathem. 11. salvation." Procl. ad Armen. p. 615. who defends the phrase against the ed. 1630. Orientals. i xoivot. opposed to 'ihot. vid. infr. p. P " If any happen to be scandalized 472, r. 6. Cyril. Epp. p. 23, e. com- by the swathing bands, and His lying munem, Ambros. de Fid. i. 94. in a manger, and the gradual increase r vid. Jer. i. 5. And so S. Jerome, according to the flesh, and the sleeping S. Leo, &c. as mentioned in Corn, a in a, vessel, and the wearying in Lap. in loc. who adds that S. Ephrem journeying, and the hungering in due considers Moses also sanctified in the time, and whatever else happen to one womb, and S, Ambrose Jacob; S.Jerome who has become really man, let them implies a similar gift in the case of know that, making a mock of tbe suf- Asella, ad Mavcell. (Ep. 24, 2.) And ferings, they are denying the nature; so S. John Baptist, Maldon. in Luc. that. He might hallow and spiritualize what He had taken. 447 the womb, and John, while yet in the womb, leapt for ioy at Chap. xxvi. the voice of Mary Mother of God8; nevertheless death reigned from Adam io Moses, even over those that had f/™' 5' not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression; and thus man 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 ofthe 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 abide1 ever l hapi- immortal and incorruptible. Whence also, whereas the flesh ""gg',, is born* of Mary Mother of God", He Himself is said to haver- •¦ been born, who furnishes to others a generation3 of being; innote a.' order that Fle may transfer our generation into Himself, and2 ?""»¦ we may no longer, as mere earth, return to earth, but as beings Yi„,„t knit into the Word from heaven, may be carried to heaven hy I1^1?' Him. Therefore in like manner not without reason has Hep. 261, note e. 1, 16. It is remarkable that no ancient writer, (unless indeed we except S. Austin,) refers to the instance of S. Mary ; — perhaps from the circumstance of its not being mentioned in Scripture. * hoToxov. For instances of this word vid. Origen. ap. Socr. vii. 32. Euseb. V. Const, iii. 43. in Psalm p. 703. Alexandr. Ep. ad Alex. ap. Theodor. Hist. i. 3. p. 745. Athan. (supra) Cyril. Cat. x. 19. Julian Imper. ap. Cyril, c. Jul. viii. p. 262.Amphilocb.Orat.4.p.41.(ifAmphil.)ed. 1644. Nyssen. Ep. ad Eustath. p. 1093.Chrysost.apudSuicerSymb.p.240. Greg. Naz. Orat. 29, 4. Ep. 181. p. 85. ed. Ben. Antiochus and Ammon. ap. Cyril. de Recta Fid. pp. 49, 50. Pseudo-Dion. contr. Samos. 5. Pseudo-Basil. Hom. t. 2. p. 600. ed. Ben. 1 ihtovroiovpivov. vid. also infr. p. 455 , r. 6. ad Epict. 6, e. fragm. ex Euthym. (t. i. p. 1275. ed. Ben.) Cyril, in Joann. p. 151, a. For YSiot, which occurs so frequently here, vid. Cyril. Anathem. 11. And olxii- vrai, contr. Apoll. ii. 16, e. Cyril. Schol. de Incarn, p. 782, d. Concii. Eph. pp. 1644, d. 1697, b. (Hard.) Damasc. F. O. iii. 3. p. 208. ed. Ven. Vid. Petav. de Incarn. iv. 15. u vid. pp. 245, 247, &c. p. 374, note t. Vid. also iv. 33. Incarn. c. Arian. 12. contr. Apoll. i. 17. ii. 6. " Since God the Word willed to annul thepassions, whose end is death, and His deathless nature was not capable of them,. .He is made flesh ofthe Virgin, in the way He know eth, &c." Procl. ad Armen. p. 616. also Leon. Serm. 22. pp. 69. 71. Serm. 26. p. 88. Nyssen contr. Apoll. t. 2. p. 696. Cyril. Epp. p. 138, 9. in Joan. p. 95. Chrysol. Serm. 148. 1 honxov. supr. p. 420, note i. p. 440, note e.andjust above, notes. For "mater Dei" vid. before S. Leo, Ambros. de Virg. ii. 7. Cassian. Incarn. ii. 5. vii. 25. Vincent. Lir. Commonit. 21. It is. obvious that horoxos, though framed as a test against Nestorians, was equally effective against Apollinarians and Eu- tychians, who denied that our Lord had taken human flesh at all, as is observed by Faeundus Def. Trium Cap. i. 4. And so S. Cyril, " Let it be carefully ob served, that nearly this whole contest about the faith has been created against us for our maintaining that tbe Holy Virgin is Mother of God ; now, if we hold," as was the calumny, "that the Holy Body of Christ our common Sa viour was from heaven, and not born of her, bow can she be considered as Mother of God?" Epp. pp. 106, 7. Yet these sects, as the Arians, main tained the term. vid. supr. p. 292, note n. 448 The Word suffered, Disc, transferred to Himself the other affections of the body also ; — that we, no longer as being men, but as proper to the Word, may have share in eternal life. For no longer according to that former generation in Adam do we die ; but henceforward our generation and all infirmity of flesh being transferred to the Word, we rise from the earth, the curse from sin being re- 1 p. 366, moved, because of Him who is in us1 andwhohas becomeacurse for us. And with reason ; for as we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened; the flesh being no longer earthly, but being henceforth made the Wordy, by reason of God's Word who for our sake became flesh. §. 34. 12. And that one may attain to a more exact knowledge of the impassibility of the Word's nature and of the infirmities ascribed to Him because of the flesh, it will be well to listen to the blessed Peter ; for he will be a trustworthy witness concerning the Saviour. He writes then in his Epistle thus; l Pet. 4, Christ then having sufferedfor us in thefiesh. Therefore also when He is said to hunger and thirst and to toil and not to know, and to sleep, and to weep, and to ask, and to flee, and to be born, and to deprecate the cup, and in a word to undergo all that belongs to the flesh2, let it be said, as is congruous, in each case, " Christ then hungering and thirsting for us in the flesh ;" and " saying He did not know, and being buffeted, and toiling for us in the flesh ;" and " being exalted too, and born, and growing in thefiesh ;" and " fearing Mat.26,and hiding in the flesh;" and " saying, If it be possible let this cup pass from Me, and being beaten, and receiving, for us in thefiesh ;" and in a word all such things for us in the flesh. For on this account has the Apostle himself said, 7 Xeyuhicns t»s o-aexes. This strong from physical necessities, else it had term is here applied to human nature not been a body." Chrysost. in Joann. generally ; Damascene speaks of the Hom. 67. 1 and 2. " He used His own Xeyuns of the flesh, but he means flesh as an instrument for the works of especially our Lord's flesh. F. O. iv. the flesh and physical infirmities and 18. p. 286. (Ed. Ven.) for tbe words whatever such is blameless, &c." Cyril. heve-lat, &c. vid. supr. p. 380, note h. de Rect. Fid. p. 18. "As a man He 2 " All this belongs to the Economy, doubts, as a man He is troubled; it is not to the Godhead. On this account not His Power (virtus) that is troubled. He says, 'Now is My soul troubled,'... not His Godhead, but His soul, &c. so troubled as to seek for a release, if Ambros. deFid.ii.n.56. vid. abeautiful escape were possible As to hunger passage in S. Basil's Hom. iv. 5. in is no blame, nor to sleep, so is it none which he insists on our Lord's having to desire the present life. Christ had wept to shew us how to weep neither a body pure from sins, but not exempt too much nor too little. but in thefiesh, not in His Godhead. 449 Christ then having suffered, not in His Godhead, but for us Chap. in the flesh, that these affections may be acknowledged as, XXVI- not proper to the very Word by nature, but proper by nature to the very flesh. 13. Let no one then stumble at these human affections, but rather let a man know that in nature the Word Himself is impassible, and yet because of that flesh which He put on, these things are ascribed to Him, since they are proper to the flesh, and the body itself is proper to the Saviour. And while He Himself, being impassible in nature, remains as He is, not harmed1 by these affections, but rather obliterating and '/s;wt«- destroying them, men, their passions as if changed and £'"£4 abolished2 in the Impassible, henceforth become themselves note k- also impassible and free" from them forever, as John teaches not'e u. ' when he says, And ye know that He was manifested to take 1 John.'i, away our sins, and in Him is no sin. And this being so, no heretic shall object, " Wherefore rises the flesh, being by nature mortal ? and if it rises, why not hunger too and thirst, and suffer, and remain mortal ? for it came from the earth, and how can its natural condition pass from it?" since the flesh is able now to make answer to this so contentious heretic, " I am from earth, being by nature mortal, but afterwards I became the Word's flesh, and He carried my affections, though He is without them3; and so I became free from3«w>is them, being no more abandoned to their service because of the Lord who has made me free from them. For if thou objectest that I am rid of that corruption which is by nature, see that thou objectest not that God's Word took my form of servitude ; for as the Lord, putting on the body, became man, so we men are made gods4 by the Word as being taken %«.» to Him through His flesh, and henceforward inherit life '"' * everlasting." a vid. p. 360, note g. "As since the did no sin, nor was guile found in His flesh has become the all-quickening mouth ; and He is laid down as a root Word's it overbears the might of cor- andfirstfruitofthosewhoarerefashioned ruption and death, so, I think, since unto newness of life in the Spirit, and the soul became His who knew not unto immortality of body, and He will error it has an unchangeable condition transmit to the whole human race the for all good things established in it, and firm security of the Godhead, as by far more vigorous than the sin that of participation and by grace." Cyril, de old time tyrannized over us. For, first Rect. Fid. p. 18. and only of men on the earth, Christ Disc. III. §. 35. 1 l^yt&vov, p. 443, note g. 3 vid. Is. 1,22. Sept. 2 Cor. 2, 17. 4 p. 17, r. 2. p. 394, r.5. 5 yitlo-tt 6pp.l30, 189.infr. iv. 23. c. Facund. Tr.C.ix. 1 init. 3 fin. 7 ffxonov, supr.p. 440. 8 p. 442, X. 1. 450 It was One, ivho wrought as God and suffered as man. 14. These points we have found it necessary first to examine, that, when we see Him doing or saying aught divinely through the instrument1 of His own body, we may know that Fle so works, being God, and also, if we see Him speaking or suffering humanly, we may not be ignorant that He bore flesh and became man, and hence He so acts and so speaks. For if we recognise what is proper to each, and see and understand that both these things and those are done by Oneb, we are right2 in our faith, and shall never stray. But if a man looking at what is done divinely by the Word, deny the body, or looking at what is proper to the body, deny the Word's presence in the flesh, or from what is human entertain low thoughts concerning the Word, such a one, as a Jewish vintner3, mixing water with the wine4, shall account the cross an offence, or as a Gentile, will deem the preaching folly. This then is what happens to God's enemies the Arians ; for looking at what is human in the Saviour, they have judged Him a creature. Therefore they ought, looking also at the divine works of the Word, to denyc the generation of His body5, and henceforth to rank them selves with Manichees6 But for them learn they, however tardily, that the Worel became flesh ; and let us, retaining the general scope 7 of the faith, acknowledge that what they interpret ill, has a right interpretation8. D vid. infr. 39 — 41. and p. 479, noteb. " Being God, and existing as Word, while He remained what He was, He became flesh, and a child, and a man, no change profaning the mystery. The Same both works wonders and suffers, by tbe miracles signifying that He is what He was, and by the sufferings giving proof that He had become what He had framed." Procl. ad Armen. p. 615. " Without loss then to the pro priety of either nature and substance,'' (salva proprietate, and so Tertullian, Salva est utriusque proprietas sub stantias, &c. in Prax. 27.) " yet with their union in one Person, Majesty takes on it littleness, Power infirmity, Eternity mortality, and, to pay the debt of our estate, an inviolable Nature is made one with a nature that is passible; that, as was befitting for our cure, One and the Same Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ, miffht both be capable of death from the one, and incapable from the other." Leo's Tome (Ep. 28, 3.) also Hil. Trin. ix. 11 fin. " Vagit infans, sed in coelo est, &c." ibid. x. 54. Ambros. de Fid. ii. 77. Erat vermis in cruce sed dimittebat peccata. Non habebat speciem, sed plenitudinem divinitatis, Sec. Id. Epist. i. 46, n. 5. Theoph. Ep. Pasch. 6. ap. Cone. Ephes. p. 1404. Hard. c Thus heresies are partial views of the truth, starting from some troth which they exaggerate, and disowning and protesting against other truth, which they fancy inconsistent with it. vid. supr. p. 219, note b. j i Jj CHAP. XXVII. TEXTS EXPLAINED; TENTHLY, MATTHEW XXviii. 18. John iii. 35. &c. These texts intended to preclude the Sabellian notion of the Son ; they fall in with the Catholic doctrine concerning the Son ; they are explained by " so" in John 5, 26. (Anticipation of the next chapter.) Again they are used with reference to our Lord's human nature; for our sake, that we might receive and not lose, as receiving in Him. And consistently with other parts of Scripture, which shew that He had the power, &c. before He received it. He was God and man, and His actions are often at once divine and human. 1. For, The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all John 3, things into His hand ; and, All things are given unto Me of^' My Father ; and, / can do nothing of Myself, but as I hear, 11, 27- I judge ; and the like passages, do not shew that the Son 3q_ a ' once had not these prerogatives,- — (for had not He eternally what the Father has, who is the Only Word and Wisdom of the Father in substance, who also says, All that the Father John26, hath are Mine, and what are Mine, are the Father's ? for if jjj' ' the things of the Father are the Son's and the Father hath them ever, it is plain that what the Son hath, being the Father's, were ever in the Son,) — not then because once He had them not, did He say this, but because, whereas the Son hath eternally what He hath, yet He hath them from the Father. For lest a man, perceiving that the Son has all that§. 36. the Father hath, from the unvarying likeness1 and identity of1 "'"r that He hath, should wander into the irreligion of Sabellius, ™« considering Him to be the Father2, therefore He has said Is a note on given unto Me, and / have received, and Are delivered to Mefh V*- only to shew that He is not the Father, but the Father's Word, 28, 18. and the Eternal Son, who because of His likeness to the ,g_ a f Father, hath eternally what He hath from. Him, and because He is the Son, hath from the Father what eternally He hath. 452 The Son receives, not because He is not God, but not the Father. Disc. 2. Moreover that Is given and Are delivered, and the like, : do not impair1 the Godhead of the Son, but rather shew Him p. 244, to be truly2 Son, we may learn from the passages themselves. I' 1- For if all things are delivered unto Him, first, He is other note d. than that all which He has received; next, being Heir of all things, He alone is the Son and proper according to the Substance of the Father. For if He were one of all, then Heb. l, He were not heir of all, but every one had received accord ing as the Father willed and gave. But now, as receiving all things, He is other than them all, and alone proper to the Father. 3. Moreover that Is given and Are delivered do not shew that once He had them not, we may conclude from a similar passage, and in like manner concerning them all ; for the John 5, Saviour Himself says, As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given also to the Son to have life in Himself. Now from the words Hath given, He signifies that He is not the Father; but in saying so, He shews the Son's natural likeness and propriety towards the Father. If then once the Father had not, plainly the Son once had not; for as the Father, so also the Son has. But if this is irreligious to say, and religious on the contrary to say that the Father had ever, is it not extravagant in them when the Son says that, as the ^ p. 359, Father has, so also the Son has, to say that He has not so3, but otherwise? Rather then is the Word faithful, and all things which He says that He has received, He has always, yet has from the Father ; and the Father indeed not from any, but the Son from the Father. For as in the instance of the radiance, if the radiance itself should say, " All places the light hath given me to enlighten, and I do not enlighten from myself, but as the light wills," yet, in saying this, it does not imply that it once had not, but it means, "I am proper to the light, and all things of the light are mine;" so, and much more, must we understand in the instance of the Son. For the Father, having given all things to the Son, in the Son still8 hath all things ; and the Son having, « traXit. vid. p. 203, note d. Thus the Son is in Himself, as distinct from iteration is not duplication in respect the Father; we are but told His re- to God ; though how this is, is the in- lation towards the Father, and thus the serutable Mystery of the Trinity in sole meaning we are able to attach to Unity. Nothing can be named which Person is a relation of the Son towards The Father gives the Son all things, yet still has them. 453 still the Father hath them ; for the Son's Godhead is the Father's Godhead, and thus the Father in the Son takes the oversight1 of all things. the Father; and distinct from and be yond that relation, He is but the One God, who is also the Father. This sacred subject has been touched upon supr. p. 412, note d. In other words, there is an indestructible essential re lation existing in the One Indivisible infinitely simple God, such as to con stitute Him, viewed on each side of that relation, (what in human lan guage we call) Two, (and in like manner Three) yet without the no tion of number really coming in. When we speak of " Person," we mean nothing more than the One God in sub- stance,viewed relatively to Him the One God, as viewed in that Correlative which we therefore call another Person. These various statements are not here in tended to explain, but to bring home to the mind what it is which faith re ceives. We say " Father, Son, and Spirit," but when we would abstract a general idea of Them in order to number Them, our abstraction really does but carry us back to the One Substance. There will be different ways of express ing this, but such seems the meaning of such passages as ihe following. "Those who taunt us with tritheism, must be told that we confess One God not in number, but in nature. For what is one in number is not really one, nor single in nature ; for instance, we call the world one in number, but not one in nature, for we divide it into its ele ments; and man again is one in number, but compounded of body and soul. If then we say that God is in nature one, how do they impute number to us, who altogether banish it from that blessed and spiritual nature ? For number be longs to quantity, and number is con nected with matter, &c." Basil. Ep. 8,2. " That which saveth us, is faith, but number has been devised to indicate quantity. .. .We pronounce Each of the Persons once, but when we would number Them up, we do not proceed by an unlearned numeration to the notion of a polvtheism." (vid. the whole pas sage,) ibid, de Sp. S. c. 18. " Why passing by the First Cause, does he [S. John] at once discourse to us of the Second P We will decline to speak of 'first' and 'second;' for the Godhead is limber than number and succession of times." Chrysost. in Joan. Hom. ii. 3 fin. " In respect of the Adorable and most Royal Trinity, 'first' and ' second' have no place ; for the God head is higher than number and times." Isid. Pel. Ep. 3, 18. " He calls," says S. Maximus commenting on Pseudo- Diomsius, "fecundity, the Father's incomprehensible progression to the production of the Son and the Holy Gbost; and suitably does he say 'as a Trinity,' since not number, but glory is expressed in ' The Lord God is One Lord.' " in Dionys. Opp. t. 2. p. 101. " We do not understand ' one' in the Divine Substance, as in the creatures ; in whom what is properly one is not to be seen ; for what is one in number, as in our case, is not properly one. It is not one in number, or as the beginning of number, any more than It is as magnitude or as the beginning of mag nitude. . . .That Onp is ineffable and indescribable ; since It is tbe cause of whit is one itself, trains itaios itovroiot.'7 Eulog. ap. Phot. 230. p. 864. " Three what ? I answer, Father and Son and Holy Ghost. See, he urges, you have said Three ; but explain Three what P Nay, do you number, I have said all about the Three, when I say , Father and Son and Holy Ghost. Not, as theie are two men, so are They two Gods ; for there is here something ineffable, which cannot be put into words, that there should both be number in Three, and not number. For see if there does not seem to be number, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, a Trinity. If Three, Three what? number fails. Then God neither is without number, nor is under number. They imply number, only relatively to Each Other, not in Themselves." August, in Joan. 39, 3 and 4. " We say Three ' Persons,' as many Latins of authority have said in treating the subject, because they found no more suitable way of declaring an idea in words which they had without words. Since the Father is not the Son, and the Son net the Father, and the Holy Ghost neither Father nor Son, there are certainly Three ; but when we ask, Three what P we feel the great poverty of human language. However, we say Three ' Persons,' not for the sake of saying that, but of Chap. XXVII. 1 orpoteiat p. 416, note f. p. 422, note 1. 454 Our Lord's asking does not argue ignorance. Disc. 4. And while such is the sense of these passages, those too which speak humanly concerning the Saviour, admit of a j -""7 "" ° " religious meaning also. For with this end have we examined them beforehand, that, if we should hear Him asking where 1 vid. Lazarus is laid1, or when He asks on coming into the parts Johnii °f Caesarea, Whom do men say that I am? or, How many 34- loaves have ye? and, What will ye that I shall do unto you? 16, 13. we may know, from what has been already said, the orthodox2 Mark 6, sense 0f tne passages, and may not stumble as Christ's Matt, enemies the Arians. First then we must put this question to 2 .'^f " the irreligious, why they consider Him ignorant ? for one p. 341, who asks, does not for certain ask from ignorance ; but it is possible for one who knows, still to ask concerning what he knows. Thus John was aware that Christ, when asking, John 6, How many loaves have ye? was not ignorant, for he says, And this He said to prove him, for He Himself knew what He would do. But if He knew what He was doing, therefore not in ignorance, but with knowledge did He ask. From this instance we may understand similar ones ; that, when the Lord asks, He does not ask in ignorance, where Lazarus lies, nor again, whom men do say that He is ; but knowing the thing which He was asking, aware what He was about to do. 5. And thus with ease is their sophism overthrown ; but if they still persist1* on account of His asking, then they must be told that in the Godhead indeed ignorance is not, but to the flesh ignorance is proper, as has been said. And that this is really so, observe how the Lord who inquired, where Lazarus lay, Himself said, when He was not on the spot but John 11, a great way off, Lazarus is elead, and where he was dead; 14. not saying nothing." de Trin. v. 10. I have not made three Suns, but named " Unity is not number, but is itself the one so many times Atrine numera- principle of all things." Ambros. de tion then does not make number, which Fid. i. n. 19. " That is truly one, in they rather run into, who make some which there is no number, nothing in It difference between the Three." Boeth. beyond That which is. There is no Trin. unus Deus, p. 959. The last re- diversity in It, no plurality from di- mark is found in Naz. Orat. 31, 18. versity, no multitude from accidents, Many of these passages are taken from and therefore not number but Thomassin de Trin. 17. Unity only. For when God is thrice •> Petavius refers to this passage in repeated, and Father, Son, and Holy proof that S. Athanasius did not in his Ghost is named, three Unities do not real judgment consider our Lord ig- make plurality of number in Him norant, but went on to admit it in'ar- which They are This repetition of. gument after having first given his own Unities is iteration rather than nu- real opinion, vid, p. 464, note f. meration As if I say, Sun, Sun, Sun, He receives gifts in. thefiesh, that He may transmit them to us. 455 and how that He vvho is considered by them as ignorant, Chap. is He Himself who foreknew the reasonings of the disciples, XXl ' ' and was aware of what was in the heart of each, and of what John 2, weis in man, and, what is greater, alone knows the Father j^' 14' and says, / in the Father and the Father in Me. Therefore §. 38. this is plain to every one, that the flesh indeed is ignorant, but the Word Himself, considered as the Word1, knows all things 1 « xiyos even before they come to be. For He did not, when He6'7 became man, cease to be God2 ; nor, whereas He is God does2 p. 291, He shrink from what is man's; perish the thought; butnoe ' rather, being God, He has taken to Him the flesh, and being in the flesh makes the flesh god3. For as He asked questions 3 *««•«« in it, so also in it did He raise the dead ; and He shewed to all that He who quickens the dead and recals the soul, much more discerns the secrets of all. And He knew where Lazarus lay, and yet He asked ; for the All-holy Word of God, who endured all things for our sakes, did this, that so carrying our ignorance, He might vouchsafe to us tbe knowledge of His own only and true Father, and of Himself sent because of us for the salvation of all, than which no grace could be greater. 6. When then the Saviour uses the words which they allege in their defence, Power is given to Me, and, Glorify Thy Son, and Peter says, Power is given unto Him, we understand all these passages in the same sense, that hu manly because of the body He says all this. For though He had no need, nevertheless He is said to have received what He received humanly, that on the other hand, inas much as the Lord has received, and the grant is lodged with Him, the grace may remain sure. For while mere man receives, he is liable to lose again, (as was shewn in the case of Adam, for he received and he lost4,) but that the grace * p. 379. maybe irrevocable, and may be kept sure5 by men, therefore 5supr.PP. He Himself appropriates6 the gift; and He says that He hasp. 3g0; ' received power, as man, which He ever had as God, and Her- '¦ says, Glorify Me, who glorifies others, to shew that He hath ,r™, a flesh which has need of these things. Wherefore, when ^7 the flesh receives, since that which receives is in Him, and by note t.' taking it He hath become man, therefore He is said Himself to have received. If then, (as has many times been said,)§- 39. 456 If the Word received as the Word, what hope is there for mant Disc, the Word did not become man, then ascribe to the Word, as III — you would have it, to receive, and to need glory, and to be ignorant ; but if He has become man, (and He has become,) and it is man's to receive, and to need, and to be ignorant, wherefore do we consider the Giver as receiver, and the Dispenser to others do we suspect to be in need, and divide the Word from the Father as imperfect and needy, while we strip human nature of grace ? For if the Word Himself, 1 H xiyes considered as Word1, has received and been glorified for His own sake, and if He according to His Godhead is He who is hallowed and has risen again, what hope is there for men ? for they remain as they were, naked, and wretched, and dead, having no interest in the things given to the Son. Why too did the Word come among us, and become flesh ? if that He might receive these things, which He says that He has received, He was without them before that, and of 'infr .51. necessity will rather owe thanks Himself to the body2, because, when He came into it, then He receives these things from the Father, which He had not before His descent into the flesh. For on this shewing He seems rather to be Himself 3 tiiXTw promoted3 because of the body4, than the body promoted i via because of Him. But this notion is Judaic. But if that He supr. p. might redeem mankind 5, the Word did come among us ; and 5 re- that He might hallow them and make them gods, the Word demp- became flesh, (and for this He did become,) who does not tion an ' v " internal see that it follows, that what He says that He received, when vidLsupr. ^"-e became flesh, that He mentions, not for His own sake, p. 357, but for the flesh ? for to it, in which He was speaking, e j.otroli- pertained the gifts given through Him from the Father. '9 7. But let us see what He asked, and what the things alto gether were which He said that He had received, that in this way also they may be brought to feeling. He asked then glory, Lukeio, yet He had said, All things are delivered unto Me. And 22- after the resurrection, He says that He has received all power ; but even before that He had said, All things are de livered unto Me, He was Lord of all, for all things were made l Cor. 8, by Him; and there is One Lord by whom are all things. And 6- when He asked glory, He was as He is, the Lord of glory; l Cor. 2, as Paul says, If they had known it, they would not have 8- crucified the Lord of glory ; for He had that glory which He received what He had before. 457 He asked when He said, the glory which I had with Thee Chap. before the world was. Also the power which He said He ' received after the resurrection, that He had before He.r , 7 lstrtTlpa, received it, and before the resurrection. For He of Himself p- 485, rebuked1 Satan, saying, Get thee behind Me, Satan ; andL°ute°4 to the disciples He gave the power against him, when on 8- their return He said, / beheld Satan, as lightning, fall from Lukeio, heaven. And again, that what He said that He had received, 18- 19- that He possessed before receiving it, appears from His driving away the devils, and from His unbinding what Satan vid. had bound, as He did in the case of the daughter of Abraham ; i6. ' and from His remitting sins, saying to the paralytic, and to the ^att- 9> woman who washed His feet, Thy sins be forgiven thee; and Luke 7, from His both raising the dead, and repairing the first nature of the blind, granting to him to see. And all this He did, not waiting till He should receive, but being possessed ofis.9,6. power. ?.ePt- , . i\ovo-iao-- 8. From all this it is plain that what He had as Word, «¦«$. that when He had become man and was risen again, He says that He received humanly2; that for His sake men2 p. 245. might henceforward upon earth have power against devils, as having become partakers of a divine nature ; and in heaven, as being delivered from corruption, might reign everlastingly. Thus we must acknowledge this once for all, that nothing which He says that He received, did He receive as not possessing before ; for the Word, as being God, had them 3 always ; but in these passages He is said humanly to have »?, p. received that, whereas the flesh received in Him, henceforth j^J"- J* from it the gift might abide3 surely for us. For what is said 17. by Peter, receiving from God honour and glory, Angels being 22. e ' ' made subject unto Him, has this meaning ; for as He §.41. inquired humanly, and raised Lazarus divinely, so He J^*r"' received is spoken of Him humanly, but the subjection of supr. p. the Angels marks the Word's Godhead. infr! p. ' 9. Cease then,0 ye abhorred of God4, and degrade not the484,r.3. Q6 IVIorf" Word ; nor detract from His Godhead, which is the Father's3, Ar. l. as though He needed or were ignorant; lest ye be casting ^^ your own arguments against the Christ, as the Jews who once b. stoned Him. For these are not the Word's, as the Word6;nP"e4°0' but are proper to men ; and, as when He spat, and stretched 6 v *-h°s _ io-Tt. 2h 458 He was Very God in thefiesh, and true fiesh in the Word. Disc, forth the hand, and called Lazarus, we did not say that the triumphs1 were human, though they were done through the XC6T60 SipaTa body, but were God's, so, on the other hand, though human things are ascribed to the Saviour in the Gospel, let us, con sidering the nature of what is said and that they are foreign to God, not impute them to the Word's Godhead, but to His manhood, For though the Word became flesh, yet to the flesh are the affections proper; and though the flesh is 2 heipe- possessed 2 by God in the Word, yet to the Word belong the pujaiit „race an(j tne p0wer_ jje did then the Father's works tu Xoyet o r through the fiesh; and as truly contrariwise were the af fections of the flesh displayed in Him ; for instance, He inquired and He raised Lazarus, He chid" His Mother, John 2, saying, My hour is not yet come, and then at once He made the water wine. For He was Very God in the flesh, and He was true flesh in the Word. Therefore from His works He revealed both Himself as Son of God, and His own Father, and from the affections of the flesh He shewed that He hore a true body, and that it was proper to Him. c itritrXriTTi ; and so iviTipno-i, Chry- iii. 16, n. 7. who thinks S. Mary de- sost. in loc. Joann. and Theopbyl. ws sired to drink of His cup ; others that o*io-iroT9is WtTipa, Theodor. Eran. ii. their entertainer was poor, and that she p. 106. itTpitru, Anon. ap. Corder. Cat. wished to befriend bim. Nothing can in loc. pipfiTai, Alter Anon. ibid, be argued from S. Athan.'s particular itrmpa ebx aTipaZ,oiv iXXa hophvpivos, word here commented on how he would Euthym. in loc. obx itri*-Xv%st, Pseudo- have taken the passage. Thatthetone Justin. Quaest. ad Orthod. 13<7 It is of our Lord's words is indeed (judg- remarkable that Athan. dwells on these ing humanly and speaking humanly) words as implying our Lord's humanity, cold and distant, is a simple fact, but (i. e. because Christ appeared to decline it may be explained variously. It is a miracle,) when one reason assigned observable that ivitrX-nrTU and Wtnuif for them by the Fathers is that He are the words used (infr. p. 477, note a.) wished, in the words ri poi xai o-ei, to for our Lord's treatment of His own remind S. Mary that He was the Son of sacred body. But they are very vague God and must be " about His Father's words, and have a strong meaning or business." " Repellens ejus intern- not, as the case may be. pestivam festinationem," Iren. Hsar. CHAP. XXVIII. texts explained; eleventhly, mark xiii. 32. AND luke ii. 52. Arian explanation of the former text is against the Regula Fidei; and against the context. Our Lord said He was ignorant of the Day, by reason of His human nature ; from sympathy with man. If the Holy Spirit knows the Day, therefore the Son knows ; if the Son knows the Father, therefore He knows the Day; if He has all that is the Father's, therefore know ledge of the Day ; if in the Father, He knows the Day in the Father ; if the Father's Image, He knows the Day; if He created and upholds all things, He knows the Day when they will cease to be. He knows not, as representing us, argued from Matt. 24, 42. A s He asked about Lazarus'a grave, &c. yet knew, so He knows ; as S. Paul says, " whether in the body I know not," &c. yet knew, so He knows. He said He knew not for our profit, that we be not curious, (as in Acts 1 , 7. where on the contrary He did not say He knew not;) that we be not secure and slothful. As the Almighty asks of Adam and of Cain, yet knew, so the Son knows. Again, He advanced in wisdom also as man, else He made Angels perfect before Himself. He advanced, in that the Godhead was manifested in Him more fully as time went on. 1. These things being so, come let us now examine into§. 42. But of i hat day and that hour knoweth no man, neither iAeMark Angels cf God, nor the Son"; for being in great ignorance as 3' 32' regards these words, and being stupified1 about them, they ' »¦««$«¦ think they have in them an important argument for their deDecr heresy. But I, when the heretics allege it and prepare §-isinit. themselves with it, see in them the giants3 again fighting r.' 2. ' 2 yiyat- a S. Basil takes the words 00S i 30, 16. S. Irenseus seems to adopt „a~ viis , u ph 0 traTyg, to mean, " nor does the same when he says, " The Son J. * the Son know, except the Father was not ashamed to refer the know- p 335 knows," or " nor would the Son but ledge of that day to the Father ;" Haer. ^0f-e j' for, &c." or " nor does the Son know, ii.2j!,n. 6. as Naz. supr. uses the words except as the Father knows." "The itrl tvv turiat ataipipie-toi. And so Pho- cause of the Son's knowing is from tbe tius distinctly, sis apxht etimQigmu. Father." Ep. 236, 2. S. Gregory alludes " Not the Son, but the Father, that is, to the same interpretation, obi' 0 vlos whence knowledge comes to the Son as $ as oti i a-BTwj, " Since the Father from a fountain." Epp. p. 342. ed. knows, therefore the Son." Naz. Orat. 1651. 2 h2 460 Our Lord knew the last day, for He described its antecedents. Disc, against God. For the Lord of heaven and earth, by whom — all things were made, has to litigate before them about day and hour ; and the Word who knows all things, is accused by them of ignorance about a day ; and the Son who knows the Father, is said to be ignorant of an hour of a day ; now what can be spoken more contrary to sense, or what madness can be likened to this ? Through the Word all things were made, times and seasons and night and day and the whole creation ; and is the Framer of all said to be ignorant of His 1 '!gp°s work? And the very context1 of the passage shews that the Son of God knows that hour and that day, though the Arians fall headlong in their ignorance. For after saying, nor the Son, He relates to the disciples the approaches of the day, saying, " This and that shall be, and then the end." But He who speaks of the antecedents of the day, knows certainly the day also, which shall be manifested subsequently to the things foretold. But if He had not known the hour, He • had not signified the events before it, as not knowing when it should be. And as any one, who, by way of pointing out a house or city to those who were ignorant of it, gave an account of the things that preceded the house or city, and having described all particulars, said, " Then immediately comes the city or the house," would know of course, where the house or the city was, (for had be not known, he had not described these antecedents, lest from ignorance he should throw his hearers far out of the way, or in speaking he should unawares go beyond the object,) so the Lord saying what shall precede that day and that hour, knows exactly, not is ignorant, when the hour and the day are at hand. §• 43. 2. Now why it was that, though He knew, He did not tell ^xiphp- His disciples plainly at that time, no one may be curious2 p. 426, where He has been silent; for Who hath known the mind of note q. ^ne £0rd, or who hath been His counsellor ? but why, though n°™'4 He knew, He said, no, not the Son knows, this I think none of the faithful is ignorant, viz. that He made this as those other 3lixaT. declarations as man by reason of the flesh. For this as ™244 before is not the Word's deficiency3, but of that human r. l. nature4 whose property it is to be ignorant. And this again via""*' yri\l be well seen by honestly examining into the occasion, p. 345, when and to whom the Saviour spoke thus. Not then when note g. He professed an ignorance which was natural to thefiesh. 461 the heaven was made by Him, nor When He was with the Chap. Father Himself, the Word disposing all things, nor before p™"' He became man did He say it, but when the Word became $7 -Sept. fiesh. On this account it is reasonable to ascribe to Hisf^"11' manhood every thing which, after He became man, He speaks humanly. For it is proper to the Word to know what was made, nor be ignorant either of the beginning or the end of these, (for the works are His,) and He knows how many things He has wrought, and the limit of their consistence. And knowing of each the beginning and the end, He knows surely the general and common end of all. 3. Certainly when He says in the Gospel concerning Himself in His human character, Father, the hour is come, Johnl7, glorify Thy Son, it is plain that He knows also the hour of the ' end of all things, as the Word, though as man He is ignorant of it, for ignorance is proper to manb, and especially ignorance of these things. Moreover this is proper to the Saviour's love of man ; for since He was made man, He is not ashamed, because ofthe flesh which is ignorant1, to say " I know not,"1 p. 469, that He may shew that knowing as God, He is but ignorant r" - b Though our Lord, as having two humanitatis.'' Epp. x. 39. However, natures, had a human as well as a this view of tbe sacred subject was re- divine knowledge, and though that ceived by the Church after S. Atha- human knowledge was not only limited nasius's day, and it cannot be denied because human, but liable to ignorance that he and others of the most eminent in matters in which greater know- Fathers use language which primd was possible; yet it is the doc- facie is inconsistent with it. They trine of the Church, that in fact He certainly seem to impute ignorance to was not ignorant even in His human our Lord as man, as Athan. in this nature, according to its capacity, since passage. Of course it is not meant it was from the first taken out of its that our Lord's soul has the same per- original and natural condition, and feet knowledge as He has as God. " deified" by its union with the This was the assertion of a General Word. As then (supra p. 344, note f.) of the Hermits of S. Austin at the time His manhood was created, yet He may of the Council of Basil, when the pro- not be called a creature even in His position was formally condemned, ani- manhood, and as (supra p. 300, noteb.) mam Christi Deum videre tam elare et His fiesh was in its abstract nature a intense' quam clare" et intense Deus videt servant, yet He is not a servant in fact, seipsum. vid. Berti Opp. t. 3. p. 42. even as regards the flesh; so, though Yet Fulgentius had said, " I think He took on Him a soul which left to that in no respect was full kuow- itself had been partially ignorant, as ledge of the Godhead wanting to that other human souls, yet as ever enjoying Soul, whose Person is one with the the beatific vision from its oneness with Word : whom Wisdom so assumed that the Word, it never was ignorant really, it is itself that same Wisdom." ad but knew all things which human soul Ferrand. iii. p. 223. ed. 1639. Yet, can know. vid. Eulog. ap. Phot. 230. ad Trasmund. i. 7. he speaks of ig- p. 884. As Pope Gregory expresses norance attaching to our Lord's human it, " Novit in natura, non ex natura nature. 462 If the Holy Spirit not said to be ignorant, the Son not ignorant. Disc, according to the flesh". And therefore He said not, "no, I1L not the Son of God knows," lest the Godhead should seem ignorant, but simply, no, not the Son, that the ignorance §. 44. might be the Son's as born from among men. On this account, He alludes to the Angels, but He did not go further and say, " not the Holy Ghost ;" but He was silent, with a double intimation ; first that if the Spirit knew, much more j *, xiyos must the Word know, considered as the Word ', from whom "1'.'m». the Spirit receives2; and next by His silence about the Spirit, Serap. L jje made it clear, that He said of His human ministry3, no, sxtiTovg-not the Son. v'"" 4. And a proof of it is this; that, when He had spoken humanly a No, not the Son knows, He yet shews that divinely He knew all things. For that Son whom He declares not c And so Athan. ad Serap. ii. 9. S. Basil on the question being asked him by S. Amphilochius, says that he shall give him the answer he had " heard from a boy from the fathers," but which was more fitted for pious Chris tians than for cavillers, and that is, that "our Lord says many things to men. in His human aspect ; as ' Give me to drink,'. . .yet He who asked was not flesh without a soul, but Godhead using flesh which had one." Ep. 236, 1. He goes on to suggest another explanation which has been mentioned p. 459, note a. And S.Cyril," Let them then [the Arians] strip the Word openly of the flesh and what it implies, and destroy outright the whole Economy, and then they will clearly see the Son as God ; or, if they shudder at this as impious and absurd, why blush they atthe conditions of the manhood, and determine to find fault with what especially befits the economy of thefiesh?'' Trin. pp. 623,4. vid. also Thes. p. 220. " As He sub mitted as man to hunger and thirst, so .to be ignorant." p. 221. vid. also Greg. Naz. Orat. 30, 15. Theodoret expresses the same opinion very strongly, speaking of a gradual revelation to the manhood from the Godhead, but in an argument where it was to his point to do so ; in Anath. 4. t. v. p. 23. ed. Schutze. Theodore of Mopsuestia also speaks of a revelation made by the Word. ap. Leont. c. Nest. (Canis. i. p. 579.) d Leporius, in his Retractation, which S. Augustine subscribed, writes, " That 1 may in this respect also leave nothing to be cause of suspicion to any one, I then said, nay I answered when it was put to me, that our Lord Jesus Christ was ignorant as He was man, (secundum hominem.) But now not only do I not presume to say so, but I even anathematize my former opinion expressed on this point, because it may not be said, that the Lord of the Pro phets was ignorant even as He was man.'- ap. Sirm. t. i. p. 210. A sub division also of the Eutychians were called by the name of Agnoeta? from their holding that our Lord was ignorant of the day of judgment. " They said," says Leontius, " that He was ignorant of it, as we say that He underwent toil." de Sect. 5. circ. fin. Felix of Urgela held the same doctrine accord ing to Agobard's testimony, as contained p. 466, note g. The Ed. Ben. observes on the text, that the assertion of our Lord's ignorance " seems to have been con demned in no one in ancient times, un less joined to other error." And Pe- tavius, after drawing out the authorities for and against it, says, " Of these two opinions, the latter, which is now re ceived both by custom and by the agreement of divines, is deservedly pre ferred to the former. For it is more agreeable to Christ's dignity, aud more befitting His character and office of Mediator and Head, that is, Fountain of all grace and wisdom, and moreover of Judge, who is concerned in knowing the time fixed for exercising that func tion. In consequence, the former opinion, though formerly it received the countenance of some men of high emi nence, was afterwards marked as a heresy." Incarn. xi. 1. §. 15. If the Father not ignorant, the Son not ignorant. 463 to know the day, Him He declares to know the Father ; Chap. for No one, He says, knoweth the Father save the Son. And^^v ii i ii- ii. Mat.ll, all men but the Arians would join in confessing, that He 27. who knows the Father, much more knows the whole history1 of1 ri oxot the creation ; and in that whole, its end. And if already the day and the hour be determined by the Father, it is plain that through the Son are they determined, and He knows Himself what through Him has been determined2; for there is2PP-338> nothing, but has come to be and has been determined through r. 2! the Son. Therefore He, being the Framer of the universe, v' f3^' ' ° 'note c. knows of what nature, and of what magnitude, and with what limits, the Father has willed it to be made ; and in the how much and how far is included its period3. And again, if all that3ix*«j"i is the Father's, is the Son's, (and this He Himself has said,) 15. ' and it is the Father's attribute to know the day, it is plain that the Son too knows it, having this proper to Him from the Father. And again, if the Son be in the Father and the Father in the Son, and the Father knows the day and the hour, it is clear that the Son, being in the Father and knowing the things of the Father, knows Himself also the day and the hour. And if the Son is also the Father's Very Image, and the Father knows the day and the hour, it is plain that the Son has this likeness" also to the Father of knowing them. And it is not wonderful if He, through whom all things were made, and in whom the universe consists, Himself knows what has been brought to be, and when the end will be of each and of all together; rather is it wonderful that this audacity, suitable as it is to the madness of the Ario-maniacs, should have forced us to have recourse to so long an explana tion. For ranking the Son of God, the Eternal Word, among things generate, they are not far from venturing to main tain that the Father Himself is second to the creation; for if He who knows the Father knows not the day nor the hour, I fear lest knowledge of the creation, or rather of the lower portion of it, be greater, as they in their madness would say, than knowledge concerning the Father. "Basil. Ep. 236, 1. Cyril. Thes. word "living" commonly joined tosuch p 220 Quomodo vultis haec feeisse words as sixuv, e-fpayis, QovXn, Ivipyua, Dei filium f numquid quasi annulum when speaking of our Lord, e. g. Naz. qui non sentit quod exprimit? Ambros. Orat. 30. 20, c. Vid. p. 491, note n. de fid. v. 197. Hence the force of the 464 The Word said He was ignorant, to shew His manhood. Disc. 5. But for them, when they thus blaspheme the Spirit, & ' they must expect no remission ever of such irreligion, as the ij. 252, Lord has said1; but let us, who love Christ and bear Christ note h. within us2, know that the Word, not as ignorant, considered 0ojM as Word3, has said / know not, for He knows, but as shewing , !,,*°rwHis manhood1, in that to be ignorant is proper to man, and f It is a question to be decided, whether our Lord speaks of actual ig norance in His human Mind, or of the natural ignorance of that Mind considered as human; ignorance in or ex natura ; or, which comes to the same thing, whether He spoke of a real ig norance, or of an economical or pro fessed ignorance, in a certain view of His incarnation or office, as when He asked, " How many loaves have ye?" when " He Himself knew what He would do," or as He is called sin, though sinless. Thus it has been no ticed, supra p. 359, note f. that Ath. seems to make His infirmities altogether but imputative, not real, as if shew ing that the subject had not in his day been thoroughly worked out. In like manner S. Hilary, who, if the passage be genuine, states so clearly our Lord's ignorance, de Trin. ix. fin. yet, as Petavius observes, seems elsewhere to deny to Him those very affections of the flesh to which he has there paralleled it. And this view of Athan.'s meaning is favoured by the turn of his expressions. He says such a de fect belongs to "that human nature whose property it is to he ignorant;" §. 43. that " since He was made man, He is not ashamed, because of the flesh which is ignorant, to say ' I know not ; ' " ibid, and, as here, that " as shelving His manhood, in that to be ignorant is proper to man, and that He had put on a flesh that was ignorant, being i n which , He said according to the flesh, ' I know not;'" "that He might shew that as man He knows not ;" |.46. that "as man," (i. e. on the ground of being man, not in the capacity of man,) " He knows not;" ibid, and that" He as£s about Lazarus humanly," even when " He was on His way to raise him," which implied surely knowledge in His human nature. The reference to the parallel of S. Paul's professed ignorance when he l'ealiy knew, §. 47. leads us to the same suspicion. And so " for our profit, as I think, did He this." §.48—50. The natural want of precision on such questions in the early ages was shewn or fostered by such words as olxotopixus, which, in respect of this very text,is used by S. Basil to denote both our Lord's Incarnation, Ep. 236, 1 fin. and His gracious accommodation of Himself and His truth, Ep. 8, 6. and with the like va riety of meaning, with reference to the same text, by Cyril. Trin. p. 623. and Thesaur. p. 224. (And the word dispen- satio in like manner, Ben. note on Hil. x.8.) In the latter Ep.S. Basilsuggests that our Lord " economizes by a feigned ignorance."§.6. And S.Cyril.inThesaur. 1. a. in spite of his strong language quoted above, " The Son knows all things, though economically He says He is ignorant of something." Thesaur. p. 224. And even in de Trin. vi. he seems to recognise the distinction laid down just now between the natural and actual state of our Lord's humanity; " God would not make it known even to the Son Himself, were' he a mere man upon earth, as they say, and not having it in His nature to be God." p. 629. And S. Hilary arguing that He must as man know the day of judg ment, for His coming is as man, says, " Since He is Himself a sacrament, let us see whether He be ignorant in the things which He knows not. For if in the other respects a profession of ignorance is not an intimation of not knowing, so here too He is not ignorant of what He knows not. For since His ignorance, in respect that all treasures of knowledge lie hid in Him, is rather an economy (dispensation) than an ig norance, you have a cause why He is ignorant without an intimation of not knowing." Trin. ix. 62. And he gives reasons why He professed ignorance, n. 67. viz. as S. Austin words it, Chris tum se dixisse nescientem, in quo alios facit occultando nescientes. Ep. 180, 3. S. Austin follows him, saying, Hoc nescit quod nescienter facit. Trin. i. 23. Pope Gregory says that tbe text " is most certainly to be referred to the Son not as He is Head, but as to His body which we are." Ep. x. 39. And S. Ambrose distinctly; "The Son which took on Him the flesh, assumed our He said He was ignorant to represent us men who are ignorant. 465 that He had put on a flesh that was ignorant1, being in which, Chap. He said according to the flesh, I know not. And for this; — j~ reason, after saying, No not the Son knows, and mentioning the r. l. ignorance of the men in Noe's day, immediately He added, " Watch therefore, for ye know not in what hour your Matt. Lord doth come, and again, In such an hour as ye think not,,' ' the Son of man cometh. For I too, having become as you for you, said no, not the Son." For, had He been ignorant divinely, He must have said, " Watch therefore, for I know not," and, " In an hour when I think not ;" but in fact this hath He not said; but by saying Ye know not and When ye think not, He has signified that it belongs to man to be ignorant ; for whose sake He too having a flesh like theirs and having become man, said No, not the Son knows, for He knew not in flesh, though knowing as Word. 6. And again the example from Noe exposes the shame- lessness of Christ's enemies ; for there too He said, not, " I knew not," but They knew not until the flood came. For men Matt. did not know, but He who brought the flood (and it was the24' 39> Saviour Himself) knew the day and the hour, in which He opened the windows of heaven, and broke up the fountains ofthe great deep, and said to Noe, Come thou and all thy house eien. 7, into the ark. For were He ignorant, He had not foretold to 1- Noe, Yet seven days and I will bring a flood upon the earth. v. 4. But if in describing the day, He makes use ofthe parallel of Noe's time, and He did know the day of the flood, therefore He knows also the day of His own appearing. Moreover, after §. 46. narrating tbe parable2 of the Virgins, again He shews more 2 Sp.l*m clearly who they are who are ignorant of the day and the hour, saying, Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor Matt. the hpur. He who said shortly before, No one knoweth, no25> 13- not the Son, now says not " I know not," but ye know not. In like manner then, when His disciples asked about the end, suitably said He then, wo, nor the Son, according to the affections, so as to say that He knew Matth. Hom. 77, 3. Theodoret, how- not with 'our ignorance; not that He ever but.n controversy is very severe was ignorant of any thing Himself, for, on the principle of Economy . If He though He seemed to be man in truth of knew the day, and wishing to conceal bodv vet He was the life and light, and it, said He was ignorant see what a vh-tue went out of Him, &c." de fid. blasphemy is the result Truth tells an v. 222 And so Caesarius, Qu. 20. and untruth." 1. c. pp. 23, 4. Photius Epp. p. 366. Chrysost. m 466 Other instances in Scripture of our Lord's economical ignorance. Disc, flesh because ofthe body; that He might shew that, as man, — He knows not ; for ignorance is proper to manB. If however He is the Word, if it is He who is to come, He to be Judge, He to be the Bridegroom, He knoweth when and in what Eph. 5, nour JJe cometh, and when He is to say, Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from, the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. For as, on becoming man, He hungers and thirsts and suffers with men, so with men, as man He knows not, though divinely, being in the Father Word and Wisdom, He knows, and there is nothing which He knows not. 1 vid. 7. In like manner also about Lazarus' He asks humanly, p. 454. . . who was on His way to raise him, and knew whence He should recall Lazarus's soul ; and it was a greater thing to know where the soul was, than to know where the body lay ; but He asked humanly, that He might raise divinely. So too He asks of the disciples, on coming into the parts of Cresarea, though knowing even before Feter made answer. For if the Father revealed to Peter the answer to the Lord's * p. 463, question, it is plain that through the Son2 was the revelation, Lukeio f°r No one knoweth the Son, saith He, but the Father, neither 22- the Father but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son shall reveal Him. But if through the Son is revealed the know ledge both of the Father and the Son, there is no room for doubting that the Lord who asked, having first revealed it to Peter from the Father, next asked humanly ; in order to shew, that asking after the flesh, He knew divinely what Peter was about to say. The Son then knew, as knowing all things, and knowing His own Father, than which knowledge nothing can be greater or more perfect. §. 47. 8. This is sufficient to confute them ; but to shew still k The mode in which Athan. here to have been ignorant of the sepulchre expresses himself, is as if he did not of Lazarus, when He said to His sisters, ascribe ignorance literally, but apparent 'Where have ye laid him?' and was ignorance, to our Lord's soul, vid. supr. truly ignorant of the day of judgment ; p. 464, note f ; not certainly in the and was truly ignorant what the two broad sense in which heretics have done disciples were saying, as they walked so. As Leontius, e. g. reports of Theo- by the way, of what had been done at dore of Mopsuestia, that he considered Jerusalem ; and was truly ignorant Christ " to be ignorant so far, as not to whether He was more loved by Peter know, when He was tempted, who than by the other disciples, when He tempted Him ;" contr. Nest. iii. (Canis. said, < Simon Peter, Lovest thou Me t. i. p. 579.) and Agobard of Felix the more than these ?' " B. P. t. 9. p. 11 77. Adoptionist that he held " Our Lord The Agnoeta? have been noticed just Jesus Christ according-to the flesh truly above. If S. Paul said 'I know not; yet knew, much more our Lord. 467 further how hostile they are to the truth and Christ's enemies, Chap. I could wish to ask them a question. The Apostle in the XXVI11, Second Epistle to the Corinthians writes, I knew a man in% Cor. Christ, above fourteen years ago, whether in the body I efo12'2' not know, or whether out of the body I do not know ,- God knowethb. What now say ye ? Knew the Apostle what had happened to him in the vision, though he says I know not, or knew he not ? If he knew not, see to it, lest, being familiar with error, ye en- in the trespass1 of the Phrygians' who say ] t«{«i». that the Prophets and the other ministers ofthe Word know^T' P' neither what they do nor concerning what they announce. note f- But if he knew when he said / know not, for he had Christ within him revealing to him all things, is not the heart of h S. Augustine understands the pas sage differently, i. e. that S. Paul really did not know whether or not he was in the body. Gen. ad lit. xii. 14. ¦ S. Jerome on the first words of the book of Nahum says, " He speaks not in ecstacy, as Montanus, Prisca, and Maximiilu rave; but what he prophe sies, is a book of vision of one who un derstands all that he says, and a burden of enemies of one who has a vision among his people." Prsef. in Naum. In like manner Tertullian in one of his Mon- tanistic works speaks of " amentia, as the spiritalis vis qua constat prophetia;" and he considers Adam's sleep as an ecstacy, and " This is bone of my bone, &c." as his prophecy, de Anim. 21. And a contemporary writer in Eusebius, says that Montanus " had suddenly a seizure and ecstacy, and was in a trans port, and began to speak and to utter an unknown language, %ite$miit, pro phesying beside the custom of the Church, as received by tradition and succession from antiquity." Hist. v. 16. Epiphanius too, noticing the failure of Maximilla's prophecies, says, " What ever the prophets have said, they spoke with understanding, following the sense." Haer. 48. p. 403. And he proceeds to speak of their "settled mind," and their " self-possession," and their not being " carried away as if in ecstacy," which gained them the name of " Seers ;" and he instances Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. And so S. Cyril of the true Spirit: " His coming is gentle, the perception of Him is fragrant, most light is His burden, beams of light and knowledge gleam forth before His coming, &c." Cat. xvi. 16. " It is to be observed," says Leslie, "that the beginnings of several heresies and sects have been at tended with these sort of violent and preternatural transports, as in John of Leyden, Knipperdolling, and some later enthusiasts among ourselves, besides the Quakers. Such punishments did in the primitive Church often follow the sentence of excommunication upon notorious offenders." Works, vol. 5. p. 64. Since his time the Wesleyans furnish an instance not very dissimilar. " Many of those that heard," says Wesley, " began to call upon God with strong cries and tears ; some sank down, and there remained no strength in them ; others exceedingly trembled and quaked; some were torn with a kind of convulsive motion in every part of their bodies, and that so violently, that often four or five persons could not hold one of them." Southey's Wesley, vol. i. p. 271. And so the French Prophets; "She leaned back in her chair, and had strong work ings in her breast, and uttered deep sighs. Her head, and her hands, and by turns every partof her body, were affected with convulsivemotions,&c."ibid. p.279. And so ofthe Irvingite prophetesses, Mr. Pil kington says, "The 'Tongue'. ..burst forth with an astonishing and ter rible crash, so suddenly and in such short sentences, that I seldom recovered the shock before the English commenced . Her whole frame was in violent agitation, but principally the body from the hips to the shoulders, which worked with a lateral motion, texts Gen 18 21 " The Lord came down as, " I have not spoken of Myself, but tose'e the city andthe tower, &c." Gen. the Father which sent me, He gave 116 « God looked down from heaven Me commandment what 1 should say ' \\. u]rTnfm«nf8« &c." and what I should speak Whatsoever upon the childr n of y™» » *^u „. j gpeak the,efore)Peven as the Father ver;nceMySon."M[att.21,37.Luke said unto Me, So I speak." John 12, 20, 13. " SeeiDg a fig tree afar off, 49. 50. 472 The Word did not, for He could not, advance in wisdom. Disc, in whom God then inquired, that same Son who now is clad [' .in flesh, inquires of the disciples as man? unless forsooth, 1 p. 189, having become Manichees, you are willing to blame1 the note a. question tnen pllt t0 Adam, and all that you may give full 2 nam!?- play2 to your perverseness. Decr!i8 ^. For being exposed on all sides, you still make a init. de whispering3 from the words of Luke, which are appropriately 3 reth'pv- said, but ill understood by you*- And what is this, we must |st., vid. state, that so also their corrupt5 meaning may be shewn. & 52. Now Luke says, And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, Luke 2, and in grace with God and man. This then is the passage, 4 p. 341 and since they stumble in it, we are compelled to ask them, note 1. as tne Pharisees and the Sadducees, of the person concerning pin, whom Luke speaks. And the case stands thus. Is Jesus p. 484, ci^st man, as all other men, or is He God bearing flesh? 6 xeivls , If then He is an ordinary 6 man as the rest, then let Him, as noteq.' a man, advance ; this however is the sentiment of Samosatene, which virtually indeed you entertain also, though in name you 7 o-agxa deny it because of men. But if He be God bearing flesh', as qopojv jje ^.ruiy jSj an(j fjie tf/orci became fiesh, and being God * trpexe- descended upon earth, what advance8 had He who existed equal to God ? or how had the Son increase, being ever in the Father ? For if He who was ever in the Father, advanced, what, I ask, is there beyond the Father from which His ad vance might be made ? Next it is suitable here to repeat what was said upon the point of Flis receiving and being glorified. a vid. If He advanced9 when He became man, it is plain that, p. i6s, before He became man, He was imperfect6; and rather the vid.eSupr. flesh lbecame t0 Him a cause °f perfection, than He to the §. 39. flesh. And again, if, as being the Word, He advances, what 1 ,rat-IT'has He more to become than Word and Wisdom and Son and God's Power? For the Word is all these, of which if one can any how partake as it were one ray, such a man becomes all-perfect among men, and equal to Angels. For Angels, , and Archangels, and Dominions, and all the Powers, and Thrones, as partaking the Word, behold always the face of His Father. How then does He who to others supplies perfection, Himself advance later than they ? For Angels wyiM«»even ministered to His human birth10, and the passage from Luke comes later than the ministration of the Angels. How The Word,who couldnot advance, humhledHimself that we might. 473 then at all can it even come into thought of man ? or how Chap. did Wisdom advance in wisdom ? or how did He who to XXIX- others gives grace, (as Paul says in every Epistle1, knowing1 p. 417. that through Him grace is given, The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all,) how didHe advance in grace? for either let them say that the Apostle is untrue2, and pre-2 ^s"- sume to say that the Son is not Wisdom, or else if He is Wisdom as Solomon has said, and if Paul has written, Christ. God's Power and Goel's Wisdom, of what advance did Wisdom admit further ? 14. For men, creatures as they are, are capable in a certain §¦ 52. way of reaching forward and advancing in virtue p. Enoch, for instance, was thus translated, and Moses increased and was perfected; and Isaac by advancing became great; ancl™,'^f1' the Apostle said that he reached forth day by day to the Son of God, since He could not advance, being perfect in the Father, humbled Himself for us, that in His humbling we on the other hand might be able to increase. And our 4 y,vg„fo( increase is no other than the renouncing things sensible, and l,s coming" to the Word Himself; since His humbling is •jj''7" nothing else than His taking our flesh. It was not then p- 291, the Word, considered as the Word5, who advanced, who is°°^ ix perfect from the perfect Father6, who needs nothing, nay«x. brings forward others to an advance ; but humanly is Fle here l'ote p| also said to advance, since advance belongs to man 7. Hence 7 vid. Serm.Maj. de p It is the doctrine of the Church babes. For in consequence of it, when that Christ, as man, was perfect in they are troubled with irrational emo- knowledge from the first, as if ig- tions, no reason, no command, but pain norance were hardly separable from sometimesandthealarmofpainrestrains sin, and were the direct consequence or them, &c." de Pece. Mer. ii. 48. As accompaniment of original sin. " That to the limits of Christ's perfect know- ignorance," says S. Austin, " I in no ledge as man, Petavius observes, that wise can suppose existed in that Infant, we must consider "that the soul of in whom the Word was made flesh Christ knew all things that are or ever to dwell among us ; nor can I suppose will be or ever have been, but not what that that infirmity of the mind belonged are only in posse, not in fact." Incarn. to Christ as a babe, which we see in xi. 3, 6. 2 I 474 He advanced, while His Godhead was manifested in His fiesh. Disc, the Evangelist, speaking with cautious exactness ', has 5 — ^r- mentioned stature in the advance; but being Word and note a. God He is not measured by stature, which belongs to bodies. Of the body then is the advance ; for, it advancing, in it •^tpati- advanced also the manifestation2 ofthe Godhead to those 1*443 w^° saw i*- And, as the Godhead was more and more note g. revealed, by so much more did His grace as man increase before all men. For as a child He was carried to the Tem ple ; and when He became a boy, He remained there, and questioned the priests about the Law. And by degrees His body increasing, and the Word manifesting Himself1 in it, He is confessed henceforth by Peter first, then also by all, Matt. Truly this is the Son of God; however wilfully the Jews, 27' 54.' both the ancient and these modern 3, blink with their eyes, lest 3 p- 282, they see that to advance in wisdom is not the advance of Wisdom Itself, but rather the manhood's advance in lt. For Jesus advanced in wisdom and grace; and, if we may speak what is explanatory as well as true, He advanced in Himself; for Wisdom hath builded Herself an house, and in Herself She §. 53. gave the house advancement. (What moreover4 is this advance 4lsolated that is spoken of, but, as I said before, the deifying5 and grace tence. imparted from Wisdom to men, sin being obliterated in them ns'V"1 an(^ ^leir inward corruption, according to their likeness and 380, relationship to the flesh of the Word ?) For thus, the body increasing in stature, there progressed in and with it the 6 ^^manifestation ofthe Godhead also, and to all was it displayed p. 482, that the body was God's Temple6, and that God was in the r'p.296, body7. 1 It is remarkable, considering the Ambrose,Incarn.7l — 74. Vid. however tone of his statements in the present Ambr. de fid. as quoted supr. p. 465. chapter, that here and in what follows note f. The Ed. Ben. in Ambr. Incarn. Athan. should resolve our Lord's ad- considers tbe advancement of knowledge vance in wisdom merely to its gradual spoken of to be that of the " scientia ex- manifestation through the flesh ; and it perimentalis" alluded to in Hebr. 5,8. increases the proof that his statements which is one of the three kinds of know- are not to be taken in tbe letter, and as ledge possessed by Christ as man. vid, if fully brought out and settled. Naz. BertiOpp. t.3.p.41. Petavius, however, says the same, Ep. ad Cled. 101. p. S6. omits the consideration of this know- which is the more remarkable since he ledge, which S. Thomas first denied in is chiefly writing against the Apolli- our Lord, and in his Summa ascribes to narians who considered a Qatipojtris tbe Him, as lying beyond his province. "De great end of onr Lord's coming; and hac lite m-utram in partem pronuntiare Cyril.. c. Nest. iii. p. 87. Theod. Hor. audeo. Hujusmodi enim qusestiones v. 13. On the other hand, S. Epiphanius ad Scholas relegandae sunt; de quibus speaks of Him as growing in wisdom as nihil apud antiquos liquidi ac definiti man. Ha?r. 77. p. 1019—24. and S. reperitur." Incarn. xi. 4. §. 9. 1. He advanced when the manhood advanced in Him. 475 15. And if they urge, that The Word become flesh is called Chap. Jesus, and refer to Him the term advanced, they must be told XXVIIL that neither does this impair1 the Father's Light2, which is the ' p. 244, Son, but that it still shews that (he Word has become man, ^.'424, and bore true flesh. And as we said3 that He suffered innoteo-' the flesh, and hungered in the flesh, and was fatigued in the P" fiesh, so also reasonably may He be said to have advanced in the flesh ; for neither did the advance, such as we have described it, take place with the Word external to the flesh, for in Him was the flesh which advanced and His is it called, and that as before, that man's advance might abide4 and fail4p.380, not, because of the Word which is with it. Neither then was'* *' the advance the Word's, nor was the flesh Wisdom, but the flesh became the body of Wisdom5. Therefore, as we have5 p. 444, already said, not Wisdom, as Wisdom6, advanced in respect j?"'6 '', of Itself; but the manhood advanced in Wisdom, transcending by degrees human nature, and made God7, and becoming and ¦%«««;'. appearing to all as the organ8 of Wisdom for the operation fi'm and the shining forth9 of the Godhead. Wherefore neither p. 443, said he, " The Word advanced," but Jesus, by which Name^^f' the Lord was called when He became man ; so that the ad- f»> p. vance is of the human nature in such wise as we have above ' ' explained. 2 1 2 CHAP. XXIX. TEXTS EXPLAINED; TWELFTHLY, MATTHEW XXvi. 39; JOHN xii. 27. &C Arian inferences are against the Regula Fidei, as hefore. He wept and the like, as man. Other texts prove Him God. God could not fear. He feared because His flesh feared. Disc 1. Therefore as, when the flesh advanced, He is said to - — have advanced, because the body was proper' to Him, so also & / " what is said at the season of His death, that He was troubled, 1 lOIOTrtTtt 2 iiaveia, that He wept, must be taken in the same sense2. For they, r.'e. ' g°ing UP an note g. ' Word in flesh 6, (for one must not be reluctant to repeat4,) whom I ^'^i'g had He to fear being God ? or wherefore should He fear death, r. i. 'who was Himself Life, and was rescuing others from death? Lukeia, 01. hoWj wnereas He said, " Fear not him that kills the body," should He Himself fear him ? And how should He who said Gen. is, to Abraham, Fear not, foil I am with thee, and encouraged 1-26 24 Exod. 4. Moses against Pharaoh, and said to the son of Nave, Be Josh, l, strong, and of a good courage, Himself feel terror before Herod and Pilate ? Further, He who succours others against He could not really fear, who was God. 477 fear, (for the Lord, says Scripture, is on my side, I will not Chap. fear what man doeth unto me,) did He fear governors, *H2E: mortal men? did He who Himself was come against death,feel e."" U8' terror of death ? Is it not both extravagant and irreligious to say that He was terrified at death or hell, whom the keepers of hell's gates ' saw and shuddered ? But if, as you would hold, the ' supr. Word was in terror, wherefore, when He spoke long before m'ff3p. ofthe conspiracy of the Jews, did He not flee, nay said when479- actually sought, lam He ? for He could have avoided death, Johnis, as He said, / have power to lay down My life, and I have5''10'18' power to take it again ; and No one taketh it from Me*. 2P-431>u0'e e- 2. But these affections were not proper to the nature of §. 55. the Word, as far as He was Word3; but in the flesh which 3P-291> was thus affected was the Word, O Christ's enemies and"0 unthankful Jews ! For He said not all this prior to the flesh; but when the Word became flesh, and became man, then is it written that He said this, that is,humanly. Surely He of whom this is written, was He who raised Lazarus from the dead, and made the water wine, and vouchsafed sight to the man born blind, and said, / and My Father are one. If then Johnio, they make His human attributes a ground for grovelling thoughts concerning the Son of God, nay consider Him altogether man from the earth, and not4 from heaven, where-4 £»4»»- fore not from His divine works recognise the Word who is in oratMv the Father, and henceforward renounce their self-willed 5?5 fin. irreligion ? For they are given to see, how He who did the p.' 256, works, is the same as He who shewed that His body was note °* passible by His permitting* it to weep and hunger, and to 0 This our Lord's suspense or per- the Spirit,' that is, He in some way mission, at His will, of the operations chides His own Flesh in the power of of His manhood is a great principle in the Holy Ghost ; and It, not bearing the doctrine of the Incarnation. " That the movement of the Godhead united to He might give proof of His human It, trembles, &c For this I think is nature," says Theophylact, -on John the meaning of " troubled Himself.' " 11, 34. " He allowed It to do its own fragm. in Joan. p. 685. Sensus cor- work, and chides It and rebukes It by porei vigebant sine lege peccati, et the power of the Holy Spirit. The Veritas affectionum sub moderamine Flesh then, not bearing the rebuke, is Deitatis et mentis. Leon. Ep. 35, 3. troubled and trembles and gets the " Thou art troubled against thy will ; better of Its grief." And S. Cyril : Christ is troubled, because He willed " When grief began to be stirred in it. Jesus hungered, yes, but because Him, and His sacred flesh was on the He willed it; Jesus slept, yes, but be- verge of tears, He suffers it not to be cause He willed it; Jesus sorrowed, affected freely, as is our custom, but yes, but because He willed it; Jesus ' He was vehement (ivs^iprto-aro) in died, yes, but because He willed it. 478 As His Attributes shew Him to be God, so His terror to be man. Disc, shew other properties of a body. For while by means of IIL Such He made it known that God, though impassible, had taken a passible flesh ; yet from the works He shewed Him self the Word of God, who had afterwards become man, saying, " Though ye believe not Me, beholding Me clad in a human Johnio, body, yet believe the works, that ye may know that lam in f0; u> the Father and the Father in Me." And Christ's enemies seem to me to shew plain shamelessness and blasphemy; Johnio, for, when they read land the Father are one, they violently 30, distort the sense, and separate the unity of the Father and the Son ; but reading of His tears or sweat or sufferings, they do not advert to His body, but on account of these rank in the creation Him by whom the creation was made. What then is left for them to differ from the Jews in ? for as the Jews blasphemously ascribed God's works to Beelzebub, so also will these, ranking with the creatures the Lord who wrought those works, undergo the same condemnation as §. 56. theirs without mercy. But they ought, when they read land the Father are one, to see in Him the oneness of the Godhead and the propriety of the Father's Substance ; and again when they read, He wept and the like, to say that these are proper to the body ; especially since on each side they have an intelligible ground, viz. that this is written as of God and that with reference to His manhood. For in the incorporeal, the properties of body had not been, unless He ¦p.24i-3.had taken a body corruptible and mortal1; for mortal was notes h Ho^r Maryj from whom was His body. Wherefore of necessity p. 375, when He was in a body suffering, aud weeping, and toiling, Serm. these things which are proper to the flesh, are ascribed to Maj.de Hjm t0getner with the body. If then He wept and was Tertull. troubled, it was not the Word, considered as the Word2, who Chr^o?' wePt a"d was troubled, but it was proper to the flesh ; and if 5 ? xiyos too He besought that the cup might pass away, it was not the Godhead that was in terror, but this affection too was proper to the manhood. It was in His power to be affected so that He suffered merely " by permission or so, or not to be affected." Aug. of the Word." Leont. ap. Canis. 1. 1. in Joan. xlix. 18. vid. infr. p. 481, p. 563. In like manner Marcion or note e. The Eutychians perverted this Manes said that His " flesh appeared doctrine, as if it implied that our Lord from heaven in resemblance, iis ¥ix%- was not subject to the laws of human nt," Athan. contr. Apoll. ii. 3. nature; vid. supr. p. 243, note i. and He was in fear, as He bore other affections of thefiesh. 479 3. And that the words Why hast Thou, forsaken. Me? are Chap. His, according to the foregoing explanations; though He XXIX- suffered nothing, (for the Word was impassible,) is notwith standing declared by the Evangelists; since the Lord became man, and these things are done and said as from a man, that He might Himself lighten* these very sufferings ofthe flesh, 'pp 448, and free it from them2. Whence neither can the Lord be I'^tl forsaken by the Father, who is ever in the Father, both before 2 P- 360» He spoke, and when He uttered these words. Nor is it""62' lawful to say that the Lord was in terror, at whom the keepers of hell's gates shuddered3 and set open hell, and the graves 3 PP- 83. did gape, and many bodies of the saints arose and appeared to their own people4- Therefore be every heretic dumb, nor4 y'd- dare to ascribe terror to the Lord whom death, as a serpent, 52*53. ' flees, at whom devils tremble, and the sea is in alarm ; for similar whom the heavens are rent and all the powers are shaken, in illud For behold when He says, Why hast Thou forsaken Me, the°mi1,2. Father shewed that He was ever and even then in Him ; for the earth knowing its Lord5 who spoke, straightway trembled, 5 ho-ro- and the vail was rent, and the sun was hidden, and the rocks 420 ?.-2. were torn asunder, and the graves, as I have said, did gape, and the dead in them arose ; and, what is wonderful, they who were then present and had before denied Him, then seeing these signs, confessed that trulu He was the Son vid. sr, Jb Mat.27, ofGodK 54. b Vid. p. 303 init. p. 450, note b. him in the grave ; but the tear is proper " Each form acts, in communion with to the man, and the life to the True the other, those acts which belong Life. Human poverty doth not feed to itself; the Word working what is the thousands, nor doth Almighty the Word's, and the flesh executing Power run to the fig-tree. Who is the what is -of the flesh. One of them is wearied from His journeying, and who glorious in miracles, the other succumbs the giver of subsistence to the universe to injuries He is One and the Same, without effort? What is that out- truly Son of God, and truly Son of man streaming of glory, what that nailed It belongs not to the same nature to thing? What form is buffetted upon weep with pity over a dead friend, and His passion, and what form is glori- removing the stone of a fourth-day fied from everlasting, &c." Nyssen. burial, to rouse him to life at the bidding contr. Eunom. iv. p. 161. " When He of His voice; or to hang on the wood, wept dead Lazarus, He wept as a and to turn day into night and make man ; but He was more than a man, the elements shudder ; or to be pierced when He bade tbe dead shake off his through with nails, and to open the gates fetters and come forth. He was seen ofparadisetothefaith ofthe robber,&c." as a man when He hung at the cross, Leo's Tome (Ep 28.) 4. ' " The flesh but as more than a man when He un- is of a passible nature, but the Word locked the tombs and raised the dead." of an operative Neither does the Ambros. Epist. 1. 46. n. 7. vid. Hil. human nature quicken Lazarus, nor Trim x. 48. Also _ vid. Athan. Sent. does the impassible Power weep over D. 9 fin. Serm. Maj. de Fid. 24. 480 He willed as God what He deprecated as man. Disc 4. And as to His saying, If it be possible, let the cup pass, observe how, though He thus spake, He rebuked1 Peter, ^««^. .„ — .. , 0— — -— -- -j- , , Matt sayinS> Thou savourest not the things that be of God, but 16, 23. those that be of men For He willed0 what He deprecated, p*457"' for therefore had He come ; but His was the willing, (for for it r- l- He came,) but the terror belonged to the flesh. Wherefore note c. as man He utters this speech also, and yet both were said by the Same, to shew that He was God, willing in Himself, but when He had become man, having a flesh that was in terror. For the sake of this flesh He combined His own will with human weakness11, that destroying this affection He might in c " I say not, perish the thought, that there are two wills in Christ at variance with each other, as you con sider, and in opposition ; nor at all a will of flesh, or of passion, or evil . .But, since it was perfect man that He took on Him, that He might save him whole, and He is perfect in manhood, therefore we call that sovereign dis posal of His orders and commands by the name of the Divine will in Christ, and we understand by human will the intellectual soul's powerof willing, given it after the image and likeness of God, and breathed into it by God, when it was made, by means of this power to prefer and to obey, and to do the divine will and the divine orders. If then the soul of Christ was destitute ofthe power of reason, will, and preference, it is not indeed after the image of God, nor consubstantial with our souls.... and Christ cannot be called perfect in man hood. Christ then, being in the form of God, has according to the Godhead that lordly will which is common in Father and Holy Ghost ; and , as having taken the form of a servant, He does also the will of His intellectual and immaculate soul, &c Else if this will be taken away, He will according to the Godhead be subject, and fulfil the Father's will as a servant .as if there were two wills in the Godhead of Father and of Son, the Father's that of a Lord, the Son's that of a servant." Anast. Hodeg. i. p. 12. d It is observable that, as elsewhere we have seen Athan. speak of the na ture of the Word, and of, not the na ture of man as united to Him, but of fiesh, humanity, &c. (vid. p. 345, note g.) so here, instead of speaking of two wills, he speaks of the Word's willing and human weakness, terror, &c. In another place he says still more pointedly, " The will was of the Godhead alone ; since the whole nature of the Word was manifested in the second Adam's human form and visible fiesh." contr. Apoll. ii. 10. Yet else where, he distinctly expresses the Catholic view; "When He says, ' Father, if it be possible, &c.' and ' the spirit is willing, &c.' He mentions two wills, the one human, which belongs to the flesh, the other Divine, which belongs to God; for the human, be cause of th e weakness of the flesh, prays against the passion, but His divine will is ready." de Incarn. c. Ar. 21. S. Leo on the same passage begins like Athan. in the text vaguely, but ends, as in Athan.'s second passage, distinctly; " The first request is one of infirmity, the second of power ; the first He asked in our [character], the second in His own .The inferior will gave way to the superior, &c. Serm. 56, 2. vid. a similar passage in Nyssen. Antirrh. adv. Apol. 32. vid. also 31. An ob vious objection may be drawn from such passages, as if the will " of tbe flesh" were represented as contrary (vid. fore going note) to the will of the Word. It is remarkable, as Petavius observes, Incarn. ix. 9. that Athan. compares (as in the text) the influence of our Lord's divine will on His human, in the passage from the Incarn. quoted above, to His rebuke of S. Peter, " Get thee behind Me, &c." vid.supr. p. 477, note a. But this is but an analogous instance, not a direct resemblance. The whole of our Lord's prayer is offered by Him as man, because it is a prayer; the first part is not from Him as man, but the second which corrects it is from Him If the Apostles and Martyrs, so surely our Lord, disdained to fear AS 1 turn make man undaunted in the thought of death. Behold Chap. then a thing strange indeed ! He to whom Christ's enemies XXIX- impute words of terror, He by that so-called1 terror renders ' vop.ro. men undaunted and fearless. And so the Blessed Apostles oratl^ after Him from such words of His conceived so great a10-c-p- contempt of death, as not even to care for those who ques-339'r'4' tioned them, but to answer, We ought to obey God rather Acts 5, than men. And the other Holy Martyrs were so bold, as to29" think that they were rather passing to life than undergoing death. Is it not extravagant then, to admire the courage of the servants of the Word, yet to say that the Word Himself was in terror, through whom they despised death ? But from that most enduring purpose and courage of the Holy Martyrs is shewn, that the Godhead was not in terror, but the Saviour took away our terror. For as He abolished death by death, and by human means all human evils, so by this so-called ¦ terror did He remove our terror, and brought about that never more should men fear death. His word and deed go together. For human were the sounds, Let the cup pass, and Why hast Thou forsaken Me? and divine the act whereby the Same did cause the sun to fail and the dead to rise. Again He said humanly, Now is My soul troubled; and He said Johnl2, divinely, / have power to lay down My life, and power to2!' 10' take it again. For to be troubled was proper to the flesh, and to have power to lay down His life0 and take it again, as God; but the former part is from the His own life? for any one who will sinless infirmity of our nature, the latter may kill himself. But He says not from His human will expressing its ac- this, but how ? ' I have power to lay it quiescence in His Father's, that is, in down in such sense that no one can do His Divine Will. "His Will," says it against My will 1 alone have S. Greg. Naz. "was not contrary to the disposal of My life, which is not God, beiDg all deified, tuiAt "Xet." true of us." And still more appositely e This might be taken as an illustra- Theophylact, "It was open to Him tion of the ut voluit supr. p. 243, note i. not to suffer, not to die ; for being with- And so the expressions in the Evan- out sin, He was not subject to death gelists, " Into Thy hands I commend If then He had not been willing, My Spirit," " He bowed the head," He had not been crucified." in Hebr. " He gave up the ghost," are taken to 12,2. "Since this punishment is imply that His death was His free act. contained in the death of the body, that vid. Ambros. in loc. Luc. Hieron. in the soul, because it has deserted God loc. Matt, also Athan. Serm. Maj. de with its will, deserts the body against Fid. 4. It is Catholic doctrine that its will the soul of the Mediator our Lord, as man, submitted to death proved, how utterly clear ofthe punish- of His free will, and not as obeying ment of sin was its coming to the death an express command of the Father, of the flesh, in that it did not desert " Who " says S. Chrysostom on John it unwillingly, but because it willed, 10, 18.'"bas not power to lay down and when it willed, and as it willed 482 Men die of necessity, our Lord of choice. Disc when He will, was no property of men but of the Word's 1- power. For man dies, not by his own power, but by neces sity of nature and against his will ; but the Lord, being Himself immortal, but having a mortal flesh, had power, as God, to become separate from the body and to take it again, when He would. Concerning this too speaks David in the Ps. 16, pSalm, Thou shalt not leave My soul in hell, neither shalt Thou suffer Thy Holy One to see corruption. For it beseemed, that the flesh, corruptible as it was, should no longer after its own nature remain mortal, but because of tbe Word who had put it on, should abide incorruptible. For as He, having come 1 ipipt- in our body, was conformed1 to our condition, so we, receiving ""' Him, partake of the immortality that is from Him. §. 58. 5. Idle then is the excuse for stumbling, and narrow the notions concerning the Word, of these Ario-maniacs, because it is written, He was troubled, and He icept. For they seem not even to have human feeling, if they are thus ignorant of man's nature and properties ; which do but make it the greater wonder, that the Word should be in such a suffering flesh, and neither prevented those who were conspiring against Him, nor took vengeance of those who were putting Him to death, though He was able, He who hindered some from dying, and raised others from the dead. And He let His own body suffer, for therefore did He come, as I said before, that in the flesh He might suffer, and thenceforth the flesh might be 2 p. 374, made impassible and immortal2, and that, as we have many times said, contumely and other troubles might determine upon Him and come short of others after Him, being by Him annulled utterly ; and that henceforth men might for 3ii«pii- ever abide3 incorruptible, as a temple of the Word4 Had 3So',t.\. Christ's enemies thus dwelt on these thoughts, and recog- 4 p. 474, nised the ecclesiastical scope as an anchor for the faith, they would not have of the faith made shipwreck, nor been so shameless as to resist those who would fain recover them from their fall, and to deem those as enemies who are admonishing them to be religious f. And this did they specially admire, death But He was a wonder, (mi- who were present, says the Gospel, raculo fuit,) because He was found that after that work, in which He set dead." August, de Trin. iv. 16. forth a figure of our sin, He forthwith c Thus ends the exposition of texts, gave up the ghost. For crucified men which forms the body of these Orations. were commonly tortured by a lingering It is remarkable that he ends as he 483 began, with reference to the ecclesias tical scope, or Regula Fidei, which has so often come under our notice, vid. p. 328, note 1. p. 341, note i. as if dis tinctly to tell us, that Scripture did not so force its meaning on the individual as to dispense with an interpreter, and as if his own deductions were not to be viewed merely in their own logical power, great as that power often is, but as under the authority of the Catholic doctrines which they subserve. Vid. p. 426, n. 14 fin. It is hardly a paradox to say that in patristical works of contro versy the conclusion in a certain sense proves the premisses. As then he here speaks of the ecclesiastical scope " as an anchor for the faith ;" so supr. p. 233. where the discussion of texts began, he introduces it by saying, in accordance with the above remark, "since they allege the divine oracles Chap. and force on them a misinterpretation XXIX. according lo their private sense, it be comes necessary to meet them just so far as to lay claim to these passages, and to shew that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error." Again supr. p. 410. he says, " What is the difficulty, that one must need take such a view of such passages?" He speaks of the axetros as a xavaiv or rule of interpretation, supr. §. 28. vid. also §. 29 init. 35, c. Serap. ii. 7, a. Hence too he speaks of the "ecclesi astical sense," e. g. Orat. i. 44. Serap. iv. 15. and of the Qpovnpa Orat. ii. 31 init. Decr. 17 fin. In ii. p. 326. supr. he makes the general or Church view of Scripture supersede inquiry into the force of particular illustrations. CHAP. XXX. OBJECTIONS CONTINUED, AS IN CHAPTERS vii — X. Whether the Son is begotten ofthe Father's will ? This virtually the same as whether once He was not ? and used by the Arians to introduce the latter question. The Regula Fidei answers it at once in the negative by contrary texts. The Arians follow the Valentinians in maintaining a precedent will; which really is only exercised by God towards creatures. Instances from Scripture. Inconsistency of Asterius. If the Son hy will, there must he another Word before Him. If God is good, or exist, by His will, then is the Son by His will. If He willed to have reason or wisdom, then is His Word and Wisdom at His will. The Son is the Living Will, and has all titles which denote connaturality. That will which the Father has to the Son, the Son has to the Father. The Father wills the Son and the Son wills the Father. Disc 1. But", as it seems, a heretic is a wicked thing in truth, ' and in every respect his heart is depraved1 and irreligious. 1 dntyticxp pivrn r. 5. 'hostileb and hateful to God3, as hydras4, losing their life in keo-rv- jjjg 0biections which they advance, invent for themselves other ys, •> J For behold, though convicted on all points, and shewn to be p. 485, uy;eriy bereft of understanding, they feel no shame; but as p. 472, the hydra2 of Gentile fable, when its former serpents were Scrap, i. destroyed, gave birth to fresh ones, contending against the 18> e- slayer of the old by the production of new, so also they, .5. ' ' ^ he, p. 424, questions Judaic and foolish, and new expedients, as if Truth ^ 6- convicted on all sides, still, as hydras3, they invent a fresh3 p. 34. word, and by such clever language and specious evasion, they r pj ' scatter again that irreligion of theirs in another way. For he5 P- 484> who says, " The Son came to be at the Divine will," has the same meaning as another who says, " Once He was not," aud " The Son came to be out of nothing," and " He is a creature." But since they are now ashamed of these phrases, these crafty ones have endeavoured to convey their meaning in another "ul] way, putting forth the word " will," as cuttlefish their black- Hist. T. ness, thereby to benighten the innocent?, and to make sure of note g'. their peculiar7 heresy. c tripilZopfiove-i. p. 22, note y. Also disparage His Nature; rather that de fug. 2, 6. Naz. Orat. 27, 2. c. Nature draws to Itself those terms and d S. Ignatius speaks of our Lord as changes them." p. 285. Also de Mort. "Son of God according to the will Ar. fin. Vid. supr. p. 17, note m. And (iiXtipa) and power of God." ad vid. Leont. contr. Nest. iii. 41. (p. 581. Smyrn. 1. S. Justin as " God and Son Canis.) He here seems alluding to the according to His will, fiovXht." Tryph. Semi-Arians, Origen, and perhaps the 127. and " begotten from the Father at earlier Fathers. His will, hXruni." ibid. 61. and he says, f Of these Tatian had said hxipan Ivtapu xa) fietiXn avTov. ibid. 128. S. trp.ovno'Z e Xoyos. Gent. 5. Tertullian Clement " issuing irom the Father's had said, Ut primum voluit Deus ea will itself quicker than light." Gent, edere, ipsum primum protulitsermonem. 10 tin. S. Hippolytus, " Whom God adv. Prax. 6. Novatian, Ex quo, tbe Father, willing, /iouX»Ms, begat as quando ipse voluit, Sermo filius natus He willed is ¥ixWit." contr. Noet. est.de Trin.31. AndConstit. Apost. rn 16. Origen, ix hXnpares- ap. Justin ad. «pI alexttot svSoxia TovoraTpesyittnhtT*. Menn. vid. also cum filius charitatis vii.41.Pseudo-Clem.GenuitI)eusvolun- etiam voluntatis. Periarch. iv. 28. tate prascedente. Recognit.in. 10. iuse- « In like manner he says elsewhere, bius, mto yteipw xai rpeaipie-ir frvXn- " Had these expositions of theirs pro- Mi » hSs-ix tyis «!/«•««« 0«*w xai ceeded from the orthodox, from such as %mipi»t. Dem. iv. 3. Arms,, hXnpcm the great confessor Hosius, Maximinus, xa) fievXy vxso-rn. ap. Theod. Hist. i. 4. Philogonius, Eustathius, Julius, &c." p. 750. vid. also supr. p. 97. Ep. JEg. 8. and supr. " Terms do not 7 l&tas Disc. III. Matt. 3, 17. Ps.45,1.John 1 , 1. Ps. 36, 9.•p. 131, note d. §.60. " xaxe- toiat 3 "hilo £v- yovs.Ce- teliercorr. av- gvyevs 486 It is opposed to the texts which speak of our Lord as God. 2. For whence6 bring they " by will and pleasure ?" or - from what Scripture ? let them say who are so suspicious in their words and so inventive of irreligion. For the Father who revealed from heaven His own Word, declared, This is My beloved Son; and by David He said, My heart has burst with a good Word; and John He bade say, In the beginning was the Word ; and David says in the Psalm, With Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we see light ; and the Apostle ' writes, Who being the Radiance of Glory, and again, Who being in ihe form of God, and, Who is the Image of the invisible God. All every where tell us of the being of the Word, but none of His being " by will," or at all of His making ; but they, where, I ask, did they find will or pleasure " precedent1"' to the Word of God, unless forsooth, leaving the Scriptures, they simulate the perverseness2 of Valentinus? For Ptolemy the Valentinian said that the Ingenerate had a pair3 of attributes, Thought and Will, and first He thought £ And so supr. p. 30, "by what Saint have they been taught ' at will ?'" That is, no one ever taught it in the sense in which they explained it ; thus he has just said, " He who says ' at will,' has the same meaning as he who says ' Once He was not.' '' Again infr. " Since it is all one to say ' at will' and ' Once He was not,' let them make up their minds to say ' Once He was not.'" p. 488 ; also pp. 492, 495. Certainly as the earlier Fathers had used the phrase, so those which came after Arius. Thus Nyssen in the pas sage in contr. Eum. vii. referred to in the next note. And S. Hilary, " Nativitatis perfecta natura est, utqui ex substantia Dei natus est, etiam ex consilio ejus et voluntate nascatur." Hilar. Syn. 37. The same father says, unitate Patris et virtute. Psalm 91, 8. and ut voluit, ut potuit, ut seit qui genuit. Trin. iii. 4. And he ad dresses Him as non invidum bonorum tuorum in Unigeniti tui nativitate. ibid. vi. 21. S. Basil too speaks of our Lord as avTofcaitit xa) aVToayaSot, " from the quickening Fountain, the Father's goodness, iyah'TtiTos ." contr. Eum. ii. 25. And Csesarius calls Him ayam\t srarpo's. Qusest. 39. Vid. Ephrem. Syr. adv. Scrut. E. vi. I. O.T. and note there. Maximus Taurin. says, that God is per omnipotentiam Pater. Hom. de trad. Symb. p. 270. ed. 1784. vid. also Chrysol. Serm. 61. Ambros. de Fid. iv. 8. Petavius refers in addition to such passages as one just quoted from S. Hilary, as speak of God as not in- vidus, so as not to communicate Him self, since He was able. Si non potuit, infirmus; si voluit, invidus. August. contr. Maxim, iii. 7 ¦ h vponyevpitnt and 61 fin. The antecedens voluntas has been men tioned in Recogn. Clem. supr. note f. For Ptolemy vid. Epiph. Heer. p. 215. The Catholics, who allowed that our Lord was hXtio-u, explained it as a o-vvo'p.opos SiXrie-is, and not a tr^otiyovpitn ; as Cyril. Trin. ii. p. 56. And with the same meaning S. Am brose, nee voluntas ante Filium nee potestas. de Fid. v. 224. And S. Gregory Nyssen, " His immediate union, apio-os irvtettpua, does not exclude the Father's will, favXwit, nor does that will separate the Son from the Father." contr. Eunom. vii. p. 206, 7. vid. the whole passage. The alternative which these words, ovtboopes and «pt- nyevpivti, expressed was this ; whether an act of Divine Purpose or Will took place before the Generation of the Son, or whether both the Will and the Generation were eternal, as the Divine Nature was eternal. Hence Bull says, with the view of exculpating Novatian, Cum Filius dicitur ex Patre, quando ipse voluit, nasci, velle illud. Patris Eeternum fuisse intelligendum." Defens. F. N. iii. 8. §. 8. WCCVTUV Asterius said that if all offsprings, therefore the First, by will. 487 and then He willed ; and what He thought, He could not Chap. put forth1, unless when the power of the Will was added. XXS" Thence the Arians taking a lesson, wish will and pleasure to^fdeV precede the Word. For them then, let them rival the doctrine veloPe> of Valentinus; but we, when we read the divine discourses, note h. found He was applied to the Son, but of Him only did we hear as being in the Father and the Father's Image ; while in the case of things generate only, since also by nature these things once were not, but afterwards came to be2, did we^ix-iyi- recognise a precedent will and pleasure, David saying in the|°g'rp^ hundred aud thirteenth Psalm, As for our God He is in lieaven, p- 222, He hath done whatsoever pleased Him, and in the hundred 406^7. and tenth, The works ofthe Lord are great, sought out unto^8-ll5J all His good pleasure ; and again, in the hundred3 and thirty- p's, 111 fourth, Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did He in heaven, ?;Sevt' • . ixaTO- and in earth, and in the sea, and in all deep places. «¦£ om. 3. If then He be work and thing made, and one among g ' ' others4, let Him, as others, be said " by will" to have come to " be, and Scripture shews that these are thus brought into being, And Asterius, the hired pleader" for the heresy, acquiesces, 5 ivmye- when he thus writes, " For if it be unworthy of the Framer of|1?j p' , all, to make at pleasure, let His being pleased be removed equally in the case of all, that His Majesty be preserved unim paired. Or if it be befitting God to will, then let this better way obtain in the case of the first Offspring. For it is not possible that it should be fitting for one and the same God to make things at His pleasure, and not at His will also." In spite of the Sophist having introduced abundant irreligion in his words, namely, that the Offspring and the thing made are the same, and that the Son is one offspring out of all offsprings that are, He ends with the conclusion that it is fitting to say that the works are by will and pleasure. Therefore if He be§. 61. other than all things, as has been above shewn6, and through se.g.ch. Him the works rather came to be, let not "by will" be^JTT applied to Him, or He has similarly come to be as the things consist which through Him come to be. For Paul, whereas he was not before, became afterwards an Apostle by the \Cor.\, will of God; and our own calling, as itself once not being, ^ but now taking place afterwards7, is preceded by will, and, as^"- Paul himself says again, has been made according to ihe goodEVh. 1, 488 But our Lord was not one among many, but their Creator. Disc, pleasure of His will. AndwhatMoses ie\ztes,Let there belight, ¦ and Let the earth appear, and Let Us make man, is I think, ac- 1 suPf.-.. cording to what has gone before1, significant of the will ofthe ' Agent. For things which once were not but happened after- "liovxivt- wards from external causes, these the Framer counsels2 to make ; but His proper Word begotten from Him by nature, concerning Him He did not counsel2 beforehand ; for in Him the Father makes, in Him frames, other things whatever He counsels2 ; as also James the Apostle teaches, saying, Of His 3 fiovxn- own will3 begat He us with the Word of truth. Therefore the James Will4 of God concerning all things, whether they be begotten ]> lf- again or are brought into being at the first, is in His Word, in 4 PevXtl- ° TT , , , , , ¦¦ . , ns whom He both makes and begets again what seems right to 5 p. 131, Him ; as the Apostle5 again signifies, writing to theThessaloni- l Thes. ans > for M'is *'* the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. 5> 18- 4. But if, in whom He makes, in Him also is the will, and in Christ is the pleasure of the Father, how can He, as others, come into being by will and pleasure ? For if He too came to be, as you maintain, by will, it follows that the will con cerning Him consists in some other Word, through whom He in turn comes to be ; for it has been shewn that God's will is not in the things which He brings into being, but in Him through whom and in whom all things made are brought to be. Next, since it is all one to say " By will" and " Once He was not," let them make up their minds to say, " Once He was not," that, perceiving with shame that times are signified by the latter, they may understand that to say " by will" is to place times before the Son ; for counselling goes before things which once were not, as in the case of all creatures. But if the Word is the Framer of the creatures, and He co-exists with the Father, how can to counsel precede the Everlasting as <>IZevxii if He were not ? for if counsel6 precedes, how through Him ' iis tSv are all things ? For rather He too, as one among others7 is by tratTUV ... , -in will begotten to be a Son, as we too were made sons by the Word of Truth ; and it rests, as was said, to seek another Word, through whom He too was brought to be, and was begotten together with all things, which were according to God's pleasure. §. 62. 5. If then there is another Word of God, then be the Son brought into being by a Word ; but if there be not, as is the The Son neither by necessity nor by will, but by nature. 489 case, but all things by Him were brought to be, which the Father Chap. has willed, does not this expose the many-headed1 craftiness ^^-'- of these men? that feeling shame at saying "work," and noV'p92' " creature," and " God's Word was not before His genera tion," yet in another way they assert that He is a creature, putting forward " will," and saying, " Unless He has by will come to be, therefore God had a Son by necessity and against His good pleasure." And who is it then who imposes necessity on Him, O men most wicked, who draw every thing to the purpose of your heresy ? for what is contrary to will they see ; but what is greater and transcends2 it, has escaped their per-2 v*'""' what is according to nature transcends and precedes coun selling13- A man by counsel4 builds a house, but by nature he 3 0«*uS- begets a son ; and what is in building at will began to come'^iM'. into being, and is external to the maker; but the son isi"*1"' proper offspring of the father's substance, and is not external to him ; wherefore neither does he counsel concerning him, lest he appear to counsel about himself. As far then as the Son transcends the creature, by so much does what is by nature transcend the wiH\ They then, on hearing of Him, ought ' Thus he makes the question a nu- will, nor acting without will." Hser. gatory one, as if it did not go to the 69, 26. vid. also Ancor. 51. vid. also point, and could not be answered, or Ambros. de Fid. iv. 4. vid. others, as might be answered either way, as the collected in Petav. Trin. vi. 8. §. 14 case might be. Really Nature and Will 16. go together in the Divine Being, but in k Two distinct meanings may be at- order, as we regard Him, Nature is tached to " by will," (as Dr. Clark ob- first, Will second, and the generation be- serves, Script. Doct. p. 142. ed. 1738.) longs to Nature, not to Will. And so either a concurrence or acquiescence, supr. " A work is external to the nature, or a positive act. S.Cyril uses it in but a son is the proper offspring of the the former sense, when he calls it o-vt- substance. The workman frames the \epos, as quoted p. 486, note h ; and work when he will ; but an offspring is when he says (with Athan. infr.) that not subject to the will, but. is proper "the Father wills His own subsist- to. the substance." p. 222. Again; ence, hXtiTrs icti, but is not what He is "Whereas they deny what is by na- from any will, ix fiovXrio-seis tivos," Thes. ture, do they not blush to place before p. 56.; Dr. Clark would understand it in it what is by will P If they attribute to the latter sense, with a view of inferring God the willing about things which are that the Son was subsequent to a Divine not, why recognise they not that in God act, i. e. not eternal ; but what Athan. which lies above the will ? now it is a says leads to the conclusion, that it does something that surpasses will that He not matter which sense is taken. He should be by nature, and should be does not meet the Arian objection, " if Father of His proper Word." p. 284. not by will therefore by necessity," by In like manner S. Epiphanius: "He speakingof aconcomitantwill,ormerely begat Him neither willing tiXuv nor saying that the Almighty exists nr is not willing, but in nature, which is good, by will, with S. Cyril, but he says above will QivXriv. For He has the that "nature transcends will and De nature of the Godhead, neither needing cessity also." Accordingly, Petavius 2 K 4.90 If God exists, so may His Son, by nature not by will. Disc not to measure by will what is by nature ; forgetting however — that they are hearing about God's Son, they dare to apply human contrarieties in the instance of God, " necessity" and " beside purpose," to be able thereby to deny that there is a true Son of God. 6. For let them tell us themselves, — that God is good and merciful, does this attach to Him by will or not? if by will, we must consider that Fle began to be good, and that His not being good is possible ; for to counsel and choose implies an in- ',>W»v,p. clination1 two ways, and is the property2 of a rational nature. , ^ff'tt ' But if it be too extravagant that He should be called good and merciful upon will, then what they have said themselves must be retorted on them, — " therefore by necessity and not at His pleasure He is good;" and, " who is it which imposes this necessity on Him ?" But if it be extravagant to speak of necessity in the case of God, and therefore it is by nature that He is good, much more is He, and more truly, Father of §. 63. the Son by nature and not by will. Moreover let them answer us this: — (for against their recklessness I wish to urge a further question, bold indeed, but with a religious intent; be propitious, O Lord1!) — the Father Himself, does 3 frevxiv He exist, first having counselled3, then being pleased, or e-apivos Defore counselling ? For since they are as bold in the in stance of the Word, they must receive the like answer, that they may know that this their presumption reaches even to the Father Himself. If then they shall themselves take counsel about will, and say that even He is from will, what then was He before He counselled, or what gained He, as ye consider, after counselling ? But if such a question be extravagant and self- * io-b- destructive4, and shocking5 even to ask, (for it is enough only 'Tblipis to hear God's Name for us to know and understand that He is 6 ixoyet He that Is,) will it not also be against reason6 to have parallel thoughts concerning the Word of God, and to make pre tences of will and pleasure ? for it is enough in like manner is even willing to allow that the i x (iovXns as voluntas de voluntate, than , as Athan. is to be ascribed to the y'mwis in the is led to do, as the voluntas Dei. sense which Dr. Clark wishes, i. e. he 1 vid. p. 216, note c. Also Serap. i. grants that it may precede the yitvmis, 15, b. 16 init. 17, c. 20, r, a. iv. 8, 14. i.e. in order, not in time, in the sue- Ep. ^Eg. 11 fin. Didym. Trin. iii. 3. cession of our ideas, Trin. vi. 8. §. 20, p. 341. Ephr. Syr. adv. Haer. Serm. 21 ; and follows S. Austin, Trin. xv. 20. 55 init. (t. 2. p. 557.) Facund. Tr. Cap. in preferring to speak of our Lord rather iii. 3 init. The Son is not by the Will, but is the Will, ofthe Father. 491 only to hear the Name of the Word, to know and understand Chap. that He who is God not by will, has not by will but by XXX- nature His proper Word. And does it not surpass all con ceivable madness, to entertain the thought only, that God Himself counsels and considers and chooses and proceeds to have a good pleasure, that He be not without Word and without Wisdom, but have both? for He seems to be con sidering about Himself, who counsels about what is proper to His Substance. 7. There being then much blasphemy in such a thought, it will be religious to say that things generate have come to be "by favour1 and will," but the Son is not a work of will, nor1 i£W« has come after2, as the creation, but is by nature the proper2 imys- Offspring of God's Substance. For being the proper Word487"5r'j! of the Father, He allows us not to account3 of will as before 3 *¦»»•'«- Himself, since He is Himself the Father's Living Counsel m, /Wxjx™, and Power, and Framer of the things which seemed good toP"494'., the Father. And this is what He says of Himself in the vers. Proverbs; Counsel4 is Mine and security, Mine is under- \aouX^ standing, and Mine strength. For as, although Himself the Pr°v. 8, Understanding, in which He prepared the heavens, and Himself Strength and Power, (for Christ is God's Power andiCor.i, God's Wisdom,) He here has altered the terms and said, Mine ' is understanding and Mine strength, so while He says, Mine is counsel*, He must Himself be the Living" Counsel of the Father ; as we have learned from the Prophet also, that He is become the Angel of great Counsel, and is called the good Is. 9, 6. pleasure of the Father ; for thus we must refute them, using human illustrations5 concerning God. Therefore if the works nPt'e3f6' subsist "by will and favour," and the whole creature is made§. 64. ,u ayahv trartis iyatov fiovXupa. Father. But I think it better to speak Clem. Paid, iii. eirc. fin. o-ofia, zjotto- of Him as Counsel from Counsel, Will ths, tiitapis, hXvpa aavTtxpaTopix'ot. from Will, as Substance from Substance, Strom, v. p. 547. Voluntas et potestas Wisdom from Wisdom." Trin. xv. 20. patris. Tertull. Orat. 4. Natu3 ex And soCsesarius, ayatrn eg ayatrns. Qu. Patri quasi voluntas ex mente proce- 39. vid. for other instances Tertullian's dens. Origen. Periarch. i. 2. §. 6. S. Je- Works, O. Tr. Note I. rome notices the same interpretation of n iSn pevXn. supr. 284, i. 3. Cyril " by the will of God" in the beginning in Joan. p. 213. Xfie-tt, ivtapis. Sabell. of Comment, in Ephes. S. Austin on Greg. 5. c. ZZtra ilxon. Naz. Orat. 30, the other hand, as just now referred to, 20. c. £Zo-a ivipyua. Syn. Antioch. ap. says, " Some divines, to avoid saying Routh. Reliqu. t. 2. p. 469. {/uoa le-xvs. that the Only-Begotten Word is the Son Cyril, in Joan.p.951. £«r« repa. Origen. of Gpd's counsel or will, have named contr.Cels.iii.fin. Z2t Xoyos. Ongen.ibid. Him the very Counsel or Will of the ;£»^y«»»i,.(heretically)Euseb.Dem.iv.2. 2 k2 492 If the Son by will, another Word before Him. Disc " at God's good pleasure," and Paul was called to be an Apostle _HL by the will of God, and the our calling has come about by His good pleasure and will, and all things have been brought into being through the Word, He is external to the things which have come to be by will, but rather is Himself the Living Counsel of the Father, by which all these things were brought to be; by which David also gives thanks in the seventy- Ps. 73, second Psalm, Thou hast holden me by my right hand; Thou 22 23 shalt guide me with Thy Counsel. 8. How then can the Word, being the Counsel and Good Pleasure of the Father, come into being Himself "by good pleasure and will" as every thing else ? unless, as I said before, in their madness they repeat that He was brought into being by Himself, or by some other0. Who then is it by whom Fle came to be ? let them fashion another Word ; and let them name another Christ, rivalling the doctrine of 1 p. 486. Valentinus1 ; for Scripture it is not. And though they fashion another, yet assuredly he too comes into being through some one ; and so, while we are thus reckoning up and investigating the succession of them, the many -headed p heresy of the ap. 340, Atheists2 is discovered to issue in polytheism* and madness "°te4|g unlimited ; in the which, wishing the Son to be a creature and and from, nothing, they imply the same thing in other words p. 442, by pretending the words will and pleasure, which rightly r- 2- belong to things generate and creatures. Is it not irreligious then to impute the characteristics of things generate to the Framer of all ? and is it not blasphemous to say that will was in the Father before the Word ? for if will precedes in the Father, the Son's words are not true, / in the Father; or even if He is iu the Father,yet He will hold but a second place, and it became Him not to say / in the Father, since will was before Him, in which all things were brought into being and He Himself sub sisted, as you hold. For though He excel in glory, He is not the less one of the things which by will come into being. And, as we have said before, if it be so, how is He Lord and they ° V Iripov rites. This idea has been ratevpyia, p. 489, r. 1. The allusion is urged against the Arians again and to the hydra, with its ever-springing again, as just above, p. 488, n. 4. E.g. heads, as introduced p. 484, r. 4. and p. 13. p. 41. fin. p. 203. vid. p. 494. r. 1. with a special allusion to Asterius who also Epiph. Heer. 76. p. 951. Basil, is mentioned, p. 487. and in de Syn. 18. contr. Eunom. ii. 11. c. 17, a. &c. supr. p. 100. is called seeXux, rofirns. P ireXvxiipaXos a'ipio-is. And so sroXvx. The Son the Father's Wisdom, Understanding, Counsel, Truth. 493 servants1 ? but He is Lord of all, because He is one with Chap. the Father's Lordship ; and the creation is all in servitude, xxx" since it is external to the Oneness of the Father, and, whereas »*zj ipios ¦¦ 'ovXa, it once was not, was brought to be. supr. p- 9. Moreover, if they say that the Son is by will, they should p. 313.°' say also that He came to be by understanding ; for I consider §. 65. understanding and will to be the same. For what a man coun sels, about that also he has understanding ; and what he has in understanding, that also he counsels. Certainly the Saviour Himself has made them correspond, as being cognate, when He s&ys,Counsel is Mine and security; Mine is understanding, and Mine strength. For as strength and security are the same, (for they mean one attribute2;) so we may say that Under-' *»«p« standing and Counsel are the same, which is the Lord. But these irreligious men are unwilling that the Son should be Word and Living Counsel ; but they fable that there is with Godq, as if a habit', coming and going", after the manner of men, understanding, counsel, wisdom ; and they leave nothing undone, and they put forward the " Thought" and " Will" of Valentinus, so that they may but separate the Son from the Father, and may call Him a creature instead of the proper Word of the Father. To them then must be said what was said to Simon Magus ; " the irreligion of Valeu- Acts 8> tinus perish with you;" and let every one rather trust to Solo mon, who says, that the Word is Wisdom and Understanding. For he says, The Lord by Wisdom hath founded? the earth, %*>rov- 3> Understanding hath He established the heavens. And as here by Understanding, so in the Psalms, By the Word o/'Ps.33,6. the Lord were the heavens made. And as by the Word the heavens, so He hath done whatsoever pleased Him. And as£s^jj£> the Apostle writes to the Thessalonians, the will of God is in l Thess. Christ Jesus 3- 3 p. 488. 10. The Son of God then, He is the Word axielthe Wisdom; He the Understanding and the Living Counsel; and in Him is the GoodPleasure ofthe Father; He is Truth anelLight and Power of the Father. But if the Will of God is Wisdom and 1 trip) ret hit. vid. p. 38, r. l.p.202, B •rvpfiambrat xa) itreo-vpjiaitoie-at. r.3. Also Orat. i. 27, d. where (supr. vid. p. 37, note y. o-vpfiapa, Euseb. p. 220.) it is mistranslated. Euseb.Eccl. Eccl. Theol. 111. p. 150. in the same, Theol. iii. p. 150. vid. p. 131, note e. though a technical sense. -1 id. also supr. and wi/ieX*,, p. 38, note z. P- 18, note p. p. 37, note y. Serap. ' Hit. vid. p. 334, note y. infr. p. 515, 1, 26, e. Naz. Orat. 31, 15 hn. note r. 494 The Son wills the Father by that will Disc. Understanding, and the Son is Wisdom, he who says that " ¦ the Son is " by will," says virtually that Wisdom has come into being in Wisdom, and the Son is made in the Son, and ¦ supr. the Word created through the Word1; which is incompatible r'4. ' with God and is opposed to His Scriptures. For the Apostle proclaims the Son to be the proper Radiance and Expression, 2P-155>not of the Father's will 2, but of His Substance' Itself, saying,, H0t6 2*. Heb. l, Who being ihe Radiance of His Glory and the Expression ef 3' His Subsistence. But if, as we have said before, the Father's Substance and Subsistence 'be not from will, neither, as is very plain, is what is proper to the Father's Subsistence from will; for such as, and so as, that Blessed Subsistence, must also be the proper Offspring from It. And accordingly the Father Himself said not, " This is The Son brought into being at My will," nor " the Son whom 1 have by My favour," but simply My Son, or rather, in whom I am well pleased; meaning by this, This is the Son by nature ; and " in Him is lodged My will about those things which please Me." §. 66. ] 1. Since then the Son is by nature and not by will, is He 3 Mix*, without the pleasure3 of the Father and not with the Father's will ? No, verily ; but the Son is with the pleasure of the John 3, Father, and, as He says Himself, The Father loveth ihe Son, ' 'and sheweth Him all things. For as not "from will" did He begin to be good, nor yet is good without will and pleasure, (for what He is, that also is His pleasure,) so also that the Son should be, though it came not " from will," yet it is not without His pleasure or against His purpose. For as His own Subsistence * is by His pleasure, so also the Son, being proper to His Substance, is not without His pleasure. Be then the Son the subject ofthe Father's pleasure and love; and thus J *»y'- let every one religiously account of4 the pleasure and the not f.'i^i'S unwillingness of God. For by that good pleasure wherewith ¦'• 3- the Son is the subject of the Father's pleasure, is the Father the subject ofthe Son's love, pleasure, and honour; and one ' obo-ia and vvlo-Tatris are in these seldom itoccurs at allin these Orations, passages made synonymous; and so except as contained in Heb. 1,3. Vid. infr. Orat. iv. 1 , f. And in iv. 33 fin. to also Hist. Tr. O. Tr. p. 300, note m. the Son is attributed ti -Tarpizvivtrea-Tairis. Yet the phrase tpus vtretrratrw is cer- Vid. also ad Afro^. 4. quoted supr. tainly found in lilud Oma. fin. and in p. 70- 'Tt. might have been expected too Incarn. c. Arian. 10. (if genuine) and in the discussion in the beginning of apparently in Expos. Fid. 2. V-M. also Orat. iii. did Athan. distinguish be- Orat. iv. 25 init. twefn them. It is remarkable how by which the Father wills the Son. 495 is the good pleasure which is from Father in Son, so that Chap. here too we may contemplate the Son in the Father and the xxx' Father in the Son. Let no one then, with Valentinus, in troduce a precedent will ; nor let any one, by this pretence of " counsel," intrude between the Only Father and the Only Word ; for it were madness to place will and consideration between them. For it is one thing to say, " Of will He came to be," and another, that the Father has love and good pleasure towards His Son who is proper to Him by nature. For to say, " Of will He came to be," in the first place implies that once He was not; and next it implies an inclination1 two l hr'"> r p. 490, ways, as has been said, so that one might suppose that the Father r. 1. could even not will the Son. But to say ofthe Son, " He might not have been," is an irreligious presumption reaching even to the Substance of the Father, as if what is proper to Him might not have been. For it is the same as saying, " The Father might not have been good." And as the Father is always good by nature, so He is always generative2 by2yi«»»- nature; and to say, " The Father's good pleasure is the Son," V™sft'i' and " The Word's good pleasure is the Father," implies, not^id. a precedent will, but genuineness of nature, and propriety note i,] aud likeness of Substance. For as in the case of the radiance P- 284> note e. and light one might say, that there is no will preceding radiance in the light, but it is its natural offspring, at the pleasure of the light which begat it, not by will and consider ation, but in nature and truth, so also in the instance of the Father and the Son, one would be orthodox to say, that the Father has love and good pleasure towards the Son, and the Son has love and good pleasure towards the Father. 12. Therefore call not the Son a work of good pleasure ; §. 67. nor bring in the doctrine of Valentinus into the Church ; but be He the Living Counsel, and Offspring in truth and nature, as the Radiance from the Light. For thus has the Father spoken, My heart hus burst with a good Word; and the Son Ps. 45, conformably, I in the Father and the Father in Me. But fohaU} if the Word be in the heart, where is will? and if the Son in™- the Father, where is good pleasure ? and if He be Will Him self, how is counsel in Will? it is extravagant; else the Word come into being in a word, and the Son in a son, and Wisdom in a wisdom, as has been repeatedly3 said. For the * M94' 4 QQHuman illustrations may be usedfor,when used against theTruth. Disc. Son is the Father's All ¦ ; and nothing was in the Father 1 ' ! before the Word ; but in the Word is will also, and 1 travTa tov tra ¦ through Him the subjects of will are carried into effect, Ti°'s- as holy Scriptures have shewn. And I could wish that the 2aA«y/«» irreligious men, having fallen into such want of reason2 as to note'e. be considering about will, would now ask their childbear- ing women no more, whom they used to ask, " Hadst 3 p. 218. thou a son before conceiving him3?" but the father, "Do ye become fathers by counsel, or by the natural law of your will ?" or " Are your children like your nature and substance " ?" that, even from fathers they may learn shame, *x*ppa from whom they assumed this proposition4 about generation, note c' and fr°m whom they hoped to gain knowledge in point. For they will reply to them, " What we beget, is like, °p. 494, not our good pleasure5, but like ourselves; nor become we parents by previous counsel, but to beget is proper to our nature ; since we too are images of our fathers." Either 6 P- 6) then let them condemn themselves6, and cease asking women Orat. i. about the Son of God, or let them learn from them, that the ?/> A Son is begotten not by will, but in nature and truth. Becoming Apol. c. and suitable to them is a refutation from human instances', 7 p. 491 since ^e perverse-minded men dispute in a human way ¦-. 5. concerning the Godhead. 13. Why then are Christ's enemies still mad ? for this, as well as their other pretences, is shewn and proved to be mere fantasy and fable ; and on this account, they ought, however late, contemplating the precipice of folly down which they have fallen, to rise again from the depth and to flee the snare of the devil, as we admonish them. For Truth is loving unto men and cries continually, " If because of My clothing of the body3 ye believe Me not, yet believe the works, that ye Johnio, may know that / am in the Father and the Father in Me, oo on " ' 14; 9. ' and I and the Father are one, and He that hath seen Me sv-405>hath seen the Father6- But the Lord according to His note m. ° Ps. 146, wont is loving to man, and would fain help them that are fallen, as the lauds of David speak ; but the irreligious men, not desirous to hear the Lord's voice, nor bearing to see Him acknowledged by all as God and God's Son, go about, u t»s obo-ias tipoia. vid. p. 210, note e. p. 425, r. 4. Also ii. 42, b. p. 416, r. 2. p. 421, r. 2. All Arian pretexts exhausted. 497 miserable men, as beetles, seeking with their father the devil1 Chap. pretexts for irreligion. What pretexts then, and whence will 1 — — '- they be able next to find ? unless they borrow blasphemies r. 5. of Jews and Caiaphas, and take atheism2 from Gentiles? for2 p. 492, r. 2. the divine Scriptures are closed to them, and from every part of them they are refuted as insensate and Christ's enemies. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS DISCOURSE IV. §. 1. On the Structure ofthe Book. There is a general agreement among Critics that the " Four Orations" or " Discourses against the Arians," as they are styled in the Benedictine Edition, and also in this Translation, are parts of one work. Nay, such might seem to have been the opinion of Photius when he speaks of Athanasius's " five books against Arius and his 'AwnTa- doctrines1." Montfaucon even goes so far as to consider external liifixos, evidence unnecessary, and appeals to the structure ofthe Orations, as cod.140. even determining their number. " Nihil opus est longiore disputa- tione," he says, " cum clarum sit ex hisce ipsis Quatuor Orationibus, nihil eas commune cum ullo alio opere habere, sed ita inter se cohserere, ut unum ipsas opus simul conficiant. quarum prima sit principium, quarta autem omnium sit finis; quam sane ob causam sola hsec ul tima solita terminalur conclusione." t. i. pp. 403, 4. However he so far modifies or explains this statement, in his Praef. p. xxxv, and Vit. Alh. p. lxxii, as to allow that they were not written on any exactly determined previous plan, but that the later Orations are in one sense amplifications or defences of what had gone before, in conse quence of the continuance of the controversy. This view of their structure is principally derived from the commencement of the Second and Third, in which S. Athanasius, according to his custom on other occasions, speaks of himself as resuming a discussion which he con sidered already sufficiently extended. Tillemont speaks as decidedly of the unity and integrity of the Four Orations. " Les quatre oraisons," he says, " sont toutes liees ensemble, et. en un meme corps, comme il paroit principalement, parce-qu'il n'y a que la derniere qui finisse par la glorification or dinaire." Mem. Eccl. t. 8. p. 701. And again, " II est certain que ces quatre discours. . .semblent. . .ne faire qu'une seuie piece, qu'on aura partagfie tantot en quatre, tantot en cinq." p. 191. Ceillier follows Tillemont almost word for word. Aut. Eccl. t. v. pp. 217, 218, observing with Montfaucon that the later Discourses are successively defences of the earlier. Petavius had already incidentally expressed the same opinion in in his work de Incarnatione ; and that the more strongly, though indirectly, because, like Tillemont, he is at the very time engaged in shewing that the Epist. ad Ep. Mg. et Lib. does not form part of the general Treatise, as the editions of his day considered it, inasmuch as it is but partly engaged with the subject of Arian doctrine; vid. Ep. Mg. (O. T.) p. 125. " Non est ejusdem cum sequentibus argumenti, nam in istis adversus Arianam haeresim disputat, &c... prima autem (i. e. ad Ep, iEg. et Lib.) nihil horum facit." de Incarn. v. 15. §. 9. Introduction to Discourse IV. 499 Yet in spite of authorities so great and so concordant, I think UIn-trod may be made plain with very little trouble, that the Fourth of these to Orations, which is now to follow, is not written against the Avians, nor V™1- is an Oration, nor is even a continuous discussion, but is a collection — of fragments or memoranda of unequal lengths, and on several subjects, principally on the Photinian heresy, partly on the Sabellian and Samosatene, and partly indeed, but least of all, on the Arian. Some 1F . .. remarks shall now be made in behalf of this representation. p 136."' 1. And here it may be premised, that no passage in the so-called andsupr. Fourth Oration is quoted, I believe, by any early writer or authority, p- 381. as a part of S. Athanasius's work " against the Arians," or " on the ^Men- Trinity;" whereas the Second and Third are quoted by Theodoret1, g^™ Justinian2, S. Cyril3, Facundus4, the Lateran Council under Popep.3o8. Martin I.s Pope Agatho6, and others, and designated too by the3Ep. i. numbers they respectively bear in the Benedictine Edition. AndP-4-and though Photius, as has already been observed, speaks of the whole su p4r^0 work as consisting of five parts, while the Seventh General Council7Jxr.Cap. and the Greek version of Pope Agatho's Epistle in the Sixth8, certainly iii. 3. speak of the Benedictine Third as the Fourth, this furnishes no proof andsupr. that the Book which is here to follow under the name of the Fourth P*481- formed the concluding portion or Fifth of Photius's Pentabiblus. For in andsupr". one MS. this Fourth is called the Sixth; and this obliges us to look out p. 443. for another Fifth, which Montfaucon considers he has discovered in6 Ep. ad the De Incarn. contra Arian., which in some MSS. is actually so*11^??- named. It may be added that the Epist. ad Ep. Mg. et Lib. which ^jf £$*' was once commonly regarded as the First, is in some MSS. called the7Activ. Fourth, while in one of Montfaucon's MSS. the so-called Fourth is andsupr. altogether omitted. In a MS. in the Bodleian Library ( Roe 29, dated P- 405- 1410.) the Incarn. c. Arian. comes after the first Three in the place ofthe s„ pr' present Fourth. In others the present Fourth is called the Fifth; and in others the Epist. ad Ep. Mg. et Lib. is numbered as the " Third against the Arians," the de Sent. Dion., divided into two parts, being apparentlv reckoned as the First and Second. With variations then so considerable, no evidence can be drawn from these titles on any side. 2. Next, the very opening of the Book shews that it is no Oration or Discourse of a character like the Three which precede it. The Second and Third begin with a formal introduction, in which allusion is made to the general argument of which they profess to be the continuation ; but there is no pretence of composition or method in the commencement of the Fourth. It enters abruptly into its subject, whatever that be, for it does not propose it, with a categorical statement supported by a text ; " The Word is God from God, for ' the Word was God,' " — a mode of treating so sacred a subject most unlike the ceremoniousness, as it may be called, which is observable in the Author's finished works. Abrupt transitions of a similar character are also found in the course of it, and are introductory of fresh subjects ; for instance, in §§. 6, 9, and 25, as the commencement of Subjects ii. v. and viii. in the Transla tion will shew. And so little idea of any continuity of subject was entertained by transcribers, that in five MSS. a place is apparently assigned between^. 12and 13. to the Tract deSabbatisetCircumcisiooe, doubtfully ascribed to S- Athanasius, and contained in the Benedictine, 500 Introduction to Discourse IV. Introd tom. ii. p. 54. Strikingly in contrast is his ordinary style, running one TO subject into another, and intimately combining even distinct arguments, jy0- so that it is often an extreme difficulty to divide the composition into — paragraphs. It may be added that the Three Orations refer backwards and for wards to each other, and, in spite of whatever is supplemental in the « vid. pp. Second and Third, are constructed on a definite plan ', which comes to 233,256, an en(j with, or shortly before, the conclusion of the Third. The main 306 Portlon °f tbe Three Orations, extending from chapter xi. to chapter note b.' xxix. inclusive, is engaged in the interpretation of passages of Scrip- pp. 398 ; ture, chiefly such as were urged by the Arians against the Catholic 436, 7- doctrine. The remainder is employed upon the notorious Avian formulae an^ condemned at Nicsea, or the equally notorious interrogations which, °°4eg2" as S. Athanasius so often says, they circulated every where, never tired note f.' with the repetition. The Fourth Oration has hardly any thing in p. 484, common with them bere. note a. There is some difference too in phraseology between the first Three and the Fourth of these Orations. The word opoovo-iov occurs in the J'ourth three times, §§. 10 and 12, as it is found in Athanasius's other works; but it cannot be said lo have occurred any where throughout the former Three ; for the solitary passage in which it is found, i. 9- is rather a sort of doctrinal confession than a part of the discussion ; and it is actually omitted in places where it might naturally have been expected; vid. p. 210, note d. p. 262, note f. p. 264, note g. Moreover in the Second Oration, supr. p. 391, r. 3. p. 393, r. 2. as in earlier works of the Author, the term airoo-oipla is admitted, vid. Gent. 40, 46. Incarn. V. D. 20. Serap. iv. 20. whereas in the Fourth, (p. 514, note p.) if Petavius (Trin. vi. 11.) be right, it is abandoned as Sabellian. And so again there is a difference, which it is not too minute to mention, between the Fourth and the Orations which precede it, in one of his most familiar illustrations of the Holy Trinity; the Three using the image of cpS>s and its cnravyao-p.a, but the last that of ?ri)p and its dnaiyaa-pa, and irvp and epas. p. 515, note t. The corrupt state of the text is a further characteristic of this Oration compared with tbe foregoing. 3. Nay, we might even fancy that at least some passages of the Book were fragments of one or more treatises, or firstdraughtsof trains of thought, or instructions for controversy, which bave accidentally been thrown together into one. The interpolation formerly of an entirely heterogeneous tract, perhaps not Athanasius's, in some of its MSS, has alreadybeen mentioned ; and it is remarkable that this very Tract, in all the existing MSS. noticed by the Benedictines but one, is thrown together with the In illud Omnia and a passage from the de Decretis, thus affording an instance in point. A somewhat similar instance is afforded by the Sermo Major de Fide published in Montfaucon's Nova Collectio, which seems to be hardly more than a set of small fragments from Athanasius's other works. Further, in ihe case ofthe work before us, some MSS. supply distinct titles to separate portions, as in §§. 9. and 1 1. which they respectively head Toij o-afieXKifrvras «<" tovs fiXKovs EXXnvas epeo-Oai ovtcos, and IIqos tovs \eyovras oti rjv 6 Xoyos ev rif f?e

vrroKeipiva ovra, irpbs ras eKanrore TrapairiTrrovo-as \peias perapoprpovpevov, vvv pev as irarepa, vvv be as vlbv, vvv be o>s nvevpa ayiov btaXeyeoSai. Ep. 210, 5 fin. 3. on the contrary, Father and Son are but titles applied in time to the relation existing between the Almighty and His Eternal Xdyos, when, instead of abiding within Him (or being ivbidderos) it became irpocpopiKos in the person or subsistence of Jesus Christ. MdpKeXXos Kaivarepav it-evpe rrj TrXdvn pnxavrjv, Bebv Kal rbv ev avra Xoyov eva pev eivai 6pi£6pevos, bio b' aira warpbs Kal viov xaPl£°Pev0* emryopias. Euseb. p. 76, a. vid. also p. 63, c. Accordingly, to mark his sense of the mere figurative meaning of the term Father, he called God " Father of the Word," iv ra [rbv Xpto-Tov] (pdo-Keiv [rbv Bebv], pr)be toO iavrov Xoyov Kvpiov eivai, dXXa. Kal Toirov rbv Traripa, dxpaipe'to-Bai rbv irarepa ra 'tbia tov rraibbs beiKWiriv. ibid. p. 38. This agrees with the heretic introduced into the contr. Sabell. Gregal. §. 5. whom R. S. C. p. 28. considers to be Marcellus; Kaya, (prjirlv, opoXoya yivvrjiriv' yevvarai yap 6 Xdyos, ore Kai XaXelrai Kai yivao-Kerai. 2l 506 Introduction to Discourse IV. Introd Elsewhere Eusebius says that he held avrbv [Bebv] elvai tov iv TO aira Xoyov iraripa. ibid. p. 167, c. though this is mere catholic iyC' language in contrast to that Arianism of which Eusebius is guilty ; — and need not have been remarked upon, but for the following passage about Photinus in a sermon of Nestorius, which may be taken to illustrate it. " Sabellius uio7raTopa dicit ipsum Filium, quem Patrem, et ipsum Patrem, quem Filium ; Photinus vero Xoyon-aTopa [Verbum- patrem.]" Mercat. t. 2. p. 87. 4. That the Word is in truth the Word, dXriBas Xoyos, and only improperly a Son. Xoyov yap eivai bovs tov ev ra Bea, ev re Kal tovtov ovra aira tovtov opwdpevos, iraripa tovtov xptlllaT^CfLV o-irbv erpij- tov re Xoyov vlbv eivai aira, ouk dXr/Bas ovra vlbv ev ovcrias viromdirei, Kvp'ias be Kal dXrjBas bvra Xoyov. eirio"r\paiverai yovv oti pr) KaraxprjcrTiKas Xoyov, dXXa Kvpias Kal dXrjBas bvra Xoyov, Kal prjbev erepov i) Xoyov. el be prjbiv erepov, brjXov oti ovbe vlbs rjv Kvpias Kal dXrjBas, peXP1 &* (piovrjs Kal ovoparos Karaxprjo-TiKas avopaa-pevos. Euseb. p. 61, a, b. 5. That the Word is from eternity in God, or evbidBeros, as an attribute. He says, TrXi)v Beov, ovbev erepov rjv elxev ovv ri)v oiKeiav bo£av b Xoyos av ev Ta Trarpi. Euseb. p. 39, c. Where, it should be observed, that the phrase ev ra Bea was, as Montfaucon tells us, (Coll. Nov. t. 2. p. lvii.) considered suspicious by many Fathers, as being a substitution for the Scriptural irpbs rbv Bebv, which S. John (i. 1.) uses, ovk elrrav, says Eusebius, p. 121, b. iv ra Bea, Iva pi) KaraPaX-rj iirl Tr/v dv8pairivr}V opoionjra, oj? iv inoKeipiva o-u/Jj3e/3nKos. And SO S. Basil, ovk elirev, iv ra Bea rjv 6 Xoyos, dXXa trpos tov Bebv, k. t. X. Homil. xvi. 4. p. 137. ed. Ben. 6. That there has been an expansion or dilatation of the Eternal Unity into a Trinity, and again there will be a collapse into Unity. Marcellus says, et roivvv o Xdyos, (palvoiro i£ avrov tov irarpbs e^eXSav, ...to be irvevpa to ayiov irapa tov irarpbs iKiropeveTai,...ov naepSis Kai , (pavepas ivravBa diropprrra Xoya r) povas (paiverai TrXarvvopivrj pev els rpidba, biaipeltrBai be prjbapas irropivovo-a; Euseb. p. 168, a, b. Vid. also pp. 108, b, c. 114, b. In like manner Theodoret states that Marcellus held, eKrao-'iv two Tx)s tov irarpos BebrqTos pera be ri)v o-ipTrao-av o'lKovopiav irdXiv dva- o-irao-Brjvai Kal o~vo-TaXrjvai irpbs tov Bebv, e£ ovirep i^erdBrj' rb be iravdyiov irvevpa irapiKTao-iv rrjs iKTaareas, Kal Tairrjv rols dirotTrSXois irapao-xe6l)vai. Haer. ii. 10. And Nestorius quotes Photinus as saying, Vides quia Deum Verbum aliquando Deum, aliquando Verbum appellat, tanquam extensum atque collectum." Mercat. t. 2. p. 87. 7. That this expansion or rrXarvo-pbs consists in the action or ivepyeia oi the povas. Marcellus says that the Word ivepyeia povg, bia ri)v o-ipKa, Kexs] (prjirl MdpxeXXos, ivepyeia. irXarvvetrBai, im. pev napdrav x Xoya ivaBels avBpamos. p. 49, a. And so Epiphanius of Photinus, 6 Xo'yos iv t<3 7raTpZ, tprjtriv, rjv, dXX' ovk f)v vlos. Haer. p. 830, b. vid. also p. 83 1 . And Eugenius, when clearing himself and other disciples of Mar cellus to Athanasius ; oi yap SKXov rbv vlbv Kal SXXov tov Xoyov (ppovov- pev, as nves fjpds biifiaXov ; and they anathematize the madness of Photinus and his followers, oti wr) tppovovtri tov vlbv tov Beov avrbv elvai rbv Xo'yov, aXXa biaipovtriv dXbyas Kal dpxyv ra via bibovinv drrb rijs eV Mapias Kara crapKa yevitreas. Coll. Nov. t. 2. p. 3, d. £ \i £ 508 Introduction to Discourse IV. Introd And Nestorius says, Cogitm- Photinus Verbum dicere, non autem to Verbum hoc Filium confitetur. Mercat. t. 2. p. 87. vid. also Garner. IV ' in Mercat. t. 2. p. 314 init. — And Marcellus himself, in his explanatory statement addressed to Pope Julius, lays especially stress on his reception of the point of faith which is in these extracts denied, confessing the "only- begotten Son Word," " of whose kingdom there shall be no end," " the Word, of whom Luke the Evangelist witnesses, ' as they delivered who were eye-witnesses;' " " the Son, that is, the Word of Almighty God ;" " the Father's Power, the Son." Epiph. Hser. p. 835, 6. 12. That not the Word but Jesus is the Christ, the First-begotten, the Image of God, the King. El tis, says Eusebius, rbv vlbv, a iravra irapebaKev 6 irarrjp, Xoyov 6pi£oiro povov, opoiov Ta iv dvBpairois, elra trdpKa tprjtriv dveiXrjtpevai, Kal Tore viov Beov yeyovevai, Kal 'jrjtrovv XpicrTov xPr)PjaT'ia'at"> fiao~iXea re avayopeveaBai, e'lKova re tov Beov rov dopdrov, Kal irparoroKOV Tratrrjs KTitreas, pi) ovra rrporepov, Tore dirobebelxBai, ris av Xelrroiro rovra bvtrirefieias virepfioXrj; p. 6, b, d. The passage, which is here curtailed, goes through all the alleged tenets of Marcellus. vid. also pp. 49, 50. In his own words, concerning the '' First-begotten," ov roiwv ovtos 6 dyiararos Xdyos, irpb rrjs evavBparrrjtreas irpaTOTOKOs dTratrrjs KTitreas ovopaoro, iras yap bivarov rbv del bvra rrparbrOKov eivai Tivos ; dXXa rbv rrparov Kaivov av Bpairov, els bv Ta irdvra dvaKetpaXaiatratrBai ifiovXrjBrj 6 Bebs, rovrov at deiai ypatpal TrparoTOKov bvopd^ovtri. Euseb. p. 44, b, c. Concerning the " Image," iras ovv e'lKova tov dopdrov Beov rbv tov Beov Xbyov 'A)v ovra Kal riXos egeiv. p. 52, C And if any one asks what will then become of that immortal flesh, which once belonged to the Word, Marcellus answers, boypari^eiv irepl av pr) Introduction to Discourse IV. 509 aKpifias [eK] t£v Beiav pepaBrJKapev ypatpav, ovk da-tpaXis. Euseb. Introd p. 53, a. prj pov irvvBdvov irepl av tratpas irapa rrjs Betas ypatprjs pi) pe- pddrjKa' bid tovto to'ivvv oibe irepl rrjs Betas eKeivrjs, rijs ra Beta Xoya D. KOivavrjtrdtrrjs trapKos, tratpas elireiv bvvrjtropat. ibid, b, c. TO'ISC. IV. Such was tbe doctrine of Marcellus, Photinus, and their school, and there is scarcely any one of the heads of it as now drawn out, but is distinctly stated and combated in this so-called Fourth Oration of S. Athanasius. And what increases the force of the coincidence is the independence of his testimony relatively to Eusebius, and its connection with the testimony of S. Basil and Eugenius. When men of such opposite minds and parties as S. Athanasius and Eusebius describe and oppose the very same error, it is natural to think that that error did really exist, and in that quarter to which Eusebius assigns it, and in which Athanasius to say the least does not deny it. On the other hand, Basil, Athanasius, and Eugenius, are parties in one and the same transaction. Basil accuses Eugenius and other fol lowers of Marcellus before Athanasius, of a certain definite heresy. Eu genius clears himself from the same. When Athanasius then is found to have been writing about the very same doctrine, it is obvious to consider that he is aiming at lhat school which S. Basil attacks and which Eugenius disowns. Now the following are some of the statements, above imputed to Mar cellus and Photinus, which Athanasius combats in the Fourth Oration. (1.) At least the twenty-one out of thirty-six sections, of which it con sists, is devoted to tbe disproof of the position that " the Word is not the Son ;" and though seven of these are primarily directed against the disciples of Paul of Samosata, this does not determine the drift of the remaining and greater portion, which needs some object, and will find it in the school of Marcellus. (2.) Again, Athanasius protests against the doctrine of the Word being like man's word without subsistence, oi btaXeXvpivos, ij dirXas tpavh trrjpavTtKr), dXXa oitrtabrjs Xdyos- ei yap pi), etrrat 6 Bebs XaXav eis aepa.... iiretbi) be ovk itrnv avBparros, ovk dv e'trj ovbe 6 Xdyos avrov, Kara rrjv rav av- Bpairav dtrBiveiav. §. 1, Vid. also contr. Sabell. Greg. §. 5. e. This is precisely Eusebius's language against Marcellus, e. g. irrl be tov Xdyou, trrjpavrtKbv avrbv bibatrt, Kal opoiov va dvBpairiva. p. 118. Vid. also p. 12o. (3.) Again Athanasius argues against the doctrine of previous silence and then action in the Divine Nature, such being the language under which the heresy he opposes expressed itself; rbv Bebv, a-iarravra pev dvevipyrjrov, XaXovvra be itrxvetv abrbv fioiXovrai. §.11- vid. also §.12. And Eusebius charges Marcellus with holding that 6 Xdyos evbov pivav iv rjo-vxdfrvn Ta irarpi, evepyav be iv ra rrjr ktiViv brjptovpyelv, bpoias ra rjperipa, iv ' tnomatri pev ijirvxdtovTi, iv bi tfBeyyopivots ivepyoivrt. p! 4, d. Eusebius objects elsewhere, that even human artificers can work in silence by an inward operation of their minds, p. 167, b; Athanasius makes the same remark, §. 11, d. , <• v, (4.) Again, we have above read a great deal ol tbe irXarva-posot the povds in the flesh, and that by an evepyei'a ; now this forms one distinct subject of a portion of the Fourth Oration, being contained in §§. 13, 14, and 25. oino-i ydp, says Athanasius, b rra-rijp irXarvverat eis vibv Kat irvevpa. §. 25. tie rj ivipyeia roi toiovtov irXarvtrpoi ; This text is brought as an objection note h ; by Arians, which is surprising, to any but the Sabellian view by Mar- against Catholics; Euseb. Eccl. Theol. cellusin Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p._130,_c.d. p. 69; and by Catholics, as supr. p. ' e-Zpa lx*"- vid. Euseb. u trvivpa, 45. and here. Athan. attributes a xputtov [to] tuov tratros o-vvhrev o-a- Dyarchy to Marcion and Valentinus, pares contr. Marc. p. 5, d. de Svn. 52. supr. p. 153. Eusebius re- k oUSiv TXeot -, and so Euseb. contr. tarns alike answer to Marcellus p. 109. Marc. p. 55, b. _ and mfr. 1/. ¦rXi,., as Athan. here to his nameless antago- dibit o Xoyos reu viov %x u. Also M, e. nist. The principle of the Catholic and Serap. n. l,b. On the classical use Monarchia is found infr. \1. oSih %t vph of the phrase vid. Blomf. Gloss, in rev vrxripa, el pti rb \\ avrov Agam. 995. Disc. IV. 1 supr. p. 329. 2 itovffios §.2. 3 Xoyov , word. 3 p. 307, note d. 6 p. 518, r. 2. 514 Since God is One and Substantive, so is His Word and Son. is not man, neither is His Word1 according to the infirmity of man1. For as the Origin is one Substance, so Its Word is one, substantial, and subsisting, and Its Wisdom. For as He is God from God, and Wisdom from the Wise1", aud Word from the Rational, and Son from Father, so is He from Subsistence Subsistent, and from Substance Substantial and Substantive a, and Being from Being. 3. Since were He not substantial Wisdom and substantive Word, and Son existing, but simply Wisdom and Word and Son in the Father", then the Father Himself would have a nature compounded of wisdom and reason3. But if so, the forementioned extravagances4 would follow; and He will be His own Father0, and the Son begetting and begotten by Himself; or Word, Wisdom, Son, is a name only, and He does not subsist who owns, or rather who is, these titles. If then He does not subsist, the names are idle and empty', unless we say that God is Very Wisdom6 and Very Wordp. But if so, He is His own Father and Son ; Father, when Wise, Son, when Wisdom11 ; but these things are not in God 1 In a somewhat similar passage, ad Ep. jEg. 16. be is arguing against, not Sabellians, but Arians. m vid. contr. Sabell. Greg. §. 5, d. Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 17. Euseb. Eccl Theol. p. 150, a. n iv tZ irarpi. he is here opposing the usual formula of Sabellius andMarcellus, who substituted lv rZ hZ for the Scrip tural trpos rot hot. vid. supr. p. 509. (6.) infr. note q. o it ixtHpaivoo Xoyos ob trpos abrot Citat Xiytrai, aXX1 it abrZ. Basil. contr. Sabell. 1 fin. ° avros Iavrov trarri^. So Hipp, contr. Noet. 7. vid. also Euseb. in Marc. pp. 42, b. 61, a. 106, b. 119, d. utov iavrov yitio-Sai. supr. Orat. iii. 4 init. Ipsuin sibi patrem, &c. Auct. Praed. (ap. Sirmond. Opp. t. i. p. 278. ed. Ven.) Mar. Marc. t.2. p. 128. ed. 1673. Greg. Beet. (ap. Worm. Hist. Sabell. p. 17.) Consult Zach. et Apoll. ii. 11. (ap. Dach. Spicil.) Porphyry uses abretra. raj, but by a strong figure. Cyril, contr. Julian, p. 32. vid. Epipban. in answer to Aetius on this subject. Haer. p. 937. It must be observed that several Catholic fathers seem to countenance such ex pressions, Zeno Ver. and Marius Vict. not to say S. Hilary and S. Augustine. vid. Thomassin. de Trin. 9. For viotra- reap vid. supr. p. 97, note k. to which add Nestor. Serm. 12. ap. Marc. Merc. t. 2. p. 87. and Ep. ad Martyr, ap. Bevereg. Synod, t. 2. Not. p. 100. p Petavius considers that he here de nies these titles to the Son, though else where he attributes them. E. g. contr. Gent. 40, a. 46 fin. de Incarn. V. D. 20, b. Orat. ii. 78, d. 79, e. 80, e. Se rap. iv. 20, c. If so, there is no inconsist ency ; be admits them, (vid. contr. Gent. 46.) in contrast to the e-efia, &c. of creatures ; he denies them as implying defect in the Father, impersonality in tbe Son. Eusebius admits them Ec cles. Theol. p. 121, c. and elsewhere. but because the Father is Father and the Son Son7; and they are one, because He is Son of the Substance ofthe Father by nature, existing as His proper Word. This the Johnio, Lord said, viz. I and the Father are One ; for neither is the Word separated from the Father, nor was or is the Father Johni4,ever Wordless; on this account He says, / in the Father 10 and the Father in Me. §. 3. 6. And again, Christ" is the Word of God. Did then He subsist by Himself, and after subsisting was joined to the Father, or did God make Him and call Him His Word ? If the former, I mean, if He subsisted by Himself and is God, then there are two Origins ; and moreover, as is plain, He is not pro per to the Father, as being not of the Father, but of Himself. 3 !£•>;» But if on the contrary He be made externally3, then is He a creature. It remains then to say that He is from God Himself; but if so, that which is from another is one thing, and that from which it is, is a second ; according to this then there are two. But if they be not two, but belong to the « aUm same, cause' and effect will be the same, and begotten and begetting, which has been shewn absurd in the instance of Sabellius. But if He be from Him, yet not another, He will be both begetting and not begetting ; begetting because He produces from Himself, and not begetting, because it is nothing oilier than Himself. But if so, the same is called Father and Son notionally. But if it be unseemly so to say, Father and Son must be two ; and they are one, because the Son is not from without, but begotten of God. 7. But if any one shrinks from saying " Offspring ," and at one time, and another at another ; » vid. supr. p. 37, note k ; to which but the Unchangeable God is Three it may be added that S. Basil seems to all at once, and that Three Persons. have changed his mind, for he uses the y vid. pp. 211,212, notes fand g. and Word in Horn, contr. Sabell. t. 2. o. p. 416, note e. 192, c. It is remarkable that this z Here, as in beginning of §. 1. Homily in substance (i. e. the contr. " Christ," not " the Word," is made Sabell. Greg, which is so like it that the subject of the sentence, vid. p. 512, it cannot really be another, unless S. note b. Basil copies it) is given to S. Athan. If God is loise, Wisdom is from His nature and everlasting. 517 only says that the Word exists with God, let such a one fear Subj. lest, shrinking from what is said in Scripture, he fall into an— L_ extravagance, making God a being of double nature1. For'S xtxoXXno-iai tZ trarp) Xo'yot. So o-vthrov ovo-iat It iavrZ aval. p. 63, u. Eusebius of Marcellus, h'upitot to} HZ And so Athan. in the text, biipvn nta Xeyot. pp. 4 fin. 32, ». &c. vid. next tio-aym rbv hot . . e"vdbx obo-ias tle-ayu. note. d d ^v° traripis. ttXX' tis- So Euse- e Athanasius bere retorts upon tbe bius asrain.it Marcellus, ovk atayxi- Sabellian schools the objection of the Z,irai lio traripas Citrut, ebbs bve vievs. Monarchia, observing that the fact of p. 109, c. the derivation of One Person from the e That is, since the Sabellians de- Other is that which preserves in fact nied our Lord's substantive exist- tbe numerical Unitv unimpaired, as ence, and the Arians His divinity, to described just abovej note x. vid. also dwell upon a father's communication of p. 402, note g. Not that we can un- nature to his children, was the mode of derstand how it does this. Eusebius shewing our Lord's divinity, and to objects to Marcellus his holding the dwell on the idea of a son was the mode iLyivvret. Eocl. Theol. pp. 119, c. d. of shewing (vid. Euseb. in Marc. i. 4. 163 A. Xo'yot Wtiv it i tvrZ httopitot xa) p. 19.) that He was no abstraction or at- o-vtnppitet abrZtpwh, is bitrxfa T.ttt xal tribute, but a living subsistence. 518 If God has no Son, He has no work. Disc, and it must be he of whom John says, All things were — — -^- made bg Him, and the Psalmist, In Wisdom hast Thou made 8. ' them all. And Christ will be found to speak untruly1, / in- Ps. 104, tj,e father, there being another in the Father. And the i ^ivbi- Word became flesh is not true according to them. For if John l -^e in whom all things came to be, became Himself flesh, 14. and Christ is not the Word in the Father, by whom all things came to be, therefore Christ did not become flesh, but, if so be, was but called Word. And if so, first, He will be some one else beside the name, next, all things were not by Him brought to be, but in him in whom Christ was made also. 9. But if they say that Wisdom is in the Father as a 2 p. 514, quality or that He is Very Wisdom3, the extravagances will I' 5'514 follow already mentioned. For He will be compound3, and note q. will become His own Son and Father4. Moreover, we must *J'2. ' confute and silence them on the ground, that the Word 4 p- 524> which is in God ° cannot be a creature nor out of nothing. 5 arg. ad But if the Word be but in God, then He must be Christ ho™-"d-who says, / am in the Father and the Father in Me, who (6.) also is therefore the Only -begotten, since no other is begotten from Him. He is the One Son, who is Word, Wisdom, Power ; for God is not compounded of these, but is gene- 6y««»- rative6 of them. For as He frames the creatures by the "*495 Word, so according to the nature of His proper Substance r. 2. has He the Word as an Offspring, through whom He frames and creates and dispenses all things. For by the Word and the Wisdom all things came to be, and all things together remain according to His ordinance. And the same concerning 7 gyves, f^e word " Son ;" if God be without Son7, then is He without p. 284, 'Work ; for the Son is His Offspring through whom He 8 p. 338. works8; but if not, the same questions and the same extra- notff3 ' va&ar,ces wiH follow their audacity. p. 422, 10. From Deuteronomy ; But ye that did atlach yourselves n? e_' unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you lids day. Deut. 4, From this we may see the difference, and know that the 4> Son of God is not a creature. For the Son says, I and the Father are One, and, I in the Father, and the Father in Me; but things generate, when they make advance, are attached unto the Lord. The Word then is in the Father as Creatures are attached to God, the Word coexists in the Father. 519 being proper to Him ; but things generate, being external, Subj, are attached, as being by nature foreign, and attached by free — L choice1- For a son which is by nature, is onea with him i „{.«,- who begat him ; but he who is from without, and is madef5'"219 a son, will be attached to the family. Therefore he immedi- note b. ately adds, What nation is there so great who hath GodVeut.4, drawing nigh unto them ? and elsewhere, 7" a God drawing jer.e23 nigh; for to things generate He draws nigh, as being strange 23.Sept. to Him, but to the Son, as being proper to Him, He does not draw nigh, but He is in Him. And the Son is not attached to the Father, but co-exists with Him; whence also Moses says again in the same Deuteronomy, Ye shall obey His voice, andVeot. apply yourselves unto Him ; but what is applied, is applied ' ' from without. Subject II. Texts explained against the Arians, viz. Matt, xxviii. 18. Phil. ii. 9. Eph. i. 20. §§- 6, 7. When the Word and Son hungered, wept, and was wearied, He acted as oar Mediator, taking on Him what was ours, that He might impart to us what was His. Disc. 1. And in answer to the weak and human notions of the Arians, their supposing that the Lord is in want, when He §.6 Matt. says, Is given unto Me, and / received, and if Paul 28, 18. Wherefore hath He highly exalted Him, and He set Him at 9_ ' ' the right hand, and the like, we must say, that our Lord, Eph. l , being Word and Son of God, bore a body, and became Son of man, that, having become Mediator between God and 1 ~i,axotri men, He might minister1 the things of God to us, and ours to God. When then He is said to hunger and weep and weary, and to cry Eloi, Eloi, which are our human affections, He 2 pp. 23, receives them from us and offers to the Father2, interceding 2 *'44»"for us, that in Him they may be annulled3- And when it is andnotesaid, All power is given unto Me, and i" received, and 4 xaejf- Wherefore hath God highly exalted Him, these are gifts4 given para from God to us through Him. For the Word was never in 5 p. 242 want5, nor came into being8 ; nor again were men sufficient to 6pp.242 minister7 these things for themselves, but through the Word 374,377. they are given to us ; therefore, as if given to Him, they are ra',°"'°",~ imparted to us. For this was the reason of His becoming man, that, as being given to Him, they might be transferred 8pp.240, to us8- For of such gifts mere9 man had not become worthy ; ^Ixb aD<^ aSain ^e mere Word had not needed them10; the Word 10 pp. then was united to us, and then imparted to us power, and 250,455. highly exalted us11. For the Word being in man, highly 239,246. exalted man himself12 ; and, when the Word was in man, 1-2 T^„ gVm ' 3 Spinet "man himself received. Since then, the Word being in flesh, man himself was exalted, and received power, therefore these things are referred to the Word, since they were given on ' The Word receives in our flesh that He may transfer to us. 521 His account; for on account ofthe Word in man were these Subj gifts1 given. And as the Word became flesh, so also man I" XH'"- himself received the gifts which came through the Word. For pa, all that man himself has received, the Word is said to have j"?1™ ]> received2; that it might be shewn, that man himself, being2 p. 455. unworthy to receive, as far as his own nature is concerned, yet has received because of the Word become flesh. Where fore if any thing be said to be given to the Lord, or the like, we must consider that it is given, not to Him as needing it, but to man himself through the Word. For every one who intercedes for another, receives the gift in his own person3, not as needing, but on his account for whom he3°I",r« intercedes. 2. For as He takes our infirmities, not being infirm4, and *• '• ° 4pp.359- hungers not hungering, but offers up what is ours that it may 444, &c. be abolished, so the gifts which come from God instead of our infirmities, doth He too Himself receive, that man, being united to Him, may be able to partake them. Hence it is that the Lord says, All things whatsoever Thou hast given Me, /Johni7, have given them, and again, / pray for them. For He prayed ' for us, having taken on Him what is ours, and He gave while He received. Since then, the Word being united to man himself5, the Father, regarding Him, vouchsafed to man to ° *? at. be exalted, to have all power and the like, therefore are i°'*°> referred to the Word, and are as if given to Him, all things which through Him we receive. For as He for our sake became man, so we for His sake are exalted. It is no extravagance then, if, as for our sake He humbled Himself, so also for our sake He is said to be highly exalted. So He Phil. 2, gave to Him, that is, " to us for His sake ;" and He highly exalted Him, that is, " us in Him." And the Word Him self, when we are exalted, and receive, and are succoured, as if He Himself were exalted and received anrl. were suc coured, gives thanks to the Father, referring what is ours to Himself, and saying, All things, whatsoever Thou hast given Jobni7, Me, I have given unto ihem '. * Similar as these two sections are to severing abidance in holiness, ("va passages in tbe foregoing Orations, as fiapuvij.) which occurs so frequently shewn in the marginal references, yet above. b~iapem is used infr. p. 552. many distinctions might be drawn be- Again, the use of biaxeviiv, %apio-para tween them ; e. g. there is no mention is novel, &c. of man's hetreitins bere, or of his per- 2 M Disc IV itrtvoiav Subject III. Comparison of Photinians wilh Arians. §-8. Arians date the Son's beginning earlier than the Photinians. 1. The Eusebians", that is, the Ario-maniacs, ascribing a * g beginning of being to the Son, yet pretend not to wish Him to have a beginning of kingly power. But this is ridiculous; for he who ascribes to the Son a beginning of being, very plainly ascribes to Him also a beginning of kingly power; so blind are they, confessing what they deny. Again, those who say that the Son is only a name, and that the Son of God, that is, the Word of the Father, is unsubstantial and non-subsistent, pretend to be angry with those who say, "Once He was not." This is ridiculous also ; for they who give Him no being at all, are angry with those who at least grant Him to be in timeb. Thus these also confess what they deny, in the act of censuring the others. And again the Eusebians, confessing a Son, deny that He is the Word by nature, and xar would have the Son called Word notionally1; and the others confessing Him to he Word, deny Him to be Son, and would have the Word called Son notionally, equally groping in the void. " ei trtp) HbAjliet. vid. supr. p. 501. note b. The pre-existence of the Son Sucb as Eusebius of Ceesarea may is the main point urged against Mar- be glanced at, who brings with great cellus by Eusebius throughout bis work, indignation the charge against Mar- who makes much of what is in fact the cellus, of his considering our Lord as distinguishing mark between their re- fianXibs only from His incarnation, i. 1. spective heresies. Athan. urges it as a p. 6. ii. p. 32, u. or that His Kingdom reductio ad absurdwm againstthe Arian had a beginning, pp. 49, 50, 54. interpretation of Phil. ii. 9, 10. that it b On this difference between Sabel- really led to a denial of this doctrine, Hans and Arians, vid. supr. p. 114, supr. p. 234. Subject IV. (Being Subject 1. continued.) §§. 9, 10. Unless Father and Son are two in name only, or as parts and so each imperfect, or two gods, they are consubstantial, one in Godhead, and the Son from the Father. 1. I and the Father are One*. That two are one, you §. 9. say, is either that one has two names, or again one is divided ^o]m 10' into twob. Now if one is divided into two, that which is divided must need be a body, and neither of the two perfect, for each is a part and not a whole0. But if again one bave two names, this is the expedient"1 of Sabellius, who said that Son and Father were the same, and denied Each of Them, the Father when he confessed a Son, and the Son when he confessed a Father. But if the two are one, then of necessity while there are two, there is one according to the Godhead, and according to the Son's consubstantiality ' to the Father, T°~ and the Word's being from the Father Himself6; so that * This and the next section are in infr. 15. 'KpiiatZt to tppetnpa, and 23. great part a repetition of Orat. iii. 4. Wavixa'mv xai 'levba/at to WirxStvpa. but with differences which are remark- Again, tov 2 apeo-aTitos to Qpetnpa. Orat. able; as written at different times i. 38. 'EXXnvixlv rb if pompa. Orat. ii. against different opponents. Mention 2? init. ihixZv xa) 'ApuavZt ti reiavm ¦is made of e-otpiet and o-ofos here, and trXavn. ad Adelph. 3 init. 'AptiatZt ri not there; the objection of "two gods" roiavra. ToXptiparet. contr. Apoll. ii. 11 .is not found there as being written fin. OvaXivritov rovro to evpupa. Serap. against tbe Arians. A more striking i. 10, b. vid. also Orat. iii. 39, c. 50, b. difference in regard to the word ope- 51, e. Serap. i. 20, d. ii. 2 init. On the eio-ut is noticed infr. note h. An illus- contrary, o$x le-Tit evros o tovs XPio-matZv. tration is taken from fire here, from iii. 7 fin. light there. " He is laying down the Catholic ex- l> This doctrine is imputed to Hiera- planation of Oneness in contrast to ces supr. p. 97. to Valentinus, though those heretical or hypothetical state- in a different sense, by Nazianz. Orat. ments with which he commenced the 33, 16. Vid. also Clement. Kecogn. i. chapter; viz. that the Godhead is nu- 69. merically one, that there is one sub- 0 contr. Sabell. Greg. §. 6, o. stance, and that there is but one xpx* ¦> Xa^iXXieu ro Inrihupa, and so or trnyh hoTtiros. 2 m 2 524 One God, because the Son is from the Father, and that indivisibly. Disc, there are two, because there is Father and Sonf, that is, the IY'_ Word e, and one because one God1. For if this is not so, He note x?' would have said, / am the Father, or I and the Father am ; JohnU, but, in fact, in the /He signifies the Son, and in the And the Father, Him who begat Him ; and in the One the one God head and His consubstantiality ". For the Same is not, as the 5 P- 518> Gentiles hold, Wise and Wisdom2; or the Same Father and r. 3. 3'p. 515, Word; for it were unsuitable3 for Him to be His own Father4; I' 1'., but the divine teaching knows Father and Son, and Wise note o. and Wisdom, and God and Word ; while it altogether guards His indivisible and inseparable and indissoluble nature in all things. §. 10. 2. But if any one, on hearing that the Father and the Son are two, misrepresent us as preaching two Gods', (for this is what some feign to themselves, and forthwith cry out scoffingly, " You hold two Gods,") we must answer to such, If to acknowledge Father and Son, is to hold two Gods, it = wpa, instantly5 follows that to confess but one, we must deny the note c! Son and Sabellianise. For if to speak of two, is to fall into Gentilism, therefore if we speak of one, we must fall into Sa bellianism. But this is not so ; perish the thought ! but, as when we say that Father and Son are two, we still confess one God, so when we say that there is one God, let us con sider Father and Son two, while they are one in the Godhead, and in the Father's Word, being indissoluble and indivisible and inseparable from Him. And let the fire and the radiance from it be a similitude of man, which are two in being and in appearance, but one in that its radiance is from it indivisibly. 1 vid. latter part of note f at p. 211 commenting on the same text, in the supr. on S. Gregory Nyssen's statement same way ; e. g. it ri, iSiertin xai elxui- that u the First Person in the Holy rnrt rvis (pvo-ius, xai rii TavroTnri rns Trinity is not God, considered as pias horrires, §.4. Father." > Marcellus urged this against, to S Which Marcellus, as other heretics, say the least, the Arian doctrine, Euseb. denied, vid. supr. p. 41 , note e. p. 69. and Eusebius retorts it upon him, h Here again is the word opeeve-iot. p. 119, d. also p. 109. Contrast the language of Orat. iii. when Subject V. (Being Subject 3. continued.) §§.11,12. Photinians, like Arians, say that the Word was, not indeed created, but deve loped, to create us, as if the Divine silence were a state of inaction, and when God spake by the Word, He acted ; or that there was a going forth and return of the Word ; a doctrine which implies ehange and imperfection in Father and Son. 1. They" fall into the same folly with the Arians; for§. 11. Arians also say that He was created for us, that He might createb us, as if God waited till our creation for His develop ment', as the one party say, or His creation, as the other. Arians then are more bountiful to us than to the Son; for, they say, not we for His sake, but He for ours, came to be ; that is, if He was therefore created and subsisted, that God through Him might create usa- And these, as irreligious or more so, give to God less than to us. For we oftentimes, even when silent, yet are active in thinking, so that the offspring of our thoughts form themselves into images; but God0 they would have, when silent to be inactive, and when he speaks then to exert strength; if so it be that, when silent, He could do nothing, and when speaking He began to create. 0 That is, the school of Marcellus avo'c'eoiais Xo-z-ip SafiiXXia- xai BaXivrivoj and Photinus. ttxu. Theodor. Hist. i. 3. p. 743. vid. 1 Even Eusebius takes this view, also Euseb. p. 114, c. For other reasons vid. supr. p. 62, note f. vid. also a clear Valentinus is compared by S. Athan. and eloquent passage in the Eccl. Theol. to the Arians, supr. pp. 262, 486, 1, 8. also 13. to shew that our Lord 492. was brought into being before all crea- " vid. Cyril, de Trin. iv. p. 536. vi. tion, Isr! cuirvipia rZt "e'Xoit. vid. also iii. p. 616. in Joann. p. 45. Naz. Orat. pp. 153, 4. Vid. supr. p. 316, note c. 23, 7. 42, 17. * 'iva trpofidXtiTai ; on the Valentinian ' Eusebius makes the same remark trpofaxh, development or issue, vid. supr. against Marcellusj hrtl, xa) vap' &tif*i. p. 97 note h. If tbe word here allude *»«, « rXiirra ruv InpioveyZv, xa) em tio Sabellius and Marcellus, it is used trSvns, ra XavrZv IxriXoZrit ipya. xa) as an arg. ad invidiam ; Valentinus and paXieraori pnh)s avrols Tape™ btipiovp- Sabellius are put together(as Valentinus yevo-i, ri ovt IxojXvb xai rot hot ovrii vus and Marcellus Euseb. Eccl. Theol. ii. ra trdtra o-vo-rmao-lai. 'l%etra lv abrZ 9.) by S. Alexander, retTs repoiis i) rais ret Xeyot -, Eccl. Theol. p. 167, b. 526lf Father begatto create, God had not power nor Word perfection, Disc 2. Moreover it is right to ask them, whether the Word, when 1V" He was in God, was perfect, so as to be able to make. If on the one hand He was imperfect, when inGod,but by being begotten i p. 108, became perfect',we are the cause of Hisperfection,thatis,if He not^i has been begotten for us ; for on our behalf He has received note c. the power of making. But if He was perfect in God, so as to be able to make, His generation is superfluous; for He, even when in the Father, could frame the world ; so that either He has not been begotten, or He was begotten, not for us, but because He ever is from the Father. For His generation evidences, not that we were created, but that He is from §. 12. God; for He was even before our creation. And the same presumption will be proved against them concerning the Father; for if, when silent, He could not make, of necessity He has by begetting gained power f, that is, by speaking. And whence has He gained it ? and wherefore e ? If, when He had the Word within Him, He could make, He begets needlessly, being able to make even in silence. 8. Next, if the Word was in God before He was begotten, then being begotten He is without and external to Him. Johni4, But if so, how says He now, / in the Father and the' Father in Me ? but if He is now in the Father, then always was He in the Father, as He is now, and needless is it to say, " For us was He begotten, aud He reverts after we are formed, that He may be as He was." For He was not any thing which He is not now, nor is He what He was not; but He is as He ever was, and in the same state and in the same respects ; otherwise He will seem to be imperfect and alterable". For if, what He was, that He shall be afterwards, as if now He were it not, it is plain, He is not now what He ' The same general doctrine is op- S. Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. p. 664. as posed, though by different arguments, Origen at an earlier date, as quoted by in Euseb. Eccl. Eccles. pp. 113, 114. Marcellus, Euseb. contr. M. p. 22. ii Neander assumes, Church Hist. 3 cent. ya% ai) t'iXuos e has, • • ri ataf&aXXtrut. (vol. 2. p. 277, &e. Kose's transl.) that (vid.R. S. C. Observ. p. 20. Lips. 1787.) these sections are directed against Sa- l> rpitrris. We have seen, supr, p. bellius. 230. that the Arians applied this word e The same class of objections is to our Lord; this argument however urged by Eusebius against Marcellus ; takes it for granted that it cannot be so h itreiet bl tit xarae-rde-u e hes , pb 'txa'' applied, or is reductio adabsurdum, i. c. lv \avrZ rit o'lxuot Xeyet. . . I his ie-rai ad Arianismum, and shews, if additional iavrZ Itt'epoies. pp. 113, 114. Athan. proofs are wanting, that the Arian is urges the same argument against the not the heresy here contemplated. Arians, supra Orat. ii. p. 335, o, and nor the Word now in God,and when He returns creation ceases. 527 was aud shall be. I mean, if He was before in God, and Sum. afterwards shall be again, it follows that now the Word is not T> iu God1. But our Lord refutes such persons when He says, I in the Father and the Father in Me; for so is He now as He ever was. But if so He now is, as He was ever, it follows, not that at one time He was begotten and not at another, nor that once there was silence with God, and then He spake, but there is ever a Father1, and a Son who is His Word, not1 P-211, in name" alone a Word, nor the Word in notion3 only a Son,2j»^„ but existing consubstantial4 with the Father, not begotten for P- 30T' . . . note d. us, for we are brought into being for Him. 3 xaT* 4. For, if He were begotten for us, and in His begetting we '* 333* were created, and in His generation the creature consists, and note u. then He returns that He may be what He was before, first, He ^"3"" that was begotten will be again not begotten. For if His pro- note h- gression be generation, Flis return will be the close5 of that gene-5 **»**, ration k,for when He hasbecome in God, Godwillbesilentagain. r'2. ' But if He shall be silent, there will be what there was when He was silent, stillness and not creation, for the creation will come to a close. For, as on the Word's outgoing, the creation came to be, and existed, so on the Word's retiring, the creation will not exist1. What use then that it should be made, if it will close ? or why did God speak, that then He should be silent ? and why did He develope whom He recalls ? and why did He beget whose generation He willed to close ? Again it is uncertain what He shall be. Either He will ever be silent, or He will again beget, and will devise a second creation, (for He will not make the same, else that which was made would have remained,) but another ; and in 6 , due course He will bring that also to a close, and will devise Utrupot, another, and so on without end6 T'mlm ' » And so Ipa pn m it rZ hZ, on . Perhaps they will have so little shame as to say, that this is spoken not by the Son but by the Word ; but from what preceded it appeared plainly that the Speaker was the Johni2 Son. For He who here says, / came not to judge the world 47- but io save, is shewn to be no other than the Only-begotten lb. 3, Son of God, by the same John's saying before', For God so 16—19. ioved the world that He gave His Only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world ' These same texts are quoted to ence, &c. of the Son, by Eusebius prove the same doctrine, the pre-exist- against Marcellus. p. 86. l. e. to xopvypa Proof from Scripture that the Son is the Word. 535 io condemn the world, but that the world through Him Subj. might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not con- ViI" demned, but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the Name of the Only- begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil. If He who says, For I came not to judge the world, but that I might save it, is the Same as says, He that seeth Me, seeth Him j0hni2> that sent Me, and if He who came to save the world and not45- judge it is the Only-begotten Son of God, it is plain that it is the same Son who says, He lhat seeth Me, seeth Him that sent Me. For He who said, He that believeth on Me, and, yv. 44, .47. If any one hear My words, I judge him not, is the Son Himself, of whom Scripture says, He that believeth oti Him3>18,19- is not condemned, but He that believeth not is condemned already, because He hath not believed in the Name of the Only-begotten Son of God. 7. And again": And this is the condemnation of him who believeth not on the Son, that light hath come into the world, and they believed not in Him, that is, in the Son; for He must be the Light which lighteth every man thai i, 9- cometh into the world. And as long as He was upon earth according to the incarnation, He was Light in the world, as He said Himself, While ye have light, believe in ihe light, 12, 36, that ye may be the children of light ; for 1, says He, am come a light into the world. This then being shewn, it follows §. 19. that the Word is the Son. But if the Son is the Light, which has come into the world, beyond all dispute the world was made by the Son. For in the beginning of the Gospel, the Evangelist, speaking of John the Baptist, says, He wasij8. not that Light, but that he might bear witness concerning that Light. For Christ Himself was, as we have said before, the True Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world1. 8. For if He was in the world, and the world was made John l, by Him, of necessity He is the Word of God, concerning whom also the Evangelist witnesses that all things were made k vid. in like manner Eusebius contr. ' vid. also Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p. Marcell. pp. 83, 87, 117. 143, c. 536 Texts in Scripture which are spoken ofthe Son not. the Word. Disc, by Him. For either they will be compelled to speak of two worlds, that the one may have come into being by the Son and the other by the Word, or, if the world is one and the creation one, it follows that Son and Word are one and the same before all creation, for by Him it came into being. Therefore if as by the Word, so by the Son also all things came to be, it will not be contradictory, but even identical to say, for instance, In the beginning was the Word, or, In the begin ning was the Sonm. But if because John did not say, " In the beginning was the Son," they shall maintain that the attributes 1 elpa, p. of the Word do not suit with the Son, it at once1 follows that 524,r.5. tjje attributes ofthe Son do not suit with the Word. But to Johnio, the Son belongs, as was shewn, / and the Father are One, j ']g and, Which is in the bosom of the Father, and, He that 12, 45. seeth Me, seeth Him that sent Me; and that " the world was brought into being by Him," is common to the Word and the Son ; so that from this the Son is shewn to be before the world ; for of necessity the Framer is before the things He brings into being. 9. And what is said to Philip must belong, not to the Jobni4,Word, as they would have it", but to the Son. For, Jesus " said, says Scripture, Have I been so long time with you, and yet thou hast not known Me, Philip ? He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father. And how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father ? Believest thou not, that I am in ihe Father and the Father in Me ? the words that I speak unto you, I speak not of Myself, but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else, believe Me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on Me, the works that I do shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto the Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in My Name, lhat will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. Therefore if the Father be glorified in the Son, the Son must m A similar passage is found in Eu- seen, but of the Word, he continues, seb. contr. Mare. p. 122, d. x&xCto, too-ovtoj %po'voj ptC vpSttia), */- 11 This is what Marcellus argues, as Xitrtri, xa) xiyus bsi'%ev poi to» traripa, quoted by Eusebius, p. 39, a, b. After ev tovtois toTs oQtaXpoTs, aXXa ro'is tor\- saying that "I and My Father are ro7s- atpares yap e n trarbp xa) o reirev One" are spoken, not of Him who was X'eyts. Against Scripture tliat not the Word, but theMan,isSon. 537 be He who said, / in the Father and the Father in Me ; Subj. and He who said, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father; VI1' for He, the same who thus spoke, shews Himself to be the Son, by adding, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 10. If then they say that the Man whom the Word bore, §. 20. and not the Word, is the Son of God the Only-begotten", the Man must be by consequence He who is in the Father, in whom also the Father is ; and the Man must be He who is One with the Father, and who is in the bosom of the Father, and the True Light. And they will be compelled to say that through the Man Himself the world came into being, and that the Man was He who came not to judge the world but to save it ; and that He it was who was in being before Abraham came to be. For, says Scripture, Jesus said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, /John 8, am. And is it not extravagant to say, as they do, that one who came of the seed of Abraham after two and forty generations1, should exist before Abraham came to be ? is it ijld- not extravagant, if the flesh, which the Word bore, itself is the Son, to say that the flesh from Mary is that by which the world was made ? and how will they retain He was in the world ? for the Evangelist, by way of signifying the Son's an tecedence to the birth according to the flesh, goes on to say, He was in the world. And how, if not the Word but the Man is the Son, can He save the world, being Himself one of the world? And if this does not shame them, where shall be the Word, the Man being in the Father ? And what will the Word be to the Father, the Man and the Father being One ? But if the Man be Only-begotten, what will be the place of the Word ? Either one must say that He comes second, or, if He be above the Only-begotten, He must be the Father Himself. For as the Father is One, so also the Only- begotten from Him is One ; and what has the Word above the Man, if the Word is not the Son ? For, while Scripture says that through the Son and the Word the world was * This is the first of the three hypo- as a title ot the Word mahifested in theses noted above, p. 531. This form the flesh, vid. Euseb. pp. 81, 82. the of Sabellianism closely approximates to human being whom He assumed being what was afterwards JS estorianism. As in his creed I " tbe Son of man, not of to Marcellus, it is a question whether God. vid. ibid, pp, 42, a. 77, c. 8, , b. he admitted any " Son of God," except 2n 538 Faith and Baptism in the Son not in the Word. Disc, brought to be, and it is common to the Word and to the Son to — frame the world, yet as to the sight5 of the Father Scripture proceeds to place it, not in the Word but the Son, and the saving 'of the world, to attribute it not to the Word, but to the Only-begotten Son. For, saith it, Jesus said, Have I been so long while with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip f He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father. Nor does Scripture say that the Word knows the Father, but the Son ; and that not the Word sees the Father, but the Only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father. §.21. 11. And what more does the Word for our salvation than the Son, if, as they hold, the Son is one, and the Word another ? for the command is that we should believe, not in John 3, the Word, but in the Son. For John says, He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life ; but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life. And Holy Baptism, in which the substance of the whole faith is lodged, is administered not in the Word, but in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If then, as they hold, the Word is one and the Son another, and the Word is not the Son, Baptism has no connection with the Word. How then are they able to hold that the Word is with the Father, when He is not with Him in the grant of Baptism ? But perhaps they will say, that in the Father's Name the Word is included ? WTherefore then not the Spirit also ? or is the Spirit external to the Father ? and the Man indeed, (if the Word is not Son,) is named after the Father, but the Spirit after the Man ? and, instead of being content with the One dilating into a Three, they dilate into a Four, Father, Word, Son, and Holy Ghost. 12. Being brought to shame on this ground, they have recourse to another, and say that not the Man by Himself whom the Lord bore, but both together, the Word and the Man, are the Son ; for both joined together are named Son, as they say. Which then is cause of which ? and which has made which a Son ? or, to speak more clearly, is the Word a Son because ofthe flesh? or is the flesh called Son because of the Word ? or is neither the cause, but the concurrence of s ri bl epiit rot trttripa. The Latin the Father in the Word. Yet there version, which is often faulty, renders, is a repetition just afterwards of ipat rev Patrem non a Verbo sed a Filio videri ; trar'sea in the former sense. but Athan. seems tn mean our seeing Against Scripture that the Word and Man together the Son.539 the two? If then the Word be a Son because of the flesh, of Subj. necessity the flesh is Son, and all those extravagances follow YIL which have been already drawn from saying that the Man is Sou. But if the flesh is called Son because of the Word, then even before the flesh the Word certainly, being such, was Son. For how could a being make other sons, not being himself a son, especially ¦ when there was a father1 ? If then i p. 416, He makes sons for Himself, then is He Himself Father ; butnote e- if for the Father, then must He be Son, or rather that Son, for whose sake the rest are made sons. For if, while He is §. 22. not Son, we are sons, God is our Father and not His. How then does He appropriate the name instead, saying, My Father, John 5, and, I from the Father f for if He be common Father of all, H ' 16' He is not His Father only, nor did He only come out from the Father. Now He says, that God is sometimes called our Father, because He has Himself become partaker in our flesh. For on this account the Word became flesh, that, since the Word is Son, therefore, because of the Son dwelling in usa,2p'366> God may be called our Father also ; for He hath sent forth, Gai.4,6. says Scripture, the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Therefore the Son in us, calling upon His own Father, causes Him to be named our Father also. Surely in whose hearts the Son is not, of them neither can God be called Father. But if because of the Word the Man is called Son, it follows necessarily, since the ancients3 are3 p. 548, called sons even before the Incarnation, that the Word is Son even before His sojourn among us ; for I have begotten Is. 1, 2. sons, saith Scripture; and in the time of Noe, When the Q^n' 6 sons of God saw, and in the Song, Is not He thy Father ? 2- Therefore there was also that True Son, for whose sake they 32, 6. too were sons. But if, as they say again, neither of the two is Son, but it depends on the concurrence of the two, it follows that neither is Son ; I say, neither the Word nor the Man, but some cause, on account of which they were united; and accordingly that cause which makes the Son will precede 1 ivres paXio-ra trarpo's . This is hardly iott paX. Orat. ii. 7, a. Ma pdX. Orat. the sense of pdXiara which in this ii. 10, u. ola paX. Orat. iii. 32, b. position is common; vid. supr. p. 52, piyaXus paX Orat. iii. 42 init. dxeievns note c. Also ti xa) ra paXitrra. de Syn. pdx. ad Ep. .Eg. 20 fin. 29, a. orat paX. Apol. ad Const. 25 init. 2 n2 540 Against Scripture that the Word became Son when man. Disc, the uniting. Therefore in this way also the Son was before — the flesh. 13. When this then is urged, they will take refuge in another pretext, saying, neither that the Man is Son, nor both together, but that the Word was Word indeed simply in the beginning, but when He became Man, then He was 1 p. 307, named1 Son; for before His appearing Pie was not Son but note ' Word only ; and as the Word became flesh, not being flesh before, so the Word became Son, not being Son before'. Such are their idle words; but they admit of an obvious §. 23. refutation. For if simply, when made Man, He became Son, the becoming Man is the cause. And if the Man is cause of His being Son, or both together, then the same extravagances result. Next, if He is first Word and then Son, it will appear that He knew the Father afterwards, not before ; for not as 5 tixe'yos being Word2 does He know Him, but as Son. For No one il 27. knoweth the Father but ihe Son. And this too will result, John i, that He became afterwards in the bosom of ihe Father, and 18 afterwards He and the Father became One ; and afterwards 14, 9. is, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father. For all these things are said of the Son. Hence they will be forced to say, The Word was nothing but a name*'. For neither is it He who is in us with the Father, nor whoso has seen the Word, hath seen the Father, nor was the Father known to any one at all, for through the Son is the Father known, (for so it is written, And he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him,) and, the Word not being yet Son, not yet did any know the Father. How then was He seen by Moses, how by the fathers ? for He says Himself in the book of Kings, lSam.2, Was I not plainly revealed lo the house of thy father? ep ' But if God was revealed, there must have been a Son to reveal, as He says Himself, And he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him. 14. It is irreligious then and foolish to say that the Word is one and the Son another, and whence they gained such an x Marcellus seems to express this rZ hZ, diblus ozvtZ cvvetra xa) bieipitet. view in various passages in Eusebius, p. 32. who reports him as holding pJin ilvai y This is a retort upon Marcellus, port -rpob-tpiffrdvat port oXeis trtxtroTi viot who held that u the Son'' was a name v